It's a shame that the cartoons have been discontinued. It's a loss and it wasn't really necessary.
I'm angry and dismayed that the NYT would stop publishing political cartoons. For a paper of your stature this is incredibly disturbing. I guess Trump and other enemies of a free press and democracy. Shame on you!
I fail to understand why a powerhouse of journalism, with the vast intellectual and material resources of the Times, should have to declare itself incapable of handling appropriate editorial decisions on whether or not to publish a cartoon. - I pay for getting news from professionally staffed newspapers and not from the free-for-all social media, because I want to be able to trust the editorial savvy and courage, necessary to discern between quality and the truly unacceptable. If that’s not possible for cartoons, how should it be for OpEds, satire in general, arts or literature? - All are potentially corrosive and may bear some risk, their free expression is nevertheless essential for a functioning democracy.
4
Because the message is not always palatable to some, sometimes, don’t kill the messenger.
1
I think it's a shame that cartoonists are being downtrodden. On top of that, the 'Editorial' board ought to get up off its 'board' and start editing! If the desperately needed and very welcome cartoon content had a high level editor in charge we would not have this nonsense. We'd be able to look forward to cutting and on the nail political cartoons. A balm.
Please, don't kill the cartoon! Just care about it more!
4
Agreed!..........I suscribe to the NYT Int'l and shall miss the cartoons that are it . Most unfortunate
@joel , HK
1
It was anti-Israel, not anti-semitic. It was anti-Trump allowing his policies on Israel and Iran to be guided by the likes of billionaire donor Sheldon Adelson rather than by purported American values of justice and human rights.
There was no need to apologize.
Are you sure you want to conceive of Israel and the entirety of Jews and Judaism as equivalent? Now *that* would be anti-semitic, given what the state of Israel has become.
59
@FB
It was anti-Israel (fair enough), but stooped to anti-Semitic tropes as images. Even the NY Times agrees on that. Was not either justified or creative, just nasty. By your comments it is not clear that you actually understand what anti-Semitism is or recognize it, or even disagree with it. You seem to work hard to justify it. Try again later.
24
@FB So the yarmulke (Kippah) and the star of David represent Israel, not Judaism?
We haven't met, but I would say that you are part of the problem. You probably don't consider yourself to be anti-Jewish. You hide behind "I'm anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish". Yet, when expressing your opinions, do you remember that Israelis are where they are (ie, elected a right-wing government) as a reaction to the Palestinian's actions, at least in part? Do you recognize the right of Israel to exist? Nobody likes to be under the threat of constant terrorism (in case you are going to quote some ridiculous statement about what is terrorism and what is not, it is not that complicated: if the targets are not military or political, it is terrorism).
Also, the NYT is not arguing that the cartoon is not anti-Jewish, just that their institution is not anti-Jewish.
7
How unfortunate that the Times had to buckle to Jewish lobbyists and apologise for a cartoon that was not anti-Semitic but parodied the Israeli Government's influence on President Trump. Most of your readers agreed with that view as evidenced by the "reader's choices' in yesterday's paper. We should resist any groups attempt to make their Government exempt from criticism on the spurious notion that it relates to race. I criticise Mr Trump on occasions - do Americans feel that I am anti-American? Thought not.
17
@Gary
Many Americans would object if a cartoon portrayed all white Americans as slave-owning, intellectually-challenged bigots with MAGA hats. Certainly one can criticize Netanyahu and Trump and the governments they lead without the use of tired, old anti-Semitic tropes. Ignorance of the dismal history of anti-Semitism doesn't excuse insensitivity and lack of understanding as to the reason the cartoon upset people.
12
@Gary
"How unfortunate that the Times had to buckle to Jewish lobbyists"
How ironic - although predictable - that you do not notice that you yourself spout the same crystal-clear evidence of antisemitism.
So they're "Jewish" lobbyists, are they now? In other words, you do not draw a distinction between Israel, and "Jews" per se. Here is some information that you either are not aware of, or do not understand the implications of: In Israel, many people are Jewish, but not everyone. The state itself, moreover, is secular (though admittedly, there are strong influences to change that). Also, many Jewish people live outside of Israel. "Jewish" and "Israel" are not the same thing.
We are often told (monotonously) that "criticizing Israel is not the same thing as being antisemitic." Certainly true. But when you complain about "Jewish" lobbyists, you are showing your hand.
1
@Utahn
If such a cartoon was drawn and used Trump as the symbol, I wouldn't have a problem, nor would I interpret it as all whites or all anything. That is your problem, not the cartoon's.
1
Yup here comes the chorus of “anti-Zionism is not “anti-semitism”
I am an Orthodox Jew living in Switzerland.
I have encountered anti-semitism many times. It’s almost like it’s a default setting.
I find People are so fascinating. I love meeting new people, communicating, starting up a conversation with literally anyone.
The other day I was speaking with someone I met at a discount store, friendly conversation, asked me how a Canadian ended up here in Switzerland, told him the short version, after the holocaust both my grandparents moved to Montreal/NY, how I met my husband, at a bar mitzvah, yes my husband is Jewish, yes I am too. The smile melted off his face and he said with anger verging on rage, “what you people are doing to the Palestinians in Palestine, you should be ashamed”.
I tried to hold back the tears, I was just so stunned. He walked away and I cried.
