The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
What's in a Cartoon?
Netanyahu guide dog leads a blind and ignorant Trump
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
OpenAI Text Summary
The article discusses the increasing pressure to silence criticism of Israel and its policies, particularly through the lens of free speech and anti-Semitism. Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, has been vocal in calling for the criminalization of what he deems anti-Semitic speech, stating that the time for discussion has passed and immediate action is required. This push aligns with a growing trend in various countries, particularly in Europe, where laws have been enacted that impose severe penalties on those who express dissenting views about Israel or the Holocaust. A recent incident involving a controversial cartoon published by the New York Times has reignited debates about acceptable speech regarding Israel and the broader implications for free expression.

The cartoon in question depicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a dog leading Donald Trump, who was portrayed with a yarmulke. Critics quickly labeled the image as anti-Semitic, asserting that it perpetuated harmful stereotypes about Jewish people. The New York Times swiftly apologized for the cartoon, emphasizing the dangerous nature of such imagery, especially in light of rising anti-Semitism globally. This reaction, however, was met with skepticism by some, including Times columnist Bret Stephens, who argued that the cartoon reflected deeper issues of anti-Semitic tropes and called for the publication to reflect on how it came to be printed.

The uproar surrounding the cartoon served as a distraction from ongoing violence in Gaza, where Israeli airstrikes followed the firing of rockets by Palestinian militants. The New York Times framed the story as a response to Palestinian aggression, aligning with the narrative often propagated by Israeli authorities. This framing raises concerns about media bias and the tendency of American outlets to echo Israeli perspectives without independent verification. The article criticizes the manner in which the media reports on such conflicts, suggesting that it often downplays Palestinian casualties and fails to provide a balanced view of the situation.

In summary, the article underscores a troubling trend where criticism of Israel is increasingly labeled as anti-Semitism, leading to calls for legal repercussions against dissenting voices. The backlash against the New York Times cartoon illustrates the sensitive nature of discourse surrounding Israel and the pervasive fear of being labeled anti-Semitic for any critical stance. The author warns that this environment of self-censorship may ultimately lead to a significant erosion of free speech rights in the United States, particularly regarding discussions about Israel and its actions in the Middle East. The piece invites readers to reflect on the power dynamics at play in U.S. foreign policy and media narratives, suggesting a need for more independent and nuanced reporting on these complex issues.
OpenAI Outline Summary
# Outline of Article on Israel, Anti-Semitism, and Media Representation

## I. Introduction
A. Overview of Israel's influence on media and public discourse
B. Criticism of anti-Semitic speech and demands for action

## II. Israel's Position on Free Speech
A. Ambiguity in enforcing acceptable speech
1. Calls for criminalization of anti-Semitic speech
2. Historical context of laws against negative commentary on Israel
B. Recent events highlighting the suppression of criticism
1. Controversial cartoon published by The New York Times
2. Description of the cartoon and its implications

## III. Interpretation of the Cartoon
A. Insult to dogs and the portrayal of Netanyahu
1. Commentary from a dog’s perspective
2. Contrast between loyal dogs and Netanyahu’s character
B. Political message regarding U.S.-Israel relations
1. Allegation that Netanyahu manipulates U.S. President Trump
2. Trump's unusual relationship with dogs and preference for wealthy donors

## IV. Reactions to the Cartoon
A. Immediate accusations of anti-Semitism
1. Expansion of the anti-Semitic definition to include criticism
2. New York Times' apology and commitment to prevent future incidents
B. Critique from Jewish journalists
1. Bret Stephens' op-ed condemning the cartoon
2. Historical context of Jewish ownership of The New York Times
3. Criticism of the Times’ portrayal of the cartoon's implications

## V. Broader Implications of the Cartoon Controversy
A. Reflection of U.S. policy in the Middle East
1. Relationship dynamics between Trump and Israel
2. Monetary influences on U.S. political decisions
B. Political exploitation of the controversy by the Trump Administration
1. Pence and Trump's public statements supporting Israel
2. Distraction from ongoing violence in Gaza

## VI. Coverage of Violence in Gaza
A. Reporting of recent Israeli airstrikes and casualties
1. Framing of the conflict in favor of Israel
2. Lack of humanization of Palestinian victims
B. Analysis of media bias
1. Comparison of U.S. reporting to independent accounts
2. Self-censorship in American media regarding Israel

## VII. Conclusion
A. The state of free speech concerning criticism of Israel
B. Future prospects for discourse on Israel and Palestine
C. Author’s affiliation and perspective on U.S. foreign policy

## VIII. Author Information
A. Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D.
B. Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest
C. Contact information and mission of the foundation

---

### Detailed Points of the Outline:

## I. Introduction
A. The article discusses how Israel and its allies in Washington and New York leverage news cycles to stifle criticism.
B. It highlights the push for anti-Semitic speech to be criminalized, emphasizing urgency for action over dialogue.

