CNN.com: New York Times says it is 'deeply sorry' for running anti-Semitic cartoon

[PeterMP]

The NYT got grief for and has apologized for a political cartoon they ran.

 

There's a picture of it via tweet in the CNN story.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/28/media/ny-times-anti-semitic-cartoon/index.html

 

The Times of Israel has a story connecting it to other recent cartoons associated with the idea that Israel is for the Jewish people.

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ny-times-apologizes-for-printing-netanyahu-cartoon-with-anti-semitic-tropes/

 

I'm curious as to what people think, and more generally is there away, in the context of a political cartoon, to criticize a US President for being overly accommodating to a Israeli leader of Netanyahu's political persuasion that wouldn't be anti-Semitic?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Trump isn’t a jew....  the Star of David leash is a bit much.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And now the Right-wingnuts will have one more thing to accuse the media. The problem with the cartoon is that Trump is on the wrong end of the leash.

Oh, for the record criticism of Israel and her policies is not anti-Semitic.

[Springfield]

I don’t get it.  But again I’m not Jewish or an Israelite.  Also, I don’t think that people should take political cartoons so seriously.

[PokerPacker]

28 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

And now the Right-wingnuts will have one more thing to accuse the media. The problem with the cartoon is that Trump is on the wrong end of the leash.

Oh, for the record criticism of Israel and her policies is not anti-Semitic.

Trump is wearing the sunglasses of a blind person, I think, so in that sense, it's Netenyahu leading Trump around.

 

Anyways, i have no problem with the cartoon.  Closest it comes to being "anti-semetic" is that it included the Star Of David on the leash, but when the country in question is a Jewish theocracy, such symbolism is to be expected.  If instead of Netenyahu it was The Pope (current pope likely wouldn't be seen that way, but if the Hitler's Youth were Pope during the Trump administration...) and they had a Cross instead of Star Of David, would the same people be up in arms about it being anti-christian?  Well, you'd probably have the Fox News types going on about the alleged War On Christianity, but we all laugh them off as jackasses.

[Destino]

That cartoon is obviously, and horribly, anti-Semetic.  It's shocking that got approval by anyone with common sense, let alone the New York Times.  That's not borderline at all and would be perfectly at home on any hate filled website.  A mistake, which is being charitable, that big should cost some folks their jobs. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

51 minutes ago, Destino said:

That cartoon is obviously, and horribly, anti-Semetic.  It's shocking that got approval by anyone with common sense, let alone the New York Times.  That's not borderline at all and would be perfectly at home on any hate filled website.  A mistake, which is being charitable, that big should cost some folks their jobs. 

Ok, please describe why it is anti-Semitic. Trump sporting a yarmulka, Star of David on Binny's neck. 

Remember, criticism, even in artistic form is not in itself anti-Semitic. 

I am absolutely open to being corrected on the cartoon. But we just watched a Congresswoman bashed for anti-Semitism when all she did was criticize Trump's involvement in Israel. 

If I am wrong then I'll admit it, but you're gonna have to do more than pearl clutch.

[PeterMP]

8 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Trump isn’t a jew....  the Star of David leash is a bit much.

 

I think in the context of the cartoon, those things are needed so that the average people can quickly get the point.

 

If you just have a blind Trump being lead by a dog with that face, I don't know who that is or the point of the cartoon.  I don't see that face on a dog and immediately think Netanyahu and Israel.  The religious symbolism cues me into the general topic of the cartoon quickly.  I guess they could have removed the religious symbolism and written Netanyahu's name on the dogs body.

 

@Destino if they do that is no longer anti-Semitic?

[AsburySkinsFan]

16 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I think in the context of the cartoon, those things are needed so that the average people can quickly get the point.

 

If you just have a blind Trump being lead by a dog with that face, I don't know who that is or the point of the cartoon.  I don't see that face on a dog and immediately think Netanyahu and Israel.  The religious symbolism cues me into the general topic of the cartoon quickly.  I guess they could have removed the religious symbolism and written Netanyahu's name on the dogs body.

 

@Destino if they do that is no longer anti-Semitic?

Yeah, it's not like they gave Trump a big hooked nose or something.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

There are plenty of ways to criticize the trump/netanyahu relationship without yelling and pointing “JEW!” which is what this cartoon seems to do.

[AsburySkinsFan]

13 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

There are plenty of ways to criticize the trump/netanyahu relationship without yelling and pointing “JEW!” which is what this cartoon seems to do.

In what way other than the yarmulka?

Are you going to tell me that dog's face is immediately recognizable as Binny? Seriously, I'm very politically aware and I don't see it. As far as the yarmulka is concerned, that just shows how Trump assumes whatever identity suits him at the moment.

@Burgold care to chime in your thoughts?

[Burgold]

Haven't seen the pic. In general, I can understand the use of iconagraphy in a graphic to cue the reader. However, there are loaded images. If, for example, you point to a monkey as a Jew that alludes to the Nazi and antisemitic characterization of Jews as sub-human. Likewise, it pings off eugenics and ethnic cleansing. Likewise, other images for other groups, genders, religions, and races.

 

So, I can't answer in this case other than by saying it might be and it might not be.

[TradeTheBeal!]

