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 cartoonFantastic 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'?
[...]
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
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.....' -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.
Chuckles Johnson - Little Green Footballs
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).
3 comments:
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.
... 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.
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.
Post a Comment