New York Times to cease political cartoons after anti-Semitism row

Man people are thin skinned in this current day and age. Having seen the cartoon, its a pretty good take on actual policies surrounding Israel... But then again, anything criticizing Israel is going to be seen as anti-Semitic...

Why is it if the government of a nation is criticised, it is not interpreted as anti any religion ( if I criticised the Italian government it is not interpreted as anti Roman Catholic, if I criticise the English government it is not interpreted as anti Anglican) but if the Israeli government  is criticised it is automatically Anti-Semitic?

Before any of you start up about how this is legitimate criticism of Israel, and not just anti-Semitism, consider this: The "dog" leading Trump is wearing a Star of David, the symbol of the Jews, not the Israeli Flag, which uses the star as the key element. There is a difference. Not enough? Trump is wearing a yarmulke. That is a Jewish religious item, not an Israeli item. 

"Yes, but Israel is a Jewish state!" 

Okay. Is your problem with the Jews or the State? The answer is obvious.

Why is it if the government of a nation is criticised, it is not interpreted as anti any religion ( if I criticised the Italian government it is not interpreted as anti Roman Catholic, if I criticise the English government it is not interpreted as anti Anglican) but if the Israeli government  is criticised it is automatically Anti-Semitic?

Given the history and the overall connotation, it is highly likely that it was meant to be Anti-Semite, but this is the world liberals wanted to be PC and atone for past and present remarks that were said jokingly or otherwise, we now live in a world where you need 5o be very careful of what you say, because depending on the situation or the person it can be taken fully out of context and you now have a serious problem. Welcome to 2019.

Of course it's an anti-Semitic cartoon. But so what? It didn't advocate violence or murder. It's just a cartoon. At least nobody was killed over it, and no embassies were burned...

I'm not a fan of racism, but I am a fan of censorship even less.

Political cartoons have always been rude to pierce the bubble of pomposity of the elite. If we allow their censure through overly PC sensitivity we endanger freedom of speech.

In the name of freedom of speech I demand the right to be offensive, if you are offended, get over it, you won’t die. If your feelings are hurt tough it doesn’t give you the right to censor my freedom of speech, I am offended and my sensibilities are hurt that you would seek to remove my right of expression.

Anything that goes against the terrorist Netanyahu is automatically deemed "anti-semitic" because they cannot formulate an actual retort. Seinfeld did a great bit on this with Uncle Leo in mind.

You know who you are not allowed to criticise or question......

Very touchy and very powerful, best to ignore them and continue incapsulating truth in a few brush strokes.

I had a look at the cartoon.

Apart from the fact that Netanyahu is nowhere near as cute as the dog he is portrayed as (very insulting to ☆sausage dogs), I found it a good take on The Way Things Are; a low-down character leading a blind and stupid character who tries so hard to please yet thinks he's in charge.

As for insults:

How is it insulting to Jews to identify the PM of Israel using the central item of the Israeli flag?

How is it insulting to Jews to portray the 'what else can I do to please Israel' Trump fitting himself out with an item of headgear that makes him feel one of the crowd? Insulting to Trump, yes (he'll do all he can to ingratiate himself with the people he wants to impress), but not to Jews or to Israel.

While the cartoon is a cutting comment on current Israel-US relations, it's not anti-Semitic.

(☆Mmm, maybe portraying the Israeli PM, who claims to be Jewish, as a sausage dog (=full of pork?) is what people find really upsetting?)

Anything that goes against the terrorist Netanyahu is automatically deemed "anti-semitic" because they cannot formulate an actual retort. Seinfeld did a great bit on this with Uncle Leo in mind.

That comment can be misconstrued as being anti-Semitic, you just made my point again. This is why the NYT is in the predicament it’s in.

I want to see more anti-England cartoons, and i am prepared to pay extra to see them. One that comes to mind could be a snake swirling around a visibly poisoned King who is breathing heavily on his throne. The King is wearing a crown with the US flag on it, while the snake's skin has the colors of the UK flag. The snake is painted with a smirk on its face, and a thought bubble above its head reads: "we have a special relationship, Milord''.

In my experience it's usually very evil people that use the "anti Semitic" card to hide behind whilst they practice their evil acts.

Im thinking watching the fabric of freedom of speech being shredded that illahn was right after all. Watch folks, it's downhill from here on.

