Little Green Footballs

Monday, April 17, 2006

Open Hypocrisy at Little Green Footballs



This is what Chuckles Johnson has to say about this cartoon.

Several LGF readers emailed about this one; the New York Times ran an openly antisemitic advertisement in Sunday’s Week in Review section, from a group trying to capitalize on the Walt-Mearsheimer paper “The Israel Lobby,” featuring this lovely cartoon

[...]

And if the antisemitism isn’t obvious to you, here’s more of the hate-filled work of the cartoonist responsible for the above drawing: Palestine - Bendib Cartoon
Fantastic Charles. You've surpassed yourself. Getting tetchy over a cartoon, how silly is that. C'mon, you were the knight in shining armour when it was a cartoon insulting Muslims, what's wrong now? Have you lost the taste for battle when it comes to freedom of expression? Is it because it doesn't suit you or your 'message'?

I also love the way that you claim the cartoon as anti-Semitic, but then (just in case anyone challenges you) can only back that up by posting a link to the cartoonists other cartoons. C'mon Charles, is the cartoon anti-Semitic or not? I think we all know the answer and it's incredibly dishonest of you to suggest the cartoon is anti-Semitic because of the cartoonists other work. I think you're employing a more dangerous anti-Semitism in this type of post. The anti-Semitism that equates all criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, the anti-Semitism that equates all Jews with Israeli and especially Zionist politics. Pamela at Atlas Shrugs may claim you as a 'righteous gentile' (I doubt there has ever been a bigger insult to those who bravely aided the Jews in WW2 than to have their title tarnished like that), but everyone else thinks you're a schmuck.

UPDATE: Chuckles has updated his post to cover his ass just that little bit more.
At the risk of repeating myself, if you doubt the antisemitic intent of the above drawing, check out the artists’ depictions of Jews as money-obsessed America-controlling cannibals.
That's a bit of a turn around isn't it. First the cartoon was anti-Semitic now it has 'anti-Semitic intent' because of the other work of the cartoonist.
'the New York Times ran an openly antisemitic advertisement.....' -

Chuckles Johnson - Little Green Footballs
So openly anti-Semitic he had to update his post. So openly anti-Semitic that even some of his loyal lizards were scratching their heads. So anti-Semitic he had to explain twice and still didn't point out how the cartoon was anti-Semitic. So anti-Semitic.......well, you get the drift. If ever there was an award for cheapening the accusation of 'anti-Semitism' Charles would be up there with the best of them.

By the way, if you want to see the kind of cartoons that are deemed acceptable to both LGF and Pajamas Media have a look at some of the work of Chuckles favourite cartoonists. He has often used their work and linked to them on his site, check these out (Click on the 'Cox & Forkum vs. The Nazis' slideshow in the left hand sidebar).

9 comments:

adultmalebluegrouse said...

Hair trigger anti-anti-Semitism has been ambushed by LGFers many many times. Pammie is particularly vocal and reflexive. It cheapens genuine, poisonous anti-Semitism and wore very thin long ago for critics of Israeli border policies like me.

The anti-anti-Semitism crowd always seem to demand public clarification from critics or Israel that they aren’t 'Jew-haters'.

The thing that pisses me off most about the Israel lobby is their ongoing pretence that Israel is a democratic state.

In reality its just another fucked up Middle-East country living on Western support and handouts.

Anyway back on topic; in what twisted,fucked up reality has criticism of a (foreign) foreign-policy lobby been racist?!

Oh yeah. LGFLand.

Speak Freely said...

Getting tetchy over a cartoon, how silly is that.

I agree.

Charles and his Lizard were seen burning an embassy about an hour ago.

MJ said...

Glad you agree. Could you point out what's anti-Semitic about the cartoon? Could you tell us why this cartoon is worse than the Mohammed cartoons? Could you explain to us why Charles is so selective about his outrage? Could you tell us why he's suddenly turned from champion of free speech around the globe to horrified wannabe censor? Can you tell us why his only evidence of anti-Semitism is the cartoonists other work (which at closer inspection are not)? Can you explain why criticism of American policy towards Israel is instantly anti-Semitic in Charles world?

