A lot of so called “liberals” are claiming that this cartoon by Pat Oliphant is a “legitimate political statement” about the Israel/Palestine conflict. They claim that any suggestion that it might be anti-Semitic serves only to quiet critics of Israel. Just go read a couple of the comments about the cartoon left on an article about it on the Huffpoop:
We ought to be able to question the actions of the government and armed forces of Israel, particularly in Gaza, without being accused of anti-Semitism. That accusation is too frequently employed as a dialogue ender rather than starter.
snip
chaos4700
Really? Then how come /every/ criticism of Israel is labeled as Anti-Semitic? How come Israel is the single country on the face of the Earth that has, by far, broken the most international laws, UN resolutions and human rights conventions and thus far goes unpunished?
At its base this kind of argument is dishonest and unfair. Groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center called that specific cartoon anti-Semitic. How that got generalized into meaning that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is beyond me. But having people make that leap from point A to point B is a common occurrence. Believe me, I know from personal experience.
This kind of dishonest starting point then becomes the genesis of the toxic meme that when Jewish people claim something to be anti-Semitic, their only motivation is to stifle any criticism of Israel. And like the second comment, they usually defend that insulting charge with wild accusations backed up with very little evidence. I find this kind of rhetoric shocking, not only because I don’t believe that it is true, but because it is the very same rhetoric that the right wing uses to negate charges of bigotry from other oppressed groups, like gays.
For example, many right wing Christians claim that charges of homophobia are just attempts to stifle criticism of the “gay lifestyle” . They claim to be the victims of politically motivated gays who unfairly accuse them of homophobia (they love the sinner, hate the sin). Many go so far as to suggest that homophobia doesn’t even exist, that it is completely a construction of the homo “special interest groups” to promote the “gay agenda”. They go on to make the outrageous accusation that such things as hate crime laws would result in their incarceration if they spoke out against homosexuality. This is from the definition of homophobia from the fringe right wing site, Conservapedia:
Homophobia is an etymologically incorrect term which most directly denotes “an unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality“,[1] but it also includes a fear of increased political and social power of homosexuals in advancing their agenda. The term is used regularly by activists to describe several kinds of people, which may or may not match the actual definition of “fear of homosexuals and homosexuality”. The recipients of the homophobia label include those who feel uncomfortable around homosexuals, those who reveal that they oppose “gays”, and even those who may privately support homosexuality but who fail to publicly support homosexuals when called upon to do so.[2]
The term homophobia is primarily used by people supportive of tolerance to homosexuality, to disparage people who are against said tolerance. Some claim that “it is intended to sound like a form of mental illness“, but this does not describe its popular use or the definition of the word. According to the National Association for Research & Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH), gay-rights advocate Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. wrote that the term “homophobia” was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture.[3] “In his paper on homophobia, stigma, and sexual prejudice, Dr. Herek suggests that although the term “homophobia” was useful in pushing forward the gay agenda in our culture, the term may be too limited in its scope today.”
Of course this is absolutely ridiculous and only serves the purpose of making bigots look like victims. And that is the point. Instead of recognizing that for years gays were censored, persecuted, murdered, and imprisoned for who they are, right wingers want to turn the tables and say that this is precisely what gay people are doing to them. That is what I find so offensive about the cartoon to begin with. Comparing Jews to the goose-stepping, jackbooted Nazis who tried to wipe them from the Earth is reprehensible in my opinion. Oliphant then adds insult to injury by using the very mark of death for Jews, the Star of David, to represent the genocidal weapon that is used to “devour” Gaza. Comparing the genocide committed by the Nazis to any action Israel has taken is outrageous and demonstrably false. The only reason I would think that somebody would try to propagate such a falsehood is to inspire hatred of Jews. That’s why I think it is anti-Semitic. You may disagree with me on those points, but it is ludicrous to suggest that I am trying to censor criticism of the actions of the Israeli government because I feel that way. And if anyone does disagree with me, and then assumes that I think they are anti-Semitic by association is just a little bit paranoid.