The cartoon is mildly offensive...as was it’s intent.

 

The fact that Breitbart, among others, went top page with it while burying the story of the Synagogue shooting is considerably more offensive.

[Dan T.]

I'm waiting for the explanation of how it's antisemitic.  It's anti-Trump and anti-Netanyahoo, but... anti-Semitic?  Nah.

[Riggo-toni]

Rather than a Star of David, why not have Netanyahu wearing a collar inlaid with "Bibi," and what the hell was the point of Trump wearing a yarmulke?

 

It is right to criticize Netanyahu, especially in light of his recent racist widespread suppression of the Arab vote, but the imagery here goes a bit too far.

[No Excuses]

There is a deep historical context of cartoonish caricatures depicting Jewish people in a negative light and this certainly skirted some boundries.

 

But there is also a growing desire to label anyone who is critical of the Israeli right wing, its policies and its means of reaching its policy goals as anti-semetic, and sooner or later, the word will start to lose its meaning. I think the Israeli right is playing a very dangerous game when it comes to their international diplomatic relations and are counting on sustained support despite cracks in the support taking place within both the Western right and left.

[Destino]

1- Depicting minorities as animals, as sub human, has a hate filled history.  It doesn’t matter if it’s an individual you don’t like, especially when you slap the star of David on a dog collar.  

2- this entire image is a in line with the common anti Semitic trope of the Jews secretly controlling everything.  This also has a history of hate.

3- Placing in a yarmulke adds nothing to this image other than anti semitism.  It does not say Trump is influenced by the state Israel, or by a specific world leader.  It signifies he’s been turned by the Jews, has become them, and portrays this as negative. 

 

This image would be perfectly at home on a hate website.  

 

Moving beyond my personal reaction to this gross cartoon, I have to point out that it’s 2019 and we’ve long since learned that telling minorities what is and is not offensive, is in itself offensive.  Jews know what is and is not anti-Semitic without any of us needing to hold their hands and explaining it to them.  The uproar over that image says all that needs to be said.

 

 

[tshile]

15 hours ago, PeterMP said:

and more generally is there away, in the context of a political cartoon, to criticize a US President for being overly accommodating to a Israeli leader of Netanyahu's political persuasion that wouldn't be anti-Semitic?

 

Nope. 

In fact, if you’re a cartoonist you’re probably best staying away from anything involving minorities. Anything you do to make it easier for the reader to pick up on is fair game for being used as evidence that you’re a racist/sexist/anti Semitic/etc. 

 

people are too sensitive and too quick to swing the bigotry bat. No one gets the benefit of the doubt anymore and most people seem to think what matters is how the audience interprets something, not what the speaker intended to say. Which is completely back-asswards to me.

 

modern day America sure is fun

[Dan T.]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

There is a deep historical context of cartoonish caricatures depicting Jewish people in a negative light and this certainly skirted some boundries.

 

But there is also a growing desire to label anyone who is critical of the Israeli right wing, its policies and its means of reaching its policy goals as anti-semetic, and sooner or later, the word will start to lose its meaning. I think the Israeli right is playing a very dangerous game when it comes to their international diplomatic relations and are counting on sustained support despite cracks in the support taking place within both the Western right and left.

 

ANYBODY depicted in an editorial cartoon is going to look cartoonish and in a negative light.  That's the point of editorial cartoons.

[Busch1724]

Find it ironic that Breitbart is crying foul while typically ****ing about the PC police.

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Destino said:

Moving beyond my personal reaction to this gross cartoon, I have to point out that it’s 2019 and we’ve long since learned that telling minorities what is and is not offensive, is in itself offensive.  Jews know what is and is not anti-Semitic without any of us needing to hold their hands and explaining it to them.  The uproar over that image says all that needs to be said.

 

You talk about Jews as if they have a collective concise or will all feel the same way (which in my opinion is at least a bad example of stereotyping and given it is with respect to Jews seems to me that it could be considered anti-Semitic).

 

Not all Jews agree on this cartoon even.

 

https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2019/04/27/new-york-times-caves-to-anti-semitism-police-censors-cartoon/

 

In general, I'd warn against connecting (social) media uproar to actual number of people offended.

 

More generally, are minorities of the same ilk able to tell other minorities of the same ilk why something should not be offensive?

 

Can that guy say the cartoon wasn't offensive and that it was a mistake for the NYT to apologize without it being offensive?

 

Is it just limited to minorities?  Can anybody try to explain to somebody else why they shouldn't be offended by something without being offensive?

[PeterMP]

I'd like to add, is it possible to say something that offends (some) Jews without it being anti-Semitic?

Is it possible to say something that offends (some) African Americans without it being racist?

 

Is it possible for the cartoon to be simultaneously offensive to some Jews and not be anti-Semitic?

 

Can I explain why something isn't racist, while admitting it is offensive without being offensive?

[AsburySkinsFan]

3 hours ago, Busch1724 said:

Find it ironic that Breitbart is crying foul while typically ****ing about the PC police.

Oh the Left holds no monopoly on pearl clutching. They all leverage the collective faux outrage from people who would be silent if it went the other way.

 

Brings me back to one of my favorite questions: "You know what happens when you're offended? Not a damned thing, so get on with living."