It is interesting to see how the same idea came to the mind of at least two cartoonists. I would say they had some unconscious (and, in this case, unfortunate) reminiscence of the “original” cartoon, but I am not sure of how to explain it. I can scan and e-mail you the Brito cartoon, if you want to compare.

P.S.: may I ask if it is on purpose that you did not link to the original LGF post?

For those who are unfamiliar with Mr. Cagle’s cartoon index, he collects political cartoons from various cartoonists around the world and often sorts them into various categories (Michael Jackson, the Fall of Saddam’s Statue, etc.) In these categories, he occaisionally points out what he calls yahtzee’s, that is, five or more cartoonists who use the same idea.

As Mr. Cagle rightly points out, the use of the Star of David as a fence of some kind is hardly an uncommon image. I’ve seen it numerous times myself and I didn’t really read political cartoons until recently. In my own experience, such images aren’t always even used as a critique of Israel’s policies (the image that immediately springs to mind is a cartoon I saw a few years ago with Arafat in the middle of the Star).

For those curious, Mr. Cagle links to two cartoons (here and here) that use the Star-of-David-as-a-fence imagery. Also, Mr. Cagle’s blog can be found here (scroll down to August 5th for the entry concerning the two cartoons Amp discussed).

LFG

Camera

Jimmy, leaving out the link was an accident, which I’ve now corrected.

I don’t find it remarkable that multiple cartoonists produce similar images - it happens all the time, frankly. (The week after 9/11 happened, I counted at least 20 different cartoonists who drew cartoons of the statue of liberty flinching.)

PGP and Jimmy, thanks for the additional info.

As to how the question concerning the Christian cross misses the point: among other things, there isn’t a nation, particularly a controversial nation, that is the only nation in the world to have the Christian cross on its flag. Thus, the cross is not something that can be associated with just a single country (although outside of Europe and North America the cross is often used to symbolize the Western world as a whole). Without that linking of the Christian cross to a single nation, the cross cannot be used as a short-hand symbol for just that nation. Cartoonists, as you know, work with such short-hand symbols in order to satirize a situation in as small a space as possible.

On a somewhat more literal note: as soon as a nation places a symbol on its flag, that symbol becomes political in nature automatically regardless of any previous religious or cultural associations. I mean, it’s on their flag.

Granted, the Christian cross can refer to many countries and the Jewish star to just one. But that would be just as true even if no country had ever put either on any flag. It’s not the responsibility of the flag that there’s only one Jewish country where there are many Christian countries. I was postulating the point mutatis mutandis.

Oh, and it’s generally referred to as the Jewish religion, not the Hebrew religion. “Hebrew” is purely a cultural (and linguistic) term, not a religious term, at least in modern usage, whereas “Jewish” can be both.

Thank you. Just to avoid any misunderstanding, my question was not meant to be ironic, but, knowing your meticulous way of presenting things, I thought it was an upset reaction to LGF’s biases (I’ve been there once or twice, and felt almost as bad as on the Free Republic forum).

“I don’t find it remarkable that multiple cartoonists produce similar images - it happens all the time, frankly.”

You are totally right, and Cagle’s site, mentionned by PinkDreamPoppies, is the best demonstration of this phenomenon (by the way, Mikhaela B. Reid often uses Cagle’s index to provide insightful compared analyses of various cartoons on a same issue). Actually, what strikes me is more the -probably unconscious- reminiscence of Seppla’s cartoon by two or more lefty (or at least “non Nazi”) cartoonists than the general fact that they had contemporaneously the same inspiration (but I formulated it way confusely, indeed). This is what leads me to disagree with Elayne Riggs: for me, the reference to Nazi propaganda (instead of Nazi policies, which would justify “the ‘how can you to do others what was done to you?’ question”), is so obvious that it ruins every possible impact of those anti-Sharon cartoons.

Take for example, the controversey over the latest film by actor Mel Gibson. Frankly, from what I hear, the film (and Gibson himself) are very much guilty of stone-cold anti-Semitism. However, I cannot help but to think that the VERY pro-Zionist Anti-Defamition Leauge would not be raising a fuss about all this if Gibson were clever enough to proclaim his undying support of Israel. In fact, methinks Mel blew it, PR-wise, by also apparently also being anti-Zionist! Hence, he’s a target of the ADL—-unlike the Christian right, which now supports Israel-right-or-wrong…..

Thanks for the correction about Jewish/Hebrew. I’m constantly forgetting which is the correct term for what but ususally end up erring toward Hebrew far too often. I suspect it comes from having done too many historical Bible studies, in which case everything is Hebrew.

Certainly, if Auth did intend a deliberate allusion to the Nazi cartoon, then I would probably feel differently, but I have not heard any suggestion that he had any such intention.

I beg to differ. I’ve never seen this cartoon before in my life, and it’s not because I wasn’t reading my history books.

Pink, in studies of the Biblical period, and the more so the earlier the period, “Hebrew” is often the correct term for all aspects, more so than “Jewish” which tends to refer to the religion as it existed after the destruction of the Second Temple. The problem with using “Hebrew” for the modern religion is that it tends to conflate them, and carries an overtone of identifying Jews racially.

Simon said, “The potential problem with this Auth cartoon is not so much the question of whether it’s inherently anti-Semitic to depict the Star of David in this way, as it is the question of a reference to the earlier cartoon which was anti-Semitic.”

That’s what I was trying to get at with my previous post about Daryl Cagle’s weblog and yahtzee’s (found here, scroll down to August 5th.) I think that in this particular instance, it’s safer to assume that Mr. Auth was not intentionally referencing the Nazi cartoon than that he was. The same images appear time and time again in cartoonists’ work and, frankly, the idea of the Star of David as a fence is pretty close to a non-brainer because it’s a design made with a few simple lines that has segments in it. (Another example of a “no-brainer” were the cartoons memorializing the September 11th attacks by showing the Statue of Liberty weeping with the smoking New York skyline.) (Still another example of a no-brainer image, and probably one closer to the topic at hand, is the image of an eagle attacking something to symbolize American wrath. If an American cartoonist depicts, say, an eagle labelled “ACLU” attacking John Ashcroft holding a copy of the VICTORY Act, and over in Africa there’s a cartoon printed that shows an eagle labelled “White Supremacy” attacking a black man, does this make the ACLU cartoon treasonous? Only if you’re Ann Coulter, I imagine.)

Slightly off-topic, but I’m interested to see if anyone kicks up a controversy over Ted Rall’s latest cartoon. I doubt it, though.