@ IloveCoffee

I'll let you in on a little secret: you can see the best "anti-England" cartoons every day in English newspapers like "The Guardian" and "The independent". These great political cartoonists would be fired, imprisoned, tortured, disappeared, murdered and executed in most countries of the world. A wise man wrote: if you tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh first or they will kill you. Unfortunately, even in 2019 this precaution is no guarantee of safety for a political cartoonist in our world's ruthless "Game of Thrones"

Quote: "Why aren’t most American Jews troubled by the Times‘ cartoon? Why were all American Jews horrified by the anti-Semitic shootings at the California synagogue this past weekend, while most barely had their feathers ruffled by the anti-Semitic cartoon in one of the most influential media in America?"

"The answer is that most American Jews, while ethnically Jewish, are ethically leftist. And ethics trump ethnicity — as they should. For most American Jews, therefore, the Times is far more consonant with their ethical values than are Jewish values (if, by Jewish values, we are talking about the Torah and traditional Jewish religious and moral teachings). So, then, when you combine hatred of the right-wing prime minister of Israel and reverence for the left-wing Times, even a Nazi-like cartoon — if it negatively depicts Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump and is published in the New York Times — is no big deal."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/new-york-times-anti-semitic-cartoon-response-leftist-jews/

Lots of hypocrisy about free speech, satire and political cartoons. Everything/everyone's fair game except for 'our' god, queen, ppl, values etc.

Still remember the hypocrisy following the charlie hebdo terror attack; day 1, the anglo world's shocked/outraged i.e lots of "i am charlie', 'nothing wrong with ridiculing Islam', "that's what democracy is all about' etc.

Day 3: 'omg, they also ridiculed jesus, jews, us yanks/poms, our queen/king/president, etc?! what's wrong with those bloody french?!' The same ppl who'd applauded CH on day 1 were suddenly deeply offended/outraged.

Truth is most ppl (not only authoritarians) do not truly support free speech. It's only ok when it's about someone else.

@Cleo

Apart from the fact that Netanyahu is nowhere near as cute as the dog he is portrayed as

Among some large ethnic groups in the Middle East dogs are the lowest, dirtiest animal hence portraying the Israeli PM as one is indeed a commonly recognized insult in that part of the world.

Antisemitism is too antiseptic a term. “Jew-hater” is much more direct.

@ozziedesigner

In my experience it's usually very evil people that use the "anti Semitic" card to hide behind whilst they practice their evil acts.

In my experience it’s the use of “racist”.

Still remember the hypocrisy following the charlie hebdo terror attack; day 1, the anglo world's shocked/outraged i.e lots of "i am charlie', 'nothing wrong with ridiculing Islam', "that's what democracy is all about' etc.

Day 3: 'omg, they also ridiculed jesus, jews, us yanks/poms, our queen/king/president, etc?! what's wrong with those bloody french?!' The same ppl who'd applauded CH on day 1 were suddenly deeply offended/outraged.

You are spot on about those who get offended when their particular tribe, idol or god gets ridiculed.

I’m not sure so many switched to outrage after they learned more about Charlie Hebdo. The selectively offended were offended from the start, and then tried to misrepresent Charlie Hebdo as racists and bigots ( some of this was apparently because they couldn’t understand French and couldn’t understand they were satirizing racism ).

Nandakandamanda nailed it, kinda. Without the Jews America would be a country deprived of much of its best humor and without many of its best writers, artists, musicians, and politically poorer with less liberalism, progressivism and the "S" word that enrages the rubes and religionists on the right.

I’m not sure so many switched to outrage after they learned more about Charlie Hebdo.

Tbf, ppl I knew did. Was still in oz at that time and all/most of my mates/colleagues/bosses etc were aussies, brits, irish etc and 'not easily shockable'. After a few days, most reckoned Charlie Hebdo went too far with some of their cartoons (esp the Pope, Jesus, pollies etc ones). Lots of 'it's not even funny, it's disgusting, what's the point etc". We had some pretty interesting/intense discussions lol.

Imo free speech/satire, what's ok/not etc is a cultural/social value and not everyone's on the same page.

@u_s__reamer

Can you give me some example of "anti-England" cartoons on the independent and the Guardian because i don't remember ever seeing any? I have seen cartoons targeting SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL people within the government and making fun of them, but never the Nation of England in a generalized way the way they do with others.

The reason why you will never see anybody saying anything bad against the whole government or nation is because if they did that, they will be targeted and accused of being anti-British. England is similar to Japan in this way, they are extremely conforming, and have group mentality. In their mind, if you criticize the government, you criticize England. That's why they never do it, they only criticize individuals within the government, but never the whole government itself like you see in pretty much every other country.

Notice how Nigel Farage for example have never in his life said a word against his own government against the things he is criticizing the EU for. He criticizes the EU for being too bureaucratic, but if he was principled, he should've criticized his own government for being too bureaucratic, yet he doesn't. How come? When the unelected Lords proposed a ban on Porn, Nigel again did not say a single word against this. He knows if he does criticizes his own govt. he will be accused of being anti-British traitor. It's a very collectivist society contrary to popular belief.

