Barry Rubin: The loathsome cartoon

[Israel Insider]

It is silly to say that the Pat Oliphant Cartoon in the New York Times and many newspapers around the world is antisemitic. But it’s also a bad mistake because the cartoon deserves serious analysis to show just how dangerous and wrong it is, in ways that not only hurt Israel but all Western democracies.

Let’s deconstruct the cartoon to show the basic ideas that underlie it and that make it lie.

1. To begin with, it is not a very good cartoon and bears a striking resemblance to anti-Israel propaganda cartoons in its crudity and one-sidedness. Aesthetic decline has accompanied political crudeness. It doesn’t just say: these people are wrong but these people are 100 percent evil and hateful. The next step is, of course, they deserve to die and their state deserves to be wiped off the map. Is that what Oliphant thinks? Who cares? That’s what he said.

2. On the left is a huge figure. On the right is a small figure. The implication that need not be spoken here is that the big figure—the powerful side—must be wrong. Oliphant like many or most Western intellectuals, academics, and policymakers, still doesn’t understand the concept of asymmetric warfare. In this, a weaker side wages war on a stronger side using techniques it thinks can make it win. What are these techniques? Terrorism, indifference to the sacrifice of its people, indifference to material losses, refusal to compromise, extending the war for ever. This is precisely the technique of Hamas: let’s continue attacking Israel in order to provoke it to hit us, let’s target Israeli civilians, let’s seek a total victory based on genocide, let’s use our own civilians as human shields, and with such methods we will win. One way we will win is to demonize those who defend themselves, to put them in positions where they have a choice between surrender and looking bad. This cartoon is a victory for Hamas. But it is also a victory for all those who would fight the West and other democracies (India, for example) using these methods. Remember September 11?

3. The big figure has no head, and hence is not a human being. Israelis are not human. Moreover the headless figure is irrational. We are to believe that Israel attacked Gaza for no reason. Forget about thousands of rockets, hundreds of mortar shells, and scores of cross-border attacks. The tiny figure on the right is no threat. So there is no reason to attack it. Attacking is immoral and irrational. The same could—and has—been said about al-Qaida, Hizballah, Pakistani terrorists striking at Mumbai, etc.

4. Dehumanization: The figure on the left is a monster, a robot. Monsters and robots deserve no sympathy; they have no right to self-defense. If tomorrow an Israeli child or civilian is killed in a terrorist attack, how can one have sympathy for these people since they are not people?

5. Goosestep: The leg is raised In a Nazi goosestep; the shoe is a jackboot. Thus, Israel is a Nazi power. But why is it a Nazi power? Because it isn’t human and just attacks women and children for no reason at all. And what happens then? Since Israel is said to be Nazi, any sympathy for 2000 years of Jewish suffering—including Arab terrorist attacks—is thus erased. Incidentally, this is all being done when there is still no proof (not even weak proof) for a single Israeli soldier having committed a single atrocity. Where, then, is the rationality here?

6. Sword: Ironically, the sword is the weapon used by Islamists to behead people. Why a sword? Because it is a primitive weapon for a primitive people. The hand which is very hairy—again the ape, dehumanized image—holds the sword at a 45 degree angle reminiscent of a Nazi salute. See point 5 above.

7. The Magen David is Israel’s symbol. Therefore, despite the fact that it is also a general Jewish symbol, it is not antisemitic to use it. Of course, the context matters, too. But that is not what is most important in this cartoon. Still, the author could have labeled the monster “Israel.” Note, however, that “magen” means shield, and the name of Israel’s army is the Israel Defense Forces. In Gaza, they were acting in a defensive manner but that of course escapes much of the media coverage and things said about the war. What strikes me as most bizarre about the usage of this symbol is that it is being wheeled forward, as if Israel seeks to install itself in the Gaza Strip. But Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, openly stating that it wanted peace. The symbolism is to make the action purely offensive, an aggressive war to annex territory, which of course is untrue.

8. The shark is to me the most offensive part of the cartoon because it shows that the cartoonist has lost any sense of his tradition. Aren’t all the other elements enough to show his theme? The “over-kill” puts it into the category of Arab propaganda cartoons. It says: Israel is innately aggressive, that the whole state of Israel is permanently aggressive and exists for no other reason. If the cartoonist had shown Israel doing mean things to helpless Palestinians, the suggestion is that the Gaza War is a terrible thing. The way this cartoon is done it suggests that Israel’s existence is a terrible thing.

9. Palestinians are portrayed as only women and children. There are no fighters. Was there no army in Gaza, no 20,000 Hamas men under arms? Did Israel attack a defenseless area? Again if the cartoonist wanted to portray Israel carelessly attacking into a civilian area, the implication would be that it used excessive force or insufficient care. I would disagree but the extremism of the cartoons suggestion, and its falseness, exceeds the usual bounds of Western rationality.

