Is this political cartoon offensive? (Mideast-related)

Great Debates
1

Once again, I am annoyed at the all too frequent assumption that because I am Jewish, I share the extremely pro-Israel opinions of many Jews. Jewish friends, relatives, and acquaintances are constantly forwarding me e-mails and opinion pieces praising Israel’s behavior, or criticizing all sorts of Arabs and Palestinians, as individuals or in groups, or kvetching about U.S. or French Mideast policy, which is apparently never quite pro-Israel enough to satisfy some people.

My annoyance with the following is probably a Pit thread, except at least this time my correspondent was polite and reasonable (plus, as I replied to him, the Chicago Tribune really does suck as a newspaper, especially its international coverage, which is why I generally don’t bother reading it unless I’m bored and someone leaves a copy in the lunchroom at work). I received the following e-mail yesterday from someone with whom I corresponded once on a Jewish genealogy listserve more than a year ago; I didn’t even remember who he was until he explained, but apparently he was super-organized enough to keep track of who I was, the nature and content of our previous correspondence, and that I live in Chicago and therefore might be in a position to influence other Tribune readers. (He doesn’t even live in the U.S., so I have no idea how the cartoon came to his attention.)

So, GDers, at the risk of incurring a pro-Israel diatribe or two (I’m predicting *december will show up in this thread, at the very least, and my apologies to the Trib staf if he causes a deluge of letters to the editor) is this e-mail offensive in its assumptions about basically unknown recipients? Is the cartoon to which it refers offensive? Please discuss.

“The Chicago Tribune crossed the line with a truly vile Antisemitism cartoon.

You can see it at

http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/servlet/com.featureserv.util.Download?file=20030529eddik-a-p.jpg&code=eddik
The Chicago Sun Times is disgusted, and pulls no punches in their commentary:
Newspapers tend to ignore each other’s faults with a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I shudder and silence. Or else they tweak their rivals in a playfully malicious way. Neither reaction is appropriate when confronted with the vile, blatantly anti-Semitic cartoon by Dick Locher the Chicago Tribune ran on its editorial page May 30.

In it, a grotesquely hook-nosed figure labeled with a Star of David–Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, perhaps–stands before a chasm labeled “Mideast Gulch.” A kneeling figure–President Bush, apparently–is carefully laying dollar bills across the bridge. The Sharon figure gazes at the money and says, “On second thought, the pathway to peace is looking a bit brighter.”

On the other side, patiently waits Yasser Arafat, arms crossed.

The cartoon’s message–that Israel’s interest in peace is sparked, not by a desire to end bloodshed, but by American cash–is a lie that sails beyond legitimate comment into a baseless slur. We recognize there is a distinction between opinions critical of Israel and Antisemitism. But wherever that line is, Locher’s cartoon, with its hump-backed, balloon-handed, hook-nosed Jew, steps far over it. The cartoon is like a swastika painted on a synagogue door, an act whose hostility and use of the shunned symbols of hate dwarf any shred of legitimate meaning. Printing it was a callous offense against all Chicago.”

2

I’m assuming the caricature is of Sharon. He is not, without being unkind, someone I would accuse of having made his way in politics based on superficialities such as his looks. Specifically, without putting too fine a point on it, he does have rather a prominent nose, in addition to a bulky physique that may or may not give him a humpbacked look.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030609/241/4cb4k.html

And presumably it’s fairly mainstream to suggest that Israel pays more attention to Washington’s wishes than it might if there was no aid relationship.

So I’m not sure the caricature really crosses the line (more than any other unkind caricature) or is without any legitimate commentary purpose.

I remember an acquaintance (of liberal stripe) getting very upset at a N.Y. Post photo of Hasids in full regalia (and with, there’s no other way of putting it, classically “stereotypical Semitic” facial/dress features prominently on view). The Hasids were staging a public protest in what she thought of as an embarrassingly illiberal cause (against homosexual marriage, I think). While I could understand her regret at being associated with folk whose political leanings she didn’t share, I couldn’t completely get behind her accusation that the Post’s publication of (unretouched) photos of how the Hasids actually appeared was, per se, “anti-Semitic.”

