New York Times apologizes for publishing blatantly anti-Semitic cartoon.

[The Romulan Republic]

Now, one could be forgiven, if they hadn't seen the cartoon, for suspecting that this is just another case of the Right pulling some "Both Sides" shit, or any criticism of Israel being labeled anti-Semitic, because that shit happens a lot. But having seen the cartoon (its in the article, and I'd qualify it as NSFW unless your boss is a Nazi)... yeah, there's no excuse for it. It goes well beyond criticizing the US-Israel government relationship (which is legitimate political criticism) by overtly using Jewish symbols and stereotypes to mock Netenyahu and Trump, making the criticism about targeting Judaism, not policy. And it says some pretty disturbing things about the New York Times that this got by the editors to publication.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/new ... b7ff968179

The New York Times’ international edition on Saturday retracted and apologized for an anti-Semitic editorial cartoon that appeared in the newspaper’s opinion pages two days earlier.

“A political cartoon in the international print edition of The New York Times on Thursday included anti-Semitic tropes,” read an editor’s note the paper said would be printed in Monday’s edition.

“The image was offensive, and it was an error of judgment to publish it. It was provided by The New York Times News Service and Syndicate, which has since deleted it.”

The cartoon pictured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a dog on a leash held by President Donald Trump; anti-Semites commonly compare Jewish people to dogs or pigs. Netanyahu’s likeness included the Star of David, and Trump is shown wearing a skullcap and sunglasses, as if he were blind.

The paper’s misstep sparked outrage among Jewish advocates, many of whom pointed to the documented rise in anti-Semitismand hate crimes around the country.

“Apology not accepted,” the American Jewish Committee, an advocacy organization, said on Twitter. The group called the cartoon “naked antisemitism” and said it would “not look out of place on a white nationalist website.”

HuffPost reached out to the Anti-Defamation League, another large Jewish advocacy group, but did not immediately receive a response.

The cartoon’s publication comes amid a heated controversyover the definition of anti-Semitism, with many Republican and conservative leaders frequently condemning criticisms of Israel as anti-Semitic.

The Times’ apology also coincided with what appears to be a hate crime in San Diego County, California, where a 19-year-old gunman opened fire at a synagogue during a Passover celebration, killing one woman and injuring three other people.

Yeah, that timing just underlines how bad it is.

Edit: Accidentally double-posted the thread somehow. My apologies. I have reported the duplicate.

[Broomstick]

Having seen the cartoon in question - I have to say WHAT THE FUCK?

Portraying the leader of any country as a dog on a leash is going to be insulting. Portraying one leader of a country as blindly led/controlled by another is going to be insulting. Granted, that sort of cartoon skirt the edge of that sort of thing but you're not supposed to fall off the edge. I don't really get WTF was up with portraying Trump as Jewish, which he isn't, and I don't want to think that hard about it because my brain has had enough scrubbing this week. Maybe the asshole who drew that thought that it would somehow moderate the anti-antisemitism here but it doesn't. Clearly, though, it ties into long running notions of Jews leading/controlling other people(s).

I realize that there are people so totally clueless they wouldn't get what was offensive here, but political cartoonists are supposed to be more informed than that.

[mr friendly guy]

Few thoughts.

1 Trump as Jewish.

Its a common enough trope to allege those who hold power are secretly Jews. Rupert Murdoch despite being Australian of Scottish descent is frequently alleged to be a Jew, who just keeps his heritage secret, even though these people say Jews control the world. Trump's been very pro Israel so I can see the connection if you disregard his support of Neo Nazi's shouting Jews will not replace us. Its still bullshit, but it seems similar to previously bullshit people say about Jews so not that surprising for me.

2. US is leading Israel.

Hmm. Isn't it usually the other way round with these type of allegations? AFAIK Israel has got more out of the relationship, eg the US recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, recognising Israel sovereignty over the Golan heights, tearing up the Iran deal etc, which has questionable benefit to the US directly.

3. The NYT hires Bari Weiss. Remember that idiot who said Tulsi Gabbard is an toadie for Assad then demonstrated she doesn't know what toadie actually means 1 minute later. Not that she thought toadie meant something else and got the meanings mixed up, she literally did not know what the word meant and she is using it. That looks like she just parroting other people.

