Article

2003-11-26 Fifth Column

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Atrus 2003-11-26 12:20:38 PM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 May I ask in what way this cartoon is "pro-Holocaust"?

Or don't we even need to pretend about caring about the truth anymore?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-26 12:36:15 PM|| 2003-11-26 12:36:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I know it's tough for Europeans to see, but pushing the blood libel is definitely pro-Holocaust.

And, no, Europeans don't need to pretend anymore. We're well aware you don't care about the truth.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-26 1:14:48 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-26 1:14:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I think Aris is technically correct.

If the cartoonist depicted Jews being killed and advocated it as good or right for society, that would be pro-Holocaust as well as obviously anti-Semitic. This cartoon is definitley Anti-Sharon though. I'm not saying the cartoonist is not anti-Semitic (I'd have to know more about him or be in his head so to speak), but being Anti-Sharon does not make one automatically Anti-Semitic. Just as those who are Anti-Bush are not automatically Anti-American. Just as those of us who think affirmative action is a total f*cking joke are not also racists. Though some people in all the cases I just listed are definitely both. For example, my Dad hates Bush but loves the country and is former mil & for the troops 100%.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-26 1:54:13 PM|| 2003-11-26 1:54:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 "Pro-Holocaust"??? I was un aware that the Palestinians were responsible for that. I think that the point of this political commentary is being overlooked.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-26 2:41:00 PM|| 2003-11-26 2:41:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Anon -- the Palestinians wish to have another one.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-26 3:06:21 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-26 3:06:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Anonymous, I agree. This cartoonist might also be just an asshole.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-26 3:06:33 PM|| 2003-11-26 3:06:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Aris, it's clearly anti-Semitic in that it repeats the "blood libel": that Jews murder non-Jewish children and drink their blood/consume them. The Arab press and media has used this libel frequently over the years to whip up anti-Jewish/Israel sentiment.

Given that a special subject of their ire in recent years has been Mr. Sharon, what the cartoonist did was (IMO, of course) truly reprehensible: he combined the vitriol Euros/Arabs have against Mr. Sharon with the blood libel to create that cartoon.

As RC notes, the Palestinians wish for a 2nd Holocaust (please don't deny this, it's been expressed by many, many Palestinians in many forums). One doesn't have to stretch one's mind too far to see how this cartoon, by using Sharon and the blood libel, feeds into that.

Anon: we get the point. The cartoonist uses the blood libel to depict Israelis as butchers of Palestinian children. It's anti-Semitic on its face. We get it.

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-26 3:13:29 PM|| 2003-11-26 3:13:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 "Aris, it's clearly anti-Semitic in that it repeats the "blood libel": that Jews murder non-Jewish children and drink their blood/consume them."

No, it's clearly anti-Sharon in that it says that Sharon murders non-Jewish children and eats them alive.

Robert> If you've lost so much sense of the meaning of the words that you'll call this cartoon pro-Holocaust, then you've simply lost all credibility whatsoever. But that's nothing new for you, I guess.

Jarhead> You are behind on things - being anti-Bush definitely makes one anti-American according to 99% of the people in this forum, just as being anti-Sharon makes you an antisemite and a supporter of the Holocaust.

It's only when you *actually* say things like "All Muslims are our enemies" that you won't be called a genocidal maniac here. You *will* be called a genocidal maniac if you simply disagree with Sharon's policies on the Palestinian issue.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-26 3:23:24 PM|| 2003-11-26 3:23:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 The Palestinians "wish" for a second Holocaust, but since they totally lack the means. It's sort of like me wishing I was a billionaire, and just about as likely.

On the other hand, the Jews in Israel know all about the Holocaust, and manifestly have the means to bring about another one. Only this time they would be on the giving end rather than the receiving one. By reasonable estimate, they have between two and four hundred thermonuclear weapons, enough to kill approximately a third to a half of the arabic population of the middle east, and put the rest back somewhere in the bronze age.

