Features

It’s been said that a political cartoon has about eight seconds to make its point before the reader moves on to other things. Therefore the cartoonist must communicate in a language consisting of symbols, caricatures and archetypes—figures and concepts that are easily and immediately recognizable. 

In some cases these symbols come loaded with other meanings—meanings that may or may not have anything to do with the topic at hand, meanings that may or may not be intended by the artist. 

One of the most sensitive of these symbols is the Star of David, for it is a religious symbol and yet it is also a national symbol, present on the Israeli national flag. And this is often a source of confusion where political cartoons are concerned. 

“The State of Palestine,” the cartoon I drew for the Daily Planet’s April 16 edition, is by no means the first editorial cartoon critical of Israel to be branded “anti-Semitic” by newspaper readers. It is not even the first of my cartoons to be so judged. I faced the same criticism once before while working for another newspaper, after drawing a cartoon that questioned the United States’ ability to function as a mediator in the Middle East conflict while supporting one side. Another cartoon calling for Arafat’s removal earned me the charming epithet “Zionist pig” from one reader. And still another cartoon, shown at left, depicting an endless mosaic of Israeli and Palestinian coffins in an effort to capture a feeling of futility, was attacked as cowardly, afraid to take a side while implying that blame was to be shared equally. 

The intent of the “State of Palestine” cartoon was to show the United States striking down the Palestinian state by throwing its full support behind what I believe to be the wrong-headed policies of the Sharon administration. Disagreement on this point was and is both expected and welcome, for the goal of a good cartoon is to provoke debate and invite discussion, to engage readers in a give-and-take on issues that concern us all. What are not welcome are unwarranted accusations of bigotry. 

To make its point the cartoon uses a simple theme employing national flags to represent the three entities involved. This, along with the timing of the cartoon (published immediately following Bush’s announcement of support for Sharon’s plan), should make it obvious that the Star of David is intended as a national symbol, not a religious one.  

The purpose of incorporating the Star of David into the American flag is not, as some readers have suggested, an effort to depict some sort of Jewish control of the U.S. government. These are the idiotic theories of true anti-Semites and I do not subscribe to them. It was merely to demonstrate that these two powerful nations have now officially united in opposition to Palestinian sovereignty. The impaled figure is meant to drive home the point that the Palestinians, with no military and little political clout, are up against the world’s largest and fourth-largest militaries—both nuclear powers, in fact. 

If these symbols should conjure other, perhaps hurtful images in the minds of some readers, that is unfortunate. But a cartoon can be a bit like a Rorschach test, and one never quite knows who will see what in its configurations of black ink and white space. And its creator cannot possibly predict or fathom all of these interpretations. 

The cartoon is not anti-Semitic. Nor is it even anti-Israel; though a cartoon can only make one point at a time, the human being behind the cartoon does not necessarily think in such black and white terms. It is possible to condemn the policies of the U.S. and Israel without condoning suicide bombings; it is possible to deplore Sharon while also deploring Arafat; it is possible to criticize Israel’s use of military force while also deploring the tactics of Hamas.  

In other words, it is possible to be both pro-Palestine and pro-Israel. For me—and, I suspect, for most—it is not a matter of one triumphing over the other; it is a matter of both respecting one another enough to come up with a workable compromise. And it is my humble opinion that Israel’s offers have not yet come close to respecting Palestine. I do not expect agreement on this point, but I do think it is reasonable to expect the Planet’s readers to respect my right to express it without fear of being branded an anti-Semite.  

Criticism of Israel and Ariel Sharon is not anti-Semitic, any more than criticism of America and George Bush is anti-American or anti-white or anti-Christian. And throwing around accusations of bigotry where it does not exist benefits no one. For not only does it reduce what could otherwise be a reasonable debate to the level of a shouting match, but it undermines and trivializes the plight of victims of true bigotry and hate.  

Anti-Semitism is real and it is dangerous. Bigotry is real and dangerous. Racism and hatred and violence are real and dangerous. There are many real and dangerous enemies in this world, but your Daily Planet cartoonist is simply not among them.  

›