Rather than insinuating that all charges of anti-Semitism are politically motivated, why don’t people address this particular cartoonist? Did anyone bother to see what OTHER kinds of messages Oliphant has been sending? Isn’t it smarter to look at the person being charged with bigotry and make a decision about whether they are true based on his past works or statements rather than assuming that those claiming to be offended are liars? Or worse, assuming that their criticism of Oliphant equates to criticism of them? You’ve got to be quite the narcissist to assume that when people object to that cartoon they are also including you in that criticism.
I’ve seen a lot of commentary like “I don’t really have an opinion about that cartoon, but I question the motives of the people that are offended by it”. That seems really unfair to me. Why not question the motives of the people that don’t find it offensive? If you don’t have an opinion, than why the criticism of only one side of the argument? Oh well, I won’t go down that rabbit hole, but you get the point.
As for me, I like to look at context to better understand people’s motivation. I have personally come to the conclusion that Pat Oliphant is borderline racist with an irrational hatred of many ethnic groups, including Jews, Arabs, African Americans, Asians, and a particularly vitriolic hatred of women. I come to that conclusion by looking at other examples of his work. Oliphant has a history of using ethnic/racial stereotypes in his cartoons. For example:
African Americans:
Asians:
Indians:
and Women:
In case you can’t read it, in the corner it says, “This is when PMS goes nuclear”. Paul Krugman got it right during the primaries when he accused Oliphant of sexism over this very cartoon,
You can make a very good case that Barack Obama was the right person for the Democrats to nominate, and Hillary Clinton the wrong choice. But the way we got there was terrible. The raw sexism, in all too many cases coming from alleged progressives — see above (referencing the above cartoon)— was part of it.
Here was some of the commentary from the “progressive blogosphere” when that cartoon came out:
It’s a logical extension (1+ / 0-)
of the sexist support for her, specifically the special pleading that she deserves support for being a woman.
If she can’t keep up the fight against this, she hasn’t got– nor should she have– a prayer of winning the general.
So long as men die, Liberty will never perish. — Charlie Chaplin, “The Great Dictator”
snip
Then don’t use the tactics that make it fair game (2+ / 0-)
by engaging in stereotypical, cheap emotional manipulation, as she did in New Hampshire.
If Hillary has the character and skills to be President, I invite her to demonstrate them, not to make pleas for my sympathy by showing me how mean the boys are. When she does that, she makes Oliphant’s tactics viable and valid, because she shows me that she believes she deserves the Presidency because of her gender, not because of her character or skills.
So long as men die, Liberty will never perish. — Charlie Chaplin, “The Great Dictator”
by khereva
snip
If you don’t think (0+ / 0-)
that this won’t be an issue in the general (provided HRC wins the nomination) then you are sadly mistaken.
And believe it or not, there are many Democratic women who were turned off by this (scripted?) public display of self pity. I know because they told me so.
When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.
Sound familiar? And apparently Oliphant is an equal opportunity offender when it comes to the Middle East. The Arab community has accused him of being racist as well. (I can’t find the particular cartoon, just the reaction to it, but it seems to fit a pattern for Oliphant):
Washington DC, January 13—Today the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) wrote to the San Francisco Chronicle and Universal Press Syndicate to communicate concern over racist depictions of Arabs in caricatures by Pat Oliphant. In recent weeks, ADC received numerous complaints from readers and concerned citizens regarding Oliphant’s cartoons.
The only conclusion I can draw is that many liberals impose a double standard when it comes to reacting to charges of anti-Semitism (and as we found out in the primary, sexism as well), just as right wingers do when it comes to charges of homophobia. It is especially disturbing that after what we witnessed in the primary, and the accusations against Hillary supporters that we were using charges of sexism for political purposes, that members of the PUMA community would make similar accusations against those of us who happen to find the Oliphant cartoon offensive. They should know better.
April 1, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Great post gary especially about the fact that saying this cartoon is anti-Semitic isn’t the same as saying Israel is “off limits” for criticism. Of course, I expect that the people who need to learn this the most will not think it even applies to them.
April 1, 2009 at 12:52 pm
thanks angie. good to see you here
April 1, 2009 at 1:03 pm
This was worth waiting for! Very well done, Gary. Bravo!
