There have been stories at various times about the issue of “linkage” – whether the U.S. would ever demand that Israel take a particular step or adopt a particular peace plan, or otherwise forfeit some or all of the (concededly massive) U.S. financial aid it receives. I remember A. Gore blasting someone (maybe GWB) for what AG portrayed as an “insulting suggestion of linkage.” Till now, no U.S. Administration has adopted anything like a direct linkage, but I don’t think there’s any doubt that if the U.S. did threaten to turn the spigot off, Israel would be concerned and would re-assess its policies (or conversely, that if the U.S. sweetened the pot by continuing or increasing financial and military aid, with the qualification that it expected to see Israel adopting particular steps toward a peace plan, Israel wouldn’t at least consider complying or promising to comply).
Indeed, GWB’s leaning on Sharon to make concessions on, e.g., settlements and a Palestinian state has been widely portrayed as an indirect quid pro quo for the (massively expensive) Iraq war and other U.S. attempts to suppress Islamists/radical Arab threats to “regional stability” (i.e., to Israel inter alia).
Well, apart from all of the players in this little drama being terribly rendered, I don’t think there’s anything inherently anti-semitic going on here. No one here’s raised one word of ire about Arafat’s great big schnoz and baggy eyes, I notice. I vote for hypersensitivity.
In addition, I think the people who believe Arafat is being depicted fairly are out of their minds. My reading of what this cartoon is trying to say: Neither side, Israeli or Palestinian, has any real interest in doing anything, unless sufficienty bribed by aid from the USA. Arafat seems to be waiting impatiently, with a look of exasperated entitlement, for the American money train to make its way over to his side.
As usual with cartoons that cause an uproar, it’s just not very clear or well-done.
You’re jewish? Who knew, I guess because of your username I assumed you were hispanic.
Moving on, I don’t find the cartoon offensive or tasteful, but I do think that this kind of cartoon is excellent fodder for those with an axe to grind. In other words I bet you that it won’t be long before the paper or cartoonist end up apologizing for this “cultural insensitivity”, and the cartoonist resigns. Start the countdown clock now.
Because of history, and perhaps because many American Jews are secular, American Jewish identity in particular seems to have sometimes taken on “anti-anti-Semitism” as the/a touchstone or organizing principle of what it means to self-identify as a Jew. Activism against slights or threats to Jewry or Jews is simply a very prominent part of Jewish identity for many contemporary Jews – it’s noteworthy that one of the leading U.S. Jewish organizations identifies itself in terms of “Anti Defamation.” The Catholics have a similar “ghetto mentality” on a substantially lesser scale (the Catholic League sends around its share of e-mails regarding perceived Catholic-bashing, which I’d imagine elicit no response from more than a few self-identified Catholics who don’t share all of the Church’s more hardline positions). You’ll also note in conversations with various Irish/Irish American types an occasional impatience with always having to talk about the Battle of the Boyne or whatever. I think there are probably intra-community disputes in all these cases as to whether people are fighting battles of days past that are not really as vitally important today, or at whether the siege mentality and hair trigger reactions are helpful in a day when the Brits are no longer shelling Dublin or when organized “pro-anti-Semitism” has very limited credibility or viability in the U.S.
I don’t really have an opinion. It’s a political cartoon, and they are usually off the wall. The Sharon picture is clearly jewish with all the ‘stereotypical’ symbols.
To me it looked like a bribe for peace, possibly on both ends, but I could be way off target. That was just my first reaction.
After reading all the posts I can see where people can see more problems, but to me it’s something to laugh at, that’s all.
Looking at the cartoon again, I think it is reflective of Dick Locher’s inadequacy as a characiturist more than of an anti-Semitic attitude. The only characiture that’s recognizable in that cartoon is Arafat, and then only because of the headdress. Context makes the money man Bush, but I would never have identified Bush from that drawing out of context. The toon we’re all assuming is Sharon doesn’t resemble him either. As for the Star of David, I think Locher could have just labled the character “Sharon” as so many other cartoonists do, rather than resort to such a shocking (in this context context) symbol.
I really doubt that a slur was intended. Agree with his point of view or not, Locher’s just not that good an artist.
On the nose issue: I can’t believe that so many here are interpreting the cartoonish nose as some Shylock-type stereotype.
My first thought? Sharon is a HAWK. Like many other political cartoons, use some kind of morphing of forms to exaggerate an intangible. Thus, the nose of a hawk. I doubt that giving him wings or talons would have been understood… but on the other hand, people seem to have missed the point on the beak thing.
As far as Sharon being enticed by foreign aid to make peace with Arafat, I don’t think that it particularly offends me, in part because it is patently silly.
I don’t think the cartoon is anti-Semitic per se. Locher, it seems, is trying to portray Sharon as being responsive to US aid promises, which may (or may not) be the case. It’s not exactly fair to criticize the cartoon for using a Jewish star to identify Sharon, since the State of Israel uses the Magen David as its national symbol (including, of course, at the center of its flag).
