Is this anti-semitism?

should cartoonists avoid apes when depicting black presidents? honest q.

― Mordy, Monday, 28 January 2013 20:06 (2 minutes ago)

thankfully steve bell, having spent 8 yrs drawing his predecessor as a chimp, has restrained himself wrt obama

Dead Palestinians noses seem about proportionally the same but I guess you have a monopoly on what is anti Semitic.

Yeah, Gukbe, maybe I know better than you what constitutes anti-semitism.

But hey, continue to explain how it's cool bc Israel is persecuting the Palestinians.

I'm not saying anti semitism is cool.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but Palestinians are Semitic as well, aren't they? So Gukbe's observation kind of strengthens Mordy's argument?

The term antisemitism was invented by Wilhelm Marr to be a scientific + classy way of referring to Jew hatred. It has nothing to do with Semitic languages or ethnic backgrounds.

well that's not helpful!

Should a culture that has been suffering persecution for thousands of years be exempt from criticism when they persecute?

― Gukbe, Monday, 28 January 2013 20:08 (2 minutes ago)

this is so stupid, even if the suggestion that 'a culture' somehow has agency for israeli state policy is merely accidental

there are a million ways to criticize israel, just not using shitty cartoons

so effectively israel gets an exemption there, wow how unfair

I was bei g facetious going along with the previous line of questions

not sure if the scarfe is specifically antisemitic but it is hateful and in poor taste

Joseph Kony is a horrible, horrible person, but a political cartoon that showed him half-naked in body paint with a bone through his nose eating children would still be considered racist. There's no need to feel like condemning this cartoon is de facto condoning Israeli policy.

I don't think it is, but I'm not sure this image is up there with, say, Alec Guiness in Great Expectations.

xp Of course not, but nor does thinking this cartoon isn't anti-semitic count as condoning anti-semitism. And there's nothing in this cartoon equivalent to a bone through Joseph Kony's nose imo.

This isn't reducing Bibi to a stereotype like that Kony example is what I guess my point is. But sure, if you want to find it, I guess it's there.

the antisemitic elements of the cartoon are relatively mild it's true

1) "Arabs are semites too" is a pointless semantic canard -- "antisemitism" has been used to mean only one thing for many decades. If we just said "racist against Jews" or something like that I guess we could avoid having this annoying discussion every time, but it's always just used as a conversation disruptor -- whether Arabs are semites has nothing to do with whether a cartoon is anti-Jewish or not.

2) I think the issue is not really any isolated factor (nose, blood, w/e) but the tendency to make Israeli politicians look extra-sinister and bloodthirsty. I don't think I've ever seen a major western newspaper portray obama as doing anything like eating babies or sealing walls with blood in re, e.g., criticisms of drone strikes, or even Bush wrt the Iraq war, but I could be wrong.

there is a difference between "blood" in general and using palestinian blood to built a wall after murdering them.

the cartoonist is not antisemitic but that's not the problem. the problem is that for some other people it does.
(i wonder what would be the reaction for a similar Muhammad cartoon)

regardless of the cartoonist/cartoon, here are some issues regarding this matter:

1. subconscious
2. "anti-israelism" as confused with antisemitism and vice versa.
3. is there a "liberal" who would truly admit he is antisemitic? (see also 1)

2.) is an interesting point.

That said, that cartoon is relatively mild in its antisemitic elements, I agree, and also Bibi is kind of sinister.

Xposts

re: leftists and anti-semitism, I defer to Postone

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2010/02/05/zionism-anti-semitism-and-left

