A few days ago I called attention to the cartoon below, which appeared in the International edition of the New York Times. While I found it offensive, I couldn’t say for sure whether it was anti-Semitic. Most readers disagreed, which is fine.
Now the NYT itself has agreed with those readers who pronounced the cartoon anti-Semitic, and has published an editorial-board editorial decrying its own anti-Semitism (click on screenshot below):
The mea culpa is pretty much unqualified, so kudos to the paper for its apology, which begins like this:
The Times published an appalling political cartoon in the opinion pages of its international print edition late last week. It portrayed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel as a dog wearing a Star of David on a collar. He was leading President Trump, drawn as a blind man wearing a skullcap.
The cartoon was chosen from a syndication service by a production editor who did not recognize its anti-Semitism. Yet however it came to be published, the appearance of such an obviously bigoted cartoon in a mainstream publication is evidence of a profound danger — not only of anti-Semitism but of numbness to its creep, to the insidious way this ancient, enduring prejudice is once again working itself into public view and common conversation.
While bringing Trump into the discussion, the paper also calls out anti-Semitism on the Left, something it hasn’t written much about. Yet it’s rife, not only in the British Left, but among the “progressive” Democrats in the House and among supposedly Left-wing feminists like Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, and other leaders of the Women’s March. And of course every endorsement of the BDS movement is, to me, an endorsement of anti-Semitism, or at least a tacit call for the extermination of Israel and its Jewish population.
Jews face even greater hostility and danger in Europe, where the cartoonwas created. In Britain, one of several members of Parliament who resigned from the Labour Party in February said that the party had become “institutionally anti-Semitic.” In France and Belgium, Jews have been the targets of terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists. Across Europe, right-wing parties with long histories of anti-Semitic rhetoric are gaining political strength.
. . .As anti-Semitism has surged from the internet into the streets, President Trump has done too little to rouse the national conscience against it. Though he condemned the cartoon in The Times, he has failed to speak out against anti-Semitic groups like the white nationalists who marched in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” He has practiced a politics of intolerance for diversity, and attacks on some minority groups threaten the safety of every minority group. The gunman who attacked the synagogue in San Diego claimed responsibility for setting a fire at a nearby mosque, and wrote that he was inspired by the deadly attack on mosques in New Zealand last month.
A particularly frightening, and also historically resonant, aspect of the rise of anti-Semitism in recent years is that it has come from both the right and left sides of the political spectrum. Both right-wing and left-wing politicians have traded in incendiary tropes, like the ideas that Jews secretly control the financial system or politicians.
Note that while the first link is to Trump’s bigotry (his statement about Charlottesville was indeed both shameful and cringeworthy), the second link is to one of Ilhan Omar’s statements. She, too, is an anti-Semite, but tries to hide it at all costs. The link is to her apology, but it’s an insincere apology and I don’t think for a moment that she’s sorry.
At the end, the editors mention the paper’s own history of anti-Semitism:
In the 1930s and the 1940s, The Timeswas largely silent as anti-Semitism rose up and bathed the world in blood. That failure still haunts this newspaper. Now, rightly, The Times has declared itself “deeply sorry” for the cartoon and called it “unacceptable.” Apologies are important, but the deeper obligation of The Times is to focus on leading through unblinking journalism and the clear editorial expression of its values. Society in recent years has shown healthy signs of increased sensitivity to other forms of bigotry, yet somehow anti-Semitism can often still be dismissed as a disease gnawing only at the fringes of society. That is a dangerous mistake. As recent events have shown, it is a very mainstream problem.
As the world once again contends with this age-old enemy, it is not enough to refrain from empowering it. It is necessary to stand in opposition.
One reason the failure haunts the newspaper, perhaps, is that its coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict remains biased in favor of Palestine, which is clear by the relative amount of space it devotes to indicting Israeli as opposed to Palestinian actions. This is part of the increasing Authoritarian Leftist slant of the paper. But don’t take my word for it, see here, here, here, here, and here. My own example is this one, where an errant bullet killed a Palestinian medic: a tragedy, but not a violation of international law and not a deliberate attempt to kill innocent civilians. (There’s also no note that the Palestinians regularly violate international law in much more flagrant ways.)
But one can at least laud the paper for its mea culpa.
h/t: Malgorzata
sub
If we are not able to dial sensitivity to offense back down to normal levels, it is at least fair to hold the antisemites to the same standards that they and the rest of the wokes are able to hold the rest of us.
