WEST PALM BEACH: The past couple weeks have seen much controversy involving Israel: elections and coalitions; an unconfirmed report of a blast at the Iranian nuclear facility; Israeli airstrikes on the Syria-Lebanon border; and most interestingly, a cartoon depicting the reelected Benjamin “Bibi" Netanyahu in London-based weekly The Times. Although The Times commands the respect of most readers, the cartoon sparked a feverish debate about its integrity. Gerald Scarfe, a well-known political cartoonist at The Times, drew a depiction of Bibi building a wall with what appears to be blood as mortar and Palestinians in obvious pain tightly wedged between the bricks. It almost goes without saying that outrage ensued, among both Jews and non-Jews alike. I will proceed to list and dismantle each of the main points of contention that have surfaced in the media this week. The usual suspects came out and decried the cartoon as classic Nazi Germany-style anti-Semitic propaganda: they pointed to Bibi's elongated nose, exaggerated ears, grotesque brow, and hunched posture. Others described Bibi's action of building a wall on Palestinians is factually incorrect, and proceeded to point to the caption: “Will cementing peace continue?" The argument that this was somehow a double standard against Israel and that publishing inaccurate information about Israeli policy is inherently anti-Semitic. Then there was the issue of blood being used as mortar. One article read, “This is the quintessence of blood libel." The Inquisitor published a piece titled “Rupert Murdoch's Sunday Times Commits Blood Libel: Publishes Vile Anti-Jewish Cartoon." Blood libel is an accusation directed against religious sects, most often Jews, for drinking the blood of innocent children belonging to different religious sects. It has been used in the past as a way of inciting outrage and often violence against minority religious sects throughout the world. In most regions, especially in the West, it is considered a serious offense and a violation of religious tolerance. Others complained that the cartoon was published on international Holocaust Remembrance Day, arguing that it showed an incredible lack of judgment on the editor's part (and some went as far as blaming owner Rupert Murdoch). This argument says that many people across the world, especially younger generations, are unaware of the horrifying suffering of European Jewry: a past that was culminated in the near extermination of the entire Jewish population after six million innocent people were slaughtered in concentration camps and ghettos by Adolph Hitler and his Nazi regime. People were inclined to voice their outrage at this level of “insensitivity." A friend, in a personal conversation, stated the opinion that Bibi is the Prime Minister of Israel, implying that he is the de facto representative of over five million Jews in Israel and essentially, another seven to eight million in the Diaspora. Therefore, any criticism of him is essentially a criticism of the entire Jewish population, the very definition of anti-Semitism. This point was the most shocking to me and my hope was that his view was not a common one. So, I browsed some of the comment sections on articles about the cartoon and various other social media sites. As it turns out, in this case, many people had the same opinion as my friend. Though many of the criticisms were unpolished, the above seems to represent the main currents against this cartoon. The following is an attempt at debunking these remarks, simply due to my outrage at others' outrage. First, on the matter of the cartoon being reminiscent of anti-Semitic and inciting propaganda from the past: they simply do not look alike. The nose on Bibi is drawn round and plump, hardly similar to the long, pointed and witch-like depictions of yesteryear. His ears are large, yes. I would agree. But, I urge you to examine a picture of Bibi—the man has big ears! As far as his hunched position and brow line, take a look at some of Scarfe's other caricatures of non-Jews. They are very similar and it is easy to argue that this is simply a product of style. It is a shear embarrassment to have to discuss such minutia, but many absurdly require an explanation that caricatures and political cartoons are meant to be provocative exaggerations. Limiting one's artistic ability and engaging in self-censorship is clearly a major problem when it comes to Israel's relationship with the world—yet infringements on free speech are always abhorrent. In respect to the charge of blood libel, no explanation should be required as to why this cartoon does not depict anything remotely of that nature. As Scarfe is a provocative and edgy artist, many of his previous political illustrations depict blood, even those that have nothing to do with Israel. It is not surprising that he used blood in this cartoon, especially considering the amount of blood that has been spilled on the behalf of the Israel-Arab conflict. The date of publication is the only argument with any plausible credibility. It is understandable that on the day that is reserved throughout the world as one of remembrance of Holocaust victims—not just the six millions Jews that perished, but the other five million victims of the Nazi regime as well—there would be groups upset about a cartoon of this stripe. But it stops there. While it is always unfortunate when the media portrays a story and it is insensitive to a group or sect, it does not mean the entire media organization is anti-whatever. In this case, Rupert Murdoch and The Times can rescind their apology and no longer distance themselves from Scarfe. The piece was timely, for Netanyahu had been elected that week and The Times publishes on Sundays. If the editor were to have insisted on waiting until the next week's publication to publish the cartoon for sensitivity's sake, relevance would have been lost. The bottom line being, insensitivity is not equivalent to anti-Semitism. This cartoon will not take away from the importance of youths learning about World War II and the Holocaust, nor will it influence anyone to be less inclined to remember the Holocaust on future January 27s. The last point is also the most important: Bibi is not an elected representative of world Jewry; he is the elected Prime Minister of a sovereign nation that defines itself as Jewish. Because policies only reflect the opinions of those who voted for him and those in his political coalition, an attack on his political policies is not tantamount to an attack on the Jewish people. If Israel wants to be recognized as a legitimate member of the international community, its supporters must stop incessantly equating policy criticism with anti-Jewish discrimination for two dominant reasons. Firstly, less than half of the world's Jewish population lives in Israel, and less than half of Israel's citizens actually voted for Bibi. Secondly, when a nation's ideas are espoused as political policy, whatever they are based on (religious ideology, political inclination, personal opinion), are still just policy matters. Therefore, as long as Israel peddles the same arguments about security and alleged Palestinian incompatibility with democracy, it cannot be upset when there is opposition based on political grounds. If the Knesset would like to change its opinion and state that its current policy is based solely on Judaism and the predictions in the Torah, we can begin to discuss anti-Semitism. It's appalling to see these double standards working on Israel's behalf. Calling the cartoon anti-Semitic is a very dangerous notion for actions that are genuinely hateful in nature. It is a classic example of “the boy who cried wolf" and severely cheapens any future acts of true anti-Semitism. It is another proverbial bullet in the gun of those who actually do hate Jews simply because they are Jews. The European Forum on Anti-Semitism's website defines anti-Semitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." This is also an incredible insight into how unfounded and opportunistic these charges of anti-Semitism really are. BN