Remember when that awful cartoon was published in the Post, which (in my opinion) compared Obama to a chimp?
Did anyone on the left call that “legitimate criticism?” Or did they call it racist, and rightly so?
Funny how SOME types of bigotry seem to be verboten, whereas others appear to be just fine and dandy.
April 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Gary, I commented over at madamab’s yesterday that you made an excellent point about Oliphant’s history. In my opinion, asserting that this cartoon makes a “legitimate political statement” then implies that Oliphant’s other offensive drawings are “legitimate political statements.” I don’t understand why some felt it necessary to extrapolate beyond that particular cartoon and its creator. The guy is clearly disturbed. He shouldn’t be given credence as a political cartoonist, anyway.
April 1, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Gary, you’re conflating liberal self-righteousness with the facts again. Shame on you.
April 1, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Here is my take on the cartoon. The image of the headless soldier goose stepping is an allusion to the Nazis. He is pushing a menacing, pac-man like star of david that looks to soon consume “Gaza” that is represented by a defenseless woman. Juxtaposition of the star of David and a nazi allusion is meant to make the viewer think of how the Jews were slaughtered in the Holocaust, so Oliphant is trying to say that the irony is that the Jews, who had once been victims of Nazi genocide, are now perpetrating it on the people of Gaza.
There would be nothing wrong with this cartoon if Israel were actually practicing Genocide, but actually, nothing could be farther from the truth. Israel takes great pains to avoid civilians casualties, but the leaders of Hamas place their munitions and command headquarters near civilians knowing that Israel will hesitate to attack those places. Some Hamas leaders were meeting in the basement of a Hospital during operation Cast Lead. But don’t take my word for it. The only proof one needs to refute the lie that Israel is practicing Genocide is that Gaza still exists. If Israel wanted to wipe-out the Palestinians it could have done it a long time ago.
People who don’t find this cartoon offensive must believe that Israel is commiting genocide. To believe that, though, requires either ignorance or purposeful deception.
April 1, 2009 at 3:22 pm
There’s something that nags at me about the Oliphant – Israel – cartoon discussion, not just here, but generally. However, you’ve drawn the short straw, Gary, because now I’ve reached the need to comment.
?
I’m not sure about his other cartoons. The Hillary one had no germ of truth in it. She never whined about meanness. It was one of the most remarkable things about her campaign, given how much of it she got. That one was 100% stereotype. Re the Obama -chimp cartoon (whoever did that one): As somebody who considered Shrub “The Chimperator,” I’d say there’s nothing automatically racist about comparing a Prez to a chimp. But in Obama’s case, he’s elitist, arrogant, smug, bored, and you can go on forever. But he has nothing to do with chimp-ness. So in his case, chimp jokes have no basis except 100% stereotyping. So, yes, I’d say they are racist.
(I don’t even get the India cartoon. I mean I understand the stereotyping about starving homeless and cows, but what’s supposed to be the point of the cartoon?)
So, now to the Israel – as – military – thug cartoon. When I was a kid (back in the Paleolithic) Israel was a young nation, it was the days of brilliant Golda Meir, of the astonishingly effective and well-fought Six-Day War, of the Israelis generally being leaders in hard work, human rights, and visibly doing their damndest to live with some rather impossible neighbors. They were leaders not just for the Middle East but the whole world.
Then came Ariel Sharon and the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps. That felt like being kicked in the face by someone you thought was a friend. I never managed to feel the same way about Israel again. They were just one opportunistic bunch like all the other opportunists running the world. Significantly better than their impossible neighbors, but it was now just a difference of degree, no longer of kind.
Things went downhill from there. (1983, was it?) It turned out not to be an aberration but the beginning of a pattern. Now, to me and to many people in the world, Israel looks like it thinks anything is justified in the service of its own survival. It has every right to survive. It doesn’t have the right to treat other people as vermin. Israel’s strength has been that it is capable of calling itself on its own crimes, and has a judiciary independent enough to call a halt to them (unlike ours). Hopefully, that won’t fade entirely away.