It hurts, it really does. But what drew me to tears was more a feeling of being treated so unjustly. Yes I’m Jewish, and now you don’t like me because you don’t like what is happening in A small country hanging on to freedom.
I’m ashamed that I wanted to call after him “wait, don’t hate me, yes I’m Jewish but I’m not from Israel” as if that was a redeeming quality.
9
@Marie It was painful to read your comment. First, because I put myself in your shoes and I could feel your pain and sadness of being unjustly harassed by someone who didn't even know what your thoughts and feelings were about the tragedy of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. That awful person judged you by your religion and ethnicity. That is bigotry in the worst sense. That is anti-Semitism, and should be called out loudly and clear. Secondly, I thought of myself. Someone who supports the BDS movement because I do not agree with the abhorrent racist and apartheid policies that Israel and its right-wing government, unfortunately supported by a large number of Israelis, has been conducting for decades. I have been harassed and unjustly accused in social media of anti-Semitism just for my positions on this tragedy, positions shared my many Jewish people around the world more and more, specially here in the US. All this because of our natural tendency to view the world in tribalistic and primitive terms, a mentality that corrodes any possibility to arrive to permanent solutions to our most urgent social and political problems.
5
Not good enough.
42
To the Editor, Bret Stephens crystalizes the key question. Most Jewish readers are aware that antisemitism been normalized in "progressive" circles. The BDS movement is one such example. Israel is singled out for harmful economic measures, usually coordinated by left-of-center political groups. This campaign is promoted as merely anti-Zionist. Yet institutionalized and governmentally-sanctioned homophobia or state-sponsored murder of internal critics by other political bodies are not commensurately sanctioned. The same activists supporting BDS are silent concerning the hanging of gay men or the butchering journalists in embassies. Please help me by publishing the "received" rank order of injustices. It will help me understand better your coverage and cartoons. Andrew Swan, PhD
64
@Mark Shyres To be fair, this cartoon and most all of the "hateful" coverage as you might see it is published in the Opinion section. Times opinions have always been left-leaning, and the leftward consensus is clear disdain for Trump. This shouldn't be mistaken for a lack of objectivity in reporting, where the Times continues to be the gold standard.
4
@Andrew Swan, PhD To NYTimes readers, I din't disclose my religion or party affiliation in my comment, because my focus is on antisemitism as expressed in the first cartoon (I did not see the second so I cannot comment). The cartoon is offensive to many Jewish readers. Jewish readers note the anti-Jewish stereotypes portrayed in the cartoon. I was taught that I may not use stereotypes of other groups (if I am not a member of that group). Full stop. I don't have the privilege. Even if I were a member of the group, I wouldn't use those stereotypes in a public forum because I would risk being misunderstood and/or misinterpreted. The cartoon did not belong in a newspaper billing itself as "the paper of record." Such a paper maintains the same rigorous and clear journalistic standards in all its decisions. The NY Times didn't when it made its editorial choice(s) last week. I cannot say why, only wonder and infer (see my letter to the editor). Either the Times applies a double-standard or there is a received rank-order of global injustices (of which I am unaware). I gave the Times the benefit of the doubt, and assumed the latter. I am still awaiting the publication of that list by the Times. Andrew Swan, PhD
2
@Andrew Swan, PhD The problem with your analysis is that the cartoon did not depict and was not about Jews. It depicted Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump and was about their relationship and perhaps also about the relationship of the two countries they lead. It was no more anti-semetic than it was anti-American as it ridiculed these two individuals and perhaps the governments of two countries - not any group of people based on race or religion.
1
I really want to know why it is "anti-Semitic" to attack Netanyahu and his lapdog, Trump? Netanyahu has supported horrific crimes against the Palestinians and has shown no real love for anything US except for the money we send and the arms we sell. That Israel is not just a country but a religious state makes some folks feel that to dislike Israel is to dislike Jewish people which is a total falsehood. After WWII, the "West" makes a decision to plop them right into the middle of a hot seat because of old writings that declare it their promised land and so we destabilize and anger folks by displacing them all the while America makes no effort to give back to the Native Americans THEIR land. It just seems very hypocritical to me. The US has spent so much money and political juice protecting this move and alienating the rest of the middle east against us. So I am curious how dubious political moves turn into a dislike of a particular religion? I know that I simplify Israel's relationship with the area but I am really just trying to reconcile the inhuman treatment of the Palestinians. I mean: Israel mows down a bunch of homes and declares it part of their country, builds walls but then gets outraged when the other side makes a move of defiance and reacts with strong military response. This isn't a dislike of Jewish people, it is a dislike for anyone who is cruel to anyone. Many of the Jewish folks in the US are not happy with Israel either.
55
Why do you get to decide what’s anti-Semitic and what is not? Have you been victimized as a Jew? Do you live in Israel under constant threat of attack? Do you wear a skullcap in France that targets you for abuse? Do you live in Malmo where it’s dangerous to publicly identify as a Jew?
What if I said I don’t think the Confederate flag is anti-Black? Do I have a right to say that the Black Community is overreacting to symbols and emblems?
No, I don’t. And neither do you and all the other people who deny seeing anti-Semitism where it exists.
