Poll: Rational criticism or anti-Semitism?
posted at 12:55 pm on March 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
As many Hot Air readers know, I am a fan of editorial cartoons. The best of them can hit to the heart of issues with an image and concise wit that might otherwise elude an army of essayists and talking heads. I’ve admired the work of the late Jeff MacNelly, Michael Ramirez, Tom Toles, Mike Luckovich, and a host of others, even while I’ve disagreed with them on occasion (and sometimes often).
In general, I don’t have much admiration for Pat Oliphant, as I find him to be a hysteric and irrational. In 2004, he published an execrable attack on Navy veterans who opposed John Kerry as resumé padders, apparently unaware of the irony. Now Oliphant finds himself under fire for alleged anti-Semitism for his latest cartoon, a criticism of Israel’s policies towards Gaza:
Gothamist covers the controversy (via Lawhawk, who has some thoughts as well):
Another day, another political cartoon controversy! This time the center of attention is Pat Oliphant, the world’s most widely syndicated political cartoonist, and his recent cartoon depicting a goose-stepping soldier pushing a giant Star of David shark into a defenseless woman and child. In case anyone misses the subtle message here, the woman is labeled “Gaza,” and the illustration is tagged “jackboot justice” on the United Press Syndicate site. …
One thing is certain: with over 8 million opinionated New Yorkers, and almost as many media pundits eager to pile on any easily-digested controversy, this one’s sure to keep everyone busy well into next week. Will Oliphant apologize? Where’s Al Sharpton? And why isn’t the baby in the cartoon lobbing a missile? Naturally, Abraham Foxman from the Anti-Defamation League is readily available for television interviews, Op-Ed commissions, county fair appearances, etc. He tells CBS 2, “It is hideous. It is anti-Semitic. It employs Nazi imagery by portraying Israel as a jack-booted, goose-stepping headless apparition. The implication is of an Israeli policy without a head or a heart.”
But is it really anti-Semitic? The Star of David is a symbol for all Jews, but it is also the symbol of the State of Israel. Criticizing Israeli policy for not having a head or a heart doesn’t cross the line into anti-Semitism, either. I strongly disagree with the criticism implied here — for one thing, it completely ignores the provocation of thousands of rockets coming out of Gaza and therefore abandons truth for Oliphant’s bias — but it is Oliphant’s opinion, and not news. It may put Oliphant into the small percentage of people who will always think that Israel is wrong regardless of the circumstance, but that doesn’t qualify as anti-Semitism on its own, either.
Foxman has a point, though, with the jackbooted figure goose-stepping behind the Star of David. That’s an obvious reference to Israelis being Nazis, which in my opinion is an anti-Semitic statement, as well as being completely false. That, combined with the Star of David and the grossly unfair characterization of Gaza being an innocent victim totals to anti-Semitism. After all, editorial cartoons are judged by their totality, and not the sum of their individual components.
What do you think? Take the poll and add your comments:
Update: That should be Pat Oliphant, not Tom Oliphant. The latter is a columnist. My apologies for the error.
Update II: YidwithLid says the problem is stupidity, not hatred.
Update III: Meryl Yourish has a blunt suggestion for Oliphant.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Ed Morrissey Scoreboard:
Not Sure if Blatantly Anti-Semitic Cartoon is Anti-Semitic . . .1
100% Sure that Agent of Islam and anti-Semitic Anti-Israel Sentiment Grover Norquist is A-OK and a Great Conservative . . . .3
Debbie Schlussel on March 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Wholeheartedly agree.
Mommypundit on March 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM
uh. Huh?
Mommypundit on March 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM
I wouldn’t say that. I think that True_King is worried about globalism (and rightfully so) but has misidentified the mechanism that is pushing it. I can excuse the Geithner reference, since it kind of sounds Jewish, but the Podesta reference is odd.
Albright is a total embarrassment. I wished she had never “found out” about her Jewish heritage. The thought makes me cringe.
progressoverpeace on March 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM
False, outrageous, and despicable- no doubt.
Anti-semetic?
Hard to say- at first glance I would say no- giving it further though however… it incorporates several images that are designed to devalue the jewish experience of the Holocast as a defense against anti-semetic acts- and furthermore it incorporates imagery common to anti-semetic veiws. Add in that many people today use anti-Israeli positions as a mask to conceal anti-semetism and I have to be very suspicious.
If it is anti-semetism, then it is a very clever peice of it, as it provides deniablity.
Sackett on March 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Don’t go wobbly on me now. A lot of these pricks will lose their cookies over the slightest perception of anti-White or anti-Semitic attacks. But those same people are befuddled when Blacks take offense direct attacks on their race.