However, it also seems that Locher is playing off an anti-Semitic stereotype, that of the moneygrubbing Jew. The cartoon is not appearing for me now, though I did see it when it was released, and IIRC, it has Sharon bent over following the money to some sort of peace plan. That reminds me of more than a few “cheap Jew” jokes I’ve heard.
Ah, Isabel Allende and the Spanish major explains the Eva Luna. By the way, do you read her in spanish or english?
Of course being Cuban I know all about jews with spanish names, and Cuban jews with non-spanish names. I dated a Marisol Berger in high school, nice cuban jewish girl.
Sorry about the hijack, it’s just that now I’ve had to revise my mental picture of Eva Luna.
I’ve seen this discussion going on elsewhere too. I hadn’t thought about Arafat waiting for his turn to be led, that’s a good take on it. I assumed he was just waiting to get on with the road map.
I also thought the man depicted was “Israel”, not Sharon. I do cariacatures and cartoons and things, and I’d do Sharon as mostly jowls, head small on the top large at the bottom, eyebrow, nose…some of that due to his weight and age…recognizable features you’ll see in other cartoons. Bush looks right with the hairline and face, Arafat’s lips and head look right…not the first guy though, my first thought was “bit of enthusiasm with the nose there.” He could have easily put the name somewhere if needed. Some people take great liberties with this feature or that one, people’s hair or ears end up with a certain, um, joie de vive. (That’s the fun part.) If the guy is not known for doing that - he could be - then I’d be wondering why this particular specimen of nose appeared in this feature. I have no idea if that makes sense to anyone but me.
On preview, I think Ravenman has it - it’s a beak. That works I guess.
I read Allende in Spanish; the same goes for any foreign-language literature written originally in a language I can read (although I rarely have the stamina to make it through a Russian novel). It just aggravates the heck out of me when it feels like I’m reading a translation, which it pretty much always does.
You may not have to revise your mental picture anyway, though. Everyone tells me I look “ethnic,” whatever that means; Jews think I look Jewish, Armenians think I look Armenian (and when I tell them my background, they hug me and insist that the Armenians are one of the ten Lost Tribes anyway), various East Europeans think I look East European (although there is a historical basis for that), and Hispanics frequently address me in Spanish. The last time I was in NY, I had 2 different Moroccans in the space of 15 minutes start speaking a mixture of Arabic and Berber to me; they were very surprised by my confused stare. (Although I have yet to have anyone mistake me for, say, Swedish or Chinese.) It’s always amusing.
Is there any way that a person can criticize Israel, on these boards or elsewhere, its actions and policies without being held up as an anti-Semite? If there is an ethnically neutral and acceptable manner of doing that I’d like to know about it.
And I just noticed that this is my 500th post, of course I’m lying I’m been working all day for this post, and it came in a conversation with Eva Luna about her looks. Life is good.
The people in the cartoon are not that well caricatured, but that aside the link between the influence of US aid and Israeli compliance with US wishes is complex and not altogether linear, but to pretend to be insulted that this inference is made is absurd. US aid most certainly does significantly impact the relationship we have with Israel and Egypt and many other nations. This is not Jewish/Israeli “greed” it’s simply rational, national self interest. To rage at the cartoon because of potential stereotyping is silly in this context.
Israeli’s may be poorly mannered and generally insufferable bastards as tourists, but the general notion of Jews being presented as greedy Shylockian, money grubbing trolls is pretty much only present in this day and age in the ravings of poorly educated anti-semites and the fears of Jews themselves.
Well political cartoons are suppose to be offensive to someone. I’m a staunch supporter of Israel but I don’t find this cartoon to be anti-semitic. The cartoonist obviously believes that monetary considerations will make Israel more likely to engage in the peace process.
I don’t find it offensive but that doesn’t preclude others from justifiably feeling that way. Even if the illustrator had no ill-wll when he drew the picture, it’s clear to me that the caricature resembles ugly stereotypes. But I don’t think he should be forced to resign or apologize.
Political cartoonists have to walk a fine line. A few years back, a cartoonist at the Atlanta Journal and Constitution got heat after he used a fat black momma with a bunch of nappy-headed kids as an example of a welfare receipient. Are there fat black women with a bunch of nappy-headed kids on welfare? Yes. But the fact that the cartoon fit in with age-old stereotypes and prejudices shouldn’t be diminished.
Whether due to a hamster strike or whatever, I couldn’t pull up the cartoon, but the tone of the OP is in common with numerous posts/threads these days on the SDMB, all with the basic theme:
“I’m outraged that you could find that offensive!”
I’m not sure why Eva Luna would have such a negative reaction to some people being offended by a political cartoon. And as to the nerve of these people thinking that she might be sympathetic! (isn’t it possible for you to e-mail back asking to be taken off their list?)
I guess this comment was inevitable.
If there’s ever been a single case on the SDMB (or involving any major commentator/pundit/newspaper editorial board) of anyone stating that criticism of Israel is equivalent to anti-Semitism, you may cite it now.