35
@Dave There are many countries which have a state religion because not everywhere are countries modeled after the United States. They have different histories and different circumstances. We are not the world's model and we should never be so arrogant to think we should. That is one reason we kept the Emperor in Japan after conquering that country in WW II. And, why we let the Germans devise their own constitution as well. Saudi Arabia is a religious state and so is Iran. Turkey is, also, but does allow some freedom for Christians. There are many, many others. The circumstances of Israel require its decision. If one would only look at the status of Christians in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, just to mention a few, one could see how the Christian minority fares there. They are being exterminated. Only in Jewish Israel are Christians safe in the Middle East. Since the country has been in constant war, imposed by its neighbors, since it came into existence, wartime conditions must prevail. Another "circumstance." As a Christian, I am relieved to see the Christian Holy Places in Jerusalem guarded by Israeli troops.
24
It is ok to criticize, but it depends on how one does it. The cartoon did it relying on and promoting anti-Semitic and anti-disabled people imagery. Maybe you don't see it, but many, many others do and either feel emboldened or endangered by it.
24
National Review has tried to explain why many Jews don't really care about the cartoon in question. They say most Jews in America are leftist and therefore like any way of hitting Trump. For his part Bret Stephens has accused the Times of long antisemitism from the 1930's in its opposition to Zionism and other Jewish concerns.
Looks to me like the Right, with National Review and Stephens, are using antisemitism to attack moderate and leftist political opinion. I am not surprised. The Right loves Israel -- but only when that is useful in its otherwise negativity towards Jews -- and Stephens is a notorious ultra-Zionist Likudnik more than an objective reporter or pundit.
Beware of both. Antisemitism and anti-antisemitism has many purposes and versions.
6
@n1789 as a left-leaning jew living in the USA, I disagree completely with your analysis or the National Review's analysis.
First, Jews do not like anti-jewish cartoons, even if they attack Trump at the same time. That is already ridiculous.
Second, the cartoon is totally off-mark. Trump's support for Israel is based on his political calculation that Evangelicals support Israel, he doesn't care what Jews want, or what Netanyahu thinks.
As a left-leaning Jew, in 2020 I'm definitely voting against Trump, because he is so bad and so toxic. But the attacks on Jews from the left is very real, and, in some ways, worse than the anti-jewish sentiment from the right in that it is covert and dishonest. At least right-wing anti-Jewish sentiment, is honest, they know they hate jews.
6
I only saw one cartoon, and agree it was mistake to publish it, even though I agree with its basic message about the relationship between the two authoritarians.
The NYT should also not over react. Otherwise it will be seen as caving in to a demand nor to criticize the Trump Administration's problematic relationship with the extreme right wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
5
Actually editing the International Edition would be another good idea, even now.
14
@Renfield
Bingo.
So depressing, to see that the response to a problem is "Well let's just cancel that feature then." Not hire more experienced people, not train them better, not supervise them better, not PAY MORE ATTENTION to what your own staff is doing. Just cancel it. Too much trouble. Rather cancel than deal with another outraged-readers flap, which of course also takes staff time to deal with ...
2
While I applaud the Times for its apology, discontinuing all syndicated editorial cartoons is a mistake. Editorial cartoons are an important part of a free press. To condemn all of them, because one of the stepped over the line, is a gross overreaction.
9
@Eric F Original cartoons, those that have to go through a more rigorous editorial process, will still be published. Just not syndicated cartoons, as they are considered to have been reviewed by the provider. Clearly, they aren't.
My impression is that once the process that allowed this to happen is made so it won't happen, they will publish syndicated cartoons again.
1
@Eric F
Yes , agreed....a most unfortunate over reaction.
The Times is taking the easy way out - avoiding the problem, not solving it. While the cartoons may never appear again, the editorial mindset that allowed them to be published still exists.
12
I realize that the "International Edition" has a shoestring staff compared to New York, but the real surprise is that the Times would have relied so heavily on syndicators for cartoons in the first place.
5
@HKGuy
They rely on syndicators for articles too. The Gray Lady ain't what she used to be.
5
@Russian Bot
All newspapers, even weekly shoppers, use syndicated material to one degree or another and have historically for over a century. What is Reuters or the Associated Press but news syndicates that are featured in most major papers around the globe? There is nothing wrong with that. No newspaper could rely exclusively on it's own staff to cover every story on the planet.
The problem is that the syndicate editors in this case, as well as the NYT International edition editors, failed to remove these obnoxious cartoons when they should have. The fault lies with them, not the principle of syndicated news.
Compared to the cesspool that is the Internet and Social Media, the print media, like the Times and the Post, is as pure as the driven snow. Facebook cannot even police the sharing of graphic murderous videos to our children, much less censor a cartoon.
Social Media dwarfs the print media in sheer garbage every day, but still manages to keep the American people's collective noses stuck to their smartphone screens without complaint.
6
This makes me feel better - the beginning of some information about a change of policies and practices that allowed for the publication of an anti-semitic cartoon.
2
I seem to recall after the intentionally provocative cartoons of the Prophet, everyone was up in arms criticising the Muslims for their supposed "lack of sense of humour." So hypocritical.
10
@Person Hello. As I recall, people were not criticizing Muslims for a "lack of a sense of humor." People were saying that a cartoonist should not be threatened with death for producing a cartoon that other people found offensive.
12
@Person I think the Danish Jyllands-Posten's publication of the cartoons was block-headed, but the assassination attempts on the cartoonists, editors et al. went way beyond constructive criticism. Ditto Charlie Hebdo. Holocaust Remembrance Day begins tonight in Israel, the date commemorating the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising [according to the Hebrew calendar]. The world Jewish population reached pre-World War II number in 2015. Jews do not "use" the Holocaust to their "advantage," but remember that it's never "just a cartoon/metaphor/meme." Jewish humor doesn't include denial of genocide.