I find the whole thing an ugly joke. Trump and his maniacs have suddenly begun to stand up against anti-Semitism, but only in as far as it can be used as a strategy to split the left, and the NYT has suddenly decided it doesn’t like its own anti-Semitism, but only in the distant past and this supposedly isolated incident.
They will stop publishing such cartoons, but their implicitly anti-Semitic anti-Israel bias will continue without missing a beat.
I somehow missed this story, and cannot find anything anti-semitic in it. The whole thing would work for e.g. Teresa May as a dog with a british flag collar. It depicts a dog who leads a blind Trump, which suggests that the US is the master of Israel, but “who’s in charge” is reversed somehow with a Trump.
Yes, there’s a stereotype of Jews as (semi) hidden overlords, but here it’s a dog on stroll, not a shadowy puppeteer.
Everybody is offended all the time, and then the crass items can hide between all the mildly offensive ones.
I am probably being insensitive, naive, uninformed, and/or, add your own qualifier here; but I can’t see why this cartoon is anti-semitic.
The Star of David is the most easily identifiable part of the flag of Israel and is a way of making it instantaneously clear that Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, is the person being depicted. Many, most?, people throughout Europe, where the cartoon was drawn and published, would likely fail to realize who was being depicted without it. As for the depiction of Trump, no bald eagle is needed, everyone knows him, but the yarmulke makes the point that he morphs into any group he wants to court. So, I see it as an overt critique of Trump and Netanyahu, and by extension the US and Israel. Not of Judaism or the Jewish people.
Can one not be critical of them and their policies without being anti-semitic?
I suspect that from the series of adjectives you gave “uninformed” fits best. The trope that Jews are all powerful and are striving to control the whole world and are already controlling politicians, finances, media etc. is a very, very old antisemitic trope. Many millions Jews persihed because of it. The idea that a Jew (Netanyahu is a Jew, you know) is leading naive and blind leader of the most powerful country in the world is quite in the line of this century old trope. And, of course, after re-birth of Israel, Israel became “a Jew among the nations” and all old antisemitic tropes are now ascribed to Israel. It has nothing to do with any kind of criticism of a policy of this or that Israeli leader. BTW, how often do you hear about “criticising France” or “criticising Spain” etc.? Much more often the critique is not a a whole country but of the person who is its president or prime minister or a particular policy. Only Israel is incessantly criticized as a whole country.
I don’t think the idea that Netanyahu is leading tRump around – or the suggestion the tRump has been captured by the Israeli lobby – antisemitic. I think it’s a reasonable conclusion from recent events.
cr
Yes, I understand, through ages people were sure that the idea of Jews striving to control the world is a reasonable conclusion. Since Israel’s re-birth the idea morphed into a Jewish state trying to control the world. It’s very easy for a tiny state of 9 million people to lead the leader of the most powerful state in the world with population of 327 million. For a Jew it’s a piece of cake.
Thanks for your email. Yes, I am surely uninformed and this exchange helps abate that even if just a little.
It really is not my intention here to offend but I must say that yes, I do hear criticisms of lots of countries all the time. Most notably of the US- happens all the time. Recently, just as a couple of examples, Myanmar, for the atrocities against the Rohingya and, Italy for its awful policies towards refugees. So, no, Israel is by no means the only country getting criticized. The people of a country elect their leaders and therefore the actions of the leaders are the actions of the country.
What I wonder is, is it ever OK to criticize Israel? Or is Israel always right?
Who said Israel is always right. It’s always okay by me to criticize Israel, and Israelis do it all the time (have you read Haaretz?). What I object to is the conflation of criticism of Israeli politics with anti-Semitism, something that happens often.
Thanks Jerry. I am happy to see that you are OK with criticizing Israel. I was simply responding to the message above by Malgorzata and specifically to the statement “Only Israel is incessantly criticized as a whole country”.
Well I agree with Malgorzata that you shouldn’t criticize “Israel” as a whole because the populace is divided in their political views: a lot of them hate Bibi. You should criticize individuals who hold repugnant views or the views themselves. Criticizing “Israel” is perilously close to anti-Semitism. Be specific–that’s my view.
You’re forgetting the yarmulke. If the cartoon is solely about Israel, why is Trump wearing a yarmulke? The yarmulke is a symbol of all Judaism/Jews, not Israel.
BJ, the way I see it, the yarmulke indicates that Trump has been captured or brainwashed by Netanyahu. How else would the cartoonist suggest that?
