Looks to me more like an example of approaching Godwin's law.

Is that thing balanced on one wheel? That would be pretty difficult while goose-stepping.

“Please stop calling people Hitler. It demeans you. It demeans your opponent. And to be honest, it demeans Hitler. That guy worked to many years, to hard to be that evil, to have just any tom dick and harry come along and say “You’re being Hitler”. You know who was Hitler, HITLER”

cartoon misrepresents starfish too.

Doing some research for this year's Passover Haggadah, I came upon this piece of rabbinic wisdom:

"Why does the Torah use the same word for the mistreatment of the Israelites by the Egyptians as it uses for the mistreatment of Hagar the maidservant by her mistress Sarai?

This comes to teach use that, lest you think that you, as a Jew, have no Pharaoh in you, remember that even your righteous foremother Sarai treated Hagar the Egyptian as the Egyptians treated our ancestors."

Well, Oliphant's got a history of using stereotypes of Asians, Arabs, African-Americans and Jews that range from questionable to really indefensible.

Like a lot of his problematic work, this cartoon develops some very ugly imagery by virtue of being lazy or uninspired. Not sure what this says about Oliphant himself, but he frequently tries to invoke a visceral reaction from his audience by presenting ethnoreligious stereotypes (babbling or unsanitary Chinese, horned Jews, criminal blacks, and maniacal Muslims) in lieu of an actual argument. That he does so in defense of a mid-century liberal worldview doesn't make it any better.

Using the Star of David is always a fraught enterprise, because by itself it visually conflates Israel with Judaism. Bad idea. If the same basic imagery had been superimposed on top of the Israeli flag rather than standing alone, then I don't think criticism would have been warranted. But, as I said, Oliphant has a history that should be taken into account here.

I actually do find it anti-semitic, though not for the reasons Foxman mentions. I think adding barracuda teeth to the Star of David implies that the Israeli policies toward Gaza (which were stupid and counterproductive) say something about Jews in general.

And this doesn't even take into account the fact that Oliphant is an incredibly racist asshole: http://www.aaja.org/headliners/2007_07_27_01/AAJALetter_UPS.PDF

If Iraqis criticized how we invaded and occupied thier (or is it our) country, that wouldn't imply they think we'll all little hitlers. It would imply disapproval of our actions.

Are we not allowed to disagree with military and political steps now? Just sometimes? Well, that may be consistent with history, just not basic morality.

That cartoon would make a lot more sense if the star of david didn't have teeth.

Without teeth: aggressive, nationalist Gaza policy behind the guise of ethnic/religious interest.

With teeth: aggressive, nationalist Gaza policy that kicks your ass after you've already been torn to shreds by a bunch of saber-toothed Rabbis (riding a unicycle???).

If that is Nazi imagery -and it instantly struck me as so, with the goosestepping and extended arm- I think that it becomes unquestionably antisemitic. There should be zero tolerance for facile Nazi analogies to Israel, which are about the emotional impact on Jews -like kicking Holocaust survivors in the groin- rather than about any enlightening comparisons.

As for the rest, there's a question of demonization. Certainly, at some point on the scale, demonizing Israel becomes so absurd that it has to be seen as antisemitic. That's much more complicated, but it certainly has to be considered. On that question, I'm not inclined to see antisemitism, but I'm also not sure what some elements of the image (like the wheel) are.

But above all, there's a tendency to dismiss all criticism of antisemitism as coming from oversensitive Jews. (As all criticism of racism, sexism, etc. is dismissed. "It's just a joke.") Or worse: as coming from scheming, manipulative Jews bent on domination. As with every form of oppression, it is a struggle just to talk about it. And that's why I strongly disagree with the claim that we should be sensitive to the fears of critics of Israel who think they might be called antisemites. Anyone who thinks you can have an informed discussion of Israel without discussing antisemitism -why so many Jews see Zionism as a response to antisemitism and also how antisemitism infects the debate- is a fool.

Using the Star of David immediately makes the cartoon suspect. It's an image to stay away from, especially used the way it is here.

On the other hand, the cartoon's meaning isn't ambiguous.