Big tent? Yeah right here in my pants.
The Race Card on March 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM
To be honest, I voted “unsure” as I couldn’t tell exactly what message the cartoon was trying to convey. To me, that speaks more to a failure of the cartoonist, as opposed to these guys.
ExSubNuke on March 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM
http://www.hulu.com/watch/61330/saturday-night-live-jewess-jeans
give this a whirl.
Sort of funny…but…also really awkward. Maybe it’s me.
Mommypundit on March 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM
LOL.
progressoverpeace on March 26, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Progressoverpeace
That is not the case. Israel is nothing like China or Japan. The Chinese do not accommodate any ethnic Chinese who wish to return to and China’s legal system and economy do not recognize any difference between ethnic Chinese and non-Chinese. Japan is closer because of its curious nationality laws but that is the limit of the similarity.
Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism are different. Anti-Zionism is a rejection of Zionism and its aims. It’s a reactionary political movement. Anti-Semitism is much broader and more nefarious.
It’s a pity you can’t criticize Israel without being labeled an anti-Semite and you can’t criticize the Palestinians without being called a Zionist. I frequently criticize both sides so I am used to being called both a Zionist and an Anti-Semite. All these terms get thrown around to stifle open debate about an important topic.
The cartoon is certainly biased, but to say it is racist is a bit of a stretch.
lexhamfox on March 26, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Progress:
Geithner is a German name, as many Jewish names are, but that is an unlikely one. There is no excuse for thinking Podesta is Jewish name. It is clearly Italian.
OT:
Deborah Schlussel on hot air. Now that is one Jewish woman I can’t stand even while agreeing with her on most issues. She is everything that people accuse Ann Coulter of being. Ann has a sense of humor while Schlussel has none.
jerryofva on March 26, 2009 at 1:52 PM
The best bigots always do this — leave themselves an out. They do it because they are both ashamed and sure of their own convictions. They know what they believe and they know it’s wrong.
Other tactics involve citing minority friends/family members or simply professing one’s unvarnished sense of equality.
The Race Card on March 26, 2009 at 1:54 PM
The subject at hand was the state of Israel, not Jews in particular, as we can discern from the Gaza context. Now if it showed the US being under the control of the Star of David, that would be anti-Semitic. Can you despise Israel and hate the Jews, too. Sure. Is this the case, maybe, except I doubt it. I bet Oliphant has plenty of Jews in his social orbit. And we know that most Jews in America do not side with Israel with regard to this Gaza thing. Their inherent left wing leaning precludes siding with any US ally, especially one that fights with a non-white entity. The calculus is really that cynical.
Of course, that brings us to the real question: Is something automatically wrong just because it comes from the mind of an anti-Semite? If that were true, much of the world is invalid, including millions of inventions, the Protestant reformation, the automated assembly line, and Disney World. No, the question on this cartoon should not be whether the cartoonist is anti-Semetic or not. It should be, is the cartoon valid or not. Is it an accurate representation of reality as supported by facts? That answer not determined by the prejudice of the author. That is determined simply by the content of the cartoon juxtaposed against reality. In this case, the cartoon is not valid because it does not show the Palestinians in an honest light. It shows them as defenseless victims, and the Israeli force as vicious. We know both to be untrue.
keep the change on March 26, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Criticizing Israel is different than anti-Zionism. Israel is a state; whereas Zionism was the predominant movement which birthed the state. So unless you criticize the independence of Israel (which you are free to), then you probably aren’t an anti-Zionist.
Upstater85 on March 26, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Lexhamfox:
What I said to the King I say to you. When I see you get outraged over Arab mistreatment of Palestinians, and I don’t mean proforma ex-post either, and you acknowledge that Hamas not only pursues the destruction of Israel and its people but they themselves speak highly of Hitler and the Holocaust then I may take your protests seriously. Of course if you acknowledge the nature of Hamas and you still don’t think that the cartoon is anti-Semitic then it just shows that you are one with Hamas.
jerryofva on March 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM
An Oliphant never forgets.
aengus on March 26, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Can a white guy become a Chinese citizen?
Not really.
The political tests that are placed on Israel are far different and more stringent than placed on any other country. What is the reason for this major difference in standards? That’s pretty obvious, isn’t it?
I criticize Israel all the time. Of course, my criticisms of Israel are much the same as my criticisms of US policy – that enough is usually not being done to protect the state, as is its right and its responsibility.
Disembodied criticism is meaningless. It depends on what you are criticizing and why.
It is anti-Jew. There’s no question about that. Whether you think it matters (I don’t) is another story.
progressoverpeace on March 26, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Call us when you find something or someone (other than your blog or yourself) that you actually like, Debs. That’ll be a noteworthy occasion.