Netanyahu is not Judaism. Depicting il Douche with a yarmulke is bad taste for sure but still, censorship is not the answer. Trumptraitor isn't Jewish, Christian, any religion except himself. Period. And the same goes for his daughter-wife and his inlaws.

For the New York Times to cease  printing 'political' cartoons is an act of cowardice and cowering, and that's what Donnie Douchebag wants. Netanyahu and Trump are both hateful criminal scum. They and the things they do are more offensive than any newsprint cartoon.

@IloveCoffee

Leaders, like Netanyahu, represent the state/ country they govern because they are the ruling political elite. Ridiculing them is de facto criticizing the country and ipso facto attacking the society and the "deplorables" of all classes that make it possible for such scummy shysters to rise to the top. English political cartoons mercilessly tear into these people, including the Royal Family, which would be regarded as lese-majeste punishable by prison or even death in many other countries. BTW, the golden age of great American cartoonists who lampooned the criminal American elite responsible for the wars in South East Asia has long passed. The fatuous Trump with his potty mouth is certainly the gift that keeps on giving to late-night talk show hosts who are overwhelmed with his funny copy, but American newspaper cartoons are mostly toothless milquetoast compared to the ferocity of the English ones.

I wonder for which fan base the original cartoon was meant, that is, who was expected to praise it. Nazis? Alt-Right? I doubt it. If it had been meant for them it never would have made the paper.

One poster commented that the withdrawal of political cartoons from the INYT was an act of cowardice. The real act of cowardice was to not publish it in the domestic edition. I suppose that was because too many Jews read that one. There are just so many times propagandists can say “We don’t mean you, our good Jewish friends . We mean the Zionists.”

But then again, anything criticizing Israel is going to be seen as anti-Semitic...

I know what you mean. It’s like anyone who criticized Obama was a racist and anyone who criticized Hillary was a misogynist.

@bass: Given the history and the overall connotation, it is highly likely that it was meant to be Anti-Semite, but this is the world liberals wanted to be PC 

The New York Times has pushed the PC speech codes and dog whistle stupidly for years. They deserve to be hammered for their hypocrisy. They never require evidence of anything- just any turn of phrase that they could use to name call their political opponents in order to avoid addressing the substance of issues sacrosanct to their far Left propaganda operations. And yes - the Times is anti-Semitic because they are the propaganda organ for the Democrats- an anti-Semitic political party.

The real act of cowardice was to not publish it in the domestic edition. 

The preeminent act of cowardice by the New York Times was their endorsement of the Piss Christ “art” of Andres Serrano and it’s subsequent refusal to publish the Charlie Hebdo pictures of Muhammad for fear of offending Muslims.

you will never see anybody saying anything bad against the whole government or nation is because if they did that, they will be targeted and accused of being anti-British. England is similar to Japan in this way

Make your mind up, are you talking about England, or Britain? Or maybe the UK? Do you know the difference?

England is similar to Japan in this way

No it isn't. Nowhere near.

If you want to see Brits taking the urine out of the 'whole government or nation', go to YouTube and watch some old episodes of Spitting Images. Nobody insults themselves like the Brits do, and it's brilliant.

Among some large ethnic groups in the Middle East dogs are the lowest, dirtiest animal hence portraying the Israeli PM as one is indeed a commonly recognized insult in that part of the world.

But the cartoon wasn't aimed at 'large ethnic groups in the Middle East', it was aimed at Israel and America, two countries where dogs are not viewed unfavourably.

Though Trump is known to not like dogs, so portraying him as being led by a dog could be seen as insulting to him personally.

The more I think about this cartoon, the better and deeper it gets. Never mind banning political cartoons from the newspaper and disciplining the editor, whoever came up with this masterpiece deserves a raise and an extra biscuit with his afternoon tea.

@Jimizo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aNLTEdGUyw Is this enough basis for you? Skip to the last clip for a good example of what i am talking about.

Like i've said to you last time, not ALL are the same, just the majority of them. But they definitely have an insane collectivist mindset and are very conforming to each other. Including their institutions, they protect each other. I've heard experts say this as well (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG090_YkwMs). They have what is known as Organizational Loyalty, which is the same mindset the Japanese have. The Chinese for example are more family-oriented, wheres the Japanese and English people have an organizational loyalty, if somebody doesn't conform to the norms of an organization, they kick him out, whether he is family or not.