Okay. So what’s the point to all this? That one of the problems with Oliphant’s cartoon is that it does have a germ of truth to it — at least in some eyes, like mine. I’m not saying that the Palestinians make any better use of power. On the contrary, I’d say they’re even worse, although the effects are less because they have very little of it. But Palestinian crimes of state aren’t the point. That’s a separate issue. The point is that Israel is doing some truly awful soul-destroying things. And — I don’t know if this is just an outsider’s biased perspective — it does look to me like they use the history of Jewish persecution as a tool to get away with actions that are World Court material otherwise. That was how Oliphant’s cartoon struck me when I first saw it. It’s a very hardhitting way of wrapping all those feelings up in 3 by 5 inches. That doesn’t feel like anti-semitism to me. It feels like criticism with a two-by-four. It feels like someone who hates as much as I do how far Israel has fallen from the country I loved.
Sorry to be carrying on at this length in comments. Have at it folks, and tell me where I’m all wrong and what I’ve missed.
April 1, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I’m sorry but I don’t see how you can compare any action of Israel with the Nazis. The entire planet was thrown into war by them. They exterminated 6-11 million people as if it were their primary industry. They caused more global death and destruction than any other nation in human history (up to 100 million people). The US has some not so pleasant skeletons in its closets when it comes to mistreating other nations from Vietnam to today in Iraq. Israel HAS done things that were wrong and worth of critique as well. I’ve never seen a political cartoon that depicted the statue of liberty as a nazi, however, and doubt that it would be quite so well received.
you said :
a couple questions. who are they? because I am the one making the criticism here and I’ve never suggested that the Holocaust is an excuse for any inappropriate act committed by Israel. If you are talking about someone else, who? Jews? Israelis? Republicans? Can you provide specific examples? The Simon Wiesenthal center didn’t say that. In fact I’ve never seen anybody make the claim that Israel should be allowed to violate human rights because of the Holocaust.
But that isn’t even the issue. Regardless of what Israel does, the cartoon would still be antisemitic imo because it uses false propaganda to inspire irrational hate of a particular group of people
like mawm said, the only way I could see it as not being antisemitic is if Israel really was as bad as the Nazis, and I’m of the opinion that such a comparison not only is offensive to Jews but to every other part of humanity that was violated by the nazis.
April 1, 2009 at 3:52 pm
quixote, I don’t have to look farther for your intellectual dishonesty than to click on the link you provided to the word “vermin” in
The article you site describes how the accounts of abuses were deemed hearsay by the Israel Military Police. Yes, I understand that the investigations might have not have been acurate, but then you can’t use this article as proof that there were indeed abuses. It also states
Do you just assume that these investigations are phoney? They would have to be if Israel were intentionally targeting civilians.
Also from the article you site.
So the IDF says 457 civilians were killed. A Palestinian group says 960. If we split the difference that makes 709 civilians. While any loss of human life is terrible, 709 civilians out of a population of 409,680+ (as of 2006) cannot even begin to approach genocide. It is a flat out lie that Israel wants to exterminate the people of Gaza.
Israel is in a fight for its life, and if the US were in the same situation and Canada were launching rockets at us, no one would have a problem if we defended ourselves.
April 1, 2009 at 3:55 pm
furthermore, what you say about there being a “kernel of truth” in the cartoon that makes it nothing more than heavy handed criticism doesn’t seem very different from what the KOS commenters were saying about the Hillary Cartoon. The commenter I sited said
“by engaging in stereotypical, cheap emotional manipulation, as she did in New Hampshire.”
So because in this persons mind Hillary was acting in a sterotypical matter, that validates a stereotypical depiction of women?
I’m sorry but I can’t agree with that kind of logic.
April 1, 2009 at 5:11 pm
The “they” I’m referring to is the Israeli government. Not all the Israeli governments. The right-wing ones strike me as being a lot more at fault in committing aggressions and getting away with it, but maybe that’s because I dislike them more. I also don’t mean that someone makes an outright statement, such as “You people were horrible, so now it’s payback time.” It’s more a sense that they push the envelope to the extent that they think they can get away with it.