I can think of many world leaders who wore a yarmulke, for example notoriously Bill Clinton
https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/image1.jpeg
– who was being antisemitic there?
cr
Come on, CR, give us all a break.
Wearing a yarmulke is obviously not antisemitic. That doesn’t mean it can’t be used as an element of an antisemitic cartoon.
How else would the cartoonist suggest that? What, the dog with the face of Netanyahu wearing a Star of David guiding a blind Trump wasn’t enough to suggest that?!?
And you know that the cartoon isn’t referring to “world leaders who wore a yarmulke” on some special occasion. We both know that this was in no way a reference to that. World leaders dress in the garb of many different cultures on various cultural missions. You confirm yourself in your first paragraph that this was not the reference being made. It’s not about the idea of ever wearing a yarmulke; it’s a political cartoon, so it’s about the idea of why he’s wearing it in this specific instance. I think you know bringing in this bit of information was entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
I’ll try and answer this.
The reason I referenced Clinton was to confirm that showing a non-Jew wearing one wasn’t, *of itself*, offensive. So why would it be in this cartoon?
I’d say that Trump wearing it just confirms further that he’s not only being led around by Netenyahu, but he’s been ideologically captured or brainwashed by him. (Showing a female leader e.g. Teresa May wearing a hijab would, I think, be an equivalent). Is that implication antisemitic? Or just political?
cr
Nobody ever claimed that a non-Jew wearing a yarmulke was, in itself, offensive. That’s never been part of the discussion. I’m more interested in your answer to my other comment. Why was it necessary to put Trump in a yarmulke if the message is that he’s being led around by Israel, not Jews? Was the dog that looks like Netanyahu with a Star of David around his neck leading a blind Trump not enough to get that point across?
Adding the yarmulke doesn’t make sense because the cartoon is already crystal clear without it — unless, of course, the intent is to say that he’s being blinded/led around by Jews. The addition of the yarmulke, plus using a Star of David (both symbols of all Judaism, not Israel) rather than an Israeli flag, makes it clear to me that the artist was invoking Jews/Judaism, not just Israel.
sub.
I still don’t quite get how, after all your fulminating against suppression of free speech, this cartoon merits such strong disapproval. It may have been offensive to Jews, but why would it be any more offensive than, say, the wearing of a minstrel show costume at a Halloween party, which you defend the right of partygoers to wear, offensive though they may be?
Well, you know you could have written your comment without being snarky, and without dragging in stuff like “your fulminating against the suppression of free speech.” For one thing, I never said that they shouldn’t have published the cartoon, did I? Did you read what I said? I said I found it somewhat offensive.
So where is my censorship here? And really, I don’t have the right to “disapprove” of a cartoon that the NYT itself said was anti-Semitic, and for which it apologized.
People like you puzzle me, but one thing I know: you don’t know how to have a civi discussion.
Meanwhile, Corbyn is being called out for a foreword he wrote a few years ago for a reissue of JA Hobson’s “Imperialism: A Study”, first published in 1902: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/may/01/jeremy-corbyn-rejects-antisemitism-claim-over-book-foreword
This book, which is said to have influenced Lenin (that says a lot), is a filthy stew of anti-semitism and paranoid conspiracy theories. Corbyn called it “brilliant”. It came out nearly 50 years before the state of Israel even existed. So much for Corbyn’s claim that he is only concerned about Israel and the Palestinians, and isn’t at all anti-semitic himself.
The cartoon would have worked well without the Star of David. The artist could have used a blue and white striped leash. The artwork is quite good and I like the distinctive bespoke yellow Swiffer dust cloth hairdo of the corpulent prez.
The yarmulke on Trump’s head also makes no sense if the idea was only to criticize Israel, rather than Jews generally. The yarmulke is not a symbol of Israel, but of all Jews and Judaism.
Yes, you’re right. I forgot about the yarmulke.
But a blue and white leash would not have been very distinctive. Without the Star of David (or at least an Israeli flag which of course is primarily the star of David), Netanyahu would not have been very recognisable.
cr
Then a neck kerchief for doggie…..
I don’t think the NYT should have apologised for the cartoon, any more than any paper should apologise for Mohammed cartoons.
The knee-jerk reaction seems to be to commit mea culpa and apologise as soon as anyone complains. Thereby implicitly confirming the stance of the complainers.
Because the editorial staff don’t have the courage of their convictions does NOT automatically mean that any complaint by some offended party is valid.
cr