Part of the problem here is that Israel's flag has the Star of David (aka Magen David) on it. That symbol can be used in an anti-semitic context or an anti-Israel context. If Oliphant used a menorah, that would be considered anti-semitic (although not technically, since anti-semitic is not equal to anti-Jewish).

Ezra is right about the absence of "traditional anti-Semitic tropes". So it comes down to the Star of David. Can it be considered a "safe to use" symbol for the state of Israel or not? And if not, what other symbol would be better to use?

This thread needs appropriate background music. Thus, Jerusalem, by Mirah Yom Tov Zeitlyn.

I love the amount of attention the wheel is getting in this conversation. There's a headless Nazi with a sword, and a Star of David about to eat a cowering Palestine with its vicious teeth, and three commenters have noted the wheel.

I find the imagery in the cartoon to be incredible offensive. On the other hand, it's obvious to me that the Israel-Nazi is basically stuck there like that forever, because as soon as he tries to step forward the star is going to kip over and he's going to end up skewering himself.

I think that this cartoon is clearly anti-Semitic -- you'd have to be pretty daft to draw a picture of a Nazi killing someone with a Star of David and not realize that was the message you were sending. At the same time, I think there's a lot to be said for focusing on that wheel; the best cure for idiocy is sometimes just to laugh at it.

what happened to the innocent people of gaza was a sin.

the biting truth of a cartoon is nothing compared to the physical and emotional wounds that will never heal for those families in gaza.

Also, not to go all anti-PC here, but the goosestepping dude is much more reminiscent of the image of Mussolini on horseback thrusting a sword into the air than anything I've ever seen of Hitler. Go Google Image Search "Mussolini sword" and "Hitler sword" and see which looks best.

That said, it's tone deaf to use something that will obviously remind folks of Nazi imagery even if that's not the most relevant analogy.

Here's a generous interpretation:

If you believe Hitchens' Slate column from the other day, religious extremists are over-represented in the Israeli military compared to the Israeli population at large. Oliphant could be trying to express the idea that a Jewish extremist minority is using the Israeli military as a weapon against Gaza. Even though this idea is questionable, it is not anti-semetic because it doesn't attribute negative characteristics to the Jewish race or the Jewish religion in general, just a group of extremists.

If this generous (to Oliphant) interpretation is correct and that's something like what he meant, then his mistake is thinking he could represent an extremist minority pocket within Judaism by a big star of David. Whatever its merits (or lack of merits), the idea is too subtle to attempt to portray in a cartoon without painting with too broad a brush. He brings the charges of anti-semetism on himself with this cartoon)

Great Britain is at least nominally a Christian country (with an established national church, etc.). Would Oliphant have represented an odious action by Britiain (supposing he did a cartoon in the 1980s to protest the Falklands war or something) by a Cross (and crosses appear on the British flag) with teeth?

If using a Cross to represent a Christian nation would be anti-Christian or using a Crescent Moon to represent a Muslim nation (either in a negative context) would be considered anti-Christian or anti-Muslim, respectively, then using a Mogen David to represent Israel is certainly anti-Jewish.

And, especially considering that not all Jews are Zionists (nor are all who subscribe to Zionism Jewish), the conflation of the two actually proves the point that many Zionists do make -- antipathy toward Zionism is all too often based on anti-Semitic feelings. Does Oliphant mean to make a Zionist argument here?

The guy sure is tone deaf if he is not anti-Semitic. And I thought the whole point of being an effective editorial cartoonist was about striking the right chords!

"And it's really not a good thing to be forcing critics of Israel to decide whether they are also anti-Semites. In some cases, you'll intimidate the critic into silence. And in others, you'll normalize anti-Semitism."

That statement would be a whole lot more credeible if it didn't come from a website whose bedwetters equate any mild adjectival criticism of Obama as some sort of racist attack--i.e. you can't use "thug" or compare congress to a shot chimp.

The cartoon is clumsily done and at the very least deliberately pushes the anti-Semitism envelope. I would assume the imagery refers to the recent lurch to the right in Israel. The Star of David as shark without the goose-stepper would have as effectively conveyed much of what I would presume to be the message.

