NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510678,00.html

Personally, I think that the Nazi symbolism was exactly the point of the thing. It's very poignant. I don't see why everyone is so pissed off, because it's not anti-semetic, it's anti-Israel's-present-actions, with strong, poignant Nazi overtones that help make the point: Israel (according to the cartoonist) is acting like Nazi Germany.

You can't criticize Israel's actions unless you hate Jews, love terrorists, or idolize Hitler. Them's the rules.

You can't criticize Israel's actions unless you hate Jews, love terrorists, or idolize Hitler. Them's the rules.

Apparently.

I'm not really seeing the Nazi symbolism. I guess the sword is of German design? Or maybe I'm missing something obvious.

I'm not really seeing the Nazi symbolism. I guess the sword is of German design? Or maybe I'm missing something obvious.

Soldier is goose-stepping.

Soldier is goose-stepping.

And the way he has the sword raised.

It seems the Simon Weisenthal centre has caught ADL disease. Its an horrific delusion whereby Israel=Jews and Israel=100% correct.

Apparently.

Whats sad is that he's right. The Media is so pro-Israel to the point where if you say ANYTHING Anti-Israel you're screwed. I'm not anti-semetic. My best friend is Jewish. But I HATE Israel, not because its Jewish, but because of its policies and the image it sets for itself and the world. The recent attack on the Sudanese military I was okay with because of the nature of it, but even that is, admittedly, questionable in righteousness.

They ARE fascists. This cartoon, in my opinion, is very appropriate.

The Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish rights group with more than 400,000 members in the United States, said the cartoon is meant to denigrate and demonize Israel.

I think that's exactly what the cartoonist was trying to do, denigrate Israel. Though I'm sure those people would have no problems if instead of a Star of David, it was a Hamas flag.

I agree RhynoD, it's not anti-semetic, it's anti-Israel handling of the Palestianian situation. Just because the Jews suffered in the Holocaust doesn't mean they can do no wrong.

I'm not really seeing the Nazi symbolism. I guess the sword is of German design? Or maybe I'm missing something obvious.

Its the goose stepping, brother.

You guys are looking at this in the wrong way. Finally, Israelis and Palestinians have common ground; being offended by Pat Oliphant cartoons. This could be the beginning of peace in the Middle East.

I'm sorry, I just can't see it. Nice picture anyway, though I don't really agree with what it's apparently trying to convey.

Soldier is goose-stepping.
So, goose-stepping is still used today in Russia, Chile, North Korea, China, Cuba, and Vietnam, among others. Are they all nazis? Most of the countries that used the goose-step were fascist, imperialist or influenced by such nations. I think that's more the point here. Who would be stupid enough to imply that the Israelis are Jew-hating Nazis?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510678,00.html

Personally, I think that the Nazi symbolism was exactly the point of the thing. It's very poignant. I don't see why everyone is so pissed off, because it's not anti-semetic, it's anti-Israel's-present-actions, with strong, poignant Nazi overtones that help make the point: Israel (according to the cartoonist) is acting like Nazi Germany.

If it were strictly anti-Israeli, then using the Star of David, a symbol of Judaism across the world, was a poor choice. Using the Star of David implies Judaism is responsible, rather than Israel. It was a poorly conceived cartoon, to be sure. The point could have been made more explicitly about Israel, rather than the Jewish faith as a whole.

I think that's exactly what the cartoonist was trying to do, denigrate Israel. Though I'm sure those people would have no problems if instead of a Star of David, it was a Hamas flag.

I agree RhynoD, it's not anti-semetic, it's anti-Israel handling of the Palestianian situation. Just because the Jews suffered in the Holocaust doesn't mean they can do no wrong.

This pretty much sums it up.

If it were strictly anti-Israeli, then using the Star of David, a symbol of Judaism across the world, was a poor choice. Using the Star of David implies Judaism is responsible, rather than Israel. It was a poorly conceived cartoon, to be sure. The point could have been made more explicitly about Israel, rather than the Jewish faith as a whole.

Its on the Israeli flag........

So, goose-stepping is still used today in Russia, Chile, North Korea, China, Cuba, and Vietnam, among others. Are they all nazis? Most of the countries that used the goose-step were fascist, imperialist or influenced by such nations. I think that's more the point here. Who would be stupid enough to imply that the Israelis are Jew-hating Nazis?

Bad choice of examples, since yes. They pretty much are Nazis in their own way...

Its on the Israeli flag........

That's not the point. The Christian Cross is on the flag of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, etc. If you saw a picture of a cross with teeth on it, would you think it was referring to those nations, or Christianity?

The Star of David, absent other indicators representing Israel, is a symbol of the entire Jewish faith. The Jewish faith is not universally responsible for the actions of the State of Israel. Hence the offense.

That's not the point. The Christian Cross is on the flag of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, etc. If you saw a picture of a cross with teeth on it, would you think it was referring to those nations, or Christianity?

The Star of David, absent other indicators representing Israel, is a symbol of the entire Jewish faith. The Jewish faith is not universally responsible for the actions of the State of Israel. Hence the offense.

It's not just the Star of David though. It has lines above and below it, practically identically to the Israeli flag.

It's not just the Star of David though. It has lines above and below it, practically identically to the Israeli flag.

The ground and the sky? Yeah, I guess.

Who cares. It's a cartoon. What are Jews gonna do about it? Riot? Call for the destruction of the West? Burn down embassies?

The cartoonist can draw whatever he likes to make his political point. Doesn't mean I have to like it but I'm not gonna tell him not to draw him.

it's anti-Israel's-present-actions, with strong, poignant Nazi overtones that help make the point: Israel (according to the cartoonist) is acting like Nazi Germany.

We all know that Israel has become a rule-by-godwin country. The official policy of Israel is: you don't like what the Israeli government is doing => you're a Nazi and you wish for a new Holocaust.

:(

I dont even know how to vent when things like this happen..

Those poor geese. :(

The ground and the sky? Yeah, I guess.
given that i'm pretty sure most people give up on drawing the sky as a line above people's heads after turning 5ish, i'd say it is entirely plausible that that smoke/cloud is in fact doing double duty.

This is about as anti semitic as they come. It criticizes Israel and supports enemies of Israel.

Israel (according to the cartoonist) is acting like Nazi Germany.

That ALONE is enough to take issue with it.

as a point of historical inquiry, did nazis routinely march around with swords like that? because otherwise all you've got is jackboots and goosestepping, which are sort of generic signs of oppressive thugs since such a large portion of the bad guys last century adopted them.

as for the sword being held at an upright angle like that, well,

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/17/22315948_ac49004ee0.jpg

If it were strictly anti-Israeli, then using the Star of David, a symbol of Judaism across the world, was a poor choice. Using the Star of David implies Judaism is responsible, rather than Israel. It was a poorly conceived cartoon, to be sure. The point could have been made more explicitly about Israel, rather than the Jewish faith as a whole.

Except of course the Israeli flag uses the SoD prominently, unless of course that was the express purpose of the founders to inextricably associate Israel with Judaism so that any criticism of the nation's policies can be dismissed as Anti-Semitism.

http://www.stateofisrael.com/Israeli%20Flag.gif

Except of course the Israeli flag uses the SoD prominently, unless of course that was the express purpose of the founders to inextricably associate Israel with Judaism so that any criticism of the nation's policies can be dismissed as Anti-Semitism.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly why :rolleyes:

already addressed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14635322&postcount=18)

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly why :rolleyes:

already addressed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14635322&postcount=18)

And here's the Coat of Arms, with more religious implications.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Coat_of_arms_of_Israel.svg

Still think it's not a little too convenient that religious symbolism is being tied to the state to deflect any legitimate criticism of its policies?