## II. Israel's Position on Free Speech
A. There is a lack of clarity on how to enforce a definition of acceptable speech regarding Israel.
1. The call for laws against anti-Semitic speech is not a new phenomenon; it has historical roots in Europe.
2. Recent instances show a trend toward diminishing the First Amendment rights in the U.S.
B. A recent cartoon published by The New York Times stirred controversy, depicting Netanyahu in a derogatory manner.

## III. Interpretation of the Cartoon
A. The cartoon is criticized for its disrespectful portrayal of dogs, implying that even dogs would not act like Netanyahu.
1. A canine perspective humorously argues that dogs embody trust and loyalty, contrasting with perceived qualities of Netanyahu.
B. The cartoon is viewed as a metaphor for U.S.-Israel relations.
1. It suggests that Netanyahu is manipulating an unaware Trump, with the implication of Trump's desire to appease Jewish interests.

## IV. Reactions to the Cartoon
A. The cartoon was condemned as anti-Semitic, showcasing how the definition of this term has broadened.
1. The New York Times issued apologies and promised to avoid similar errors in the future.
B. Jewish journalists, including Bret Stephens, criticized the cartoon, citing its anti-Semitic tropes.
1. There is a contradiction in the assertion of the Times' anti-Semitism given its Jewish ownership and editorial stance.

## V. Broader Implications of the Cartoon Controversy
A. The cartoon reflects broader realities of U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.
1. The dynamics of the Trump-Netanyahu relationship underscore the influence of money in political decisions.
B. The Trump administration used the controversy to divert attention from violence against Palestinians.
1. Pence and Trump's statements emphasized their support for Israel while downplaying the Palestinian plight.

## VI. Coverage of Violence in Gaza
A. The article critiques the framing of violence in Gaza, emphasizing that the narrative often favors Israel.
1. The reporting lacks depth in humanizing Palestinian victims, whose lives are reduced to casualty statistics.
B. Media bias is evident in the reporting style, revealing a tendency to self-censor when discussing Israel.
1. Independent accounts challenge the mainstream media's portrayal of conflict initiation.

## VII. Conclusion
A. The article warns of the decline in free speech concerning Israel criticism amidst rising tensions.
B. It questions the future of honest discourse about Israel and Palestine, given the current political climate.
C. The author's credentials and advocacy for a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy are noted.

## VIII. Author Information
A. Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D.
B. Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, which promotes an interests-based U.S. approach in the Middle East.
C. Contact details provided for further engagement with the foundation.
List of Bookmarks

Israel and its friends in Washington and New York never miss the opportunity to exploit the news cycle to tighten the screws a bit more, rendering any criticism of the Jewish state unacceptable or even illegal. Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon has been persistently demanding that what he describes as anti-Semitic speech be criminalized. Danon declared that “The time for talking and having a conversation is over. What Israel and the Jewish community around the world demand is action – and now.”

How exactly Danon would enforce his definition of acceptable speech is not clear, but the demands to eliminate any negative commentary regarding the holocaust or on Israel and/or the behavior of diaspora Jews have been promoted for some time, resulting in laws in Europe that inflict harsh punish on those who dare to speak out. The latest incident in the campaign to eliminate the First Amendment in America took place oddly enough on the pages of the New York Times, which, in its international edition, ran a cartoon by a Portuguese cartoonist showing a dog with the face of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a leash leading a caricature of Donald Trump wearing a yarmulke and a blind man’s glasses. The Netanyahu-dog had a tag on its collar featuring a Star of David.

There are several ways to interpret the cartoon. It is, of course, an insult to dogs to have them depicted in such a fashion as to suggest that they might behave like the monstrous Israeli Prime Minister. No dog would sink so low. One observer, commenting from a dog’s point of view, noted that “We canines share that saying that ‘the eyes are the window to the soul.’ Look into our eyes and you’ll see love and trust. Look into Netanyahu’s eyes you see cunning and deceit so why stick his head on our body?”