7
I have a blind relative...using the paraphernalia of handicapped people as props is WAY more obviously offensive than other issues with the first cartoon...Why haven’t you PC folks noticed?
6
It was a selfie stick, not a walking stick.
2
I was referring to the initial controversial cartoon...Not the second cartoon
Good decision, NYT.
4
Here's the thing of it: those who insist this is "just politics" and the cartoon is just politics are fine with any such cartoon which depicts their viewpoint, but howl if the cartoon depicts the viewpoint of the Israelis and shows THEM in an unflattering light. I can just hear that same comentariat right now if the leader of their Islamist NGO's were depicted as a dog.
What is really "just politics" are the positions being taken by both sides of the political spectrum: those pro -Netanyahu's approach to Isrraeli defense and those opposed to it.
4
The Apology:
1. "We are deeply sorry"--Good
2 "for the publication of an anti-Semitic cartoon"-- excellent
3." ...we are committed to making sure nothing like this happens again."--also excellent
4. "the imagery is dangerous and at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise, it's all the more unacceptable" excellent
5. "...we have investigated...we have evaluated our internal processes and training. . .we anticipate significant changes"
I give the apology an A.
24
@Oxford96
I would add that the NYT has followed through on number 5 above: it has decided to discontinue publishing any syndicated cartoons in its international editions.
Another A.
2
@Oxford96
Nah. "We have evaluated our internal processes and training" … yes, apparently they did this, at least in a cursory fashion … and then concluded they just shouldn't even TRY to do this right, they'll just stop bothering.
That's not an "A." At best, that's an "Incomplete" for the course.
Time to cut through all the give and take: Those who support Trump's and Netanyahu's policies with respect to maintaining a strong Israel (that has America's full support) see the cartoon as anti-Semitic, while those who oppose (usually with a great deal of emotional hatred towards both men and their policies) Netanyahu and Trump's policies see the cartoon as strictly political, portraying their view that Trump is a blind fool being led around by the Jewish dog--and the Yamaka on Trump's head? just political.
We see what we want to see. That's it in a nutshell.
6
@Oxford96 Even if that were the case, why would the yarmulka be necessary? What's especially sad is that you can use the term "Jewish dog" so casually.
14
Why were the star of David and yamulka necessary? The point that Trump is a blind man being led by a dog could have provided the necessary criticism without invoking Jewish symbols. Plenty of Jews object to Israel’s benighted policies. Only conscious or unconscious anti-Semites need those symbols.
4
@Oxford96
It is interesting to note the association with the image of a "dog." Two other names for "dog" are "cur" and "mut".
Both are derived from words that have the same meaning but in different languages. One from French and the other from German. Coeur and Mut
Both words refer to "Courage/Heart".
Among Native American Cheyenne, "dog-soldiers" or "dog-men" were the most determined and most loyal of all warriors.
As you said, we see what we want to see.
I am glad that the NY Times Editorial Board has admitted that it is wrong and crossed a line on this topic.
But you should reflect on how your coverage of the Israel Arab conflict (and other conflicts involving Islamic Extremism) is sharply slanted and far from objective. For example, the recent coverage of the mass murder of Christians in Sri Lanka by ISIS seemed to go out of its way to make excuses for the “legitimate” grievances of Sri Lankan Muslims. And that was despite it being a case where peaceful members of one minority were slaughtered by those of another. I strongly suspect that had the victims been members of the majority Sinhalese Buddhist community, the Times’ reaction would have been even more slanted. As an Indian, I also see that in your coverage of Islamic terrorism in India - starting with the use of the word Militant instead of Terrorists while describing killers.
Some believe this is because of the influence of Arab money on the Times. That may not be the case - perhaps, it arises from sympathy for Muslims in the West as victims of “Islamophobia” in a post 9-11, Iraq War and Trump era.
But there is a need for you to introspect on why your coverage ignores how every country with a Muslim majority completely subjugates people of other religions (including other variants of Islam ), and acts as if all other people have an obligation to tolerate even the most intolerant variants of Islam. Hope this is a first step in that direction
52
I have cancelled my subscription - after 30 years.
27
@Adam I'm willing to give the paper another chance. Everyone makes a mistake, but I hope management realizes it's on notice with a lot of its subscribers.
4
@Adam
Why? The NYT has just not only issued a sincere and complete, almost abject, apology, but has also followed through by discontinuing syndicated cartoons in their international edition. What more do you need?
8
So I think I’ve given you long enough to give a meaningful apology. When I was growing up I was taught to apologize for my indiscretions in a fulsome and believable manner. Your paper has done neither. Perhaps, instead of yet another news analysis masquerading as a news story about the benefits of illegal immigration or Amazon’s use of the US tax code to legally pay the minimum amount of taxes they owe, the Times could have printed a front page, above the fold mea culpa. But the Times didn’t and you didn’t because you’re not genuinely sorry and the cartoon was not an error in judgment. This time, the Times got caught in a bald faced anti-Semitic attack (and an unoriginal one at that) and even your usual defenders at CNN couldn’t get behind you. So, apology not accepted because the apology was not really given. After growing up with the Times and finding excuse after excuse to not cancel my subscription, this time I’m done.
