Why the Cartoon in the New York Times Is Anti-Semitic [UPDATED] [UPDATED]

[UPDATE: The New York Times has announced that it has ended its relationship with the syndication service, Cartoon Arts, that provided the anti-Semitic cartoon discussed below.]

[UPDATE: Scroll to the end of this post to see an image from the 1940 Nazi magazine Lustige Blatter (Funny Pages) showing a Jew leading Winston Churchill.]

Let's talk about the anti-Semitic cartoon that recently appeared in the international edition of the New York Times -- which you can see after the jump. In brief, it depicts a dog with the face of Benjamin Netanyahu, with a Star of David hanging from its collar, leading a blind Donald Trump who is wearing a yarmulke.  The Times has apologized for carrying the cartoon, which appeared adjacent to an unrelated column by Thomas Friedman, explaining that it had been taken from a wire service by a single, unsupervised editor. On Twitter, a Times spokesperson unequivocally condemned the drawing:

We are deeply sorry for the publication of an anti-Semitic political cartoon last Thursday. . . . and we are committed to making sure nothing like this happens again. Such imagery is always dangerous, and at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise worldwide, it’s all the more unacceptable.

On this morning's oped page, Times columnist Bret Stephens pointed out exactly why the cartoon is anti-Semitic:

Here was an image that, in another age, might have been published in the pages of Der Stürmer. The Jew in the form of a dog. The small but wily Jew leading the dumb and trusting American. The hated Trump being Judaized with a skullcap. The nominal servant acting as the true master. The cartoon checked so many anti-Semitic boxes that the only thing missing was a dollar sign.

Other outlets -- including CNN, The Daily Beast, and the Huffington Post -- have called the cartoon anti-Semitic, but there are also some dissenters, including this columnist in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

This brings us to Howard Wasserman's recent post on PrawfsBlawg, in which he suggests that the cartoon of Netanyahu is no more offensive than would be a similar cartoon of Vladimir Putin leading a blind Trump. I have tremendous respect and affection for Howard, who is ordinarily one of the most astute observers on the interwebs, but here he has completely missed the point. As Bret Stephens point out, and as the Times admitted, the cartoon in question engaged an ancient anti-Jewish trope -- the tricky Jew who secretly controls the government of unwitting Gentiles -- which differentiated it from any similar cartoon about other world leaders. The Putin analogy would have meaning only if there had ever been such a thing as the Protocols of the Elders of the Kremlin. It does not take much effort to imagine images of other world leaders that would be readily acknowledged as racist or sexist, but would be okay if applied to Putin.

If that isn't clear enough, here is another example. Imagine a cartoon of Putin-as-Dracula, sucking blood the people of Ukraine. That would be gory, but not racist. Now imagine a cartoon of Netanyahu doing the same thing. Is there any question that the image of a Jewish bloodsucker, preying on a Gentile body (during Passover, no less) would evoke classic anti-Semitism?  I could provide similar examples using hypothetical images of women or racial minorities, but they are obvious and I will therefore refrain out of respect for good taste. 

In response to comments on his Prawfs post, Howard says, "I tend to be charitable in my interpretations and hesitant to hear dog whistles. Especially with Israel and the line between criticizing Israel and criticizing all Jewish people."

But plausible deniability is the very point of a dog whistle. In any case, the Times cartoon is not really a criticism of any Israeli policy. It is an accusation that Israel is secretly tricking the United States. As Bret Stephens noted,

The problem with the cartoon isn’t that its publication was a willful act of anti-Semitism. It wasn’t. The problem is that its publication was an astonishing act of ignorance of anti-Semitism — and that, at a publication that is otherwise hyper-alert to nearly every conceivable expression of prejudice, from mansplaining to racial microaggressions to transphobia.

The cartoon is anti-Semitic for the same reason that charges of dual loyalty -- made by Rep. Ilhan Omar and others -- are anti-Semitic. They are not aimed at any particular action or behavior by Israel, but instead they challenge the participation of Jews in the democratic process. It is ironic, of course, that Omar herself has drawn the same accusation from Fox News, asking if she is "American first." No one should have trouble recognizing that as Islamophobic.

