Why Most Jews Aren't Bothered by the Times' Anti-Semitic Cartoon

Last week, The New York Times published a cartoon so anti-Semitic that Bret Stephens wrote in his Times column that it was "an image that, in another age, might have been published in the pages of Der Sturmer." Der Sturmer was the Nazis' major anti-Semitic newspaper.

A Times columnist charging the Times with publishing a Nazi-like cartoon is quite a moment in American publishing history.

"The Jew in the form of a dog. 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."

The dog leading Trump had the face of Benjamin Netanyahu and was wearing a Star of David necklace. Trump was wearing a back yarmulke.

For those naifs and Israel-haters who dismiss such depictions as merely "anti-Zionist" or "anti-Israel" but not anti-Semitic, the yarmulke on Trump's head should be the giveaway, as should the theme itself -- the Jew leading the Gentile astray, one of the oldest anti-Semitic canards.

Of course, the cartoon is not just about Israel or Jews. It is about Trump, whom the left so hates. It depicts him as the stooge of both Vladimir Putin and Netanyahu. There is no truth to either depiction, but if truth mattered to the left, there would be no left. Truth is a liberal value, and it is a conservative value, but it is not a leftist value. Truth to the left is pravda. Pravda, the Russian word for "truth," was also the name of the Soviet Communist Party newspaper.

So, the question is: Why would The New York Times, published in the city where more Jews live than any other city in the world outside of Israel, whose publisher is a Jew and whose editors are disproportionately Jewish, publish a Nazi-like anti-Semitic cartoon?

"For some Times readers -- or, as often, former readers -- the answer is clear: The Times has a longstanding Jewish problem, dating back to World War II, when it mostly buried news about the Holocaust, and continuing into the present day in the form of intensely adversarial coverage of Israel. The criticism goes double when it comes to the editorial pages, whose overall approach toward the Jewish state tends to range, with some notable exceptions, from tut-tutting disappointment to thunderous condemnation.

"For these readers, the cartoon would have come like the slip of the tongue that reveals the deeper institutional prejudice. What was long suspected is, at last, revealed."

"How have even the most blatant expressions of anti-Semitism become almost undetectable to editors who think it's part of their job to stand up to bigotry?

"The reason is the almost torrential criticism of Israel and the mainstreaming of anti-Zionism, including by this paper, which has become so common that people have been desensitized to its inherent bigotry. So long as anti-Semitic arguments or images are framed, however speciously, as commentary about Israel, there will be a tendency to view them as a form of political opinion, not ethnic prejudice. But as I noted in a Sunday Review essay in February, anti-Zionism is all but indistinguishable from anti-Semitism in practice and often in intent, however much progressives try to deny this."

Exactly right. As I wrote in "Why the Jews? The Reason for Anti-Semitism" 40 years before Stephens wrote his column, there is no difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Of course, one can criticize Israel, just as one can criticize any country, but that is not anti-Zionism. Anti-Zionism is not criticism of Israel. It is a hatred of Israel -- a hatred greater than that of any other country and a delegitimization of Zionism, the movement to reestablish the Jewish national home. Imagine someone who argued that the establishment of the Italian state -- Italy -- was illegitimate and who hated Italy more than any other country in the world yet claimed that he was in no way anti-Italian, as he had Italian friends and loved Italian culture. No one would believe such an absurdity.

Why aren't most American Jews troubled by the Times' cartoon? Why were all American Jews horrified by the anti-Semitic shootings at the California synagogue this past weekend, while most barely had their feathers ruffled by the anti-Semitic cartoon in one of the most influential media in America?

The answer is most American Jews, while ethnically Jewish, are ethically leftist. And ethics trump ethnicity -- as they should. For most American Jews, therefore, the Times is far more consonant with their ethical values than are Jewish values (if, by Jewish values, we are talking about the Torah and traditional Jewish religious/moral teachings). So, then, when you combine hatred of the right-wing prime minister of Israel and reverence for the left-wing Times, even a Nazi-like cartoon -- if it negatively depicts Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump and is published in The New York Times -- is no big deal.

Jewish self-hatred is not new. In various sermons and studies about the first Passover, it has been noted by many commentators that the Hebrew text in Exodus indicates that as few as one-fifth of the Jews actually left Egypt with Moses. The majority wholeheartedly adopted a culture alien to the teachings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

> In any case, the Slimes cartoon doesn't phase me, as a jew, because the Slimes is like an annoying fly in the room. It occasionally flies by my ear, with a slight buzzing sound, and then dissapears. Until the next time it buzzes by. Not worth my effort to even think about SLimes.

This is not about YOU and the NYT. The NYT is perhaps the leading general voice of news and worldview for the intellectual political left, i.e., that class of news shapers and entertainers which in turn shapes the worldview of the mass of middle America which is sympathetic to socialism and all of Progressive ideology (whether it realizes or understands it or not).

It is irrelevant whether YOU can ignore the image in the NYT.

that people have been desensitized to its inherent bigotry

Then why aren’t we desensitized to ever present accusations of racism? Is the difference that the MSM keeps one form of ‘bigotry’ constantly in our faces while yawning at anti-Semitism?

We are given race hoaxes to keep the horses alarmed, but even horses get desensitized. PC keeps us in a perpetual state of crisis, devoid of any horse sense.

Well, you are right. The article topic though is explaining why jews are not that phased about the slimes, that it is because their ethics overrides their ethnicity. So, I figured I’d add to that, that even with conservative ethics, this jew cares deeply about Israel, but slimes is not even fit for a bird cage lining.

Regarding your point on the slimes being a god to progressives everywhere, that indeed is a major concern. It brings some solace that their readership from years ago is way down, their GLobe purchase was a failure, and they’ve had to raise their prices well beyond inflation due to declining readership. I look forward to a day the slimes costs a billion dollars per copy down to a circulation of 1.

Something like semi-anaphora? What’s the word for something there is no word for?

I didn’t like either the Stephens op-ed or the apology story in the BUSINESS SECTION!!!

I think the Times is intentionally anti-Semitic. It wasn’t an oversight by those out-of-touch jerks who do the International Edition. Nor do I accept any of the other excuses.

Plus no one mentioned that Netanyahu was made to look like an ugly woman. The dog’s ears like long hair, lipstick . . . Trump didn’t get that bad a treatment at all. That’s the essence of an anti-Semitic cartoon: to make the Jew LOOK ridiculous and ugly. No one mentioned that. It’s subconscious to most. And that’s why it works.

Stop it in its tracks. Don’t even patronize newsdealers who sell the Times. Get the Post by home delivery. Boycott them the way the Muslim newsdealers are boycotting the Post.

I’d also like to add that I don’t believe there is widespread Jewish self-hatred.

It is caution. And they have good reason to be cautious. Possibly some humility thrown in. But not hatred.

What I meant in comment 26 is that evil cartoons are DESIGNED to have a subconscious effect on the viewer. I didn’t mean that the cartoonist was subconsciously creating a vile cartoon.

I see that the Times is instituting some lessons for its staff in subconscious racism. OK. Good. But a cartoonist can consciously create a subconscious reaction in a viewer. The cartoonist is almost always racist at heart.

And I think there are fully conscious racists everywhere.

In no way did I intend to absolve the NY Times by the use of the word “subconscious.” I was referring to the viewer, who absorbs an evil message without realizing it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.