Anyway. Yes, completely anti-Semitic. Imagine the outcry if we backed the image out and showed the massive line of huge oil rich Muslim nations poised to walk Israel off that same cliff? There’d be riots.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 26, 2009 at 2:02 PM
When we increase public sensitivity to too-high a level it can limit productive discourse. Whether the limits are there by government censorship or by the marketplace the results on expression are similar.
White supremacists may be driven into a rage by an interracial couple. Of course, the couple’s public affection doesn’t become somehow racist as a result.
If the cartoon didn’t make a political point about the actions of the state of Israel, and instead denigrated the character of Jewish people in order to stoke the haters out there, then it would certainly be anti-Semitic.
dedalus on March 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Maybe that’s why I don’t get the message behind this one at all…
karl9000 on March 26, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Yawn… I like the cartoons when they at least try to give some humor, or at least try a lil bit to be a tad more honest in their presentation. For example that cartoon could be much better if it were to pan back and see the hand that drew it with a dripping pen, and the puddle under the canvas spelled out “propoganda”
There … all better. Now can we go back to talking bout boobs, like the ones in congress?
bigskinny on March 26, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Rational criticism? Ha!
Christian Conservative on March 26, 2009 at 2:10 PM
I think the real question is when do the Jewish mass riots around the world start over this cartoon?
/Sarc
Elric66 on March 26, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Wrong, and you know it just by what you commented. A small group of Orthodox Rabbis administer the Law of the Return, which is state legislation. This group is quite “Jewish” to the point where Conservative and Reform Jews are apt not to be admitted.
Second, Israeli Arabs do not have the same rights as Israeli Jews.
You can chalk that up to a need for survival, but the truth remains as
put it.
Look here at an Isreali fighter plane.
Look here at the logos on an El Al (Israel’s national carrier) aircraft.
Look here at the national flag of Israel.
I think you are wrong here too, for obvious reasons — the religious symbol (the Star of David) is also synonymous with the official symbols used by what you consider the secular state of Israel.
For better or for worse, the Star of David is an icon both for Isreal and for the Jews individually. There is no way to represent Israel in a cartoon unless you use either the Star of David or the Semel; ditto for the Jews.
Isreal has a right to exist, but the Israelis themselves are finding that certain troops, exhorted by certain rabbis, did indeed treat unarmed Gazan citizens like animals (or “primitives” as you would put it. When you look back on the War of Independence, you find that Israel deliberately did this to amalgamate the lands which would become Israel. The UN plan for partition was unworkable on its face, because it jerrymandered the Jewish lands, making them indefensible in the event of Arab attack — the UN position was a nonreligious confederated state. What the Israelis did to make their land defensible was to drive the Arab civilians off their land. Such tactics were used in each of the wars Isreael fought, whether started by Israel or started by the Arabs. You need to read Moshe Dayan’s autobiography to understand the thinking of ben Gurion and the other Israeli patriots, and how that thinking has led to the “primitives” you see today and their hatred.
That said, Israel has evolved — something the cartoon doesn’t show. Their adversaries have not. I doubt Hamas is holding any inquests into how their troops behaved as Isreal is.
But I see this as a comment on the atrocities stated in Ha’aretz (which were committed at the urging of overzealous rabbis), not as an anti-Semitic statement.
unclesmrgol on March 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Debbie Schlussel scorcard:
People Aren’t Paying Me Enough Attention: 247
Read the post; I agree it’s anti-Semitic, but I do so by rationally going over the argument. And you’re about to make the troll list with the off-topic references to Grover. He’s your obsession, not mine.
Ed Morrissey on March 26, 2009 at 2:16 PM
You raise a good example with the interracial couple, but one would hope that the interracial couple would be together for more than a supposed satirical point – or most likely in Oliphant’s case, a political statement. You must agree that for the interracial couple to marry/date/etc simply to make a point, is by definition intentional provocation; and yes, they should be free to make that point if they so wish.
I’m also not sure if I can agree with your point about how censorship by the marketplace regulates expression. Actually, I do believe it does, but you seem to be suggesting that this is somehow a negative aspect of the marketplace. Free expression should always be encouraged; however only the dominant ideas/thoughts should be allowed to flourish.
Upstater85 on March 26, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Woah…
Too bad you beat me to the back the image out thing. I thought I had an original idea. Great minds eh?
;)
bigskinny on March 26, 2009 at 2:17 PM
The Juice don’t riot. They take the people’s money!!! /sarc
Upstater85 on March 26, 2009 at 2:17 PM
There are a lot of serious problems in the world, most of them more serious than a war between Israel and Hamas. When you obsessively focus on perceived Israeli wrongs to the exclusion of everything else and you do so in an extreme manner using Nazi imagery, it’s hard to see this as “just” a “criticism of Israel.”