Re comparing Israelis to Nazis: I agree that that wouldn’t be valid. I see the brainless soldier in the cartoon as a picture of military thuggery, not necessarily Nazi military thuggery. Maybe that’s because of my own background. My grandparents generation (except my grandmother) got killed off by Russian military thugs, less so by German ones. I remember her telling me once when I didn’t want to do my French homework, “Languages are useful.” And then she described how she and my mother escaped what had become German-occupied territory by speaking French to each other when the soldiers boarded the train to check for Slavs. Watching her fear of even totally benign American cops really brought home to me what military thugs of any stripe do to people.
My point with the link was that, yes, the Israelis at least do investigate reports of atrocities. No, it’s not unremittingly bleak about the Israelis. That wasn’t what I meant, nor would it be true. But there are way too many reports of such things, and there was a time when even rumors like that were unthinkable because there was zero evidence Israelis thought that way. Policies like bulldozing the houses occupied by the extended families of a person considered a militant changes that feeling.
Re genocide. I’m not sure, but doesn’t that connection require one to see, specifically, a Nazi in the soldier? No, i don’t think the Israelis do or would like to commit genocide. I think they are guilty of military thuggery. I think they are guilty of a strategy of keeping Palestinians so destroyed, impoverished and harassed that they can’t do much damage to Israel or have a credible government that Israel might have to negotiate with. Is that genocide? Of course not. Is it nasty? Yes. Is it understandable? Also, sadly, yes. Their neighbors have been impossible and the Israelis have been more patient than most. I don’t have a hard time seeing why they lost patience, but that doesn’t make it right.
Re the “kernel of truth” thing. What I’m saying is that the Hillary cartoon has zero basis in fact. The Israel cartoon does have basis in fact if you see it as being about military thuggery, not if you see it as being about genocide.
Maybe that’s the problem with this cartoon that I’m having trouble understanding. It’s doesn’t make the distinction clear enough. It makes it too easy to cross wires with genocide, when the only justified criticism is the abuse of power.
(Well, I guess I’ve rambled on again. I’ll shut up now. Thanks for letting me try to get my thinking sorted out on this.)
April 1, 2009 at 5:23 pm
that’s ok, I think it is beneficial to see how other people perceive things. Personally I can’t look at that cartoon without thinking Nazis.
I guess the only follow up I would add is about “they” being the Israeli govt. I might be wrong, but I don’t think that is who has been most vocal about calling this cartoon anti-semitic. Is it fair to question the motives of those that do think it is offensive because of some perceived motive of the Israeli government? To me it implies that they are agents of that govt in some way.
April 1, 2009 at 7:07 pm
quixote – as a Jewish, Native American woman, I am going to sign in on this one.
When you target the Israeli’s as the population that is “guilty of keeping Palestinians so destroyed, impoverished and harrassed”, I ask you to consider the following:
It is not the Israeli’s that have put the Palestinians in this position. The radical Arab world has treated the Palestinians as their “junk yard dogs” while targeting them for extinction. According to what I remember being told by a close friend many years ago, the territory was complete with some of the most beautiful shore lines in the world and a travel industry. They destroyed it for their religious reasons and there was no longer an economy. Killing Jews for the rest of the radical Arabs was the only game in town. You certainly don’t need an education or a long term plan for that. There is no reason for the country to be so impoverished and under performing while the rest of the Arab world is swimming in Oil.
I was impressed with a small comment I heard from Hillary Clinton (I teared up but she didn’t). I feel it is her intension to do what I have prayed for a long time – give the Palestinians something to live for, and they will stop strapping bombs on for the rest of the radical Arab world.
I understand this comment is rather simplistic, but I am not spending much time researching or listening to the bullshit that is going down right now – I’m tired, and BO is fucking it all up – it is too depressing.
CAROL HAKA
April 1, 2009 at 9:23 pm
My final comment on the cartoon is that Oliphant is basically a sensationalist. He’s the Ann Coulter of the cartoon world, saying what he knows will cause controversy so someone, anyone will pay attention. The fact that we’ve given this cartoon as much as we have is proof he knows how to push our buttons. The two people I know that have had encounters with him both said he’s a stone cold prick. But that’s besides the point. My addressing this on my blog, as with this post here, is to point out the two facedness of people who speak out of both sides of their mouths over this issue, among others.