On the other hand there were Jews, many of them members of Communist parties, who viewed any expression of Jewish identity as anathema to their own notions of what I would call abstract Enlightenment notions of humanity. For example, Trotsky, in an earlier phase, referred to the Bund as “sea-sick Zionists”. Note that the critique of Zionism here had nothing to do with Palestine or the situation of the Palestinians, since the Bund was focused entirely on autonomy within the Russian empire and rejected Zionism. Rather, Trotsky’s equation of the Bund and Zionism implied a rejection of any form of Jewish communal self-identification. Trotsky, I think, changed his mind later on, but that attitude was fairly typical. Communist organisations tended to be very strongly opposed to Jewish nationalism of any sort, whether cultural nationalism, political nationalism, or Zionism. This is one strand of anti-Zionism. It is not necessarily anti-semitic, but rejects Jewish collective self-identification in the name of abstract universalism. Yet, frequently, this form of anti-Zionism is inconsistent – it is willing to accord national self-determination to most peoples, but not to Jews. It is at this point that what presents itself as abstractly universal becomes ideological. Moreover, the meaning of such abstract universalism itself changes with historical context. After the Holocaust and the establishment of the state of Israel, this abstract universalism serves to veil the history of Jews in Europe. This fulfils a very useful, historically “cleansing” dual function: the violence historically perpetrated by Europeans on Jews is erased; at the same time the horrors of European colonialism now become attributed to the Jews. In this case, the abstract universalism expressed by many anti-Zionists today becomes an ideology of legitimation that helps constitute a form of amnesia regarding the long history of European actions, policies and ideologies toward the Jews, while essentially continuing that history. The Jews have once again become the singular object of European indignation. The solidarity most Jews feel toward other Jews, including in Israel – however understandable following the Holocaust – is now decried. This form of anti-Zionism has become one of the bases for a programme to eradicate actually existing Jewish self-determination. It converges with some forms of Arab nationalism – now coded as singularly progressive.

Another strand of left anti-Zionism – this time deeply anti-semitic – was introduced by the Soviet Union, particularly in the show trials in Eastern Europe after World War Two. This was particularly dramatic in the case of the Slansky trial, when most of the members of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist Party were tried and then shot. All of the charges against them were classically anti-semitic charges: they were rootless, they were cosmopolitan, and they were part of a general global conspiracy. Because the Soviet Union could not officially use the language of anti-semitism, they began to use the word “Zionist” to mean exactly what anti-Semites mean when they speak of Jews.

These Czechoslovak CP leaders, who had nothing to do with Zionism — most of them were Spanish Civil War veterans — were shot as Zionists.

This strand of anti-semitic anti-Zionism was imported into the Middle East during the Cold War, in part by the intelligence services of countries like East Germany. A form of anti-semitism was introduced into the Middle East that was “legitimate” for the Left, and was called anti-Zionism.

Its origins had nothing to do with a movement against Israeli settlement. Of course, the Arab population of Palestine reacted negatively to Jewish immigration and resisted it. That’s very understandable. That in itself is certainly not anti-semitic. But these strands of anti-Zionism converged historically.

As for the third strand, there has been a change in the last ten years or so, starting with the Palestinian movement itself, with regard to the existence of Israel. For years most Palestinian organizations refused to accept the existence of Israel. In 1988, however, the PLO decided that it would accept the existence of Israel. The second intifada, which begun in 2000, was politically very different from the first intifada, and entailed a reversal of that decision.

I regard that as having been a fundamental political mistake, and I think it is remarkable and unfortunate that the Left has gotten caught up in it and, increasingly, is calling for the abolition of Israel. However, today in the Middle East there are roughly as many Jews as there are Palestinians. Any strategy based on analogies to situations like Algeria or South Africa simply won’t work, on demographic as well as political and historical grounds.

it's (accidentally?) quite evocative of this:

When astrologers told the Pharaoh that an Israelite male child born at that time would grow up to overthrow Pharaoh, Pharaoh decided to kill all the male children born to the Israelites. He ordered them thrown into the Nile River.

Pharaoh was stricken with a skin disease. His doctors told him that only baths of blood could cure his disease. So Pharaoh bathed in the blood of Israelite babies.

When the subjugation was at its worst, the Egyptians forced upon the Israelites an unreasonable quota of bricks. If the Israelites failed to fill the quota of bricks, their children were killed in front of them, and the bodies were mixed into the brick-mortar.

― Mordy, Monday, January 28, 2013 3:02 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think this is crucial and key.

I am not shy about saying that I think a preponderance of leftist anti-zionism is a smokescreen for PC anti-semitism. I don't go around calling it out in discussions about Israel bc I think I can make much stronger points and arguments just discussing anti-zionist critiques on their own ground. But I rarely enter a conversation about anti-zionism where I do not hear numerous comments, remarks and provocations that seem rooted in anti-semitism, not in "legitimate" critiques of Israel.

3) also doing it on Holocaust rememberance day

I think this is kind of a tricky point. There's a common argument you hear that the holocaust doesn't somehow "excuse" wrongs committed by Israel, and I say well of course it doesn't. But conversely, Israel's wrongs should not be used as an excuse to minimize the holocaust, which I think is what happens every time someone thinks they are being clever by connecting the holocaust and any wrongs committed by Israel.

I don't want the abolition of Israel fwiw

xp We don't need telling that there's anti-semitism on the left and that some critics of current Israeli policy are anti-semitic. I've seen enough loathsome star-of-david=swastika banners on demonstrations.