Some people can’t see the forest for the Jews.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 26, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Countdown to the rioting and webcam beheadings starts… oh wait, wrong religion.
LibTired on March 26, 2009 at 2:23 PM
And what would you use to represent those nations — a crescent and star, a picture of an enraged Mohammad, or a flag with the shahadah (such as the Saudi flag)?
If you used the crescent and star, would Turkey (which has a fairly strong defense relationship with Israel), and whose flag has identical iconography, take umbrage?
Whatever you chose, it would illustrate the situation aptly, but it would also corral in, for better or worse, a larger group than intended. The smart ones in that group would understand the meaning of the iconography, and the stupid ones would complain about anti-Muslim sentiment.
Unclesmrgol scorecard:
My gigantic comments keep getting sent to the spam bucket and showing up 45 minutes later: 3.1415928 or so.
unclesmrgol on March 26, 2009 at 2:26 PM
There’s nothing in the cartoon that Oliphant can’t claim is a criticism of Israeli policy. Don’t stoop to the leftist tactic of identity politics. It’s a convenient shortcut past actual debate, but we can’t afford to skip the difficult and sometimes uncomfortable details that comprise a reasoned argument.
For example, what if there comes a time when Israel really does start acting like Nazi Germany? I can’t imagine it happening, but the world has offered more improbable ironies. It would be foolish to reflexively take an analogy off the table because it was politically incorrect at one time. Conservatives have no problem comparing liberal racial policies to a plantation, despite the fact that many descendants of the victims of slavery support those policies. Should that also be out of bounds?
The cartoon is wrong — idiotically wrong — based on the substance of its accusations (or lack thereof). Who cares if it’s anti-semitic? By resorting to the emotional argument that the cartoon is anti-semitic, we miss an opportunity to show how lacking it is in the cold, hard facts that really matter.
RightOFLeft on March 26, 2009 at 2:27 PM
let me know when this cartoonist EVER made a cartoon critcizing islam or muhammmed….
right4life on March 26, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Well said, Ed. You do good work. I’m not sure why Michelle links to this catty woman any more. I have had enough of her personal “white trash” remarks about Sarah Palin and her family to last a lifetime. Anyone who didn’t attend the University of Wisconsin law and business schools (not the combined MBA/JD program for retards, mind you) isn’t worth anything. She is a disgrace.
WV736 on March 26, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I think there are various spheres that make up the marketplace. Whether you consume newspapers, blogs, broadcast TV, premium cable or other mediums you’ll see a different standard for frankness. I’m a big believer in letting the market decide but might avoid a market that is either too restrictive on-the-one-hand or too crude on-the-other.
dedalus on March 26, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Imagine, for a moment, what would happen if we lived in a world where folks in Mexico behaved exactly like folks in Palestine. Extrapolate the US response and then tell me how unreasonable the Jews are.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 26, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Oh dear. And the minnow was caught using that Wisconsin stuff…
unclesmrgol on March 26, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I already did that one as a comment to an earlier post here — in defense of the Israeli incursion into Gaza. We are slowing going there anyway because of the drug cartels.
unclesmrgol on March 26, 2009 at 2:36 PM
This reminds me of the Hezbollah flag burning controversy. You cannot say one is a religous insult insult without the other.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 26, 2009 at 2:38 PM
unclesmrgol on March 26, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Or assume that the accusations against American troops came from John Kerry. Wouldn’t we look into them for more than a few days before concluding that they were accurate?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Oh please. The primitives are no different than they have been for centuries.
As to the law of return, maybe you need to look at other countries that have the same sort of legislation, of which China is one – contrary to what the other poster claimed. Go check about the Chinese attitude towards overseas Chinese.
The Jewish Star is recognized by few as representing Israel, as opposed to Jews, in general. Are there Jewish Stars found around lots of things in Israel? Sure. But Israel is not what it represents to most people.
And to quote the leftist rag, Ha’aretz, which would have been happy to print this cartoon for its editorial content, is kind of ridiculous.
progressoverpeace on March 26, 2009 at 2:41 PM
I was making another point, but I think the intent of the cartoonist is quite clear, thank you.
You don’t draw a Star of David next to a jackbooted goose-stepping headless sword wielding thug just cuz you want to critique the state of Israel. There’s an implied line of equivalence that’s completely unsupportable.