10. The evil Israel is heading right toward the Palestinians and they are running in fear. Here is an accurate way to describe the war: After Hamas unilaterally announced it was cancelling the ceasefire, it launched even more rockets and mortars at Israel than it did during the “normal” ceasefire. Their range was increasing and the lives of one million Israelis became impossible. Hamas leaders openly bragged that Israel was afraid to fight back and they would keep escalating. Israel then attacked, the Hamas forces retreated into the middle of highly populated civilian areas. After some fighting, where civilians were used by Hamas as human shields, Israel had no intention of going into the most densely populated neighborhoods. It thus ended the war, and withdrew. Hamas then came out of hiding and bragged that it had won a great victory. The fantasy Israel created by Oliphant and others would have continued the war, wiped out Hamas, and retaken the Gaza Strip. In military terms, Israel could have done this with minimal casualties for its own side. Far from proving anti-Israel claims, the history of the Gaza War proved the opposite.

This is, then, a loathsome cartoon. But to dismiss it by the single word “antisemitism” will foreclose thought as to why it is a loathsome cartoon. It will allow its defenders to avoid facing the real problems with this cartoon and the worldview it represents. And worst of all: that argument implies that the only problem was using the ambiguous Mogen David, that it would have been acceptable if he had just written the word “Israel” on the Nazi monster he created to represent the Jewish state.

Finally, this cartoon represents the mentality that will plague every Western and democratic state in the coming years. Imagine the exact same cartoon but with the Magen David replaced by the Stars and Stripes—the evil America attacking the Taliban or al-Qaida, or Iraq, or Muslims in general. Indeed, this is the kind of cartoon which has appeared aimed against America or the West in general. It is part of the merging of much Western fashionable intellectual and cultural thinking with that of extremist Third World, and especially radical Islamist, propaganda.

The cartoonist doesn’t hate Jews; he probably doesn’t even hate Israelis. What is involved here is a lack of understanding so enormous that it will both incite hatred; cause violence and death; and block policies needed to help people—including Palestinians who, are supposedly the object of its sympathy but thus doomed to suffer under a repressive regime with a permanent war policy.

Antisemitism? Ask not for whom the bell tolls because Israel, the canary in the mine—the one who first they came for—can tell you that you are all next.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).

[Kimmy]

When I first saw this my reaction was "how sickening". To even suggest that Israel is in the same category with
the Nazi's is an unbelievable sickening twist.

Especially, when it was the Nazi's that with dehumanizing cruelty attempted to exterminate the Jewish people.

Unbelievable, unfathomable, that anyone with any mind at all could make such an unconceivable connection.

[Stan Kanner]

I disagree with Barry Rubin. The cartoon is antisemitic. No one can separate the Jewish star from the Jewish people. It is our symbol our banner. We wear it on our bodies and hang it on our walls weather we live in Israel, America, Europe, or Africa.

This is antisemitism. The fact that major newspapers can publish this, is very frightening. It takes us back to pre-war Nazi Germany.

Stan

[Andrew]

I'm ashamed that Oliphant is Australian.

This cartoon is a paradym for western civilisation; it has completely lost the plot. Global jihad is on the way and Israel which is on the front line is being demonised. Go figure.

[Sharbano]

It's just that it has risen to the surface, as in past times. It has been there all along but, until recently, not in the mainstream. What people have come to conclude is that the Jew is no longer useful and is more of a burden than anything else. As one poster here said once, the Jews have worn out their welcome in every country. When economic situations are at their worst the people come out of the closet. It was no different than in the 70's when the oil embargo occured and again people showed their true inner feelings. The glaring example is the likes of Mel Gibson et.al.

[Andrew]

Shovav, a week or so ago I read a post by a Jewish person that really stuck in my mind. He or she said how can the most beautiful buildings in the whole world be dedicated to one Jew. Yet the people who worship in those buildings hate all other jews?

I actually have no idea.

[Cato]

I agree entirely with Mr. Rubin's analysis, except for this: I do think the cartoon is antisemitic. By using the star of David, it focuses its ire on the Jewish faith, as opposed to just the state of Israel. However, I also agree with Mr. Rubin that merely dismissing the cartoon as antisemitic might close off a more deeper discussion of the cartoon's pathology.

I would like to address shovav's anti-Christian bigotry: replace the word "Christian" with the word "Jewish" in his posts for a moment, and tell me if you wouldn't conclude that the writer has an anti-Christian prejudice. Shovav's anecdote about the Bulgarian evangelical made me sick to my stomach in two ways: First, that a so-called Christian would act that way. Second, that shovav would use a single anecdote to tarnish an entire faith. I can't help but feel that this is reminiscent of antisemitic tactics.

I could go on about the rampant ironies in shovav's post, but in the interests of time I'll focus on one passage:

"To be fair, though, most Evangelicals in my experience do not try to personally harm Jews in that way, I don't think."

Again, transpose the words Jews and Evangelicals. It sounds like damning with faint praise, doesn't it, kind of like the old "some of my best friends are [blank]," huh? And the "I don't think" tacked at the end sounds like the wink of a conspiracy theorist. Imagine if someone wrote the following: "I once had a bad experience with one Jew. Granted, most Jews I know haven't done me harm -- that I know of." You'd get a whiff of something foul there, wouldn't you?