According to Israel, im an Anti-Semite.

So what, I still dont like Israel. Political Correctness doesnt bother me in the least, nor does ADL, or JDL protesters outside my window.

Still think it's not a little too convenient that religious symbolism is being tied to the state to deflect any legitimate criticism of its policies?

tinfoil hat much?

Here's the coat of arms of vatican city:

http://www.silk.net/RelEd/graphics/429px-Coa_Vatican_sm.jpg

You think inclusion of the symbolism is intended to deflect criticism of its actions as being anti-catholicism?

Here we use goose stepping...And swords...

Nazi symbolism? Why not Prussian or Napoleonic symbolism?

Actually, instead of an SS, I thought of a hussar or something when I saw the cartoon... Nazis didn't use sabers, they did use machine guns...

Still think it's not a little too convenient that religious symbolism is being tied to the state to deflect any legitimate criticism of its policies?

Do you think the same of the Christian imagery in European flags and coats of arms? How about the Muslim imagery in Middle Eastern and North African flags and coats of arms?

Or, perhaps, could they ALL be honest representations of the religious influences present in the respective nations?

That's not the point. The Christian Cross is on the flag of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, etc. If you saw a picture of a cross with teeth on it, would you think it was referring to those nations, or Christianity?

depends. are those nations doing anything and is the cross horizontal? because if so, that is the rather obvious interpretation.

Do you think the same of the Christian imagery in European flags and coats of arms? How about the Muslim imagery in Middle Eastern and North African flags and coats of arms?

Or, perhaps, could they ALL be honest representations of the religious influences present in the respective nations?

Point taken. On the other hand, Israel so far is the most prominent example of a nation in recent history that's encouraging and justifying questionable foreign policy with religious overtones. This piece from Haaretz seems to show one symptom.

IDF rabbinate publication during Gaza war: We will show no mercy on the cruel (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058758.html)

This is about as anti semitic as they come. It criticizes Israel and supports enemies of Israel.

The second sentence is true, but does not imply the first sentence. It's exactly like saying that criticising Zimbabwe is racist - false.

It is possible to criticise the actions of a country without attacking a people group. It is, indeed, common. Arguing that any criticism of a country is also racism against the dominant people group in that country is simply wrong.

Point taken. On the other hand, Israel so far is the most prominent example of a nation in recent history that's encouraging and justifying questionable foreign policy with religious overtones.

.......what?

.......what?

Did you even read the article linked?

Israel has failed to learn from history. Apparently "Never Again" doesn't apply to brown people.

Did you even read the article linked?

Israel has failed to learn from history. Apparently "Never Again" doesn't apply to brown people.

1) are you seriously arguing that Israel is alone in the world for using religion to justify questionable acts, or even the most serious example of that?

2) are you seriously comparing the actions of Israel to Nazi Germany?

1) are you seriously arguing that Israel is alone in the world for using religion to justify questionable acts, or even the most serious example of that?

Did I say Israel was the only one? No. I said "most recent example," unless you want to pretend Gaza was just a hoax cooked up by Hamas.

2) are you seriously comparing the actions of Israel to Nazi Germany?

Gee, trying to pre-emptively straw man with non-existent Holocaust comparisons? This is more like the walk-in through the Sudetenland or the invasion of Poland, but Oliphant didn't draw the cartoon that way just because hee haytz j00z.

Am I the first one who thinks that comparing ANY present-day state or politician to the Nazis is extremely bad taste? When you compare Israel's policies, questionable as they may be, to those of Nazi Germany, you clearly don't know enough about the latter.

http://www.stateofisrael.com/Israeli%20Flag.gif

and for comparison (with distracting elements removed)

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9118/isflag.jpg

Am I the first one who thinks that comparing ANY present-day state or politician to the Nazis is extremely bad taste? When you compare Israel's policies, questionable as they may be, to those of Nazi Germany, you clearly don't know enough about the latter.

And it's naive to assume Nazi Germany was all about the Holocaust and nothing else. There is that whole thing about expanding the Third Reich and World War 2, after all.

On the other hand, Israel so far is the most prominent example of a nation in recent history that's encouraging and justifying questionable foreign policy with religious overtones. This piece from Haaretz seems to show one symptom.

It's comments like this that makes it hard for me to take the opposing side of this debate seriously. Unless your definition of "recent history" is solely limited to post-1973, how you can even honestly say that the other side in the conflict wasn't just as complicit in using religious overtones to justify questionable foreign policy is totally beyond me.

Whats sad is that he's right. The Media is so pro-Israel to the point where if you say ANYTHING Anti-Israel you're screwed. I'm not anti-semetic. My best friend is Jewish. But I HATE Israel, not because its Jewish, but because of its policies and the image it sets for itself and the world. The recent attack on the Sudanese military I was okay with because of the nature of it, but even that is, admittedly, questionable in righteousness.

They ARE fascists. This cartoon, in my opinion, is very appropriate.

as some one who IS Jewish and HAS visited Israel, I feel that Israel isn't to blame, at least not completely. The "power" they have today was given to them by the UN. And its image is that of a struggling country under the sight of a capitalistic system that wishes to control it. funny that you criticize Israel's policies, when the US has been making similar bs policies since Jefferson

And it's naive to assume Nazi Germany was all about the Holocaust and nothing else. There is that whole thing about expanding the Third Reich and World War 2, after all.

yeah, expanding the third reich. By killing everyone who stood in their way. Across Europe.

As well as anyone they viewed as not worthy of being part of their Aryan Empire.

Are you seriously trying to say "well, Israel's expansion is just like Nazis. If you ignore everything else the Nazis did. And the scope of their expansion. And its methodology. And its goals."

It's comments like this that makes it hard for me to take the opposing side of this debate seriously. Unless your definition of "recent history" is solely limited to post-1973, how you can even honestly say that the other side in the conflict wasn't just as complicit in using religious overtones to justify questionable foreign policy is totally beyond me.

fuck "pre 1973". I know "9/11ism" is rapidly becoming the internet's new Godwin, but let's not forget the gaping fucking hole in the NYC skyline where two big buildings used to be. If that's not an example of using religious doctrine to justify questionable foreign policy, I don't know what is.

It's comments like this that makes it hard for me to take the opposing side of this debate seriously. Unless your definition of "recent history" is solely limited to post-1973, how you can even honestly say that the other side in the conflict wasn't just as complicit in using religious overtones to justify questionable foreign policy is totally beyond me.

Oh, it's almost a certainty that all sides used religious overtones. On the other hand, Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that constantly trumpets itself as the shining bastion of democracy in an ocean of oppressive Islamic theocracies. There is that whole thing about standards, where if you claim to have them you better live up to them.

The other side uses the religious persecution card to attempt to deflect criticism of their policies too no doubt about it. The difference is, unlike cries of Anti-Semitism thrown up on Israel's behalf, none of them cow or deflect any serious scrutiny and criticism from the West.

fuck "pre 1973". I know "9/11ism" is rapidly becoming the internet's new Godwin, but let's not forget the gaping fucking hole in the NYC skyline where two big buildings used to be. If that's not an example of using religious doctrine to justify questionable foreign policy, I don't know what is.

Entirely different. The attacks on 9/11 were hardly the foreign policy of any nation.

Oh, it's almost a certainty that all sides used religious overtones. On the other hand, Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that constantly trumpets itself as the shining bastion of democracy in an ocean of oppressive Islamic theocracies. There is that whole thing about standards, where if you claim to have them you better live up to them.