Trying to draw lines between the Jewish people and the state of Israel is a lame defense.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 26, 2009 at 2:44 PM
I’m not sure that is a very good line of argument. For instance Pat Oliphant could draw Israeli tanks bearing down on a lone Gazan in Tianamen Square. The law of return needs to be defended on its own terms.
aengus on March 26, 2009 at 2:49 PM
That’s one of the great ironies in American politics. Most American Jews are liberals and liberals bash Israel at every opportunity. It’s just bizarre. As for the cartoon, invoking Nazi imagery and associating it with the state of Israel is anti-Semitic, outrageous, and completely despicable. It’s also typical of a liberal argument. Anything or anyone they disagree with is compared to the Nazis.
jonezee on March 26, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Ah, the “two wrongs, when used in this formula, do make a right!” meme. And the wrongs don’t even have to be related.
Keep chewing. I showed three distinct uses of the Star of David as an official logo of the State of Israel. Maybe he should have put bars top and bottom (ahem, the Star and Bars?) to make it even more obvious….
They’re the ones who broke the story. And the Israeli Government (in particular, the IDF) is taking them seriously.
unclesmrgol on March 26, 2009 at 2:50 PM
The cartoon is more vile senseless Jew bashing. Ed, you gave it considerations that is doesn’t deserve.
docdave on March 26, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Oh, snap.
Mommypundit on March 26, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Clearly it is anti-Semitic… here’s why… forget the imagery (which is clearly provocative and knowingly anti-Semitic)… to look at the Gaza situation and blame
? One has to start off as anti-Semitic to ever come to that conclusion.
I do not label anyone who wants to cut-off Israel from aid as necessarily anti-Semitic… but to side with Hamas in any way has to be something that can only rise out of hatred (not out of political discourse).
I will note (at great risk to my head) how quickly anyone who criticizes the Pope or RCism is labeled a “Catholic basher”. The most obvious difference is that being Jewish is not a choice.
mankai on March 26, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Buddy. Pal.
Who did Hitler kill? Did he strike out against the Jewish state, or was there, oh, I dunno, a particular ethnic identity, regardless of national affiliation, that he didn’t like?
Because I’m thinking you know the answer to this question. And given the nod to Jews as Nazis in the cartoon, I’m thinking the cartoonist did too.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 26, 2009 at 2:55 PM
unclesmrgol
Your Buchanaite Israel bashing convinces nobody. Ha’aretz aka Ha’Hamas is so left wing it makes the New York Times seem like the New York Post. Just wait until Netanyahu takes over and see if the Palestinians dare launch rockets at Jews with impunity. Your lap dog Olmert is history.
Hilts on March 26, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Criticisms which are insane at their core don’t generally have sane, legitimate reasons behind them.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 26, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Ed Morrissey on March 26, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Debbie Schlussel is as fanatical as any left winger out there. She is as hard core doctrinaire as they come.
Hilts on March 26, 2009 at 2:57 PM
While Ed’s point is well taken, he should also recognize that Israel and Judaism are inexorably linked to the hatemongers of the world. While criticizing a state for policy is not inherently racist, using this imagery certainly appeals those with the most base of instincts.
Also, Oliphant’s insensitivity here by painting Israel as Nazis is over the top. Certainly the point could have been made with the Israeli star as a shark– the headless goosestepper is unnecessary.
Bear in mind that the Nazis did sew yellow stars on the clothing of Jews before the state of Israel was formed, so the attack could easily be attributed towards Jews rather than just Israel.
Oliphant was malicious and sloppy here, and ultimately it comes off as hateful.
Nethicus on March 26, 2009 at 2:58 PM
1. Blithely comparing ones political enemies to the Nazis is anti-Semitic. It trivialises the holocaust for a cheao political point.
2. Deliberately comparing Jews or the Jewish State to Nazis is HIDEOUSLY anti-Semitic. As unforgivable as making slavery about black people or comparing the gay marriage movement to the AIDS virus. I mean how hateful do you have to be to make a point in that manner.
3. Abusing the Star of David is anti-Semitic. I can’t imagine the newspapers carrying this would be as blind if it was cartoons of Mohammed.
4. Demonising Israel, but deliberately ignoring the other side is prejudiced, stupid and cowardly, but not directly anti-Semitic.
uptight on March 26, 2009 at 2:58 PM
The star is obviously representing the religion. If it represented the country, the character on the left makes no sense.
Ronnie on March 26, 2009 at 3:00 PM
You lost me, here, but if it had been an Israeli tank instead of a Jewish Star in the cartoon then it could arguably have been directed at Israel, instead of Jews in general.