3

I dunno…that cartoon is kind of “Stereotypical looking hook nosed Jew wants to make peace for money”…while the guy is obviously supposed to be Sharon, it doesn’t even look incredibly like him.

4

I had the same experience. I saw the cartoon when it first came out and was surprised at how grossly stereotypical it was. Then I thought “he does resemble Sharon, though”.

I guess I’d say it’s not in the best of taste, but what political cartoons ever are?

5

Sorry Eva, doesn’t shock me. IMO it’s criticism of Sharon, that’s all.

6

It’s worth noting that some stereotypes do have a basis in fact – including stereotypes about the phenotype of historically insular gene pools. Some Jews do have prominent noses. Sharon is one of them. Ride the D train from Borough Park, Brooklyn to the Diamond District/47th Street and you will see living individuals who resemble the ‘viciously stereotypical’ Semitic caricatures of Streicher far more closely than does Locher’s depiction.

7

I didn’t like the Star of David on his Jacket…very Nazi-like form of identifcation of a Jew. Other than that, no problem.

8

I’ll say this to be fair: Sharon does have quite a prominent nose and he has of the last few years put on alot of weight.

However, from what I’ve seen of political cartoons of him, cartoonists tend to avoid caructuring his nose because of the obvious negative implications (see Steve Bell, probably the most savage political cartoonist, particularly in the way he draws his subjects). Also the figure facially doesn’t resemble Sharon anyway, unlike the Arafat and Bush carictures which have some likeness to the subjects.

The worse part for me though was the star of David on the lapel, yes it is the symbol of Israel, but Locher surely was aware of the nazis made Jews were Stars of David on their lapels.

I’ve included another political cartoon (by Steve Bell)of Sharon for comparision:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,7371,744172,00.html

9

Yeah, but Huerta, that’s a small population of Jews, being used to represent what Jews are ‘supposed’ to look like…Sharon doesn’t look like that in fact, most Jews don’t look like that, as anyone can be a Jew. Sure, ‘Brooklyn’ Jews have a look, but that look is regulated to…well Brooklyn.

I think the cartoonist, was looking for the easiest way to display a Jew, and is walking a thin line here. The Star of David, is the big problem here.

10

Sharon does have a big nose, but it’s not particularly hooked…if you were going to caricturize any feature, I’d focus on his jowls and weight.

11

The issue here may be that Locher isn’t a very good draw-er. His depiction of Bush reminds me more of Nixon or Ralph Nader. And the Star on the coat strike me as more reminiscent of the old-time cartoon practice of elaborately labeling the dramatis personae in the cartoon because the woodcuts or whatever looked nothing like the originals. If you assume this, Bush goes unlabeled because he’s presumably familiar to a U.S. audience (wrong presumption, given that I wouldn’t have recognized Locher’s version without the context); Arafat is “labeled” by his (stereotypical) gun and headdress, and Sharon gets the Star.

Is Locher Jewish?

12

Absent the Star and the context, I think I’d have taken Sharon for Tip O’Neill or Ted Kennedy.

13

ISTM the Sun-Times explained the problem better than I can, but I’ll give it a try.

Arafat is depicted sypathetically; Sharon and Bush are not. This is within the cartoonist’s right (although I disagree with him, of course.)

The figure with the Star of David is either Sharon or a canonical Jew. In the former case, it’s just a repulsive caricature, which is acceptible for a cartoonist. In the latter case, it’s an inappropriate repetition of an antisemitic stereotype. The cartoonist can be dinged a bit for leaving that uncertainty.

The “smoking gun” is the message itself – that Sharon is willing to make peace only because of US money. The trouble with this message is that it’s not true. At least, I’ve seen no news stories supporting it. So, the cartoon assumes that Sharon (or the traditional Jew) cares only about money. In other words, the message of the cartoon is to communicate a traditional antisemitic message, which doesn’t even apply in this situation.

