Is this Political Cartoon Anti-Semitic?
| January 30th, 2003
Letters from Gotham points out a grossly anti-Semitic cartoon from The Independent which draws on the old “Jews eat gentile children” blood libel. She also provides an email address for The Independent’s news editor, in case folks would like to share their thoughts.
Needless to say, I do think cartoonists have the right to criticize Israel as harshly as they want - even cartoons like this one, which cross the line into anti-Semitism. But we readers have the corresponding right to tell newspapers what we think; and newspaper editors have the right to choose not to publish anti-Semitic dribble if they don’t want to.
Update: As Kip pointed out in the comments - and as I should have spotted myself - the cartoon is a riff on a famous Goya painting of Saturn eating his children, which suggests that the cartoonist may have had something more, or something other, in mind than just blood libel. (For those of you who don’t know, the blood libel is a centuries-old anti-Semitic myth that Jews eat gentile children. It’s a good deal better-known in Europe than it is in the US).
So does that change anything? Well, it brings up the possibility that this may have been accidental anti-Semitism; perhaps the cartoonist was just tasteless, insensitive, ignorant. But I never said that the cartoonist himself (herself?) is an anti-Semite. I don’t know or care what was in the cartoonists’ heart; all I know is what was drawn in the cartoon. And what was drawn was one of the most pernicious and vicious anti-Semitic myths in history; a slander that is still current in parts of the Arab world.
(It’s on a par with an American newspaper editor printing a cartoon showing Colin Powell raping white women. It’s not just tasteless; it’s drawing on a specific, deeply-felt cultural image of bigotry. And it draws on that racist imagery regardless of intent.).
Look, somebody could, in theory, grow up miraculously ignorant and not know the word “kike,” or think the word is just a fancy, non offensive word for “Jew.” They could then write a perfectly reasonable petition calling for Jewish settlers to lay off of Palestinian olive groves, all without a trace of anti-Semitism in their heart. But if the petition they wrote used the wording “the kike settlers should lay off,” then I’d call that an anti-Semitic petition. That there is a theoretical possibility that the writer is not an anti-Semite is just a distraction; it doesn’t call the anti-Semitism of the petition’s wording into question.
In this case, the cartoon was drawn by the cartoonist and approved by an editor. If it was by some miracle an innocent mistake, then it is still a mistake that shows a staggering tastelessness, ignorance and insensitivity. And regardless of motive, the result was the printing of an anti-Semitic cartoon; at the very least, The Independent’s editors owe all their Jewish readers an apology and an explanation.
Also in my comments, Jake writes:
I dunno. I mean it’s disgusting, and it’s certainly anti-Sharon, but I think that’s all it is. I didn’t interpret it as anti-semitic. And I know Amp’s often the first to point out that anti-Sharon != anti-semitic, so I’m wondering why you feel this is.
Consider again my hypothetical example of a racist cartoon about Colin Powell. Does it cease to be racist because it is using racist imagery against one particular black person, rather than against black people as a whole?
Look, I hate Sharon; I think he’s a war criminal, a bigot, and an enemy of peace. I’ll gladly call him terrible names and draw him doing horrible things. But I will never draw him eating babies; because that’s a traditional way anti-Semites attack Jews. It’s fair game to criticize Sharon for being a warmonger or even a murderer; but bringing in “blood libel” imagery turns the cartoon into a criticism of him for being a Jewish warmonger, and that’s anti-Semitic. There’s a big difference between criticism of Sharon and anti-Semitic criticism of Sharon.

January 16th, 2006 at 4:36 am
[...] A few folks have asked me what I think. My opinion hasn’t changed since I wrote about the cartoon in January. The cartoon still strikes me as anti-Semitic; and like Trish Wilson, I make a distinction between the cartoon and the cartoonist, and suspect that the anti-Semitism was unintentional. [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » So a Jewish Prime Minister, a Spanish Painter and a Cartoonist walk into a bar….Report this comment to the moderators
February 6th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
is an anti-Semetic political cartoon. Who remembers the anti-Semitic cartoons published by the Los Angeles Times, or the Chicago Tribune, or the Seattle Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and online editions of the Washington Post and New York Times, or theUK’s Independent, or how about the repeated anti-Semitic cartoons published by “palestinian” media? Did those of Christian or Jewish faith burn down embassies or the headquarters of those newspaper publishers? Do they threaten mass murder and genocide? No, they don’t,
This comment was written by Pardon My English: Conservative News & Opinion.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I know that it’s possible to grow to adulthood without knowing about the meaning and implications of “kike”; I did. But I don’t believe it’s possible to do so and then use the word innocently, because you have to learn the word to use it.
This comment was written by Andrew.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
The cartoon is so clearly antisemitic, it isn’t funny.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
This cartoon is anti-semitic for the same reason that the NY Post “monkey” cartoon is racist. It’s not a question of the cartoonists’ intent, but instead of the cartoons’ effect.
This comment was written by Paul R..Report this comment to the moderators
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 am
Weirdly enough — “weirdly” because I am a Jew and because anti-semitism is an issue of importance to me — I didn’t even see the anti-semitism at first. Possibly because I’m a huge fan of that particular Goya painting, I was far too caught up in trying to understand the analogy between Saturn devouring his children and Sharon being a warmonger. I mean, the Palestinians are not Sharon’s children at all, so…huh? And also, one of the most striking things about the Goya painting in question is that “Saturn’s children” aren’t babies at all: they’re grown men. So how did the “eating babies” comment figure in? Again, huh? And–
And then Amp brought up ye olde blood libel, and I went: “Ohhhh. OH!”
So, yeah. Definitely anti-semitic, even if I was too dim (or possibly too obsessed with Goya and Saturn) to get it at first. Much like the New York Post cartoon also featured this week, which made no comedic sense outside of a racist context, this cartoon doesn’t make the *slightest* bit of sense without the anti-semitism. It only starts to cohere at all once you factor in the blood libel.
This comment was written by Elkins.Report this comment to the moderators
February 24th, 2009 at 8:44 am
It’s blatently anti-semitic. And it’s very different from the Goya painting - in the painting Saturn is eating his own children, where in this instance Sharon is depicted eating Palestinian children.
Disgusting.
This comment was written by Kerela.Report this comment to the moderators