He and his lizards may not be burning embassies down, but they are being hypocritical arseholes. Again.

adultmalebluegrouse said...

Johnson: 'the New York Times ran an openly antisemitic advertisement.....'

[...]

Johnson: 'And if the antisemitism isn’t obvious to you...'

So its openly anti-semitic...Um..er..but not obvious. Okay. Gettit.


*scratches head*
It must be dog whistle racism or something.

Anyway I think its SHOCKING theyre comparing the US government to a monkey.

George W Bush, however..

Nuclear Cop said...

... the social conservative movement is developing the traditional characteristics of a cult, in which the semiotic symbols and concepts used in the outside world begin to take on very different and emotionally charged meanings to the initiated.

phleabo said...

It's anti-Semitic because it criticises the policies of the state of Israel, specifically as regards the construction of the security wall.

To spell it out for you:

1) The state of Israel is entirely and undeniably synonomous with Judiasm.

2) Any activity which Israel undertakes in the name of security is by definition taken to protect Judiasm from those who would seek to destroy it, i.e., anti-Semites.

3) Any criticism, therefore, is tantamount to an expression of the desire to destroy the state of Israel, which is by definition anti-semitic (see points 1 and 2)

This is, of course, a defense mechanism that is employed in order to preclude any possibility of discussing the policies of the state of Israel. Otherwise, one could possibly have to discuss some of the injust treatment the Palestinians have had at the hands of the Israelis. This would lead to something awful: the possibility of acknowledging that - while never justified or acceptable - the terrorist attacks that Israel has suffered over the years are in no small part in reaction to that unjust treatment.

Again, do not take this as apology for suicide attacks and wanton murder of civillians; nor am I saying that the Palestinians are blameless in creating the political and social problems they experience today. But it's absurd to think that Israel hasn't had a part in creating the circumstances under which a Palestinian feels he has no other option to fight those he sees as opressors than by terrorism. Equally, it's absurd to think that the security wall will bring security - only dealing honestly with some of the core problems of the Palestinians has any chance of providing lasting peace and security.

adultmalebluegrouse said...

If open and mild criticism of Israel; particulary its treatment of Palestinians is 'anti-Semitic', then the label is a weight many would be willing to bear on their shoulders.

adultmalebluegrouse said...

Of course I should've added: broadening the definition cheapens it, and the label becomes worthless eventually.

dawud al-gharib said...

anti-Semitism, or hatred of Jews qua Jewish people, is vile; as is hatred of any ethnic, social or religious community based solely on the ignorance of, or prejudice based upon the negative behaviour of a small number of that group.

I would echo what 'phleabo' wrote above, it's difficult to extricate resentment of Israel from hatred of Jews, yet you must be careful. For instance, the religious leader of Hamas, Shaykh Yasin, was quoted as saying: "We don't fight the Jews because they're Jews, We fight them because they've stolen our home. If my own brother hurt my family or stole from my home, I would fight him." He also had close relations to a conservative Jewish scholar in a West Bank settlement, who once said "If resolution of this conflict was left to Shaykh Yasin and myself, we would resolve this in a short time." anti-Semitic?

Suicide bombings are deplorable, as is believing that Jews are [insert stereotype from Arab press here: bloody child-eating Zionist parasites, etc...] - but I fail to see how that is morally distinct from allowing a pregnant woman to bleed to death at a checkpoint, or to believe that Arabs are willfully sending their children to be killed, ie. Golda Meir's "We may in time forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we will never forgive them for making our children killers." & "There never was a Palestine."

LGF just proves that discussion of the realities of the Middle-East conflicts remain beyond the public forum of American media, even the so-called "alternative" media forums.

Elia Suleiman's "Divine Intervention" suggested at the end that only 'divine intervention' could solve a crisis so deep - while I believe in God, I hope there is still reason to believe in humanity's redemption.