Remember when the NYT got confused between the Polish president and Vladimir Putin, because all white men look alike.

Why are we expecting high editorial standards here? If they had high standards once upon a time, it certainly is questionable now whether they still do.

[The Romulan Republic]

Few thoughts.

1 Trump as Jewish.

Its a common enough trope to allege those who hold power are secretly Jews. Rupert Murdoch despite being Australian of Scottish descent is frequently alleged to be a Jew, who just keeps his heritage secret, even though these people say Jews control the world. Trump's been very pro Israel so I can see the connection if you disregard his support of Neo Nazi's shouting Jews will not replace us. Its still bullshit, but it seems similar to previously bullshit people say about Jews so not that surprising for me.

Not surprising that those attitudes exist, but surprising to see them in a mainstream media outlet that isn't generally affiliated with the far Right. And its not as though anti-Semmitism being nothing new somehow makes it less vile.

2. US is leading Israel.

Hmm. Isn't it usually the other way round with these type of allegations? AFAIK Israel has got more out of the relationship, eg the US recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, recognising Israel sovereignty over the Golan heights, tearing up the Iran deal etc, which has questionable benefit to the US directly.

Or you can see it as the Netenyahu dog leading Trump.

3. The NYT hires Bari Weiss. Remember that idiot who said Tulsi Gabbard is an toadie for Assad then demonstrated she doesn't know what toadie actually means 1 minute later. Not that she thought toadie meant something else and got the meanings mixed up, she literally did not know what the word meant and she is using it. That looks like she just parroting other people.

Nope, not taking the bait.

Remember when the NYT got confused between the Polish president and Vladimir Putin, because all white men look alike.

Why are we expecting high editorial standards here? If they had high standards once upon a time, it certainly is questionable now whether they still do.

What is your point, exactly? That they're always bad, so this doesn't matter?

Throw in your downplaying of the blatant anti-Semmitism, your random off-topic tangents, and your accusing the NYT of stereotyping white people, and I frankly have some very serious questions about your motives here.

[Solauren]

If it wasn't for the Star of David on the 'dog collar' (could have been replaced by an Israeli flag), and the little hat on Trump (I don't know what it's called, I know it has religious significance), it would just be a political cartoon, and quite good.

However, two little details, and the line is crossed.

Sad really.

[The Romulan Republic]

If it wasn't for the Star of David on the 'dog collar' (could have been replaced by an Israeli flag), and the little hat on Trump (I don't know what it's called, I know it has religious significance), it would just be a political cartoon, and quite good.

However, two little details, and the line is crossed.

Sad really.

Well, that and... is it just me, or do the noses on those figures look really exaggerated?

[Broomstick]

If it wasn't for the Star of David on the 'dog collar' (could have been replaced by an Israeli flag),

Yeah - if you're criticizing something the government of Israel is doing use the flag that represents that government (even if it, too, has a Star of David on it) rather than something that symbolizes ALL Jews everywhere.

and the little hat on Trump (I don't know what it's called, I know it has religious significance),

In Hebrew it's a "kippa". In Yiddish it's a "yarmulke". Other languages call it other things. Basically, it's considered the bare minimum head covering for a man to show respect to God. Gentile men visiting Jewish services/observances/rituals/weddings/funerals/etc. may be asked to put one on if they don't have any other head coverings like a hat out of respect, and a lot of Jewish places have a box of spare ones for just such purposes. Women sometimes wear them, too - when I've been at Sabbath services led by a woman it's usually a woman wearing a kippa although a scarf, hat, bandana, or a lot of other things would work just as well.

However, two little details, and the line is crossed.

Yeah.

If it was a dog with an Israeli flag on its collar leading a blind but hatless Trump that would be a political cartoon that I think would have conveyed the same meaning as this one intended, but would be less offensive.

[Solauren]

If it wasn't for the Star of David on the 'dog collar' (could have been replaced by an Israeli flag), and the little hat on Trump (I don't know what it's called, I know it has religious significance), it would just be a political cartoon, and quite good.