Very true. I did this – it’s a matter of Jewish survival. I brought the other countries in just to show that Israel is not alone in the concept, even without the survival component, not that it would matter if Israel was the only one doing it, since Israel has no other choice, really.
progressoverpeace on March 26, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Cartoons are cartoons. Political correctness be damned. People ought to be able to express themselves and some people will like it and others won’t.
Only the weak minded go nuts like the bomb in the head wrap cartoon.
saiga on March 26, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Can I use the crescent moon and star to criticize Turkey’s political disposition?
I don’t think anyone would buy it.
mankai on March 26, 2009 at 3:02 PM
1. Blithely comparing ones political enemies to the Nazis is anti-Semitic. It trivialises the holocaust for a cheap political point.
2. Deliberately comparing Jews or the Jewish State to Nazis is HIDEOUSLY anti-Semitic. As unforgivable as making slavery jibes about black people or comparing the gay marriage movement to the AIDS virus.
Anyone who uses Nazism against Jews does it for shock value. The price they pay is anti-Semitism – a fact they agree to live with when they use the metaphor.
3. Abusing the Star of David is anti-Semitic. I can’t imagine the newspapers carrying this would be as blind if it was cartoons of Mohammed.
4. Deionising Israel, but deliberately ignoring the other side is prejudiced, stupid and cowardly, but not directly anti-Semitic.
uptight on March 26, 2009 at 3:03 PM
The difference, of course, between this and an anti-muslim cartoon is that Jews will simply turn the other cheek whereas muslims would burn down a few embassies and blow up a fruit stand.
Ronnie on March 26, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Another point. The people are labeled “Gaza.” It would have been extremely easy to print “Israel” or “The Jewish State” on the Star of David. Did they? No.
Deliberate choice.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 26, 2009 at 3:05 PM
yes she is obsessed with Sarah Palin (or any woman is better looking then she is). I saw her once on television and she is short, unattractive, and angry as all hell.
Hilts on March 26, 2009 at 3:05 PM
I voted no. The cartoon itself is not antisemitic. As you said, Ed, it’s opinion, not news. Oliphant might be antisemitic himself, and that might be what’s driving him to express this particular opinion in this manner, but I don’t believe in “hate crimes” and all the politically correct bullshit that comes along with them. Judging somebody’s intent and motivations is extremely difficult. If Oliphant wants to say that Israel or even all Jews are jack-booted Nazis, that’s his right in a free country. His readers will make it clear to him whether they agree and his career will rise or fall appropriately.
All that said, I disagree completely with Oliphant. If its his right to call Israel a jackbooted Nazi, then it’s within my rights to call him a bigoted a-hole.
And now we’re done. Move along. As conservatives, there is nothing to see here. Only liberals get all up-in-arms when free speech isn’t used “correctly.”
PersonalLiberty on March 26, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Never said they couldn’t print it… never said they shouldn’t print it… just said it’s anti-Semitic.
mankai on March 26, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Exactly. I don’t want to make too much of this, since this cartoon doesn’t mean much of anything to me. I just enjoy debating the issue for a little bit.
progressoverpeace on March 26, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Oliphant by the very fact that he is a hard leftist – is anti Semitic.
Hilts on March 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM
It isn’t anti-Semitic — it is, however, covering for terrorists and defaming a liberal democratic ally.
That’s bad enough…
tigerinexile on March 26, 2009 at 3:20 PM
and here we can see the cartoon in its natural setting:
http://i41.tinypic.com/wlerlc.jpg
uptight on March 26, 2009 at 3:21 PM
If the Vatican had a military battling its neighbors, then the crucifix would be fair game in political criticism. It seems inconsistent to put the Star of David on a national flag but then claim the symbol is outside the realm of political speech.
dedalus on March 26, 2009 at 3:22 PM
This is an experienced journeyman political cartoonist…he knew exactly what he was portraying, that the Jews are no better then the Nazi’s, and in fact are the same.
He chose the most repulsive image to a Jew, to portray the Jews.
Worse then “Little Black Sambo”, worse then the monkey portrayal of blacks…he chose the most despicable image.
right2bright on March 26, 2009 at 3:26 PM
The cartoon is racist. Expect to see “Jew-bashing” increase in quantity and intensity. Jerusalem is the key and Netanyahu has stated his intentions. ALL nations will line up against Jerusalem (Jews). Count on it.
oldleprechaun on March 26, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Among others. ;)
mankai on March 26, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Ah, we’ve found yet another anti-Semite. The writer of the cartoon and now . . . jerryofva. If you don’t like me, I couldn’t care less. It’s that you find it necessary to point out I’m a Jew, which apparently you find is relevant to your dislike or you would not have found it necessary to note.