It's a good thing for the arabs that the Jews have resisted applying what they know regarding the "final solution."

Posted by Slumming 2003-11-26 4:25:23 PM|| 2003-11-26 4:25:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 put the rest back somewhere in the bronze age.

Hate to put words in your mouth.. but did you mean leave instead of put?

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-26 4:46:14 PM|| 2003-11-26 4:46:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Neither side in the unfortunate political and ideological impasse that is the middle east can cling to any moral high ground. The cartoon is a clever (albeit sad) illustration of the dispicable blood lust exhibited by all parties involved. Perhaps, if either side, for once, were able open their eyes and objectivly see the horrors they commit against each other in a rational light then an honest and intelligent discourse on peaceful resolution could exist.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-26 4:47:07 PM|| 2003-11-26 4:47:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I stand corrected. Shipman is of course correct, although morally the arabs would have to progress up several millenia just to get to the bronze age.

To Anonymous: "neither side can cling to any moral ground?" Please. The jews returned from the diaspora to resettle what was essentially a barren piece of rock and sand, with the English and the rest of the western world fighting them every inch of they way. At least those who were still alive did. Some of my people weren't so lucky. They had the unfortunate circumstance of living in southwest Poland in 1939, and they're all gone. Again, the arabs should consider themselves lucky that the jews haven't done to them what they tried several times to do to the jews. If the arabs opened their eyes and saw the things they had done to their own people and had let them resettle in some of their own vast countries, none of this would have come to pass.

Honest and intelligent discourse with the likes of Arafat? The mind boggles.

Posted by Slumming 2003-11-26 5:05:16 PM|| 2003-11-26 5:05:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

"You must be the change you seek in the world"

Both quotes from Gandhi a man who actually believed in the concept "change" and the possibilty of "peace". Are you implying in your last posting "Slumming" that Israel would be justified in implimenting a final solution similar to the one Germany carried out on your people? Where is the logic in this. How are you any different from that which you so obviously despise if under similar circumstances 50 years later you threating the same thing.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-26 5:22:16 PM|| 2003-11-26 5:22:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Anonymous: I'm not implying that the jews would be justified in wiping out the arabs. I threaten nothing. You (deliberately?) miss my entire point. I'm pointing out the enormous moral difference between the jews and the arabs. The jews COULD wipe out the arabs, but choose not to. If the arabs HAD the ability to destroy the jews, they would do so in a heart beat. I admire the jews for their forberence in the face of great temptation. I have nothing but scorn for the hatred of the arabs.

As for the peacefull solution. The only reason Gandhi succeeded was because he was dealing with the guilt of the British. That doesn't mean he wasn't a great man; it means he was smart enough to know his enemy. The arabs don't think like that. They would have killed him as soon as they got their hands on him.

Posted by Slumming 2003-11-26 5:37:45 PM|| 2003-11-26 5:37:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Point noted and taken. But in all honesty how much forberence has Israel really shown? I'm not sure the current government deserves the admiration you give them just because they haven't nuked the middle east.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-26 5:49:51 PM|| 2003-11-26 5:49:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Want to leave a message on the Political Cartoon Society's message board? You can here. Alternatively you can send them an email here.

The Independent: pathetically low circulation daily bumf and home of John "Bog-rolls" Pilger which makes the Guardian look like an attractive read.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-11-26 5:54:28 PM|| 2003-11-26 5:54:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 I admire the jews of Israel for one thing: they have survived. I can agree or dis-agree with individual policies, but they have survived. "Never again." Not a bad national slogan.

Posted by Slumming 2003-11-26 5:56:13 PM|| 2003-11-26 5:56:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 ...Last year's winning cartoon was from the (you've guessed it) Guardian! You have to scroll down over half-way, but it's on this page. Themes are emerging. And they're not pretty at all. Standard left-wing hatreds and a fixation on the nether regions of the usual suspects. Somehow I doubt this organisation will be proudly opening exhibitions of cartoons such as these in 60 or 70 years time, alongside those penned by genuinely insightful political cartoonists such as Low...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-11-26 6:15:52 PM|| 2003-11-26 6:15:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 If you've lost so much sense of the meaning of the words that you'll call this cartoon pro-Holocaust, then you've simply lost all credibility whatsoever. But that's nothing new for you, I guess.