A common trait that you see in England is lying and perpetuation of lies. They have learned how to "win" but making up a lie, then perpetuating it into oblivious by repeating it over and over again knowing others will conform to it and start repeating it too thereby creating a narrative which is very hard to counter once it enters the mainstream. I have personal experience with this, and have seen it more than once. I can give you concrete examples if you want but my comment will probably get removed.

Make your mind up, are you talking about England, or Britain? Or maybe the UK? Do you know the difference?

In all my comments i am referring to England, not Britain. Above i said that if anyone says anything bad of the government, they will be accused of being anti-British. THEY will say that, not me.

No it isn't. Nowhere near.

If you want to see Brits taking the urine out of the 'whole government or nation', go to YouTube and watch some old episodes of Spitting Images. Nobody insults themselves like the Brits do, and it's brilliant.

Again with the lies. Go ahead and give me a link of A SINGLE news article that criticizes the UK government. If you could, copy the link of a YouTube video where you think i can find comments posted by English people criticizing their own government. Again, NOT individual people or party , but GOVERNMENT and/or Nation.

Just few weeks ago there was a massive protest against their government. Who did the protestors target? Who did they spoke against? May, Boris, Nigel Farage. Not once did they utter the word "GOVERNMENT" despite May being elected by the WHOLE GOVERNMENT.

Brits insult themselves? in your dreams maybe, no in the real physical world i am living in. A lot of English people think they are the only ones with self-depreciation humor, when in fact that's a pretty much the norm in every European country, however having a self-depreciation humor is the same as speaking against your country and government. I have never seen anybody does that in England, that's my opinion derived from my personal experience. It will not change until my experiences change.

@u_s__reamer

That's not the case at all. Criticizing the leader of a nation is not the same as criticizing the nation itself or even the whole government.

I don't know about American cartoons but the US media is literally 24/7 screaming against THE GOVERNMENT. Notice the word -- GOVERNMENT. When something happens in America, you never hear CNN saying this ONE guy is wrong, no, they THE GOVERNMENT THIS DID. But in England, saying these words would get you fired, or at the very least it will provoke an insane reaction against the person accusing him of being anti-British traitor. You never utter the words "our government is bad" in England. Never. Prove me wrong.

Given the history and the overall connotation, it is highly likely that it was meant to be Anti-Semite, but this is the world liberals wanted to be PC and atone for past and present remarks that were said jokingly or otherwise, we now live in a world where you need 5o be very careful of what you say, because depending on the situation or the person it can be taken fully out of context and you now have a serious problem. Welcome to 2019.

Spot on.

The preeminent act of cowardice by the New York Times was their endorsement of the Piss Christ “art” of Andres Serrano and it’s subsequent refusal to publish the Charlie Hebdo pictures of Muhammad for fear of offending Muslims.

Those are two acts, not one. It's hilarious that in the same breath you sing about the Times endorsing one piece of art but not another. Are you offended because the former piece of art you mentioned felt derogatory towards christianity?

@anonymous

Among some large ethnic groups in the Middle East dogs are the lowest, dirtiest animal hence portraying the Israeli PM as one is indeed a commonly recognized insult in that part of the world.

@Cleo

But the cartoon wasn't aimed at 'large ethnic groups in the Middle East', it was aimed at Israel and America, two countries where dogs are not viewed unfavourably.

The cartoon appeared in “The International New York Times”. International.

The cartoon was meant to appeal, i.e. “aimed at” as I originally wrote, to Jew-haters around the world. It would seem that the NYT felt the depiction too strong for domestic consumption or possibly didn’t know the editors of the INYT would print it. I am convince even if you aren’t that the choice of portraying Netanyahu as a dog was a deliberate insult. It seems to have gone over your head.

Furthermore, the theme of a western leader being lead on a leash, blindly following “The Jew” is pure Goebbels.

@Cleo

The more I think about this cartoon, the better and deeper it gets. Never mind banning political cartoons from the newspaper and disciplining the editor, whoever came up with this masterpiece deserves a raise and an extra biscuit with his afternoon tea.

I hope your right arm doesn’t feel too stiff.

The cartoon was meant to appeal, i.e. “aimed at” as I originally wrote, to Jew-haters around the world.

I don't see that at all. The one who comes out worse is surely the blind, fat, dumb, arrogant-sycophantic Trump. If we're going for stereotypes, it's 'aimed at' Trump-haters, America-haters or both.

I don't see anyone getting upset about that, yet the slightest indication of a Jewish symbol - the star of David, or the skullcap - and suddenly it's all anti-Semitic.

It would seem that the NYT felt the depiction too strong for domestic consumption

Listening to reports on the BBC this morning, it seems the domestic version and international version are quite separate.

My right arm is fine, thanks.