I’d like to address the comment quixote made about right wing Israeli governments. I believe that is in fact right wing governments where we often see the most progress. It was Menachem Begin that negotiated the peace with Sadat. It was Sharon who initiated the withdrawal from Gaza (the fact that this was largely a means of distracting attention from his potentially being indicted on corruption charges convolutes the matter). Rabin was a right winger.
It is typically the left and moderate Israeli governments that cause the most trouble. They are indecisive, and show a lack of strength. Arabs don’t respect that. Barak withdrew from southern Lebanon which effected the Hezbollah takeover of Lebanon south of the Litani River. This was bad for Israel, and worse for Lebanon as it strengthened Syria’s hold over the country just as it was breaking free of Syrian influence, and now Hezbollah is becoming the dominant political force in Lebanon which is bad for everyone who isn’t part of the Iranian mullah fan club.
It was largely on Sharon’s watch that Hezbollah was fully armed, but the UN is responsible for allowing the influx of arms (and is so again). Sharon’s biggest mistake as Prime Minister was not taking advantage of the aftermath of the Cedar Revolution to approach the Lebanese government. Instead he was absorbed with Gaza and saving his own ass, but as is usually the case with Sharon, it was the man, not the government, that was stirring the pot.
Now we have a center right based government installed. People unfamiliar with the situation there don’t understand that this could be a good thing for the Palestinians. The Palestinian Arabs number one problem is not Israel. It is the Palestinian Authority. The PA is a terror kleptocracy that runs the West Bank like a crime family. Israel does not govern the territory, contrary to popular belief. At this point Israel mostly controls the movement of people, operating checkpoints, patrolling the borders, (the checkpoints and the fence, as dehumanizing as I know Palestinians feel them to be, it cannot be disputed that these methods have saved Israeli lives, and that every time restrictions are loosened in the name of good will, Israelis die), guarding Jewish settlements. It is the PA that governs. They take billions in world aid that never gets to the people. It ends up in their pockets for bribes, for weapons, for their own pleasure, while the people suffer. Like the czars of Russia the PA must provide a scapegoat to keep the people distracted from seeing who the problem really is. Israel is the perfect foil. They man the checkpoints. They built the fence. They bulldoze houses. They cut down olive trees (an abhorrent practice in my opinion).
The PA runs a terrorist infrastructure that is dedicated to destroying Israel. Fatah has never recognized Israel’s right to exist. The Olmert government never exposed this, and went through the motions, while never committing to anything. This only served to piss off the people on both sides. A right wing government, if Netanyahu does his job, will make it clear to the PA, and the United States, that there is no two state solution until the terror kleptocracy is gone. Period. Negotiating with a party dedicated to your destruction is pointless, and no sovereign nation would ever consent to such a thing. Israel is the only country that is regularly made to do so. A right wing government that says no to this puts the ball in the world’s court. The UN did nothing after seven years of Israeli petitions to have Hamas rockets be stopped. The UN did nothing when Israel petitioned over homicide bombings. The UN did nothing when Hezbollah rocketed Israel, when Syria shelled Israel from the Golan (which is why, apart from the water, Syria will never get that land back, and shouldn’t). The UN did nothing when Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1948 and ran it like a shit hole. It is a double standard pure and simple. But this government, if it chooses to stand up and speak the truth, will make the world chose. If the world choses peace it means the end of Hamas and Fatah. If they chose destroying Israel they will remain and this situation will go on to the pain of all involved.
In his speech to the Knesset this week Netanyahu said, “If the heads of the Palestinian Authority want peace, I tell them now – we can achieve it.” That means dismantling the Al Aqsa martyrs. That means no longer embezzling from the people. That means recognizing Israel in no uncertain terms. That means destroying Hamas permanently. Abbas does not have the will, nor the inclination. A politically legitimate PA will only happen when the world demands it. Netanyahu must stand his ground and make the world decide whether it will be peace, or continued suffering for everyone. It’s time for an end to the double standard that says Hamas rockets are okay, but Israel’s fence is not.