The other side uses the religious persecution card to attempt to deflect criticism of their policies too no doubt about it. The difference is, unlike cries of Anti-Semitism thrown up on Israel's behalf, none of them cow or deflect any serious scrutiny and criticism from the West.

Really? I mean, are you not reading the words you yourself are typing?

Entirely different. The attacks on 9/11 were hardly the foreign policy of any nation.

I disagree. Al Qaeda was funded by, drew recruitment from, encouraged, and supported by the Taliban. To the extent that the two were inextricably linked, and at times it became difficult to tell where one ended and the other began. Bin Laden was, at times, the de facto leader of the Taliban.

Which makes the actions of Al Qaeda, to the extend that those actions were funded by, encouraged, and supported by the Taliban, the foreign policy decisions of Afghanistan.

To the same extent, if we hired a bunch of mercenaries, gave them money, guns, training, shielded them from the law, and then pointed at the Mexican border and went "there they are, go to it lads", it can't really be argued that that's not a decision by the United States, even if those mercenaries don't wear US military uniforms.

Really? I mean, are you not reading the words you yourself are typing?

And look what happens whenever such a criticism is aimed in Israel's direction even on legitimate points? Threads like this which scream "Anti-Semitism" on a reflex. Nobody seriously screams "Islamaphobia" whenever we point out how shitty a regime Saudi Arabia or Taliban Afghanistan are.

And look what happens whenever such a criticism is aimed in Israel's direction even on legitimate points? Threads like this which scream "Anti-Semitism" on a reflex. Nobody seriously screams "Islamaphobia" whenever we point out how shitty a regime Saudi Arabia or Taliban Afghanistan are.

except, with the exception of maybe one or two people here, nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that the use of the star of david, in this instance, makes it unclear at best, and intentionally vague at worst, whether the author is targeting Israel, or Judaism.

And it's naive to assume Nazi Germany was all about the Holocaust and nothing else. There is that whole thing about expanding the Third Reich and World War 2, after all.
As Neo Art said, the "expansion thing" was basically genocidal in nature too. The mass-killing of the Jews was just the most intense and most well-known today. All other European people as well as all the "unworthy" Germans were next in line. See the Nazi "expansion" policy on ethnic Poles, Ukranians and Russians...

except, with the exception of maybe one or two people here, nobody is saying that. What they are saying is that the use of the star of david, in this instance, makes it unclear at best, and intentionally vague at worst, whether the author is targeting Israel, or Judaism.

Unless people are under the notion that the invasion of Gaza was orchestrated by Judaism as a whole rather than just the state of Israel, I find it hard to figure out what can lead someone to that conclusion.

What they are saying is that the use of the star of david, in this instance, makes it unclear at best, and intentionally vague at worst, whether the author is targeting Israel, or Judaism.

what would you draw to make it clearer?

Unless people are under the notion that the invasion of Gaza was orchestrated by Judaism as a whole rather than just the state of Israel, I find it hard to figure out what can lead someone to that conclusion.

presumably, the actual existence of anti-semites who blame everything on the international jewish conspiracy.

of course, that isn't actually the grounds the adl offered. foxman's really really dumb claim is that implying israeli policy is without a head or a heart is what makes something anti-semitic. nobody should listen to that clown, but he is rather influential.

As Neo Art said, the "expansion thing" was basically genocidal in nature too. The mass-killing of the Jews was just the most intense and most well-known today. All other European people as well as all the "unworthy" Germans were next in line. See the Nazi "expansion" policy on ethnic Poles, Ukranians and Russians...

Quite. And I see your location, so please understand I mean no offense by this, but I think people forget what Hitler and the Nazis intended. They wanted an Aryan Empire, across Europe. And they were ready, able, and very, very willing, to kill EVERYBODY that stood in their way.

And the only thing that stopped them was the combined might of The United States, The United Kingdom, Russia, the French and Polish resistance, and everybody else that got sucked into it, attacking from all sides and driving them back into Berlin. And then bombing the shit out of Berlin.

The Nazis didn't just "seek expansion" and had this little holocaust project on the side for fun. The holocaust was part and parcel of an overall, systematic Nazi efforts to eliminate EVERYBODY who stood in their way, and wasn't worthy of being part of their new reich. They just started with the jews. And the gays, gypses, disabled, and political dissidents. Let's not pretend that if the war had gone the other way, and Nazi expansion had continued further, and finish purging the first wave of "unworthies", it wouldn't have been the French and British in those camps.

Unless people are under the notion that the invasion of Gaza was orchestrated by Judaism as a whole rather than just the state of Israel

You'd have a point except for:

the actual existence of anti-semites who blame everything on the international jewish conspiracy.

Are you claiming there AREN'T actual anti-semites out there who are under the notion that the conflicts in Gaza are part of overall Jewish efforts?

You think inclusion of the symbolism is intended to deflect criticism of its actions as being anti-catholicism?

Why not?

Would it be a bad thing if it was?

You'd have a point except for:

And do those people count as a significant majority of the Western media audience? So are we presuming Pat Oliphant was just doing a shoutout to his homies on Stormfront? Seriously, the fact is that any debate on Israeli policies legitimate or otherwise will always be tempered by the lingering spectre of Anti-Semitism of a comparatively small population of the world who believe in such crap.

When the fear of the actions of a few can be used to censor many more, you get...

The War on Terror, amongst other things.

The Red Scare.

Demagoguery to silence dissent.

If somehow the situation had been reversed and Oliphant drew a cartoon with a giant man in a turban or keffiyeh carting a fanged crescent towards a small woman labeled "Tel Aviv," there wouldn't be as much outcry over the depictions.

If somehow the situation had been reversed and Oliphant drew a cartoon with a giant man in a turban or keffiyeh carting a fanged crescent towards a small woman labeled "Tel Aviv," there wouldn't be as much outcry over the depictions.

Yeah, I know. I mean, I imagine, if someone depicted an american presidential hopeful, who was rumored to be Muslim, in traditional muslim garb, in the oval office, next to a picture of Osama Bin Ladin, nobody would care about that.

Nobody would find that offensive. At all.

or, I mean, if someone drew a picture of Mohammed, with his turban turning into a bomb....nobody would find that distasteful.

Yeah, I know. I mean, I imagine, if someone depicted an american presidential hopeful, who was rumored to be Muslim, in traditional muslim garb, in the oval office, next to a picture of Osama Bin Ladin, nobody would care about that.

Nobody would find that offensive. At all.

or, I mean, if someone drew a picture of Mohammed, with his turban turning into a bomb....nobody would find that distasteful.

Danish FTW.

http://www.skierpage.com/images/mohammed_cartoon.jpg


Although, personally I'm more of a fan of Cox and Forkum (http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000771.html) (back when it was still going).

If somehow the situation had been reversed and Oliphant drew a cartoon with a giant man in a turban or keffiyeh carting a fanged crescent towards a small woman labeled "Tel Aviv," there wouldn't be as much outcry over the depictions.

Right, because there's never been an instance of Muslims being outraged by a negative depiction of a symbol of their relgiion in a cartoon. Is your only problem WHO is doing the outcrying?

This is exactly what I mean when I say it's hard to take you seriously. You say things that are completely and unquestionably detached from actual reality.

If it were strictly anti-Israeli, then using the Star of David, a symbol of Judaism across the world, was a poor choice. Using the Star of David implies Judaism is responsible, rather than Israel. It was a poorly conceived cartoon, to be sure. The point could have been made more explicitly about Israel, rather than the Jewish faith as a whole.