The phrase 'normalize anti-Semitism' is apt. Knee jerk accusations are giving cover to the real thing.

Let me offer a new maxim for our enlightened age: Any criticism of Israel, no matter how anti-Semitic, can be excused as an attack on a policy and not on a people. Call it Ezra's law.

Ezra tries to offer a distinction between "traditional anti-Semitic tropes" and "extreme and offensive criticism." Is that really how it works? So long as the jack-booted thug doesn't have a big nose, the depiction is merely a critique of Israeli policy? The only images that can be interpreted as anti-Semitic are those which have been used to such effect in the past?

But Ezra takes this a step further, observing that "it's really not a good thing to be forcing critics of Israel to decide whether they are also anti-Semites." Actually, I should have thought that such a distinction would have a salutary effect on the debate. Is that really such a difficult decision, Ezra?

Let's deconstruct this image. There's a headless, jack-booted thug, his arm raising a sword in an approximation of a fascist salute. He's pushing forward a Star of David, a symbol of both the state and the people. The star itself is jagged-toothed and ravenous, with an evil gleam in its eye. And there's a piteously small woman, clutching an infant, labeled Gaza.

Foxman claims, and Ezra concurs, that this is a depiction of an Israel that "lacks head or heart." It is that, to be sure. But it's quite a bit stronger than that - it's an equation of the actions of the Jewish state with those of the Nazis. I don't think there's any other way to read it. And once you've brought the Nazis into the picture, using a Star of David - the badge they forced all Jews to wear - becomes a little less ambiguous.

It's true, as Ezra implies, that Goebbels never depicted the Jews as Nazis. For obvious reasons. But the notion of Jews as rapacious and predatory, threatening women and children - well, I would have though that we might all agree that falls within the bounds of 'traditional anti-Semitic tropes.' Moreover, Nazism is generally regarded as something approaching pure evil - justifying almost any measure of violence in opposition. To equate any nation with the Nazis is an act of incitement; to equate them with the people they tried to exterminate is a step too far.

Here's a piece of free advice, Ezra. Your credibility on these issues will be bolstered if, in addition to decrying Foxman's penchant for hyperbole and defending legitimate critics of Israel, you can find it within yourself to decry those occasional critics of Israel who veer over the line into mindless hate. I'm asking you to make the distinction between critics of Israel and anti-Semites - something you wrote that you would rather avoid. Because the best way to ensure that we're able to have a vigorous debate on these issues is to set the bounds of that debate (and not just in your own comments section) in a manner that excludes those whose criticism of a state becomes criticism of an entire people.

The goose-step is definitely problematic; while it's a very effective symbol of heedless militarism, its history is way too intertwined with the Wehrmacht and Nazism for that connotation to be overlooked.

That said, I can't think of any possible way to draw a cartoon critical of Israel (or Israeli policies) that wouldn't be held up as anti-Semitic. In particular, any cartoon seeking to depict Israel is going to need to use the Star of David. Is it really fair to say that any such cartoon is commenting on the Jewish people as a whole?

It is without question a blatantly anti-semitic cartoon - and I say this as someone totally opposed to Israeli policy on the West Bank and in Gaza. And were I a newspaper editor I would not run it. I think "Anonmymous" makes the case quite persuasively, and I don't need to repeat that analysis. I would add only that in your effort to protect those who criticize Israel from the charge of anti-semitism, Ezra, you have widely overshot the mark in this case. That cartoon is straight out of Der Sturmer. It would be really interesting to read how you feel about it after you have had a chance to think about the comments you've gotten here.

what does the jewish star mean to you, anonymous?

the symbolism of the jewish star does not just represent israel.....for all jews, it is supposed to represent the sanctity of human life.
no exceptions.
no excuses.
my best friend is of the moslem faith.
i just celebrated narooz with her and her family.
isnt that symbolism of the star supposed to represent the highest principles of tikkun olam?
and isnt that about her children too?

the murdering of jewish children and the devaluing of human life is supposed to be represented by that star as a constant reminder that the lives of all innocent people are sacred.
thou shalt not knowingly murder innocent people.

the star loses its divinity and grows its teeth, when a home is indiscriminately hit, and five little girls in gaza, die in their sleep, and their parents, today, are trying to continue living without them.
stop honoring the commandments and the sanctity of all human life....kill one innnocent child whose life could have been spared, and suddenly, the star is covered with teeth.

the malechim wept for those children,
and so did the star.
perhaps oliphant should have put tears on the star, instead of teeth.