To me, the solution is relatively simple, but it takes time. The first step is an economic federation. Even Muhammed Dahlan admits that the Palestinian economy is dependent on Israel. A symbiotic economy builds prosperity and trust. It creates a more profitable alternative to terrorism. It brings an end to suspicion and distrust. Once the people see this I believe they will reject the corruption of Fatah and Hamas. Legitimate political institutions can be built on this foundation. This is when real peace happens. Gaza can be cut loose and be a Palestinian run ocean front resort. But the real solution is one state, based on the above foundation. One democracy. One home that is open and safe for Jews, and where the Arabs enjoy the greatest level of civil liberties of any nation in the middle east (that is actually already true for Israeli Arabs according to a Human Rights Watch report that came out a few years back).
For now, the Israeli government must stand firm. But it must find a way to handle checkpoints more smoothly so they are more efficient, and less hostile, stop cutting down olive trees (if they haven’t done so already…I’m still researching that situation). And the Israeli government needs serious reform. A second house of Parliament would be a great start, not to mention developing an actual constitution. And the Fatah and Hamas must go. None of this is impossible. But none of this will happen if the double standard applied to Israel doesn’t end.
April 1, 2009 at 9:36 pm
shtuey – you took the words right out of my mouth!
I’m not sure if one state will solve the problem in our life time, but it would be wonderful. I hate some of my relatives occassionally, but I am willing to let them live in Missouri while I stay in Texas.
CAROL HAKA
Man have I gotten an education of what the word “liberal” means in the last year – somehow, I don’t think that word means what “they” think it means!
April 1, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Inconceivable!
April 1, 2009 at 9:57 pm
You got it!
April 1, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Sorry quixote I don’t buy the meme that Israel has ever used the Holocaust as a “get out of jail free card” & in fact I find the implication disgusting. I think that meme is what people use to try to justify their anti-Israel opinions; but wanting it to be so doesn’t make it so. IMO that argument is as baseless as the arguments by the fundies that the GLBTs want “more” rights , etc (i.e., they have no basis in reality) but keep being repeated so that they take on a scent of “truthiness.”
April 1, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Agreed angienc. The only legitimate application of the Holocaust to Israeli policy is that one of the main declared purposes of the State of Israel is to be a door that is always open for Jews in diaspora. With a few exceptions, the doors of the world were shut to Jews fleeing the Nazis, including Britain and the United States. If there was no Israel the Jews of Yemen, Ethiopia, and elsewhere would have been wiped out. An inconvenient truth for many.
That is one of many reasons why world Jewry is invested in Israel’s continued existence. But to say that Israel uses the Holocaust as a means of legitimating its policies, that is just crap. It is more honest to say that it is the continued and unabated hostility of her neighbors that has the greatest influence on what Israel does. Like any country, Israel makes the wrong choices sometimes. But who is standing up saying, “We had to do it because of the Holocaust?” Only leftist dingdongs, and Israel’s enemies from what I can see.
April 1, 2009 at 10:34 pm
give the Palestinians something to live for, and they will stop strapping bombs on for the rest of the radical Arab world
I couldn’t agree more. Same with the Afghanis, but that’s another whole issue.
Gary, I didn’t mean to question the motives of people who find the cartoon offensive. I wasn’t carrying on about the you’re-antisemitic / you’re-favoring-genocide argument. I’m on about whether Oliphant is being antisemitic in this case or whether he has a handle on something real. That’s the context for me talking about the Israeli govt, since I think the govt has been doing thuggish things.
I remembered an Israeli MP years ago saying much what I’m trying to say, except saying it much better. I went searching around on the web to see if I could find it. As Lapid said himself, it’s not about the Holocaust. It’s about what Israel is doing now. One thing that surprised me about that report was the extent of — I’m not sure what to call it — Nazi references, I guess, that Israelis make. I hadn’t been aware of that. Searching around some more after that, I came across this interview with Avraham Burg which really hit me. I just start imagining how it would be if people like him ran Israel, and the US, and then I start tearing up.