On the other hand, one might see in the cartoon a serious message, that Netanyahu has been able to “wag the dog” with an ignorant and impulsive United States president who is so desirous of pandering to Jews both in Israel and in the U.S. that he is blind to his obligation to do what is best for the American people. Trump, who is the first president within memory not to own a dog, would rather stroke the head of the disgusting casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson than an intelligent and loyal Labrador retriever.

The cartoon was immediately blasted as being anti-Semitic, of course, because the definition of that “hate crime” has now been expanded to include criticism of anything that is even remotely Jewish. The Times twice went into full apology mode, promising never to do anything like that again and implying that heads would roll. The paper’s spokesperson stated that the publishers were “deeply sorry” and elaborated that “The image was offensive, and it was an error of judgment to publish it. Such imagery is always dangerous, and at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise worldwide, it’s all the more unacceptable. We are committed to making sure nothing like this happens again.”

But in spite of the abasement, the critics kept piling odd, some even claiming that the newspaper has a history of anti-Semitism. It was an odd assertion as the NYT has been Jewish owned since 1896, is home to numerous Jewish journalists, and its news coverage on the Middle East often serves as a mouthpiece for the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

All-Jewish all-the-time Times columnist Bret Stephens was in particularly fine form, attacking his own employer, writing in an op-ed entitled “A Despicable Cartoon in the Times” that appeared within hours of the cartoon’s surfacing. He demanded that the Times should engage in “some serious reflection as to how it came to publish that cartoon,” which he described as “an astonishing act of ignorance of anti-Semitism.” He elaborated how the cartoon shows “The small but wily Jew leading the dumb and trusting American. The hated Trump being Judaized with a skullcap. The nominal servant acting as the true master. The cartoon checked so many anti-Semitic boxes that the only thing missing was a dollar sign.” It might also be noted that the Times published on Sunday a photo that might be considered highly offensive to Catholics without any commentary by Stephens or from the paper’s editorial apologist.

Well, for once Stephens gets something right. The cartoon encapsulates the reality of U.S. policy in the Middle East and the relationship between Trump, who has made concession after concession to Israel, and his apparent masters. And yes, a few million Benjamins scattered around would have underlined why Trump misbehaves as he does.

And, in a demonstration that no crisis is too small to be exploited by the Trump Administration, Vice President Mike Pence tweeted, “We stand with Israel and we condemn antisemitism in ALL its forms.” Donald Trump himself followed up with his own tweet on the following day, writing that “The New York Times has apologized for the terrible Anti-Semitic Cartoon, but they haven’t apologized to me for this or all of the Fake and Corrupt news they print on a daily basis. They have reached the lowest level of ‘journalism.’”

The furor over a cartoon was useful as it covered up the latest outrage conducted by Israel against the Palestinians. The Israelis are again attacking Gaza, a story which the New York Times briefly reported in their Saturday edition. The Times headline in the online edition was “Gaza Militants Fire 250 Rockets, and Israel Responds With Airstrikes” before reporting that “Palestinian militants launched about 250 rockets and mortars into southern Israel from Gaza on Saturday, and the Israeli military responded with airstrikes and tank fire against targets across the Palestinian territory… Four Palestinians — including one militant, another man, a pregnant woman and her young daughter — were killed in Israeli strikes… That would bring the total number of Gazans fatally struck by Israeli fire since Friday to eight.”

Note how the Times reports the story. It gives the impression that the Gazans initiated a major attack by firing hundreds of missiles while Israel “responded” to Palestinian initiation of violence. Framing it in that fashion is a replay of the Israeli Foreign Ministry version of events, uncorroborated by any independent observers. Other accounts differ as to who started what and whom to blame. In reality, the Israelis have been threatening Gaza for months and have been moving troops up to the fence line for what is expected to be a final push to kill alleged “militants” in the Strip. The Times also wastes no time on humanizing the Arab casualties – the Palestinian baby that was killed was fourteen months old and named Seba Abu Arar. Her pregnant mother also died.

That the media in the United States should follow the Israeli line in reporting what takes place in the Middle East should surprise no one. It is called self-censorship and it will do until real laws can be drafted that will make speaking or writing anything unpleasant about Israel illegal. Referring back to the Times cartoon, the death of free speech is the reality that we American will eventually arrive at due to the actual power relationship that lies behind the metaphor of the wily Israeli dog leading the big, dumb American blind man.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

 
All Comments Hidden • Show  842 Comments • Reply
Personal Classics
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.