The Star of David is on the flag of Israel as well. Granted, maybe using the symbol in that cartoon was a bad idea, but what the cartoon is likely trying to say is 100% true: The government of the State of Israel is, from the looks of it, trying to strangle the life out of Gaza. No matter how many rockets Hamas fires (and Hamas is just as guilty in this problem), they have no right to starve or shoot at the civilians caught up in the middle.

Yeah, I know. I mean, I imagine, if someone depicted an american presidential hopeful, who was rumored to be Muslim, in traditional muslim garb, in the oval office, next to a picture of Osama Bin Ladin, nobody would care about that.

Nobody would find that offensive. At all.

it might have made good satire if the right-wing wasn't even more crazy than that already, and openly so. or maybe if it had been placed in a thought bubble coming from a drooling moron or something.

Right, because there's never been an instance of Muslims being outraged by a negative depiction of a symbol of their relgiion in a cartoon. Is your only problem WHO is doing the outcrying?

This is exactly what I mean when I say it's hard to take you seriously. You say things that are completely and unquestionably detached from actual reality.

and it's not just muslims. There were a LOT of people who saw the Danish cartoon as distasteful and offensive. There were a lot of people who found the New Yorker cover as distasteful and offensive. There were many people, including the President himself, who have said, publicly, that we can't tie actions of muslim extremists to muslims as a whole.

The idea that "if it was a broad brush painting of muslims as violent nobody would have complained!" is not only ludicrous, it's factually wrong, considering it HAS happened and people HAVE complained.

it might have made good satire if the right-wing wasn't even more crazy than that already, and openly so.

I actually found the cover to be pretty clever satire, actually. I rather liked it. But I understand why the imagery could be shocking and taken in the wrong way.

I don't think the New Yorker was trying to propagate the image, I think they were satirizing the more bombastic claims against Obama. But I think it struck a nerve of an undercurrent that already existed.

Quite. And I see your location, so please understand I mean no offense by this
Hey, I'm only half-German, they would probably have purged the living inferiority out of me too.

But almost anyone here agrees with your view and is glad the Nazis were defeated, so you wouldn't offend most Germans by saying such things anyway, as long as you know that Germany and it's culture consist of far more than the 12 years.;)

And do those people count as a significant majority of the Western media audience? So are we presuming Pat Oliphant was just doing a shoutout to his homies on Stormfront? Seriously, the fact is that any debate on Israeli policies legitimate or otherwise will always be tempered by the lingering spectre of Anti-Semitism of a comparatively small population of the world who believe in such crap.
As long as you don't draw comparisons to the Nazis or question Israel's right to exist, you have any right to criticise.
It's not as if Israel WASN'T massively criticised around the world for it's latest Gaza invervention. But if you, as many anti-Israel demonstrators do, feel the urge to compare david stars to swastikas, it's your own fault you are called an anti-semite.

As long as you don't draw comparisons to the Nazis or question Israel's right to exist, you have any right to criticise.
It's not as if Israel WASN'T massively criticised around the world for it's latest Gaza invervention. But if you, as many anti-Israel demonstrators do, feel the urge to compare david stars to swastikas, it's your own fault you are called an anti-semite.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? It's kinda hard to take people seriously who, on one hand, scream "israel is like nazi germany!" while on the other complaining that they're being called anti-semitic.

Because, truth be told. There's really only two reasons to make that comparison. Either you're intentionally trying to demonize a group, society, culture and country by comparing it to one of the most evil regimes to ever curse this world, or you're utterly, truly, totally unaware of just how bad the nazis really were.

So, frankly, if you make that comparison, you're either a bigot, or a fool. So take your pick. Intentionally offensive, or just plain stupid.

and it's not just muslims. There were a LOT of people who saw the Danish cartoon as distasteful and offensive. There were a lot of people who found the New Yorker cover as distasteful and offensive. There were many people, including the President himself, who have said, publicly, that we can't tie actions of muslim extremists to muslims as a whole.

The idea that "if it was a broad brush painting of muslims as violent nobody would have complained!" is not only ludicrous, it's factually wrong, considering it HAS happened and people HAVE complained.

So you're saying that you have every right to dislike the Nazi-Jew cartoon, just as long as you also dislike any other cartoon satirizing anyone ever.

Right, because there's never been an instance of Muslims being outraged by a negative depiction of a symbol of their relgiion in a cartoon. Is your only problem WHO is doing the outcrying?

My focus is on Western perceptions, because at this point in the world, the West is the key global power and the West can ultimately influence Israel's policies- especially the United States. How Westerners see the situation therefore will have the potential to affect the situation. The knee-jerk reaction of crying "Anti-Semitism" or assuming that any strong political cartoon might be motivated in part by Anti-Semitism, or worrying that any criticism will be used by actual Anti-Semites as justification hints that Israel is pretty much coddled and given a blank check on how to conduct itself.

To put it bluntly, nobody in the West gives a shit about how Muslims think and feel unless it's manifested physically and violently in which case it's given extensive coverage as more Ebil Mozlemz lulz.

As long as you don't draw comparisons to the Nazis or question Israel's right to exist, you have any right to criticise.
It's not as if Israel WASN'T massively criticised around the world for it's latest Gaza invervention. But if you, as many anti-Israel demonstrators do, feel the urge to compare david stars to swastikas, it's your own fault you are called an anti-semite.

Now where did I explicitly compare the SoD to a swastika? Where did Pat Oliphant? I didn't see vicious eyes and sharp teeth on the Nazi flag last I recall, and as FS showed, if you removed the key distractions from the cartoon it is a subtle reference to the Israeli flag.

And as a small note, the swastika wasn't created explicitly as a Nazi symbol. It was coopted by them, after the direction of its arms were reversed. Quite a few Buddhist temples in Asia show the original swastika above them, and you can't seriously accuse Buddhists of Nazi sympathies.

And as a small note, the swastika wasn't created explicitly as a Nazi symbol. It was coopted by them, after the direction of its arms were reversed. Quite a few Buddhist temples in Asia show the original swastika above them, and you can't seriously accuse Buddhists of Nazi sympathies.

do you think about what you're saying? At all? How is this even remotely relevant? I think people who draw the star of david as a swastika aren't calling them Buddhists.

So you're saying that you have every right to dislike the Nazi-Jew cartoon, just as long as you also dislike any other cartoon satirizing anyone ever.

And here we have a shining example of something called the 'NSG logic-warp'.

are you seriously comparing the actions of Israel to Nazi Germany?

There are many frightening parallels.

A. That wall around the West Bank virtually turns it into a giant concentration camp.
B. The founding leadership of the State of Israel talked of wiping out the Palestinian Arabs.
C. A good many of the IDF troops make it their personal mission to make life for the Palestinian Arabs as miserable as they can. (Remind you of occupied Poland?)
D. The IDF is using the Hamas rocket attacks to justify turning their artillery and air force on non-Hamas targets. (Remind you of Hitler using the Reichstag fire to justify seizing absolute power to carry out his sick plans?)

Often, when an oppressed group gains a true upper hand, they become just as bad as the ones who previously oppressed them. Another interwar Germany example works here - The French pinned on the Germans something they didn't even start (World War I), sought to destroy them through economic means (those crushing reparations payments), and when Germany gained the upper hand on France, they were absolutely merciless.

My focus is on Western perceptions, because at this point in the world, the West is the key global power and the West can ultimately influence Israel's policies- especially the United States. How Westerners see the situation therefore will have the potential to affect the situation. The knee-jerk reaction of crying "Anti-Semitism" or assuming that any strong political cartoon might be motivated in part by Anti-Semitism, or worrying that any criticism will be used by actual Anti-Semites as justification hints that Israel is pretty much coddled and given a blank check on how to conduct itself.