However, two little details, and the line is crossed.

Sad really.

Well, that and... is it just me, or do the noses on those figures look really exaggerated?

Exaggerating facial features is a common tactic for political cartoons. Especially on those with big noses (as it conveys they are liars, ala Pinocho) Without the religious iconography, they become 'ha-ha, look at trumps nose'. With it.... (Shrugs)

[Solauren]

If it was a dog with an Israeli flag on its collar leading a blind but hatless Trump that would be a political cartoon that I think would have conveyed the same meaning as this one intended, but would be less offensive.

Instead of Hatless, Oversized baseball cap with 'USA!' on it.

[Broomstick]

No, with MAGA on it.

[mr friendly guy]

Nope, not taking the bait.

What is your point, exactly? That they're always bad, so this doesn't matter?

Throw in your downplaying of the blatant anti-Semmitism, your random off-topic tangents, and your accusing the NYT of stereotyping white people, and I frankly have some very serious questions about your motives here.

What bait? I pointed out two blatant examples of shitty standards from the NYT and you replied. If that's the bait you bit hard. If I just said the NYT had shitty standards people would have asked I back it up with examples, but when I preemptively do that I get criticised. There is just no pleasing some people.

My point is, the standards of the NYT have sucked recently so why the surprise? It's like being surprised that an x rated film has porn, or a white supremacist is a bigot. I never said it was ok to have shitty standards and my posting history indicates I think media need to shape up. I just don't hold out much hope.

[aerius]

I don't know, I don't see what the big deal is. IMO, if you're running political cartoons and you aren't blatantly offending the shit out of people every so often, you're doing it wrong.

[Solauren]

I don't know, I don't see what the big deal is. IMO, if you're running political cartoons and you aren't blatantly offending the shit out of people every so often, you're doing it wrong.

People have gotten overly sensitive over anything considered Racist, or against the Jewish people.

[Broomstick]

Yes, just ignore that the meme "Jews secretly control the world" is one of the things that has been used to justify killing millions of people.

While the artist has every right to express himself, and the New York TImes can publish whatever it wants, those who read/see the product are just as entitled to their reactions and opinions.

[The Romulan Republic]

If it wasn't for the Star of David on the 'dog collar' (could have been replaced by an Israeli flag), and the little hat on Trump (I don't know what it's called, I know it has religious significance), it would just be a political cartoon, and quite good.

However, two little details, and the line is crossed.

Sad really.

Well, that and... is it just me, or do the noses on those figures look really exaggerated?

Exaggerating facial features is a common tactic for political cartoons. Especially on those with big noses (as it conveys they are liars, ala Pinocho) Without the religious iconography, they become 'ha-ha, look at trumps nose'. With it.... (Shrugs)

Don't pretend like you don't know that the exaggerated noses are a classic anti-Semitic stereotype.

[Jub]

Don't pretend like you don't know that the exaggerated noses are a classic anti-Semitic stereotype.

Don't pretend that you're looking for every nitpicky detail because of your admitted tribal biases.

Yeah, it's a comic that went too far. No that doesn't prove that the cartoonist is a racist. Look at their previous work before making such claims.

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't pretend like you don't know that the exaggerated noses are a classic anti-Semitic stereotype.

Don't pretend that you're looking for every nitpick detail because of your admitted tribal biases.

We all know what the "Jewish nose" signifies, we all know its history, and trying to once again attack me personally rather than my arguments won't change that. So tell me, Jub: Are you a closet anti-Semite defending blatant racism against the Jewish people? Or are you just engaging in your usual Pavolvian response of "TRR said it, I must attack it and try to derail the thread!", even if it results in you defending anti-Semitism?

You also need to clarify that "admitted tribal biases" comment. Because it sounds like a thinly-veiled way of saying "I"m not the racist, you're the racist", an attempt at Whataboutism to defend the indefensible. But tell me: what "tribal biases" have I "admitted" to that you feel are sufficient to justify automatically dismissing an example of racism as widely-known and easily-identified as cross-burning or "n*gger" as just a "nitpick", simply because I said it?

Edit: I think it speaks volumes about how deep this problem goes that even on a generally Leftist board like this one, half the posts in this thread have been some attempt to excuse classic anti-Semitic tropes or explain why they're not so bad. I guess seventy years is all it takes to forget, huh?

[Jub]

We all know what the "Jewish nose" signifies,

It signifies about as much as drawing big ears on Obama did. Jack shit unless you were already tuned into the same frequency as the dog whistle.

Are you a closet anti-Semite defending blatant racism against the Jewish people? Or are you just engaging in your usual Pavolvian response of "TRR said it, I must attack it and try to derail the thread!", even if it results in you defending anti-Semitism?

So calling you out for looking to nitpick something must define me as one of those two options does it? I eagerly await your, sure to be hilarious, proof that such is the case.

More likely you'll just abandon the thread again ad you do so often. Or delay your post by a span of days, while posting in othe threads, and claim a pressing lack of time.

You also need to clarify that "admitted tribal biases" comment. Because it sounds like a thinly-veiled way of saying "I"m not the racist, you're the racist", an attempt at Whataboutism to defend the indefensible. But tell me: what "tribal biases" have I "admitted" to that you feel are sufficient to justify automatically dismissing an example of racism as widely-known and easily-identified as cross-burning or "n*gger" as just a "nitpick", simply because I said it?

You've allied yourself with the socialy progressive liberal Democrat tribe. The theater tribe. The SDN tribe. If you were a sports fan I could add that tribe as well.

That you've never heard the term used in this way or simply failed to connect the dots isn't shocking given that you work in theater and we're up in arms about the mysoginy of a well known and oft used Shakespeare quote.

Edit: I think it speaks volumes about how deep this problem goes that even on a generally Leftist board like this one, half the posts in this thread have been some attempt to excuse classic anti-Semitic tropes or explain why they're not so bad. I guess seventy years is all it takes to forget, huh?

Everything must be left or right with you. No room for nuance or disagreement.

[The Romulan Republic]

So because I'm a liberal (and work in theatre/post on this board, apparently), any criticism of racism on my part must just be biased? And you can dismiss any argument I make out of hand?

Guess you've decided to align yourself with the Alt. Reich tribe.

Reported for lying, vendetta, and racism.



(Also, this is off-topic, and a shameful distraction from the very serious issue which we should be discussing, and it should really go without saying, but since lies about me have a way of gaining traction on this board:

Posting on this board is something that I do in spare time. I am under no obligation to immediately respond to Jub's posts ahead of any other posts or anything else I might have to do in my life, and I am not going to make the time when half of his posts amount to harassing me (for which behaviour Jub has been repeatedly warned by the mods in just the last couple of months.)

[Solauren]

Well, that and... is it just me, or do the noses on those figures look really exaggerated?

Exaggerating facial features is a common tactic for political cartoons. Especially on those with big noses (as it conveys they are liars, ala Pinocho) Without the religious iconography, they become 'ha-ha, look at trumps nose'. With it.... (Shrugs)

Don't pretend like you don't know that the exaggerated noses are a classic anti-Semitic stereotype.

Read my last line carefully, and allow me to clarify.

Without the religious iconography (Clearly Jewish), the cartoon could be taken as 'mocking trumps nose'.
(much like Jean Christian's (former Prime Minister of Canada)nose, and indeed entire appearance was mocked in political cartoons, and he was clearly NOT Jewish. Same with Brian Mulroney (former Prime Minister of Canada), Mike Harris (former Primer of Ontario).

With the Religious Iconography, however, it's clearly mocking/making use of the Jewish Sterotypes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Exaggerating facial features is a common tactic for political cartoons. Especially on those with big noses (as it conveys they are liars, ala Pinocho) Without the religious iconography, they become 'ha-ha, look at trumps nose'. With it.... (Shrugs)

Don't pretend like you don't know that the exaggerated noses are a classic anti-Semitic stereotype.

Read my last line carefully, and allow me to clarify.

Without the religious iconography (Clearly Jewish), the cartoon could be taken as 'mocking trumps nose'.
(much like Jean Christian's (former Prime Minister of Canada)nose, and indeed entire appearance was mocked in political cartoons, and he was clearly NOT Jewish. Same with Brian Mulroney (former Prime Minister of Canada), Mike Harris (former Primer of Ontario).

With the Religious Iconography, however, it's clearly mocking/making use of the Jewish Sterotypes.

Fair enough. And I want to be quite clear that I am not accusing you personally of anything.

I retract nothing I said regarding Jub's posts, however, because that iconography is there, the significance of it, and of the enlarged noses, seems to me quite clear, and Jub's defense of it by ad hominem is as dishonest as it is repellent (and also part of a pattern of thread-derailment and ad hominem for which he has been repeatedly warned).

[Elheru Aran]

Exaggerating facial features is a common tactic for political cartoons. Especially on those with big noses (as it conveys they are liars, ala Pinocho) Without the religious iconography, they become 'ha-ha, look at trumps nose'. With it.... (Shrugs)

Don't pretend like you don't know that the exaggerated noses are a classic anti-Semitic stereotype.

Read my last line carefully, and allow me to clarify.

Without the religious iconography (Clearly Jewish), the cartoon could be taken as 'mocking trumps nose'.
(much like Jean Christian's (former Prime Minister of Canada)nose, and indeed entire appearance was mocked in political cartoons, and he was clearly NOT Jewish. Same with Brian Mulroney (former Prime Minister of Canada), Mike Harris (former Primer of Ontario).

With the Religious Iconography, however, it's clearly mocking/making use of the Jewish Sterotypes.

I will concur with Solauren. There are various conventions in caricature, such as the simple exaggeration of distinctive features. Richard Nixon was frequently depicted with a long nose and large jowls, for example:



Of course, the cartoon is objectionable for other reasons that give other connotations to the artwork.

[Gandalf]

We all know what the "Jewish nose" signifies,

It signifies about as much as drawing big ears on Obama did. Jack shit unless you were already tuned into the same frequency as the dog whistle.

What does that mean?

[The Romulan Republic]

There's really no point in trying to parse Jub's bullshit, and I no longer care to try.

Don't pretend like you don't know that the exaggerated noses are a classic anti-Semitic stereotype.

Read my last line carefully, and allow me to clarify.

Without the religious iconography (Clearly Jewish), the cartoon could be taken as 'mocking trumps nose'.
(much like Jean Christian's (former Prime Minister of Canada)nose, and indeed entire appearance was mocked in political cartoons, and he was clearly NOT Jewish. Same with Brian Mulroney (former Prime Minister of Canada), Mike Harris (former Primer of Ontario).

With the Religious Iconography, however, it's clearly mocking/making use of the Jewish Sterotypes.

I will concur with Solauren. There are various conventions in caricature, such as the simple exaggeration of distinctive features. Richard Nixon was frequently depicted with a long nose and large jowls, for example:



Of course, the cartoon is objectionable for other reasons that give other connotations to the artwork.

Giving a Jew an exaggerated nose would probably be unwise in any context, due to the historical context/connotations (kind of like its a bad idea for a white person to address a black male as "boy", for example, even though the word is not inherently offensive). But exaggerated features are a pretty common trope of political cartoons, and giving Trump one is obviously not, by itself, a sign of racism.

Its the other elements of this cartoon which make the racist connotations clear. But since those other elements are present, the racist connotations are pretty clear, and ought to be called out.

[Elheru Aran]

We all know what the "Jewish nose" signifies,

It signifies about as much as drawing big ears on Obama did. Jack shit unless you were already tuned into the same frequency as the dog whistle.

What does that mean?

Not Jub, but from one standpoint: an easily caricaturized physical feature. From another: tasteless mockery. A number of cartoons used it to refer to the increased surveillance of citizens. GWB was also frequently caricaturized with large ears. Other attributes can be part of the caricature; FDR's cigarette holder, Teddy Roosevelt's 'Big Stick', Winston Churchill's resemblance to an English bulldog, and so forth. Ultimately the context of the political cartoon is as important as the image, unless the image is so blatantly obnoxious that it overrides the context and message that is being attempted, such as (for example) depicting Obama as an ape.