April 2, 2009 at 8:53 am
quixote, I think what disturbs me is that whenever anyone says anything is offensive to Jews, the first response is that “the Israelis did such and such” a thing, as if that justifies painting an entire people in the way that oliphant did. Isn’t that kind of the same thing that you are accusing them of doing with the Holocaust? i mean it seems to me that a lot of people use examples of bigotry like this only to point out the bad things that Israel has done. And I tend to agree with shtuey that mostly we only hear about the “atrocities” being committed by Israel, but it happens on both sides. I just saw this this morning:
This was a planned attack. I find it horrifying that palestinian authorities would condone an attack on innocent children, or at least not condemn the terrorists that did it. Where is the outrage from the “left” when something like this occurs? I feel like it is not there because many feel that Israel deserves such attacks. No matter what you think of Israeli settlements, no 13 or 7 year old deserves to be slaughtered over it. And I have NEVER heard of Israel purposefully sending in an agent to murder palestinian children in cold blood. So again I ask, why the double standard?
April 2, 2009 at 9:01 am
Quixote – Does he have a handle on something real?
No, he does not.
That’s what we’re trying to say. You can say the Israeli government does this, that or the other if you wish, but the comparison the cartoon makes is of Jews/Israel to Nazi Germany. There is no rational or reality-based comparison of the government of Israel to the government of Germany under Hitler.
This cartoon is indistinguishable from anti-Semitic propaganda of the 20’s and 30’s that led up to the Holocaust.
People who do not see that are simply wrong.
You should accept that you are wrong in this case, quixote. It’s okay. I’m wrong all the time. It doesn’t hurt much.
April 2, 2009 at 10:44 am
Yup. As I said, this discussion has made me realize that the cartoon is too easy to see as a Nazi reference, which isn’t right.
And I also completely agree that the Palestinian powers-that-be are criminally tolerant of violence from their own side. which is pretty standard for people. I mean, look at the attitude among lots of people in the US to dropping two atom bombs on civilians. That’s why I’m so awed by people like Burg, Lapid, and in an even bigger way, Bishop Tutu, the Dalai Lama.
I also completely agree that way too many of the people I thought were liberals and I thought were friends turn out to care about nothing but which jersey someone is wearing. Not my kind of people at all. It’s a loss I’m still trying to get over.
April 2, 2009 at 12:08 pm
quixote – It is not “pretty standard for people” to be “criminally tolerant of violence from their own side.” Two atom bombs were dropped to stop a World War. It worked. There is collateral damage in War. Citizens die. Civility has to be demanded at times.
Please stop morally lumping those that react in with those that initiated the action.
It’s easy to be philosophical while there are no missiles and bombs exploding around you.
CAROL HAKA
April 2, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Gary, you have email.
April 2, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I didn’t get it fredster, can you send again?
April 2, 2009 at 2:38 pm
to hotmail, right?
April 2, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Resent to hotmail.
April 2, 2009 at 2:53 pm
oh I got that and replied I guess you didn’t get mine! I’ll resend.
April 2, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Gary, yahoo is getting ridiculous, so no I didn’t get it. Thinking of going g-mail.
April 2, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Everyone else has weighed in on the cartoon, so I guess I have to as well. I find it extremely offensive. The other cartoons, I don’t like, but the one that has stirred up so much trouble, irritates me to no end. There are some things that are just off limits, ie: rape, murder, domestic violence, the Holocaust, hate crimes; these things are NEVER any thing to joke about.
The other cartoons cause feelings to be hurt, and I am not saying that lightly, nor do I like it. I am Southern and have always felt that the use of the Confederate flag on pulbic grounds is horrible. If an individual wants to show the flag, then let him, but people have died over this so-called piece of Southern heritage and it should not be on public property.
Just my opinion, for what its worth.
April 2, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I agree with you Kim.
April 2, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Kim – I have missed you. How is your son doing?
CAROL HAKA
May 6, 2009 at 3:49 pm
My god, he is not the Ann Coulter of the cartoon world. Simply put, he is a 75 year old man who’s whole life has been watching politics, injustices, crimes, and wars unfold. I’d be a bit snarky and critical too.