To put it bluntly, nobody in the West gives a shit about how Muslims think and feel unless it's manifested physically and violently in which case it's given extensive coverage as more Ebil Mozlemz lulz.

That's entirely false: how many articles/essays/arguments/etc. about HOW DAR U profile Muslims because it might offend them have you read? I've read plenty.

do you think about what you're saying? At all? How is this even remotely relevant? I think people who draw the star of david as a swastika aren't calling them Buddhists.

No, the point there was to highlight how bad and ridiculous co-option can be. Just as how everyone assumes the Swastika is a purely Nazi symbol, everyone assumes that cricitism of Israel is inherently Anti-Semetic.

There are many frightening parallels.....are you fucking shitting me?

A. That wall around the West Bank virtually turns it into a giant concentration camp.

Do you have ANY IDEA how bad Dachau and Clausewitz were? Any at all? And a big thing you seem to be missing is, the walls around the concentration camp went all the way around. Not just on one side. Believe it or not, there are other ways in and out of Gaza, other than through Israel.

B. The founding leadership of the State of Israel talked of wiping out the Palestinian Arabs.

While I admit that there were some...extreme elements in the founding of Israel, I will also note that in 60 years...they haven't done it. Despite having more than enough capability.

C. A good many of the IDF troops make it their personal mission to make life for the Palestinian Arabs as miserable as they can. (Remind you of occupied Poland?)

No, actually it doesn't remind me of that, at all. Because while in any military there are bad apples, individual actions of individual soldiers going beyond the line (and, hopefully, being punished for it) doesn't, in ANY WAY remind me of the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation, rounding up undesirables, and shipping them to death camps.

The fact that it seems to remind YOU of it, makes me question your intellectual honesty.

D. The IDF is using the Hamas rocket attacks to justify turning their artillery and air force on non-Hamas targets. (Remind you of Hitler using the Reichstag fire to justify seizing absolute power to carry out his sick plans?)

No, it does not, because while killing innocent civilians intentionally is never a good thing, and Israel deserves condemnation every time they do it, responses to military aggression doesn't, in ANY WAY remind me of attempts to conquer Europe.

The fact that it seems to remind YOU of it, makes me question your intellectual honesty.

Often, when an oppressed group gains a true upper hand, they become just as bad as the ones who previously oppressed them.

That's true, however, that's not the case here. So, bigot or fool?

That's entirely false: how many articles/essays/arguments/etc. about HOW DAR U profile Muslims because it might offend them have you read? I've read plenty.

How many of those are from major, mainstream media sources?

No, the point there was to highlight how bad and ridiculous co-option can be. Just as how everyone assumes the Swastika is a purely Nazi symbol, everyone assumes that cricitism of Israel is inherently Anti-Semetic.

I don't think "everybody" assumes either one of those, frankly. And it's a ludicrous strawman, in the extreme, to try and claim they do.

And here we have a shining example of something called the 'NSG logic-warp'.

I thought it was pretty clever.

How many of those are from major, mainstream media sources?

Plenty. I've also heard plenty from various individuals in the community around me.

To put it bluntly, nobody in the West gives a shit about how Muslims think and feel unless it's manifested physically and violently in which case it's given extensive coverage as more Ebil Mozlemz lulz.

I'm sorry, but I'm finding it impossible to reconcile this statement with what I've experienced in reality, particularly on this forum.

Do you have ANY IDEA how bad Dachau and Clausewitz were? Any at all?

Just the early holding camps, not the death camps. And I believe it's spelled Auschwitz.

While I admit that there were some...extreme elements in the founding of Israel, I will also note that in 60 years...they haven't done it. Despite having more than enough capability.

What do you call the use of the artillery and air force on Gaza? If they sent in surgical strikes to take out the launchpads, I would be much more likely to believe that's exactly what they're after.

No, actually it doesn't remind me of that, at all. Because while in any military there are bad apples, individual actions of individual soldiers going beyond the line (and, hopefully, being punished for it) doesn't, in ANY WAY remind me of the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation, rounding up undesirables, and shipping them to death camps.

The fact that it seems to remind YOU of it, makes me question your intellectual honesty.

So far as I know, they are not being punished for it, either officially or in the court of public opinion. Especially in the latter, they're regarded as heroes for that.

No, it does not, because while killing innocent civilians intentionally is never a good thing, and Israel deserves condemnation every time they do it, responses to military aggression doesn't, in ANY WAY remind me of attempts to conquer Europe.

Hitler's attempt at conquest of Europe was a sick means to a sick end - to exterminate the Jewish people and give the Germans lebensraum. What the State of Israel is doing isn't so different that a parallel cannot be seen.

That's true, however, that's not the case here. So, bigot or fool?

Neither. Someone who won't put up with genocide, no matter who's doing it, why they're doing it, or how they're doing it.

FYI, I don't buy the "international Jewish conspiracy" bullshit. I'm just sick of a country trying to use the past history of some of its people to justify immunity from criticism for doing the same thing to a different group.

Neither. Someone who won't put up with genocide, no matter who's doing it, why they're doing it, or how they're doing it.

Oh god, you're one of "those people". I see no further discussion will do any good with you. Rationality has no effect on an irrational mind.

Oh god, you're one of "those people".

Define "those people" for me, if you will.

I thought it was pretty clever.

Yes, those who completely miss the point usually do find themselves very clever.

Define "those people" for me, if you will.

people who erroneously try to claim that there's anything even approaching a genocide going on in Palestine, at the hands of the Israelis.

You know, fools.

people who erroneously try to claim that there's anything even approaching a genocide going on in Palestine, at the hands of the Israelis.

You know, fools.

Think what you will, but when the history books come out in 100 years, we'll see which one of us is the blind one. Hopefully it's not still neocons from Texas dictating what goes into them.

Didn't I also mention Hamas is just as guilty in this thing? It's their rocket attacks giving the IDF just the cover they need to do this.

Think what you will, but when the history books come out in 100 years, we'll see which one of us is the blind one. Hopefully it's not still neocons from Texas dictating what goes into them.

Didn't I also mention Hamas is just as guilty in this thing? It's their rocket attacks giving the IDF just the cover they need to do this.

Christ...

Think what you will

I do think what I will. And you think what you will. The difference is, one of us is right, and one of us is wrong.

, but when the history books come out in 100 years, we'll see which one of us is the blind one.

I think the blind one is the one who relies on histrionics, blind bigotry, and emotive terms, and ignores the fact that this isn't the Franco-Prussian wars, and we have things these days called "cameras" and "video" and "satellite imagery". We can take moving pictures, with sound and color, and send them via digital signals to items orbiting the planet in outer fucking space. We're capable of getting a fairly good picture of what's going on in the world, and that picture doesn't suggest that the Israelis are doing anything even remotely like attempting to eradicate the Palestinian population.

Think what you will, but when the history books come out in 100 years, we'll see which one of us is the blind one. Hopefully it's not still neocons from Texas dictating what goes into them.

Didn't I also mention Hamas is just as guilty in this thing? It's their rocket attacks giving the IDF just the cover they need to do this.

Pretty optimistic about medical advances then :p

blind bigotry

My problem lies not with the faith of Judaism, but with the government and military of the State of Israel. The two do not represent one another.

My problem lies not with the faith of Judaism, but with the government and military of the State of Israel. The two do not represent one another.

I didn't say WHO you were bigotted against. I'll use the language someone just gave me. "It belittles actual genocides when people call this genocide"

It's quite funny. But I dunno, there's something just not quite right about it.

I didn't say WHO you were bigotted against. I'll use the language someone just gave me. "It belittles actual genocides when people call this genocide"

Exactly.

"Israel treats Palestinians badly" is a reasonable statement. "Israel is actively attempting to wipe Palestinians from the face of the earth" is a ludicrously stupid statement, and simply makes people stop taking the person making that statement seriously.

It does kinda look racist when you use the symbol of an entire race/religion. Unless you explicitly mention that it's about Israel and not all Jews, I can see why people think that's racist.

You know...I really hate this topic. Why you ask? Oh...you didn't...well you fucking should have! I hate it because it's a topic that seems to strip even mostly intelligent people of their critical thinking skills. It becomes a caricature of a discussion. The second someone brings up Israel and Palestine, I tune out...because in almost all cases it means the glorification of the one and the vilification of the other...with a little insincere 'also guilty' thrown in as seasoning.

There was a good post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14342510&postcount=279) a while back that managed to be more balanced...I think it bears posting again. Read. Be honest. Stop using inaccurate and hyperbolic terms. Regain your critical thinking skills and drop the slogans.

If somehow the situation had been reversed and Oliphant drew a cartoon with a giant man in a turban or keffiyeh carting a fanged crescent towards a small woman labeled "Tel Aviv," there wouldn't be as much outcry over the depictions.
Actually there was a large outcry when Oliphant drew a cartoon that was not nearly so offensive, but Arabs were portrayed as insensitive (http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=2415&type=100).

Actually there was a large outcry when Oliphant drew a cartoon that was not nearly so offensive, but Arabs were portrayed as insensitive (http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=2415&type=100).

I kind of referenced that in my initial post here, but I guess because I didn't link an article, no one got the reference.

You guys are looking at this in the wrong way. Finally, Israelis and Palestinians have common ground; being offended by Pat Oliphant cartoons. This could be the beginning of peace in the Middle East.

So Gauthier has even less excuse than usual for not knowing that his "hypothetical" has actually occurred.

It's quite funny. But I dunno, there's something just not quite right about it.

its the little tiny wheel involved.

what would you draw to make it clearer?

The easiest way to do it would be to do what political cartoonists do all the time and write 'Israel' on or near the thing in the picture you want to represent Israel. That's what the illustrator did for Gaza.

Oliphant's an old-school legend in the world of US political cartoons. The cartoon is a fair depiction of one view of Israel's policies regarding Gaza. Seems to me that the yammering about it being anti-Semitic is a bit of a smokescreen.

The easiest way to do it would be to do what political cartoonists do all the time and write 'Israel' on or near the thing in the picture you want to represent Israel. That's what the illustrator did for Gaza.

yeah, but that's like the worst thing that political cartoons do. fucking awful.

Oliphant's an old-school legend in the world of US political cartoons. The cartoon is a fair depiction of one view of Israel's policies regarding Gaza. Seems to me that the yammering about it being anti-Semitic is a bit of a smokescreen.

^This

The easiest way to do it would be to do what political cartoonists do all the time and write 'Israel' on or near the thing in the picture you want to represent Israel. That's what the illustrator did for Gaza.

It's clear by the association with Gaza that the Star of David in the 'toon is meant to represent Israel. One must be a willing participant in either self-deception or just seeking to rile the pro-Israel side to see anything else in that depiction.

The cartoon does not paint all of Judaism as the culprit in Gaza.

yeah, but that's like the worst thing that political cartoons do. fucking awful.

Agreed. That kind of labeling is effectively admitting to your audience that you're not a good cartoonist.

Oliphant's an old-school legend in the world of US political cartoons. The cartoon is a fair depiction of one view of Israel's policies regarding Gaza. Seems to me that the yammering about it being anti-Semitic is a bit of a smokescreen.

^This

Seconded.

It's clear by the association with Gaza that the Star of David in the 'toon is meant to represent Israel. One must be a willing participant in either self-deception or just seeking to rile the pro-Israel side to see anything else in that depiction.

The cartoon does not paint all of Judaism as the culprit in Gaza.

Which was my point, but people are obcessed with "OMG yoo dare compare j00z to teh Nazeez!? Anti Semyt!!!11111111one"

Yes, those who completely miss the point usually do find themselves very clever.

How do you know you're not missing my point? I have a strong suspicion you are.

The easiest way to do it would be to do what political cartoonists do all the time and write 'Israel' on or near the thing in the picture you want to represent Israel. That's what the illustrator did for Gaza.
That's what he HAD to do, since a midget elderly woman doesn't suggest "Gaza" to anyone. The old lady isn't even carrying a rocket launcher.

The problem with cartoon is it's what Scott Adam (the Dilbert guy) calls a "remindsmeof" (http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/chimp_cartoon/). The cartoon is clearly about Israel, but contains just enough other stuff for people to go "hey, wait a second, is he implying what I think he's implying?" (the answer is no). Fault here rests with the editorial staff, who should have seen the remindsmeof parts and discreetly edited them out.

It's clear by the association with Gaza that the Star of David in the 'toon is meant to represent Israel. One must be a willing participant in either self-deception or just seeking to rile the pro-Israel side to see anything else in that depiction.

The cartoon does not paint all of Judaism as the culprit in Gaza.

The question I was responding to asked how to make the cartoon clearer. If you write 'Israel' there is no room for misinterpretation. I didn't suggest the cartoon blamed Judaism, but if you use religious symbols (even if they are on a flag) people are likely to get mad. I never suggested that was right or wrong, just the way things are.

Agreed. That kind of labeling is effectively admitting to your audience that you're not a good cartoonist.

My cursory review of Oliphant's work through Google images indicates that he has used this type of labeling before to assist audiences in identifying the focus of his work . . . so I doubt he would have lost his reputation as an excellent cartoonist if he had chosen address the issue without using the Star of David.

I agree that cries of genocide being perpretrated by Israel may be going overboard and be counter-productive. Unless someone stumbles over hard evidence such allegations should be avoided.

Besides, it's easier to accuse Israel of war crimes and crimes against humanity, accusations that unfortunately may be all too true.

As for the cartoon itself, I had no trouble understanding that he was alluding to the jewish state of Israel, and not Judaism or "the jews". But that's just my interpretation.

It's clear by the association with Gaza that the Star of David in the 'toon is meant to represent Israel. One must be a willing participant in either self-deception or just seeking to rile the pro-Israel side to see anything else in that depiction.

The cartoon does not paint all of Judaism as the culprit in Gaza.

Yep. Same kind of whinge came up before over one in the guardian by Steve Bell, I think.

I think it would upset some more if they one day realised that a lot of the flak isn't because they're (mostly) Jews, but because of what they're fucking doing.

I agree that cries of genocide being perpretrated by Israel may be going overboard and be counter-productive. Unless someone stumbles over hard evidence such allegations should be avoided.


It doesn't help that there's no small amount of censorship and press limitations in that area. Because of the security concerns, of course. Evidence might be hard to come by.

As for the cartoon itself, I had no trouble understanding that he was alluding to the jewish state of Israel, and not Judaism or "the jews". But that's just my interpretation.

That's my assessment too. It doesn't offend me as a Jew.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? It's kinda hard to take people seriously who, on one hand, scream "israel is like nazi germany!" while on the other complaining that they're being called anti-semitic.


There's not any contradiction, there. One can believe that Israel is acting like Nazi germany, without being anti-Semitic.


Because, truth be told. There's really only two reasons to make that comparison. Either you're intentionally trying to demonize a group, society, culture and country by comparing it to one of the most evil regimes to ever curse this world, or you're utterly, truly, totally unaware of just how bad the nazis really were.


Or you are aware that 'Nazi Germany' isn't a snapshot of history, and actually evolved over a period of time, and changed and reformed. If your expressed view of Nazi Germany is somewhere between thugs beating people as heavyhanded 'policing', and the ghettoes and the persecution of the inferior class, there's no inconsistency.


So, frankly, if you make that comparison, you're either a bigot, or a fool. So take your pick. Intentionally offensive, or just plain stupid.

Because people aren't entitled to opinions, and everything really is black or white?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510678,00.html

Personally, I think that the Nazi symbolism was exactly the point of the thing. It's very poignant. I don't see why everyone is so pissed off, because it's not anti-semetic, it's anti-Israel's-present-actions, with strong, poignant Nazi overtones that help make the point: Israel (according to the cartoonist) is acting like Nazi Germany.

I don't think that's actually what the cartoon says.

The soldier is headless and somewhat brutish, and expresses some aspects of dictatorial empire (including, perhaps, Nazi Germany, but the former Soviet Republics work just as well). It holds aloft the 'sword of righteousness', and it lacks a thought process (because it's headless).

The uniform is actually more reminiscent of Mussolini's fascists.

The Star of David is being propped up on a flimsy support, and is not actually a Star at all, but a monster that LOOKS like the star. The wheel says maybe it's not an actual monster, either, but a monstrous machine.

Gaza is a tiny widow, fleeing before the warmachine, cradling a child. The very old and the very young. The real victims aren't those fighting.


So - symbolically, a claim to righteousness, coupled with a lack of coherent leadership, is pushing a warmachine to terrorise the innocents.

It's a warning.

If it were strictly anti-Israeli, then using the Star of David, a symbol of Judaism across the world, was a poor choice. Using the Star of David implies Judaism is responsible, rather than Israel. It was a poorly conceived cartoon, to be sure. The point could have been made more explicitly about Israel, rather than the Jewish faith as a whole.

What symbol would you suggest? After all the Star of David is on the Israeli flag.

OP: Reading the article it mentions a Israeli harassing a small female meant to be Gaza, I'm sure the Israeli army doesn't mind this image considering some of the t-shirts they wear.

But really it isn't anti-Semitic and even if it was well why should it be censored? I really hope those people who are against this cartoon were also speaking out against those cartoons that could be seen as anti-muslim.

I don't think that's actually what the cartoon says.

The soldier is headless and somewhat brutish, and expresses some aspects of dictatorial empire (including, perhaps, Nazi Germany, but the former Soviet Republics work just as well). It holds aloft the 'sword of righteousness', and it lacks a thought process (because it's headless).

The uniform is actually more reminiscent of Mussolini's fascists.

The Star of David is being propped up on a flimsy support, and is not actually a Star at all, but a monster that LOOKS like the star. The wheel says maybe it's not an actual monster, either, but a monstrous machine.

Gaza is a tiny widow, fleeing before the warmachine, cradling a child. The very old and the very young. The real victims aren't those fighting.


So - symbolically, a claim to righteousness, coupled with a lack of coherent leadership, is pushing a warmachine to terrorise the innocents.

It's a warning.

Plus fucking 100 for actually bothering to analyze what the cartoon has symbolized rather than just focusing on one element and going "da cartoonizt iz a NAZI!!!111"

Also, as has been pointed out what Israel is doing in the occupied Palestinian territories is not Genocide. There is no effective campaign at this moment to wipe them out as a people. Indeed, as Neo Art pointed out so succinctly, the barrier around the Palestinians has an opening: away from Israel; so clearly since the conditions are made so terrible in the occupied territories, this would be a campaign of Ethnic Cleansing, since the goal is get the Palestinians to leave. This is obviously much better than genocide, as you can see.

1. Yes, the cartoon is highly critical of Israel.

2. Yes, one can be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic.

3. Having no evidence to the contrary, I do not believe that Oliphant is an anti-Semite.

Having cleared that out of the way, I would just like to make a few, somewhat more personal remarks on hte topic of Israel and Gaza:

i) I note that very few news organisations report that Hamas has bragged about using human shields, and firing weapons from mosques within Gaza.

ii) I also note that very few news organisations called attention to the fact that the UN refuses to send more supplies into Gaza until Hamas stopped hijacking them and diverting them (medicine and humanitarian supplies) to its militants.

iii) If Hamas stopped firing rockets at Israeli farms and then hiding behind the cameras of the international community, then Israel's incentive to launch incursions would be sharply reduced.

iv) I also note, much as a sideline, that not one Arab nation gives its Jewish population (what remains of it, anyway - there's not much left after 60 years of persecution) the same rights and freedoms that Israel gives Arab-Israelis.

I am not claiming that Israel is entirely right (or wrong, for that matter), just that the supposedly "pro-Israel" media is in fact horribly slanted toward the Palestinians.

yeah, expanding the third reich. By killing everyone who stood in their way. Across Europe.

I'm not seeing the lack of disconnect here. Sure, it's Palestine instead of Europe, and while the killing isn't exactly state policy, Israel is giving the green light for the Kahanists settler movements to do the killing for them.

If it were strictly anti-Israeli, then using the Star of David, a symbol of Judaism across the world, was a poor choice. Using the Star of David implies Judaism is responsible, rather than Israel. It was a poorly conceived cartoon, to be sure. The point could have been made more explicitly about Israel, rather than the Jewish faith as a whole.

As a Jew I agree with this statement in its entirety. Just because you hate Israel doesn't mean you hate Jews its like saying because you hate Germany you hate beer.

The second sentence is true, but does not imply the first sentence. It's exactly like saying that criticising Zimbabwe is racist - false.

It is possible to criticise the actions of a country without attacking a people group. It is, indeed, common. Arguing that any criticism of a country is also racism against the dominant people group in that country is simply wrong.

I do not see how you can compare Israel to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe replaced South Africs as the most racist government on Earth. In Israel there are Arabs in the Gaza who are the enemies of Israel. Israel is the Jewish homeland and the refuge of the Jewish people. There are plenty of Arab countries. It is ok to be critical of Israel on any point other than its security issues.

I do not see how you can compare Israel to Zimbabwe.

In racism? Maybe the difference in the exact manifestation of it, but we did see Israels courts kick out Israeli citizens of Arab descent out of their legitimately owned homes to award them to Jewish squatters. And then there was that bit where Jewish rioters were not charged with rioting but the Israeli Arabic dude they attacked was charged instead for, of all things, offending religious sensibilities for driving a car.

And this isn't even going into that mess that is the land theft that they just keep on doing even now.

Let's face it. The Israeli government and a significant portion of its populace consists of some of the worst kind of racists.

I'm not seeing the lack of disconnect here.

I know you're not. And that's precisely your problem.

You should. The fact that you don't raises some serious questions about your intellectual honesty and biases.

This is about as anti semitic as they come. It criticizes Israel and supports enemies of Israel.

Israel is a murderous, psychopathic toy state that harms the Jewish religion more than Hitler ever did.

It's not anti-semitic to criticize Israel.

It is ok to be critical of Israel on any point other than its security issues.

Israel is acting like Hitler in its security issues.

Gee, whaddaya know? It's ALSO okay to criticize Israel on that.

Israel is acting like Hitler in its security issues.

It's invading Poland?

Seriously people, the whole Israeli/Nazi comparison are not only ridiculous and flat out wrong, but also damage the efforts to hold the Israeli government to account by providing pro-Israeli supporters with a easy smokescreen to confuse the issue. Afterall, It's easier to argue against this ludicrous characterization than it is to genuinely provide a defense for their aggressive expansionist policies. It's in your own intrest to stop saying things like this.