Agreed that the timing was shitty and needlessly provocative. This isn't something anyone needs to see on Holocaust Memorial Day.

Obviously linking any criticism of Israel w/ the Holocaust (especially the rhetorical tropes that Jews are the new Nazis, or that Israel has ironically become the Nazis that once persecuted them) is anti-semitism. There's no reason to evoke the Holocaust when critiquing Israel except to be hurtful to Jews. Especially since it is a terrible historical parallel - there has been no genocide of the Palestinians and in fact Israel delivers aid to Gaza and the Palestinian communities have boomed over the last 80 years. Which is not to say that there is never nothing to criticize about Israeli "treatment" of Palestinians, but that calling it a genocide is an anti-semitic trope imho.

wouldn't blood be all slippery and a poor excuse for mortar? not sure this makes any sense

pertinent > http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-British-Left-Zionism-History/dp/0719088135

I think a lot of Palestinians would disagree about the amazing amount of aid certain communities are getting.

Israel sends a tremendous amount of aid to Gaza. Whether it is sufficient, or makes up for the embargo, etc is worth a discussion but doesn't seem relevant to this thread.

nakh and djp otm itt

My only point was that there is clearly no policy of extermination or genocide against the Palestinians by Israel, whatever their other crimes may be. Using those terms then is - uh - problematic to say the least.

every time this happens they say they would do the same for putin or whatever, which might be true but is always oblivious to the overdetermination, that where israel is concerned there is always a litany of old antisemitic tropes produced by the same 'neutral' imagery

― Why they hide the bodice under décolletage? (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Monday, January 28, 2013 3:00 PM (42 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this seems fairly clear cut to me.

I just think your framing of it as "not that bad, but yes there are some problems" is a bit disingenuous. Not at all saying its anything approaching the holocaust, mind.

If you want to discuss particular problems, I encourage you to post to the rolling middle east thread where I'd love to discuss your critiques with you. Israel is not committing genocide against the Palestinians. To say otherwise is anti-semitic. That's my only point.

I'm not sure I buy that though. Ignorant criticism does not necessarily equal some kind of racial prejudice.

Do you really believe ppl call Gaza a concentration camp and accuse Israel of committing genocide because they're just ignorant about the actual facts?

Yes, protesters love hyperbole. Look at basically every protest ever.

If you want to find anti semitism in that cartoon you can, and if you're predisposed to that sort of mentality of course you can find it in any and every argument that, shall we say, lacks nuance.

every time this happens they say they would do the same for putin or whatever, which might be true but is always oblivious to the overdetermination, that where israel is concerned there is always a litany of old antisemitic tropes produced by the same 'neutral' imagery

― Why they hide the bodice under décolletage? (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Monday, January 28, 2013 3:00 PM (42 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this seems fairly clear cut to me.

― max, Monday, 28 January 2013

yeah i accept this. and there is in this the bravado of the stand-up comedian breaking taboos, being shocking to reveal truth, which usually turns out to be hubris

There's also the abiding shitness of political cartoonists when they're so outraged or horrified that they can't be witty or original and fall back on the same old tropes: blood-soaked hands, piles of skulls, the Grim Reaper, etc. And some of those tropes are undoubtedly more problematic when applied to Israel but whether they're actually anti-semitic is in the eye of the beholder and, as the Haaretz writer, points out, Scarfe omits anything with obvious anti-semitic connotations.

^^

Political cartoons are pretty stupid. I always think of Brandt from The Day Today.

i mean i think (hope?) that scarfe is not "actually" anti-semitic but cartoonists of all people should be aware of the power & resonance of certain symbols & imagery

like blood and towering over people as if to devour them

Cartoonists should be careful, but I just don't see anything in this outside of Scarfe's regular style. I

Yes, protesters love hyperbole. Look at basically every protest ever.

This is why I try not to introduce anti-Semitism into discussions with anti-Zionists. There is too much plausible deniability. I don't know that the cartoonist hates Jews in his heart. I know that he doesn't like Jews very much. No one who likes Jews would criticize Israeli policy w/ a cartoon about a Jew using Arab blood as mortar in a wall. They'd find a way to criticize it that couldn't be "misinterpreted" as anti-Semitic. And that's really at the heart of it - he's either evil or thoughtless, and at least one Jew thought those two things were the same.

I guess I should start thinking of Jews as the same as Israel to make sure I appreciate the sensitivity.