Bruce Johnson ("Why does the Torah use the same word for the mistreatment of the Israelites ...") Can you give me a citation for that? I think we may want to use it in our seder this year also.

However, I agree with those who have said the cartoon is antisemitic. The traditional antisemitic bits are folded into the shark/mogen David, but the Nazi imagery falls into a pattern in representations of Israel going back 30 years or more that is very problematic. Our anger, disgust, and shame over Israel's conduct should give us more, rather than less reason to be scrupulous in opposing racist and racialized representations of what is happening there.

Suggesting Israelis are nazis isn't really antisemitic, just really offensive and a bad way to make an argument.

The antisemitic part of this cartoon is the depiction of a giant Star of David with menacing fangs. But as a cartoonist, I'm aware of that being a larger dilemma in iconography: Israel happens to have as it's national and government symbol the same symbol as an entire religion. It's not really unbelievable to understand how depicting what you think is the Israel government appears to be depicting Jews as a group. And Oliphant isn't exactly a master of cultural sensitivity.

What is long overdue is a word with the moral force of anti-Semititic to describe those who support the militaristic, nationalist and racist policies underlying the Israeli colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Great Britain is at least nominally a Christian country (with an established national church, etc.). Would Oliphant have represented an odious action by Britiain (supposing he did a cartoon in the 1980s to protest the Falklands war or something) by a Cross (and crosses appear on the British flag) with teeth?

This is absurd. Israel is more than just nominally a Jewish country. Israel's objectionable wars are against nations of predominantly different religions, whereas the Falklands war was against a Christian nation. The crosses on the British flag only barely resemble a Christian cross.

So if a cartoonist used a Union Jack to represent Britain in a cartoon criticizing Britain for a war with another Christian country, you'd be a moron to call it anti-Christian. On the other hand, if a cartoonist used a Christian cross to represent the US (that is, a more than just nominally Christian country) in a cartoon about a war with a non-Christian country, then the cartoon actually would be read as anti-Christian, and in my view that would be a correct reading.

Putting fangs on a Star of David does go right up to the line, if not over it. The goose-stepping figure is problematic but seems too jumbled to be clearly offensive. Since when do Nazis have swords? If Nazis are out of bounds, are there any oppressive regimes Israel could be compared to? Where's the head? What's so menacing about something being pushed like a wheelbarrow? Etc. You have to assume the worst on all those to call it anti-Semitic rather than merely badly drawn.

But as for using the Star of David to represent Israel, well, it is the only shape on the country's flag. I don't see why there's anything wrong with using it to represent the country.

It's a hard call to me. Suppose, and I think this is a fair analogy, some wackjob conservative columnist did a cartoon where he depicted Obama as an antebellum slavemaster and we the people as his slaves in order to make some silly paranoid point about the dangerously increasing powers of the federal government. Now, strictly speaking there's nothing racist about that, perhaps, but I imagine that a great many black people, and probably Ezra, would find the Obama-as-slavemaster imagery racist, on the grounds that it's particularly offensive to identify Obama with his race's most vicious oppressors. And similarly I think it's pretty touchy to identify Jews in any way with Nazis.

re: anti-semitism, the cartoon doesn't use traditional images of (euro-american) anti-semitism as i know them; I'm not aware of a tradition of semitism=militarism, although perhaps arab/muslim anti-semitism has expressed itself this way given the history of the post-war years.

the semitism=fascism image is disturbing, but let's not forget who the israeli foreign minister is.

are the teeth an echo of Thomas Nast's famous anti-Tammany cartoon of the bishops crawling from the water?

Jacqueline - I'm not quite sure what to make of your post as a whole, but I think your last line nicely illustrates the problem with Oliphant's cartoon. A weeping Star of David would have suggested a failure to live up to a high standard of conduct, and the cartoonist's disappointment; a rapacious Star suggests unsated carnal appetites and wanton cruelty.