21
There is lots more anti-Semitic propaganda on the Times editorial and op-ed pages. Perhaps not as graphically offensive as this cartoon, but equally harmful.
29
@Jonathan Katz
Bulls eye!!
8
@Jonathan Katz What makes this "graphically offensive" cartoon anti-semitic?
1
There are good and bad everywhere, and we must not lose the ability to criticize the bad without being labeled.
With that said, apology accepted.
4
@Bob
With that said, no apology was needed.
3
My then two-year-old niece used to say about her older brother, "He said sorry but he didn't mean sorry."
22
And they accuse Trump of using dog whistles........Hah!
17
“Lapse in editorial oversight” —even Homer nods.
3
This misses the larger issue we see with media outlets today.
As millennials have joined the reporting ranks, their stridency and ideological bent focused on key themes in the modern universities journalistic and other disciplines. It teaches that everything revolves around privilege, gender, inequality, and intolerance to opposition and dissent.
Under this atmosphere many bad old ideas such as socialism, bigotry, class warfare and others find a new interpretation and champions re-packaged with the key terminology in vogue today. I am along term subscriber to NYT, New Yorker, Economist, WSJ and others. I consider myself a conservative , but have always appreciated the diversity of views offered by each. Old school liberals had the ability to argue their positions and not cross over to propaganda and standard tropes. New school progressives do not.
You can immediately tell the article which is produced by the new progressives by that certainty, intolerance, self aware virtual signaling, and inability to deviate from the "platform" on the issues.
I have been a critic of Israel's settlements policies and more recently of Likud's policies. Nut it is never ok to enmesh Israeli flag, star of David and Zionism as part of that criticism. It's where the old school antisemites hide.
I don't know what the "solution" is here, other than being more selective in hiring the new contributors and mentoring them. But if these trends continue, my subscriptions will be lapsing.
34
@Vizitei
Apparently, the NY Times is being very selective in its choice of contributors, but not in the way you mean it.
7
@Vizitei
Your possible proposed solution--that the media be more selective in hiring the new contributiors and mentoring them--assumes that those who do this hiring are not emotionally and intellectually complicit. That would easily explain how it could have "slipped through."
Readers posting on this yesterday were almost universally in agreemeent that the NYT owed no apology and saw the cartoon as strictly political. This would follow from your point concerning the nature of what is being taught in our universities. They did not feel protective of Jews because of the Holocaust. The only catastrophe they seem to have focused on is slavery in the US.(And if one mentions the civil war, it causes resentment.)
We reap what we sow in our schools, as do foreign nations. This is what we have reaped. Soon the editors who issued this apology will grow old, and be replaced by those who came up through the new education. Do not look for apologies from them.
18
I am Jewish. I support the existence of the Jewish state. I support its location as a gathering place for Jews fleeing other parts of the broken Ottoman Empire, and from elsewhere. But I do not support recent policies of Israel, including their alliance with certain political groups in America. As a result of this alliance, Trump permits Netanyahu to lead him into supporting unwise and harmful policies. This criticism is political, not religious. The cartoon is accurate and not anti-Semitic.
13
@Garraty
How can the cartoon not be anti-Semitic when even the publisher admits it contains anti-Semitic elements and tropes?
17
@Garraty
Your criticism may be "political" but it cannot also be "not religious" because Israel is the ark for the Jewish people during the flood of anti-Semitism--a flood that in previous times resulted in pogroms, the 500 year long international Inquisition; the Holocaust.
Though you may disagree with "recent policies in Israel" that are designed to protect Israel by making her stronger against her enemies, just as all nations seek to make themelves stronger against their enemies. Those that do not perish, and Jews have twice lost their nation.
You believe that the alliance with President Trump has led Netanyahu into supporting unwise and "harmful" policies. We believe that Netanyahu did not need Trump's guidance; he was wise to his enemies before Trump was ever president; (you may recall his invitation to address our Congress on the Iran deal.) But our President has aided Netanyahu to achieve a level of security, a good part of which is derived from America's obvious support.
A cartoon suggesting that a Jewish President Trump is being led blindly into supporting Israel, that dog of a state, seeks to convince readers that he nothing but Israel's lap-dog. One might counter that those who cannot understand strength in the face of a relentless enemy intent upon one's destruction are Islam's lap-dogs. Yet, were the cartoon reversed, with a Palestinian leader being depicted as being blindly led by that dog, the Ayatollah, we would hear "Islamophobia!" not "politics."
14
In the name of free speech , prophets and religious books are often abused , cartoons about prophets are published with support of hypocrites with fanfare in the guise of supporting the free speech .
Every one should decry when such hurtful things are published about any religious faith and not rejoice when it does not target their own faith. Antisemitism is evil just like anti Islamic hate filled blanket statements and expressions in any form. Same respect should be accorded to all other faiths including Christianity , Hindu , Buddhism , Sikhs and others with equal concern of avoiding hurting any one ‘s feeling. Those who donot want to follow any faith ,no one should degrade them for their choices either. Love begets love and hate begets hate .
3
There is so much braying by people who insist that being anti-Israel isn’t synonymous with being anti-Semitic.
They simply cannot see a connection.
I would argue that since I, as a Jew, can be the victim of these thoughts and trends, I will be the one who decides what is anti-Semitic and what is not.
If you’re not a potential victim, you don’t get to decide.
I’ve noticed that American society is careful not to display emblems or say words that might be hurtful to the African American community. And that’s good; people should be aware.