So let me answer Howard's question and his challenge.

Howard asks, "[A]re certain critiques or methods of critiquing Israel simply off limits?"

Answer: Yes, anti-Semitic tropes of secret domination (or blood sucking) are off limits.

Howard challenges: "Describe a political cartoon making the criticism discussed at the top of the post--Netanyahu and Israel are dictating policy or action to a blindly following Trump--that would not be anti-Semitic."

Answer: The claim that Trump is "blindly following" Israel is itself anti-Semitic because it is a false stereotype. Trump is not blind; he knows exactly what he is doing. He does not need to be tricked into sharing goals with Netanyahu, because he is doing it for electoral advantage. The cartoon intentionally exaggerates the relationship between Netanyahu and Trump by exploiting an inherently anti-Jewish trope. 

Here is another thought experiment. Imagine a cartoon with Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Kristen Gillibrand dressed as witches, with peaked hats and black cloaks, using their broomsticks to stir a bubbling cauldron labeled "Democrat policies," with the title "It's a Witches Brew of Bad Ideas." That's obviously sexist, which no one would question. Now imagine the exact same cartoon, but this time with Joe Biden, Beto O'Rourke, and Eric Swalwell. It would look pretty dumb, but it would not be offensive.

Bottom line: The target matters.

Comments

[anon]

"He [Trump] does not need to be tricked into sharing goals with Netanyahu, because he is doing it for electoral advantage"

Whoa! Wait a minute. We are being told by Joe Biden and the Democratic Party Press that Trump praised those chanting "Jews Will Not Replace Us" in Charleston (a lie, because he denounced these persons, and white supremacy in general, both specifically and unequivocally) because Trump's constituency consists of the backward, toothless deplorables of America who are, as "we" all know, Jew haters.

So, Prof. Lubet, how does Trump increase his popularity with his constituency by being known as a Jew lover? After all, his daughter is Jewish, and married to a Jew, he is wildly popular in Israel owing to his numerous actions in Israel's interests (as THE MAJORITY OF ISRAELIS perceive their interests to be), and he is reviled in anti-Semite cartoons in the NY TIMES of all places as a puppet of the Jew.

Sounds odd that he does all this because he is an anti-Semite white supremacist who needs to appeal to his KKK constituency to win reelection.

Yes, that's it! Anti-Semitic folks are conspiring with Russians to induce Trump to pretend to support Jews so that he can undermine Jews! There you are: Trump hates Jews. Knew it. I just knew it. As usual, the MSNBC crowd is right; always right. Trump pretends to love Jews to appeal to people who hate Jews because people who hate Jews know that it is a pretense, devised by the Russians, to fool the Jews!

[Howard Wasserman]

Steve: Thank you for the response

Here is why I do not think the witches' brew analogy works. As you note, that cartoon with male politicians would not make sense. So the choice is between a sexist implication and a meaningless depiction. But the cartoon we are discussing does make sense whether the dog is Netanyahu or Putin or Kim. But only one of those carries historic baggage.

[anon]

Oh, and btw, the freshest, front-running moralistic, holier than thou Democrat (apparently, he doesn't think that folks can google and learn something about the truth), Joe, yes Joe Biden (hold back the laughter for those who know), is about to educate America about ethics and virtue.

The irony of the left trying to twist themselves into believing in anything that might defeat Trump is rich and will be a source of mirth for many in the coming months.

The leftist Jew haters, in particular, will love this:

Biden says he is a Zionist

youtube [dotcom] /watch?v=dbn4i7_CFIM

On the other hand, don't lose faith just yet, oh ye leftist of sincere hate of all that is the Jew! You can watch this clip, that includes both a "shylock" reference to bankers and the "First Sort of Mainstream AA who is articulate and bright and clean ..." referring to the last president. THis is classic Joe.

youtube [dotcom] /watch?v=1NoHm6BKtNk

Of course, Lubet would never call out a Democrat.