And speaking of senses of humor, hahahahaha, I’m a Jew. Frickin hilarious. Hahahaha. Did you see that? Debbie Schlussel is a Jew. Yes, we’ve found a real arbiter of humor her.
Debbie Schlussel on March 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM
But far from impossible. And frankly not all that difficult in this case.
Regardless, no one is arguing for hate crimes, or at least I’m not. I just think it’s anti-Semitic, which was the question posed to us.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Yes, you’re right–pointing out that Ed repeatedly promotes Grover Norquist on this site, despite Norquist’s open agency for extremist Islam is “fanatical” and “hard core doctrinaire.” The nerve of pointing this out.
Debbie Schlussel on March 26, 2009 at 3:35 PM
As I noted, Turkey uses the star and crescent moon… if one wanted to criticize Turkish policy… and one chose to use the star and crescent moon… one would have to know that Islam is being implied.
mankai on March 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM
You know what? It is Ed’s (and Michelle Malkin’s and Allah’s) website. Nobody forces you to read it.
Hilts on March 26, 2009 at 3:39 PM
…and I don’t need a history lesson on Constantinople and Cardinal red, etc… star and moon are now connected to Islam alone whether we like it or not.
mankai on March 26, 2009 at 3:39 PM
In that case the target of the political commentary might be more confusing since several other states have the crescent in their flag. However, where the depiction was critical of the military actions of a sovereign nation it seems like political speech.
dedalus on March 26, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Ed’s last post referencing that dude, according to my search, was December 9 2008. There are about 3 posts by Ed in the last year directly referencing Norquist. Two of those are about 1 episode of his show where Norquist appeared. The other references him positively in light of tax policy.
How you parse that as “frequently promotes” I’ll never understand. Oh yeah. Loony.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 26, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Ed:
There are many off topic comments on this post, including comments about me and pointing out I’m Jewish, and many other off topic comments on all your posts, and that never seems to be an issue with you until now. Looks like I hit a nerve. Your response to me indicates that you just can’t handle the very relevant criticism here.
Your friend Grover–whom you’ve repeatedly promoted on this site and whose friends openly embrace these anti-Semitic cartoons–is entirely relevant here.
That you even ask if this is anti-Semitic when it clearly is and have a whole poll about it is the problem. And it’s entirely related to your softness on Grover who repeatedly shills for the same Islamists that support and repeatedly use similar and worse anti-Semitic cartoons in their Muslim publications and in American ones. That you can’t connect the dots here or on Grover is the problem. You’ve posted about him at least three times on this site, completely promoting him and ignoring his anti-Semitic, Islamist comments and associations. That’s not my obsession, it’s your whitewash of him.
Your own boss, Michelle, has posted that the conservative embrace of Grover is a big problem, which you apparently fail to grasp.
That you can’t grasp that and that you ask whether or not this cartoon is anti-Semitic and go back and forth with excuses on it are entirely related. You are soft on anti-Semitism and soft on Islamism (ie., your repeated support of Grover).
Pointing this out is not trolling.
You know what they say about taking the heat and staying away from the kitchen.
Debbie Schlussel on March 26, 2009 at 3:47 PM
When you criticize Isreal, or the Jews for things they have not done, while at the same time ignoring the fact that those you support have committed the same crimes and worse, then you are guilty of anti-semitism.
MarkTheGreat on March 26, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Three is frequent. Oh, I see, if an extremist Muslim who openly defends HAMAS/Hezbollah, etc. (as Grover does and worse), is good on tax policy, let’s promote him and have him on the show. Thanks for the distinction. I was not the only person who objected to this. Robert Spencer did as well. You know, the same Robert Spencer who used to do “Blogging the Quran” on this site. Yup, that’s “loony.” Uh-huh.
And then, to make it real, let’s ask and make excuses for whether or not a blatantly anti-Semitic cartoon is actually anti-Semitic.
Debbie Schlussel on March 26, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Recently downgraded from “frequently!” Walkback, it’s not just for progressive politicians anymore!
He thinks it’s anti-Semitic Debs. He agrees with you. There’s this thing called a rhetorical question; you use it to set up a discussion of a thing. Might wanna, I don’t know, look that up or something.
There’s no “embrace” of Grover beyond thinking he said a good thing or two on tax policy. That hardly qualifies as “frequent” or “repeated promotion” to anyone but screechy, borderline nuts attention seekers.
It’s time for an intervention. Put down the keyboard. Take a walk in the park. Glory in the wonders of creation.
Or keep it up with the BRAVE TRUTH TELLING!!!11!!one!Eleven
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 26, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Yes, but Israel is inseparable from their religion, for all intents and purposes. It may be a political entity, but, like the Vatican, it is the heart of Judaism as well.