But blasting Netanyahu and Trump — in the guise of political criticism — serves to incite hatred of Jews overall. Do you think most people have the time, skills, or knowledge to parse the differences between the various Israeli political platforms, or examine the business and science relationships between the United States and Israel, to understand that’s it’s not “all about the Benjamins?”
No, these tropes are hauled out over and over again, and most people just say, “Oh, those Jews.”
40
@David G.
"...American society is careful not to display emblems or say words that might be hurtful to the African American community. And that’s good; people should be aware.
But blasting Netanyahu and Trump — in the guise of political criticism — serves to incite hatred of Jews overall."
Your post suggests a failure to observe that the very groups who do the first also are responsible for the second. So let's look more closely at that connection.
The Progressive Left seeks protection of nearly all minorities except the Jewish one; that is because it is aligned no longer with Jewish interests as it used to be when Demorats were "liberals"; today it is aligned with political Islam, which sees Zionism as the enemy, and wishes to see America aligned not with Netanyahu and a strong Israel (a strong outpost for Western Civilization in that part of the world), but with Abbas and Nasrallah and the disintegration and destruction of any outpost of Western Civilization in the Middle East.
Liberals may not have awakened to this reality and alignment of their leadership yet--apparently many posting here, assuming their self-descriptions as Jews to be accurate--have not--but even a life-long commitment to their party will soon not be enough to prevent them from seeing this reality.
15
@David G., I agree with your every point until the next-to-last paragraph.
Netanyahu and Trump MUST be blasted, not just because of their cynical politics, but because both are bad for Israel if we want it to remain both a Jewish state and a genuine democracy. I believe it’s possible offer that strong critique, as my progressive relatives in Israel do, without employing antisemitic tropes (as in that odious cartoon) or otherwise encouraging the Jew haters.
I have the honor of being part of a family with roots in Zionism that go back to the very beginning of the movement. Ancestors on both my maternal and paternal side were part of the first yishuv and both my sisters have made aliyah. So I hope you can appreciate that I naturally take Israel's present and future seriously. It’s in that spirit that I insist that if we want to see Israel survive and flourish far into the future, we must condemn and abjure the misguided policies of the right, whether American or Israeli.
7
I read Stephens column. He lays out a good case for why he and others see this cartoon as offensive. At the same time, I can see how it's possible that a cartoonist could pen this without any anti-Semitic intent, conscious or sub-conscious.
The elements that Stephens sees as a clear case of anti-Semitism can be looked at in other ways. For instance, his view that the cartoon depicts Netanyahu as the stereotypical "wily Jew" manipulating the Christian. Well, does any honest person describe Netanyahu as anything but "wily"? The man has political Teflon due to several qualities, ("ruthless" and "unscrupulous" being others). But rising above all else is his "wily-ness".
Erdogan is another right wing extremist in the region who can properly be called "wiley". He has also manipulated Trump quite effectively. Do we now decry the ancient trope about the Wiley Muslim?
Trump is wearing a yarmulke in the cartoon, yes. Just like every other Christian American politician who wants to show respect (or pander to) the Jewish community. It is one element of the cartoon that is factually inaccurate, since I don't believe Trump actually partakes in this practice. If Hillary were president and siding with the Gulf Arab states on some security issue, (which, again, all American presidents seem to do), and a right wing publication had a cartoon lampooning her by dressing her in a Burka, would we all be up in arms? Maybe, but you get the point. Political cartoons are rightfully savage.
2
@Duncan
The distinction betwen the Jewish experience of the Holocaust, in living memory for some of us, and the Islamic experience, is apparently lost on many posting here. They are not equivalent.
If anything, Islam was an aggressive political/religious force for a thousand years commencing in the 7th Century, conquering lands inhabited by Jews, Christians, pagans, and others, and forcing conversion and second-class status on Jews and Christians (a form of apartheid) while demanding conversion or exile or imposing death on the rest.
Jews, on the other hand, were victimized by states that accepted them as residents since they were, for two millenia, a stateless and therefore powerless people, whose poweerlessness was evidenced by pogroms, the Inquisition, ghettoization, restrictions on their means of earning a living, etc., and finally by a genocide that wiped out a considerable portion of their small numbers.
So while Islam was in ascendancy, Israel was in decendancy. The burka does not symbolize the same thing as the yamika.
20
@Duncan
" Well, does any honest person describe Netanyahu as anything but "wily"? The man has political Teflon due to several qualities, ("ruthless" and "unscrupulous" being others). But rising above all else is his "wily-ness". "
Yes, most certainly half of America sees Netanyahu as being Israel's savior; he is seen as a realist in a hostile environment, and please don't even start with the settlements excuse. Before there was even an occupation--let alone settlements--Arabs made war on the state. When Israel forcibly removed settlements from Gaza, Arabs made war on Israel. Both charters (Hamas's and the PA's) call for the destruction of the state of Israel, and their people are raised on this goal as their only purpose in life.
But readers of this newspaper cannot even imagine looking at the situation from the point of the Israelis, or from the vantage point of Western Civilization. They seem steeped up to their eyeballs in the anti-strong-Israel propaganda that supports the political narrative of anti-Zionists, and cannot fathom, as your post suggests, that there could even exist an "honest" view that would disagree.
21
@Duncan
For good or for bad, certainly no one could ever describe trump as “wily”
1
The dissatisfaction from all sides is truly remarkable. The cartoon was anti-Semitic. Period. Full stop. That it's even debatable illustrates just how skewed the standard has become for what qualifies as anti-Semitic. If, as Mr. Stephens observed, the cartoon featured any other minority group, it wouldn't have made it off of the cartoonist's hard drive.
As for the "not good enough" crowd, what more can one reasonably ask at this stage? The paper has apologized, determined the source of the error and is continuing to review with the expectation of "significant changes." They should be held to account, but should also be afforded the latitude that we'd all appreciate were we in the same situation.
12
@Texan
What is happening to the careers of the cartoonist, or the editor who decided to publish it?
6
@Jonathan Katz
Well to be fair, the career of the cartoonist is probably not something the Times can do anything about. They say they have "disciplined" the production editor, though what that means is unclear.
Personally I hope he or she wasn't fired; just required to read a few good books on antisemitism.
I didn't see the cartoon but I read the description of it, and it didn't sound like an anti-Semitic cartoon as much as a political statement about the relationship between both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, who with their right-wing conservative views on everything, seem to not only play off each other, but by the same handbook.
So the real problem here is whether or not one can be critical of Israeli politics without being deemed an anti-Semite -- or American politics without being called un-patriotic.
And judging from this Editorial and many of the comments posted here, there seems to be no room for open discussion.
The answer is no.
4
@N. Smith
Maybe you could actually look at the cartoon itself (it's all over the internet if you cared to look) and then perhaps see why its anti-Semitic tropes are offensive? Yes, anyone can do a cartoon faulting Trump, Israel or anything. But stooping to anti-Semitic images is over the line. Unless you actually see the cartoon how could you see it?
16
Yes. Look at the actual image. It's bad.
8
At least some organizations realize when they have done something wrong and look to correct their actions.
5
I'm not the only one who saw the cartoon as anti-Netanyahu and showing the crony relationship between Trump and the Prime Minister. Now there is talk of a real estate deal. Now - that's offensive.
7
Thank you for this apology. And I am sure that this will not happen again, at least, I hope so. The Times' reputation precedes itself as being the finest of publications not only in the US but also the world. While your news' sections, etc., give factual information telling us both sides of the story so to speak, op ed columnists must give their opinion of how they perceive issues. For that reason, I will respect what they write even if I do not totally agree. I will say one thing, however, that I think needs to be done. One commenter recommended "....the firing of the editor who made this egregious decision." I agree. That person does not belong in a fair and just media environment. He is showing in his own way unacceptable hate. That is a bridge too far.
9
After Charlie Hebdo, you'd think people would learn about the dangers of such cartoons. Or was it published because they didn't have to worry about such a response? Why is that? These are the questions that need to be discussed. Alas, anyone who does will be labeled "alt-right" or something else to stop conversation. As a minority--the kind people on here love to defend at the slightest insult--I'm so thankful for the local synagogue. Thank you for opening your doors to me and being so welcoming as I attend lectures by public intellectuals at little to no cost. I have the utmost respect for your inclusiveness and embrace of others. I wish others would do the same.
14
@Randeep Chauhan Your questions are good ones and your gratitude is deeply appreciated. Thank you. A diamond in the rough, to be sure, Mr. Chauhan.
5
@Randeep Chauhan Seriously? We're putting Netanyahu on the level of Muhammad?
Political leaders are not to be venerated beyond checks and balances.
Q: When is an "apology" not an apology.
A: When it's a tweet by The Times's Opinion section.
17
I read many of the Times comments to Mr. Stephen’s column.
I believe the cartoonist made the most truthful, honest answer:
“There is no other opinion but to defend freedom of expression”
I’m not sure apologizing is supporting free expression.
2
@PM
The operative question is whether, given the history of the Jews in the Holocaust (have you read about it?) and the use of these very tropes by Hitler to stir up anti-Semitism among the German people, a political cartoon could not have been devised that would send the same message but not reek of anti-Semitic tropes, just as our lovely Congresswoman from Minnesota might have differently worded her complaint about the "Benjamins."
We could draw cartoons criticizing American blacks by depicting them eating watermelons too, but we don't. We find other means. Why, then, is this a different situation?
14
@PM
The cartoonist is free to express his hatred. The newspaper doesn't have to publish it.
11
I’m loath to admit that I agree with Bret. An insidious form of anti-Semitism has infiltrated the increasingly influential social justice/“identity politics” left. They see Palestinians as fellow people of color oppressed by white supremacy and Western hegemony. To them, Israel is a colonial power like imperial Britain; the Ashkenazim who helped found it are descended not an ancient diaspora but European converts who have no claim to the land.
That’s the voice behind the cartoon. It’s the voice of the coalition of the oppressed dictating the terms of our national discourse. Their playbook is an almost word-for-word copy of the 60s liberation movement, complete with the anti-Semitism of men like Louis Farrakhan. Liberals, some unwittingly, are following it, and the Times is giving them its biggest platform.
32
I saw the original cartoon and it is absolutely and virulently anti-Semitic. The "artist" seems to have made zero attempt to draw a likeness of Netanyahu, though the image of Trump reads loud and clear as Trump. I've seen probably 1000s of photographs of Benjamin Netanyahu, and the image in the cartoon looks nothing like him, although it does have an especially long nose -- that Netanyahu does NOT have. Honestly, without a title or explanation, I don't see how anyone could see the cartoon as commenting on Israel at all. There is no Israeli flag and no other traditional symbol of Israel nor the word Israel. The only symbols are Jewish -- a kippa and a Magen David., and maybe someone's stereotype of a Jewish man as someone who wears a black suit (Hasidic Jewish men do, but that's only one small group of the millions of Jewish people in the world, most of whom dress nothing like that.)