The point here is that Lubet certainly wouldn't toss off some casual slur that implies that Biden supports Israel only because he is seeking votes.

See how it works? The enemy is always wrong, always acting for venal reasons and any lie against the enemy is justified. The one we support is always right and pure and clean and beyond reproach and any error was innocent and in good faith.

Lubet, instead of unnecessarily analyzing all the reasons a cartoon that would make any Nazi proud was so obviously an example of Jew hate, why not ask why the NYT published it?

DO you really think it was ONE PERSON and an aberration? "taken from a wire service by a single, unsupervised editor."? Really?

[anon]

"But the cartoon we are discussing does make sense whether the dog is Netanyahu or Putin or Kim. But only one of those carries historic baggage."

My objection is the Trump skull cap. Although Trump is regularly portrayed in the Democratic Party Press (e.g., MSNBC) as a Russian agent, he generally is not portrayed as wearing Russian garb.

Think about how the Democrats wailed when an ACCURATE picture of BO in native African garb was circulated. From the Guardian

"Barack Obama's campaign team accused Hillary Clinton's beleaguered staff yesterday of mounting a dirty tricks operation by circulating a picture of him in African dress, feeding into false claims on US websites that he is a Muslim. David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, described it as "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election"."

Leftists have no problem seeing the problem when it involves one of their own. Obama objected to an accurate photograph, because is suggested a false identification.

And, you can't understand that labeling Trump a Jew because he supports Israel doesn't evoke a false meme? The meme goes something like this: A doesn't hate Jews, per se. A hates "Zionists." It just so happens that all Jew are Zionists.

This meme is propounded by Jew haters seeking to clothe their hate in false legitimacy. This cartoon feeds right into that meme. Trump is a Jew because he is a Zionist; hate him.

[anon]

[UPDATE: The New York Times has announced that it has ended its relationship with the syndication service, Cartoon Arts, that provided the anti-Semitic cartoon discussed below.]

Unbelievable. The left is literally going out of its mind, owing to the eating away of reason caused by Trump hate.

How does disassociating from the source of the cartoon address the problem of having published it?

B suggests robbing a bank. A robs the bank. A is caught. A's response? "I'll never speak with B again!"

This is like the Biden defense to accusations of plagiarism in law school and then again on his presidential campaign (see, nytimes [dotcom] /1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html], to the obvious creepy groping, to his racist and anti-Semitic remarks (see above) and to the bankruptcy bill, to opposing busing(nytimes [dotcom] /2008/09/18/us/politics/18biden.html) and to everything else. Listen and you will hear: "I didn't have bad intentions."

The Democratic Party is now vulnerable because it is incapable of rationale thought about its own failures, prejudices, bad conduct, etc. If it continues to see only the fault in others (i.e., Trump and republicans) and can't rationally address its own copious malfeasance and venality, then the swing from Trump that the Democrats pray for will be to something far far worse.

The focus of this thread should be broader, to see the bigger picture. The NYT is no longer the prestigious "paper of record" it once was. It has devolved into a shadow of itself, almost a parody, just like the Democratic Party it serves.

[anon]

And btw folks, that Democratic Party is moving toward anti Semitism, and everybody who watches the news can see it, plainly.

[r]

Mr. Wasserman, I think your response is exactly the issue in dispute:

"But the cartoon we are discussing does make sense whether the dog is Netanyahu or Putin or Kim. But only one of those carries historic baggage."

I think the issue is how much should the "historic baggage" matter. And the trend has been very much in favor of historic baggage mattering greatly. For example, there is a horrible racist trope which got Roseanne Barr fired. If she had made the same comment about a white person, it would have been in bad taste - but no more than many other things she wrote and said that were in bad taste. What she wrote was racist specifically because of the baggage.

The same logic applies to anti-semitism. The NYTimes cartoon is anti-semitic specifically because of the historic baggage, which cannot be ignored or swept under the rug.