Apparently Oliphant hasn’t kept up with the subtle musings of Patterico and his ilk. He should be more precise. Tsk, tsk.
Y-not on March 26, 2009 at 3:54 PM
The only people that did that are the cartoons in your head.
This is the Internet lady – you can do a search and link some evidence yourself or look like a loon. Your call.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 26, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Really now? Three in a year as compared to how many posts in a DAY?
Oh look, who dropped these hinges?
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 26, 2009 at 3:57 PM
What atrocities? The atrocities that turned out to be completely imaginary?
Alouette on March 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Here’s the cartoon Oliphant drew for another imaginary atrocity.
Alouette on March 26, 2009 at 4:04 PM
My Jewish parents taught me not to look for anti- semitism behind every bush.
That said-there’s a fine line between criticism of Israel and being anti-Jewish.
This cartoon crosses it.
Speaking of “fine lines”-the pastor who baptised my husband years ago was born Jewish. He was also a serial philanderer and lost his post as a result. My mother-in-law claims that his moral failings were due to the fact that he was born Jewish. She also says that the Shoah was God’s punishment upon the Jews for not believing in Jesus, and that every Jew is condemned to hell. I’m thinking about finding a way to return to reformed(as a conservative I know I’ll be lonely) Judaism so m-i-l and I had an interesting chat this week.
Is m-i-l a bit anti-Jewish or simply a passionate christian?
I think the former-but like I said…it’s a fine line.
annoyinglittletwerp on March 26, 2009 at 4:05 PM
When you use the word “buddy” or “pal”, why do I immediately think tonally of the antonym?
What the cartoonist did is called irony, when one points out unjustifiable actions which make a victim have the attributes of their persecutors. The Israelis have been quite aggressive in bringing Nazi war criminals to justice, as the secular agent for the Jewish faith; now the question is whether they may not have such types within their own midst, and whether those people, if they exist, will be made to atone for their crimes. It’s like when our own troops committed war crimes — until official action to repudiate those crimes, the dignity of the entire nation was stained.
As I’ve pointed out, Israel is investigating these allegations, and, as I’ve also pointed out, Hamas would not do anything of the sort — they’d probably award their guys a medal (as I’m sure they’ve done to the missile launch guys, who know they are targeting civilians).
Remember, not all Germans supported Hitler, and a minority were not silent in their opposition, yet all Germans still bear his stain nonetheless. Ditto for Israel. Now if you want to extend that by your argumentation to all Jews, I doubt you’ll get many takers.
The founding of the State of Israel is steeped in the Zionist concept of Eretz Yisrael, which, examined closely, corresponds to the Nazi ideal of Liebensraum. Both give to their adherents the right to take needed lands from others by the principle that they are ordained to have them.
In order for either to work, the people one is persecuting must be considered less than human, or less than civilized. That is the heart of the story here — that rabbis were exhorting troops to kill innocent civilians in the name of Eretz Yisrael.
The simile is unmistakeable. The cartoon brings that home.
unclesmrgol on March 26, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Even if you set aside the anti-semitism, it’s still the same leftist cancer/AIDS/auto-immune disorder that attacks Western Civilization. Israel is an outpost of the West, and any signs of healthy immune activity will be attacked by the left. Israel deserves full support against liars and barbarians in any case. Gotta leave now.
Feedie on March 26, 2009 at 4:26 PM
unclesmrgol on March 26, 2009 at 4:20 PM
The only crime the Jews of Israel ever committed was (against all reason) tolerating Arab Nazi attacks against them.
Paleo-conservatives suck a big one.
Hilts on March 26, 2009 at 4:31 PM
How the fuck do you know that?
Hilts on March 26, 2009 at 4:32 PM
We will see. You’ll note that I’ve not made the statement that the allegations are certainly true, but that they bear investigation. Oliphant’s cartoon acts on the presumption that they may be true, as do my statements. The allegation that army rabbis instigated actions of this sort are certainly incendiary, and certainly can form the basis for a cartoon of this type.
You’ll note that the article you cite indicates that those making the allegations have been corrected; again, we will see what they say in the days ahead. Sadly, the MSM has the attention span of a brain-damaged ferret.
unclesmrgol on March 26, 2009 at 4:35 PM
I don’t. But Israeli soldiers made the allegations, and that’s where this story was headed last I looked.
I wasn’t there. You weren’t (at least I think you weren’t). They were. They are primary sources. But even primary sources can be wrong, so, as I’ve indicated to Alouette, we shall see.
unclesmrgol on March 26, 2009 at 4:37 PM
I guess our resident Paleoconservative still thinks that a massacre took place in Jenin in April 2002.
Hilts on March 26, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »