The New York Times is slowly being dragged into the light.
The Times published an appalling political cartoon in the opinion pages of its international print edition late last week. It portrayed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel as a dog wearing a Star of David on a collar. He was leading President Trump, drawn as a blind man wearing a skullcap.
Or kippah or yarmulke or whatever.
The cartoon was chosen from a syndication service by a production editor who did not recognize its anti-Semitism. Yet however it came to be published, the appearance of such an obviously bigoted cartoon in a mainstream publication is evidence of a profound danger — not only of anti-Semitism but of numbness to its creep, to the insidious way this ancient, enduring prejudice is once again working itself into public view and common conversation.
Anti-Semitism, "this ancient, enduring prejudice," isn't "once again working itself into public view and common conversation." It's been here for some time and the fact that the Times thought that going full Julius Streicher wouldn't be noticed basically proves it. Oh, and it's probably better if you stuff the whole "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm anti-Zionist" crap because nobody's buying it.
This is also a period of rising criticism of Israel, much of it directed at the rightward drift of its own government and some of it even questioning Israel’s very foundation as a Jewish state. We have been and remain stalwart supporters of Israel, and believe that good-faith criticism should work to strengthen it over the long term by helping it stay true to its democratic values. But anti-Zionism can clearly serve as a cover for anti-Semitism — and some criticism of Israel, as the cartoon demonstrated, is couched openly in anti-Semitic terms.
But we are talking about The New York Times so it somehow has to figure out a way to work in some blame for the most pro-Israel president this country has ever had, with an Orthodox Jewish daughter, son-in-law and grandkids, for this rising tide of anti-Semitism.
As anti-Semitism has surged from the internet into the streets, President Trump has done too little to rouse the national conscience against it. Though he condemned the cartoon in The Times, he has failed to speak out against anti-Semitic groups like the white nationalists who marched in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” He has practiced a politics of intolerance for diversity, and attacks on some minority groups threaten the safety of every minority group.
It's not there yet. But The New York Times is on its way.
In the 1930s and the 1940s, The Times was largely silent as anti-Semitism rose up and bathed the world in blood. That failure still haunts this newspaper. Now, rightly, The Times has declared itself “deeply sorry” for the cartoon and called it “unacceptable.” Apologies are important, but the deeper obligation of The Times is to focus on leading through unblinking journalism and the clear editorial expression of its values. Society in recent years has shown healthy signs of increased sensitivity to other forms of bigotry, yet somehow anti-Semitism can often still be dismissed as a disease gnawing only at the fringes of society. That is a dangerous mistake. As recent events have shown, it is a very mainstream problem.
A good start. But it still doesn't explain why somebody actually thought that cartoon was acceptable in this day and age or why no one called them on it.
That's your problem, New York Times.
The Times published an appalling political cartoon in the opinion pages of its international print edition late last week. It portrayed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel as a dog wearing a Star of David on a collar. He was leading President Trump, drawn as a blind man wearing a skullcap.
Or kippah or yarmulke or whatever.
The cartoon was chosen from a syndication service by a production editor who did not recognize its anti-Semitism. Yet however it came to be published, the appearance of such an obviously bigoted cartoon in a mainstream publication is evidence of a profound danger — not only of anti-Semitism but of numbness to its creep, to the insidious way this ancient, enduring prejudice is once again working itself into public view and common conversation.
Anti-Semitism, "this ancient, enduring prejudice," isn't "once again working itself into public view and common conversation." It's been here for some time and the fact that the Times thought that going full Julius Streicher wouldn't be noticed basically proves it. Oh, and it's probably better if you stuff the whole "I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm anti-Zionist" crap because nobody's buying it.
This is also a period of rising criticism of Israel, much of it directed at the rightward drift of its own government and some of it even questioning Israel’s very foundation as a Jewish state. We have been and remain stalwart supporters of Israel, and believe that good-faith criticism should work to strengthen it over the long term by helping it stay true to its democratic values. But anti-Zionism can clearly serve as a cover for anti-Semitism — and some criticism of Israel, as the cartoon demonstrated, is couched openly in anti-Semitic terms.
But we are talking about The New York Times so it somehow has to figure out a way to work in some blame for the most pro-Israel president this country has ever had, with an Orthodox Jewish daughter, son-in-law and grandkids, for this rising tide of anti-Semitism.
As anti-Semitism has surged from the internet into the streets, President Trump has done too little to rouse the national conscience against it. Though he condemned the cartoon in The Times, he has failed to speak out against anti-Semitic groups like the white nationalists who marched in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” He has practiced a politics of intolerance for diversity, and attacks on some minority groups threaten the safety of every minority group.
It's not there yet. But The New York Times is on its way.
In the 1930s and the 1940s, The Times was largely silent as anti-Semitism rose up and bathed the world in blood. That failure still haunts this newspaper. Now, rightly, The Times has declared itself “deeply sorry” for the cartoon and called it “unacceptable.” Apologies are important, but the deeper obligation of The Times is to focus on leading through unblinking journalism and the clear editorial expression of its values. Society in recent years has shown healthy signs of increased sensitivity to other forms of bigotry, yet somehow anti-Semitism can often still be dismissed as a disease gnawing only at the fringes of society. That is a dangerous mistake. As recent events have shown, it is a very mainstream problem.
A good start. But it still doesn't explain why somebody actually thought that cartoon was acceptable in this day and age or why no one called them on it.
That's your problem, New York Times.
2 comments:
They just had to re-publish the lie about Trump. He did speak out publicly and forcefully against the Charlottesville neo-Nazis and white supremacists. The Times and its co-conspirators simply refuse to watch the video or read the transcript, preferring the slander.
Then the Times tries to pretend that the bulk of the criticism of Israel is aimed at the "rightward drift" of its government (i.e, they're moving away from socialism and towards free-market conservatism) and only "some of it" questions Israel's foundation as a Jewish state. That's nonsense, and they should know it. The entire objection to Israel is that the Arabs, who have endured domination by any number of non-Arab regimes for a thousand years and more, cannot accept this one additional, small, non-Arab state because it's Jewish.
The NYT: Goebbels lives.
Post a Comment