Oddly, Aris, your comments mean nothing to me. That you are not troubled by a blatant expression of the blood libel just confirms my impression of you.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2003-11-26 6:17:58 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2003-11-26 6:17:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Robert Crawford> A blatant expression of the blood libel would be to say: "The Jews sacrifice Christian children on their altars".

A blatant expression of the blood libel *isn't* "Sharon kills Palestinian children".

Your 'impression' of me means less than nothing when you seem incapable of understanding such a plain thing as "attacking Sharon isn't the same as attacking the entire Hebrew nation".

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-11-26 7:11:50 PM|| 2003-11-26 7:11:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 "attacking Sharon isn't the same as attacking the entire Hebrew nation".

-Again, on that point, I agree w/Aris. I even looked at the picture again because I thought maybe you guys saw something I didn't. And as Slumming put it, one can agree or disagree w/certain individual policies they have, doesn't mean they're anti-Semitic or do not believe they have a right to exist. Quite the contrary, I do support Israel.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-26 7:58:04 PM|| 2003-11-26 7:58:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 To all: if the cartoon had depicted some sort of nameless Rabbi engaged in the same activity (i.e. killing babies, whatever), I would then say the cartoon was definitely anti-Semitic.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-26 8:07:16 PM|| 2003-11-26 8:07:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 My major objection is not the readily-construable reference to the blood libel, but the fact that the cartoon is blatantly anti-Israel propagandist crap. It's odious, asinine, cheap and puerile; not worthy of dignifying with the label "political cartoon". With respect to the image's alleged anti-Semitic or anti-Israel meaning, I find it hard to imagine any other world leader portrayed in this way. Arafat? Saddam? Kimmie? Show me a cartoon from the Guardian or the Independent with Arafat doing something as vile as biting the head off a baby...

Posted by Bulldog 2003-11-26 8:11:40 PM|| 2003-11-26 8:11:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I respect Jarhead's opinion, but point out that to me at least, the 'blood libel' image leaped off the page the instant I saw the cartoon. One can view Mr. Sharon unfavorably without being anti-Semitic, but I don't think that was the intention of the cartoonist. Mr. Brown knew exactly what he was drawing, and it's my belief that he meant to incorporate the blood libel into the cartoon.

I rather like Bulldog's challenge, and hope that Aris can produce such a cartoon forthwith. Aris? .... Aris?

Posted by Steve White 2003-11-26 9:31:20 PM|| 2003-11-26 9:31:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Steve W., I respect you opinion as well.

To be honest, I couldn't find a picture of Arafish, Saddamizer, or Kimmie as Bulldog mentions in the magazines he mentions. Does the Weekly Standard or any other more conservative publications do cartoons? The possibility exists that somewhere someones clowned on the aformentioned asshats. The bottom line is, prolly not in the forum of a big publication as Bulldog mentions or not too the degree of Brown's pic.

Posted by Jarhead 2003-11-26 10:13:55 PM|| 2003-11-26 10:13:55 PM|| Front Page Top

03:16 Lucky
23:57 Dave D.
23:18 Frank G
23:17 Eric Jablow
22:49 Old Patriot
22:26 capt joe
22:13 Jarhead
22:02 Old Patriot
22:02 Daniel King
21:55 rkb
21:31 Steve White
21:28 Rafael
21:24 Old Patriot
21:15 Old Patriot
21:13 Old Patriot
21:07 Frank G
21:03 Fred
21:02 Fred
20:46 john
20:41 Tokyo Taro
20:19 Lone Ranger
20:18 Jarhead
20:13 Jarhead
20:11 Bulldog