It's invading Poland?

Seriously people, the whole Israeli/Nazi comparison are not only ridiculous and flat out wrong, but also damage the efforts to hold the Israeli government to account by providing pro-Israeli supporters with a easy smokescreen to confuse the issue. It's easier to argue against this ludicrous characterization than it is to genuinely provide a defense for their aggressive expansionist policies. It's in your own intrest to stop saying things like this.

I used it to make a point: I'm free to criticize Israel as I please, regardless of what GF says. What's he gonna do? But I can equally make said point by saying Israel is acting like the worst demons in Hell.

>.>

<.<

*Writes DD's name on a notebook*

<.<

*Writes DD's name on a notebook*

:eek::p

:eek::p

I will be the god of the new world! :p

I will be the god of the new world! :p

Not before I take this potato chip.... (http://vodpod.com/watch/1040054-ill-take-a-potato-chip-and-eat-it)

*Cue epic music*

I used it to make a point: I'm free to criticize Israel as I please
And everyone else is equally free to tell you when your statements are ignorant and assholish.

And everyone else is equally free to tell you when your statements are ignorant and assholish.

I make a living on the word. I will react to anyone saying I can't criticize X or Y by making a criticism - and a BIG-ASS one.

The Government of Israel is abusing the Palestinians just like a pedophile would abuse a kid.

The Government of Israel is doing its best to earn every single suicide bombing Israel gets.

See?

I make a living on the word. I will react to anyone saying I can't criticize X or Y by making a criticism - and a BIG-ASS one.

The Government of Israel is abusing the Palestinians just like a pedophile would abuse a kid.

The Government of Israel is doing its best to earn every single suicide bombing Israel gets.

See?

Yes, we see how petty you are. Congratulations.

I make a living on the word. I will react to anyone saying I can't criticize X or Y by making a criticism - and a BIG-ASS one.

The Government of Israel is abusing the Palestinians just like a pedophile would abuse a kid.

The Government of Israel is doing its best to earn every single suicide bombing Israel gets.

See?

I would be modded if I told you even 1% of how I feel about those terrible statements.

I would be modded if I told you even 1% of how I feel about those terrible statements.

Yeah, yeah.

Moving right along...

I know you're not. And that's precisely your problem.

You should. The fact that you don't raises some serious questions about your intellectual honesty and biases.

The fact that you keep saying this like this, raises some serious questions about your intellectual honesty and biases.

Wow. That's easy!

Not before I take this potato chip.... (http://vodpod.com/watch/1040054-ill-take-a-potato-chip-and-eat-it)

*Cue epic music*

What Do You Mean It's Not Awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitle8px80d2wm3pd?from=Main.WhatDoYouMeanItsNotAwesome)

The fact that you keep saying this like this, raises some serious questions about your intellectual honesty and biases.

Wow. That's easy!

And fun!:D

The fact that you keep saying this like this, raises some serious questions about your intellectual honesty and biases.

Wow. That's easy!

Bullshit.

Perhaps someone whose main argument is a throwaway one-liner shouldn't be so harsh on other people's throwaway one-liners.

It's invading Poland?

Seriously people, the whole Israeli/Nazi comparison are not only ridiculous and flat out wrong, but also damage the efforts to hold the Israeli government to account by providing pro-Israeli supporters with a easy smokescreen to confuse the issue. Afterall, It's easier to argue against this ludicrous characterization than it is to genuinely provide a defense for their aggressive expansionist policies. It's in your own intrest to stop saying things like this.

As we've already seen in this thread, and in the article this thread formed around, the Israeli government doesn't NEED a smokescreen, because the minute someone says something critical of Israel's policy, 100 voices regurgitate "anti-semitic".

As you point out, screaming about the comparisons (right or wrong) to Nazi aggressive expansionism IS functionally obscuring the fact that there IS a legitimate point being made - Israel's aggressive expansionism.

The reason WHY people make the Nazi comparison is obvious - it's hard to accept that the people who were the victims of oppression and aggressive expansionism just a few years ago, are the perpetrators of oppression and aggressive expansionism, now.

We've seen the same kind of outrage when Black voters overwhelmingly voted to strip gay couples of legitimacy.

So - the HYSTERICAL response, is the one that cries about Auschwitz, and stormtroopers, and genocide - that's not the point of the comparison. The point of the comparison is that you expect better from a nation that is still talking about it's own history as a victim.

Bullshit.

Perhaps someone whose main argument is a throwaway one-liner shouldn't be so harsh on other people's throwaway one-liners.


There's not any contradiction, there. One can believe that Israel is acting like Nazi germany, without being anti-Semitic.



Or you are aware that 'Nazi Germany' isn't a snapshot of history, and actually evolved over a period of time, and changed and reformed. If your expressed view of Nazi Germany is somewhere between thugs beating people as heavyhanded 'policing', and the ghettoes and the persecution of the inferior class, there's no inconsistency.



Because people aren't entitled to opinions, and everything really is black or white?

I don't think that's actually what the cartoon says.

The soldier is headless and somewhat brutish, and expresses some aspects of dictatorial empire (including, perhaps, Nazi Germany, but the former Soviet Republics work just as well). It holds aloft the 'sword of righteousness', and it lacks a thought process (because it's headless).

The uniform is actually more reminiscent of Mussolini's fascists.

The Star of David is being propped up on a flimsy support, and is not actually a Star at all, but a monster that LOOKS like the star. The wheel says maybe it's not an actual monster, either, but a monstrous machine.

Gaza is a tiny widow, fleeing before the warmachine, cradling a child. The very old and the very young. The real victims aren't those fighting.


So - symbolically, a claim to righteousness, coupled with a lack of coherent leadership, is pushing a warmachine to terrorise the innocents.

It's a warning.
Yes, we see how petty you are. Congratulations.

What an argument that is completely backed up by the arguments made by GnI in this thread, and your long, insightful posts on the matter! I agree entirely.

After reading this thread, what I need is an Antiemetic cartoon.

After reading this thread, what I need is an Antiemetic cartoon.

A-fucking-men. Or whatever you jews say.

Bullshit.

Perhaps someone whose main argument is a throwaway one-liner shouldn't be so harsh on other people's throwaway one-liners.

The fact that I did what others SHOULD have done, and actually dissected the imagery of the cartoon (in a post a little longer than one line) must have flown below your radar.

Neo has taken a very strong stand on this particular issue. I happen to think he's wrong, for several reasons. I've explained my thoughts in a more detailed fashion, elsewhere in this thread. What I haven't done, is stated my opinion, and then accused any other position of being intellectually dishonest or evidence of bias - because I think that would be intellectually dishonest.

But, if you want to leap to Neo's defence, and protect his 'right' to tell others they are intellectually dishonest simply for not agreeing with him - and if you want to use my history of curt responses in OTHER threads (i.e. NOT this one) as your 'justification', then feel free. I'll attach to it all the significance it deserves.

A-fucking-men. Or whatever you jews say.

אמן

Probably.

א-fucking-מן.

Fixed. :D

After reading this thread, what I need is an Antiemetic cartoon.

Just take any of the Ebil Mozlem cartoons out there and just retouch them to look Jewish.

You can't criticize Israel's actions unless you hate Jews, love terrorists, or idolize Hitler. Them's the rules.

^^^This

/thread

You can't criticize Israel's actions unless you hate Jews, love terrorists, or idolize Hitler. Them's the rules.

There's our next reality television hit.

Aryan Idol

Fixed. :D

I thought about that, but couldn't work out any way to get the 'English' text to sit right. :)