August Pollak, like several other posters, points to the utility of the Star in labeling the parties in a cartoon. And it's a point well taken, although cartoonist David Margulies has compelling counseled the use of other imagery. But there's a difference between using the Star of David as a label - applied to a soldier, a tank, a bomb, or a plane - and using it as an actor. A tank bearing the symbol would be interpreted by almost any viewer as 'Israeli' - the Star on its own, as this conversation suggests, is at best ambiguous.

Kylie suggests that the problem may be insuperable. I beg to differ. There have been innumerable cartoons about Israel over the past few decades; very few of them have been this offensive, as evidenced by the fact that few have kicked up this much fuss.

I have no idea what Oliphant himself believes. But I don't think there's really any doubt that, whether clumsily or deliberately, the imagery in this particular cartoon comes off as anti-Semitic. And I repeat my disappointment in Ezra, who reflexively leaps to the defense of anyone Abe Foxman doesn't like. It's not a bad rule of thumb, but it requires discretion in its application. The standard visual anti-Semitic tropes - moneybags, hooked-noses, and the like - are offensive because they're linked to an offensive complex of ideas. There's nothing inherently wrong, after all, with having a large nose. But in judging a cartoon by the presence or absence of such imagery, Ezra seems to have forgotten the more fundamental point - if the cartoon depicts a rapacious Star of David about to devour a helpless woman and infant, or to push her into the abyss, it has eschewed those tropes because it does not need them - it's directly depicting the offensive ideas they are meant to evoke.

Why doesn't the IDF help us out and find something else to paint on their tanks, planes etc

One can see the problem of building a nation on an exclusviely religiously/ethnic basis.

My problem with all of these debates is that Israel and the Jewish people are so often conflated. Would the cartoon have been less offensive if it had avoided the use of a Jewish symbol that also happens to be the main symbol of the state of Israel, certainly, but what symbol are people allowed to use to represent Israel without also implicating the Jewish people? As for normalizing Anti-Semitism, I find myself often criticizing the actions of Israel and then often seeing public criticisms of Israel labeled as Anti-Semitic. Certainly this is a general gloss on a complex subject, but it makes me think that the tendency to conflate criticism of Israel with racism is making such claims lose all meaning.

"wanton cruelty"

i dont know about unsated carnal appetites, but a drawing of a rapacious star suggests wanton cruelty.
the gaza invasion left the world with images of wanton cruelty.
when the images were coming out each day, it was not hard to imagine the cartoons and comparisons that would follow in the aftermath.
when the star on the flag represents, "never again"....that means for everybody.

violence begets more violence, in thought and action.

Abe Foxman is an ulber fascist. He's being paid to be outrage. He needs to show annual quota for being "offended"
and "outraged."

When you destroy a civilization and kill in excess of 1500 people in less than two weeks, you can't expect not to react.

Unlike IDF thugs, we are human.

The cartoon illustrates perfectly the overarching policy of the illegal state of Israel toward Palestinians.

Kudos to "Pat Oliphant.

Who the hell cares of what a fat a-s Foxman thinks?

The cartoon illustrates, rather perfectly, the overarching policy of the illegal state of Israel toward Palestinians.

Kudos to Pat Oliphant.

Who the hell cares of what a fat a-s Foxman thinks?

jacqueline:

It's a jagged-tooth, gaping mouth, poised to devour a woman and her infant. It represents an appetite, because Oliphant has chosen the metaphor of eating. It's carnal, because the feast will be of human flesh. And it's unsated, because the Star clearly hasn't yet had its fill. So I'd say 'unsated carnal appetites' works rather nicely.

Look, these are powerful images. Oliphant very deliberately eschewed literal depiction in favor of these metaphors. Lots of cartoonists drew the bombs falling on Gaza. Tough to fault; the bombs did fall. Others showed tanks, or troops. But the notion that Israel is inexorably bent on devouring innocents? That's pretty potent stuff.

Let me throw another question out there for the crowd which, remarkably, hasn't yet surfaced. What on earth is Oliphant trying to say? Is this a comment on the Israeli campaign in Gaza - one he just got around to making, two months after that campaign ended? Is it some sort of a reaction to the coalition-building happening in Israel now? A response to the continued blockade?