"But the Leftists do it openly. I understand they are 'anti-Christian' in their ideology, and yet most are raised in your faith."

Firstly, I don't know that "most" leftists are really raised Christians. Some, maybe even a majority, may have been raised nominally as Christians, but I would be surprised if most attended church more than a couple of times a year. But even granting shovav's assumption, remember that correlation is not causation.

Allow me to present a counterposing anecdote: The only anti-Israel people I know happen to be Jewish. Is it fair for me to conclude from that, that somehow the Jewish faith is inherently anti-Israel?

"Christians never take responsibility for these 'bad' Christians, do they?"

Again, substitute Jews for Christians. "Jews never take responsibility for these 'bad' Jews, do they?" Sounds okay to you? (Of course, shovav ignores the fact that the Catholic Church and virtually every other Christian denomination, save for a few extreme right and extreme left outliers in the tiny minority, have apologized profusely for past antisemitism, and roundly condemn all antisemitic acts.)

I don't know what shovav imagines Christian churches to be like today, but every one I've ever attended, when Jews or Israel have come up, has done nothing but praise them and urge our support. Again, I grant that are a few nutty outliers out there, and there has been antisemitism in Christian churches in the past. But if you examine most Christian churches today, especially conservative ones, they are among the staunchest supporters of Israel. To continue to blame antisemitism on modern conservative Christianity, when it is arguably the strongest pro-Israel bulwark among non-Jews, is not only unfair, but foolhardy.

[Linda McWilliams]

Andrew, How can you slander Christians like that? What you said about us hating all other Jews except Jesus is just ludicrous! You say you are a goyim, but have you ever even been to church? I have been in all kinds of Christian churches all over the US and never ever gotten that impression. Is it because we believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he was "set up" by the religious leaders and rejected by most Jews at that time? That doesn't equate to "hating all Jews". It's just history. We Christians know that even though that's the way it happened, it was preplanned by God himself for our salvation, and that it is our own guilt that made it necessary. If that's what you call "hating all Jews" it's like saying that voting against Obama (because he's a socialist and inexperienced ) was racial bigotry.
If anything, the vast majority of Christians are sympathetic to Jews and to Israel. I am not speaking for the liberal denominations because they long ago quit believing or practicing traditional Christianity, and I don't know what their views on Israel are. But among conservatives and the "born again" type you will not find more than a handful with an ax to grind against any group of people. I think it's shocking that you would paint with such a broad brush.

Linda

[kkeene]

Hi Linda, Andrew can speak for himself and I think he will when he sees your reply. He is a brother in Christ who is easy to love and surely doesn't believe that every Christian hates every Jew except Jesus, but was trying to make a point about many who claim to be Christian. I wonder how PCUSA (a group of Presbyterians) and people like Jimmy Carter can be friendly with Hezbollah and unfriendly with the Jews in Israel every time I see them doing nice things in my community like feeding and sheltering the poor. It's very strange to love everyone but the family Jesus came from. Anyway, welcome to Israel Insider. Love, Kevin

[Andrew]

Dear Linda, you need to read what I wrote more carefully. I was quoting someone else.

You sound like you are an evangelical (just like me). You are, however, greatly mistaken if you think "the vast majority of Christians are sympathetic to Jews and Israel". The World council of Churches - nope. The harlot that sits on seven hills (catholicism) - nope. The Orthodox church - nope. Most mainline protestant churches - nope.

Lets face facts, most Christians are anti-semetic except for a few evangelicals.

[Andrew]

"the real Israel is every child in every town, city and Kibbutz in Israel ...".

Shovav, thats beautiful and poetic.

BTW I have just come home from Friday night drinks (sorry, I'm goyim) and a lot of the conversation tonight was about how the fires in Victoria were started by muslims and how clever they were knowing how hard it would be to get caught.

You take care.

[Michael S.]

The cartoonist is still breathing air?

[Jason Taylor]

To answer, "Christians don't take responsibility" the problem is a matter of definition. Christian can mean,"one who professes the Christian faith" or one who serves God through Christ Jesus. It has never been claimed that it is enough ultimately to simply say one is a Christian. One must believe and serve God.
So the Grand Inquisitor would be a Christian in the first sense but probably would not be in the second sense.
Or to put it another way, the Grand Inquisitor is not a Christian because God says who is and who is not a Christian.
Even so it is a bit of a dodge at times, and it also claims to retrospectively know people's heart as the Grand Inquisitor theoretically could have repented his sins. But the point is not that people professing Christianity have not done evil things. The point is that doing so is incompatable with Christianity. Christianity is not both a community and a faith like Judaism, it is a faith first and someone incompatable with the Faith is incompatable with Christianity-is a traitor in effect. A Jew in the same circumstance would say he is a "bad Jew" from what I can gather. A Christian is not being illogical in saying such a person is not a Christian. When he says that he is saying in essence,"he should be excommunicated."