It’s as bad as a hypothetical cartoon showing that the real reason Al Sharpton is running for President is to have sex with white women.

14

Political cartoons always feature caricature of the subjects, especially facial features. Yes, it does unfortunately play into the hook-nosed Jew stereotype, but I don’t see that as the intent of the cartoon. The star thing is unfortunate too, but I guess the cartoonist didn’t figure people would recognize Ariel Sharon. Meh. Maybe.

I really don’t think he’s stereotyping Jews. The idea is that Sharon may go along with the plan because there’s a lot of aid money in it for him. It’s not like political leaders being swayed in that way is anything unusual. I’m tempted to ask “If Sharon goes along with the plan, do we think it’s because he’s such a lover of peace a strong supporter of the two-state idea?”
I wouldn’t call the look on Arafat’s face ‘patient,’ either.

15

From December:

Have you no shame? I mean really…of all the stereotypical/racists images to use, you pick that one. I’m really begining to wonder about you.

16

Well, I’d be the first to criticize anything I felt was anti-Semitism, but I honestly can’t picture Sharon’s face out of context, so I can’t say whether the cartoon an accurate depiction of him. (Or if it isn’t, whether that’s more a function of the cartoonist’s drawing skill than of unwarranted racial stereotyping.) If an individual Jew has a prominent and/or hooked nose, I certainly have no problem with depicting him that way. (My own grandfather looks rather like Sam the Eagle from the Muppets, what with the nose and the bushy eyebrows, and my dad’s nose isn’t exactly miniscule, either; yes, sometimes stereotypes are accurate.)

And I certainly don’t see portraying Arafat with the headdress as a problem, since he does in fact wear one in public (I’ve never seen a photo of him without it). I have more of an issue with the Star of David being used as graphic shorthand, given its offensive historical associations, but hey, OTOH one has limited space and opportunity to get one’s point across in a single-frame cartoon. I certainly ffeel the point about manipulating foreign policy in exchange for U.S. aid was perfectly fair. Hell, one could accuse pretty much any country on the globe of that and have a reasonable basis.

What was more offensive to me was my e-mail correspondent’s assumption that because I am Jewish, I agree with him, although we’ve never had a single interchange that didn’t relate specifically to genealogy.

17

I saw the cartoon a few days ago, but didn’t find anything notably “stereotypical” about the Sharon character – it’s just a poorly-drawn caricature of Sharon, just as the cartoon has a poorly-drawn caricature of Bush and a poorly-drawn caricature of Arafat.

18

Hey, maybe he was just going by Clinton’s motivations. It worked for him.

19

On the one hand, it does seem that the cartoon is making a political point, i.e. referring to American “aid” (some look at it as an investment in a country that’s known for doing things like researching hearing aid, comptuer technology, limb prostetics, military technology, etc. and giving reliable allegiance to the U.S., as opposed to other countries who take the aid to feed their wealthy and culture anti-American sentiment, such as aid countries #2 and #3 do…). Given the politics of the cartoon, one may or may not agree with it. (I happen to think it is particularly anti-Israel, as it implies that Israel needs to take the next step if only it had the motivation, while Arafat has been merely waiting for Sharon to do something.)

But, given the manner in which the cartoon is drawn, I think it does seem to have a sinister aspect to it. It actually does seem to suggest the money-grubbing, amoral Jew of yesteryear’s political cartoons. If this was done unintentionally, then I would hold the artist guilty of poor art and insensitivity in projecting anger via satire in a manner that could be interpreted as an ethnically critical lampoon. And, of course, if this was intentionally anti-Semitic, well, the creator is evil.

20

Clinton did and doesn’t need the Oral, opps Oval Office to bang chicks. Besides one would think that once he became the Commander In Chief™, he would be able to score a higher quality of babes. He didn’t, so I don’t think his desire for the Presidency was motivated for that vice…he appears to have been banging the same quality of chicks, that he was when he was Governor.

Oink.