Part of what has provoked such strong reactions, I suspect, is that there's no obvious news-hook for the cartoon. Oliphant is not responding to a particular incident or action. It's a purely generalized depiction, and that in turn suggests that he's drawing general conclusions. It makes it easier to read as essentializing. Does anyone know what Oliphant is trying to say here, at the end of March?

I'm not sure the cartoon is anti-semitic, but definitely the cartoon is just weird and trippy and WTF-worthy. A giant headless guy? Holding a sword? Pushing a giant star of David, with a tiny unicycle wheel? And even though a wheel is attached to it, the star is alive and has shark teeth? And then there's a tiny little woman running away from all this stuff?

It looks like something out of the Onion.

I'm going with "problematic" and "incoherent".

Compare it to Steve Bell's latest one on Gaza, which draws on an iconic recruiting poster.

my extremely simplistic 2c:

pat oliphant is a moron.

and that's being generous.

Would someone please be so kind as to establish what the ground rules are when something finally crosses the line to "anti-semitic"?

If the goose-stepping hidden-faced crusader sword-wielding storm trooper pushed a menorah make it anti-semitic?

Would Oliphant have to show a face featuring warts, a crooked nose, lidded eyes, and blubbery lips?

What is our baseline for reference? Does the line have to be blinding white or are there some shades of gray? If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck but is wearing sneakers can we call it a pigeon?

"The implication is of an Israeli policy without a head or a heart."

Very good. You've learned metaphor.

Anti-Semitic? Do people still not realize that Arabs are Semites, too?

If Israel's critics can't use the shield of David to criticize it then they shouldn't be allowed to have it on their flag, it's as simple as that. But then again, they've never thought what's good for the goose was good for the gander, and they never will.

It's those dirty JOOS.

to my mind, the cartoon showed the symbol of what the star is supposed to represent, as opposed to what it appeared to represent during the invasion.
what would i have thought, if i was a little child, walking in my neighborhood in gaza, and saw that star on a flag, on a millitary vehicle coming in the distance?
would it have felt any different than being in the water and seeing a shark come after me?
at a candlelight vigil i attended during the invasion,young palestinian college students shared stories from family members who were experiencing that.
one young student had newly wedded cousins who were innocently sleeping in their new apartment, when the whole building blew up.
they were gone.
another one, had a little child in the family whose leg was blown off.

when i looked at the images coming out of gaza, it looked like the oppressed had turned into the oppressor.

the very small woman cradling a child, was trying to run away, but clearly was overwhelmed by the pursuer.....

something with great force, of large size and teeth can easily seek out its prey.

if this cartoon serves any purpose, may it be that the violence in gaza, if it continues like this, is going to hurt all of us. that kind of violence against innocent people damages not just the palestinians, but the worldwide jewish community.
acts of brutality against innocent people will open up the ugliest portals. places that as jews, we never want to revisit.
l'chaim...we are supposed to be about "life."
this religion is supposed to be about life, about protecting life, protecting the planet, protecting the sacred and scholarly traditions that are supposed to define us as a people.

Great Britain is at least nominally a Christian country (with an established national church, etc.). Would Oliphant have represented an odious action by Britiain (supposing he did a cartoon in the 1980s to protest the Falklands war or something) by a Cross (and crosses appear on the British flag) with teeth?

The problems with this analogy are many. First off there is no country called Great Britain. Hasn't been since 1801. when it merged with Ireland to from the original United Kingdom. even then it did not have an officially established Church -- Ireland, England, and Wales used the Anglicans; but the Scots were Presbyterian. Today we think of these differences as nominal, but the Scots have several wars to keep the Presbyterian church official in Scotland.

Secondly there are actually three crosses on the UK flag. The white X is St. Andrews' cross, the red X is from St. Patrick. The normal red cross on the flag is St. George's cross (the normal white cross is leftover from the original english flag, and was kept mostly to provide contrast with Scotland's blue background). As a symbol of the UK as a whole only St. George's cross makes sense, as George's cross represents both England and Wales. But it wouldn't be a very good image for a cartoon because it's not unique to the UK. Georgia uses it too. As do many other, lower, jurisdictions.

So cartoonists usually use a bulldog, or a bobby to represent the UK. And nobody would say that a cartoon with a rabid British bulldog was racist against the UK.

I think EK main point is the most salient one. If you want ANTI-SEMITISM to remain something that a vast majority of people deem inexcusable, then you can't confuse it with the notion of being anti-Israel or, even worse, pro-Palestinian. This cartoon is clearly anti-Israel, though arguably it is only anti-Israel insofar as Israel's recent actions in Gaza are concerned. But even a cartoon that, say, depicted Israel as an illegitimate state would not be necessarily anti-semitic, though I think this sort of cartoon would be open to interpretation as to whether it was motivated by anti-semitism.

to me, the star of david is not at all problematic - if it's on the israeli flag, it's fair game as a symbol of israel, the state, rather than the religion, as others have suggested.

the headless figure does not strike me as german, necessarily, unless it's hessian, like the headless horseman.

that seems unlikely.

i took the headlessness as a critique suggesting that the attacks on gaza were shortsighted, or brainless.

i suspect the figure connotes generic militarism - goose stepping is not limited to germany (the soldiers presenting the flag at the olympics did it, too. the soviets did it, and many of their client states).

what strikes me as most likely is that pat oliphant assumed people who see all criticisms of israel through the lens of anti-semitism would do so (they did), and those who don't, would not (they didn't).

It's those dirty JOOS

The issue here is that the Israeli state has conflated itself with Judaism and Jewish people, and co-opted our symbols as its own.

It's a repugnant and worthless image. It has no critical or satirical value. It is not worth discussing whether it is anti-Semitic.

That said Abe Foxman is insane. Here's a guy who simultaneously claims that it is next to impossibke to be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic, AND that Zionism is indeed racist, but so are ALL nationalisms period -- French, American, Chinese -- regardless of whatever extent the embrace of multicultural secularism and diversity are essential components of the recommending virtues of those nationalisms. Just ignore Abe.

It's amazing that this has to be explained to you.

So let's try an analogy.

Suppose some cartoonist decides that the administration is treating the AIG guys and the bankers unfairly, expecting them to work without fair compensation, and making them the "whipping boys."

He decides to express this viewpoint by drawing a cartoon in which Barack Obama is portrayed as a slave overseer with a whip, beating these guys as they labor in the fields of finance.

Sound OK to you?

As a Jew myself, I don't really find it anti-semetic. And despite my loyalty and love for Israel, I'm inclined to agree with what this image is saying.
What bugs me about this whole thing is that any criticism towards Israel is just plastered with the taint of "anti-semetism" (whether it is or not), and therefore not viewed as legitimate. I feel like there is often a blind loyalty amongst the Jewish community towards the actions of Israel, which is both dangerous and stupid. Then again, blind loyalty to anything is both dangerous and stupid.
It's hard for Americans to criticize Israel, because Israel is just doing things we have done time and again, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. And that the criticism isn't legitimate.

“Tom” and “Kim,” you aren’t fooling me. Your pigin English gives you away. You are probably Muslims, perhaps Arab Muslims even. Why are you trying to hide your identities behind Anglophone names? Isn’t that the sort of deviousness, mendacity that you always are accusing the Jews and their “Zionist entity” of? How about fessing up to it, you bloody cowards?

I view it this way:
Gaza, Israel, and the USA in symbolic arrangement.

Israel is oversized and unstable, propped up by the USA. Gaza is small, helpless, and being chewed up by Israel. The USA props up Israel, with short-sighted (headless) support for one side in a conflict, and has a militaristic approach to the world. American bombs and munitions are being used on Gaza; if you don't believe me, go read the human rights watch report on the phosphorous canisters that were shot at the UN buildings in Gaza.

What bugs me about this whole thing is that any criticism towards Israel is just plastered with the taint of "anti-semetism" (whether it is or not), and therefore not viewed as legitimate.

Does it also bug you when any criticim toward President Obama is just plastered with the taint of "racism" (whether it is or not)?

بنت جده