Additionally, as someone who knows a number of blind people who use the services of a guide dog, the cartoon, save for Trump's sunglasses, does not at all depict a blind person. Dachshunds (a German-Austrian breed that's too small to be anyone's "seeing eye dog") isn't even wearing the kind of harness that's necessary for guide dog help a blind person navigate around obstacles. The cartoon, at best, reads as an aryan-looking Trump, by wearing a kippa, duping a Jewish person portrayed as a German dog whom Trump keeps on a leash. That's anti-Semitic AND anti-American.
17
@Yiddishamama
Maybe the artist isn't much of an artist after all if he can't get Netanyahu right. Then again, it isn't much of a cartoon.
3
International edition? I saw it on my tablet in Pennsylvania. I thought it was ugly.
9
I will only be satisfied if the people responsible for posting this cartoon are FIRED.
10
@Mike K.
Are you including the cartoonist or just the intermediate level editor (as described , at least by the Times--who knows the truth of it?)
Netanyahu and trump are both corrupt. The problem with this cartoon is that The NYTs should have known that this cartoon looks an awful lot like WW2 anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda. Now trump has more fuel for his ridiculous tweets. Both of these leaders have dictator tendencies. It would be interesting to have a discussion about what and why are symbols anti-Semitic. The Christian Right’s views Jews converting to Christianity to fulfil the Rapture is one of the reasons Evangelicals love trump. If they cared about the Jewish people they wouldn’t be pushing their religion. trump is the dog, and he should be wearing a cross not a yarmulke.
3
By issuing the statement via Twitter and just publishing a screenshot of it, The NYT both literally and figuratively minimized it's own statement of apology.
In the mobile version of this article, the statement is completely illegible, and readers / subscribers should not have to open or in any way interact with Twitter or other third party (that also collects reader/user data?) in order to access an apology or other statement from the NYT itself. Why didn't you just use the screen shot as an illustration, and reprint your statement in regular, easily-readable font?
13
I am becoming more and more aware of criticism of acts by Israel sliding into antisemitism. But more and more, I see acts by Arab absolutists ignored and retaliatory acts by Israel condemned. This is antisemitism with another name.
I know of two negotiated solutions for a two state solution, that were simply abrogated by the Palestinians. This certainly indicates that negotiations with them don't work, since agreements don't hold. Under these circumstances, what would anyone have Israel do?
All the cartoon in question will do is increase antisemitic feelings. Under those circumstances, my wife has promised to hide me in the attic if the necessity presents itself.
15
@Dirtlawye
My guess is the editor who selected the cartoon for publication is already hiding in the attic.
3
@Dirtlawyer
Before one can arrive at a so-called "solution" to the problem, one must perceive what the goal is for each side.
What is Israel's problem? She wants to live in peace with her other neighbors as she now does with Egypt.
What is Gaza's problem and West Bank's ? Their problem, oft stated and existing in their charters, is that Israel exists as a Jewish state.
How can any "solution" be arrived at under these circumstances that would meet the needs of each negotiating side? This is why there has never been a settlement.
9
Despite many readers' protestations otherwise, it certainly was considered to be anti-Semitic by at least a large number of people, and considering the Times' apology, by the Times itself.
The most troubling thing in my opinion, is the difference in treatment of an anti-Semitic issue as opposed to what would have happened if we were talking about an anti-black, anti-woman, anti-Latino, etc, etc. I cannot imagine that the would even be a discussion if, for example, a political cartoon showing an African American leader (say Elijah Cummings on the issue of subpoenas) with (say) a watermelon. The editor would have been fired (and very appropriately) on the spot. Why in this case do we have to wait for the "significant changes"?
The issue isn't (just) a lack of supervision; it is a culture that doesn't consider Antisemitism to be as vile as any other form of racism.
Again, this has nothing to do with politics. Criticize Israel and its government all you like; showing Jews as dogs is as dangerous as Trump's "very good people on both sides".
34
While the apology was a start it was nothing more. As I read it, it began with a rescitation of the evil of antisemitism, continued with a statement opposing antisemitism in its various forms and then described in a mechanistic fashion how this cartoon slipped through the cracks and was published. Nowhere does a reader get a sense of real self reflection indicating that the NYT needs to do a deep self assessment in its reporting and opining on Israel, the only real democracy and open society in the Middle East and a country which itself is constantly re-evaluating its policies. Without this needed self reflection the NYT is doomed to repeat the biased reporting that led to this awful cartoon.
13
Right...Blame it on a single editor...
That editor must have had the AUTHORITY to put the cartoon into print...
Tell us, Mr. Publisher, what sort of people do you hire and put in positions of responsibility?
Your attempt at groveling is rather transparently insincere.
10
How about bringing back the Public Editor to ensure this never happens again...for a start....
13
@FHT
Why would anyone think this was not intentional or not going to happen again. The paper has already published another anti-Israel cartoon in its international edition (this one out of Norway of all places). You think they would have been smart enough or sensitive enough to wait a week? I guess that's giving them too much credit.
5
The New York Times needs to immediately investigate and immediately terminate that Editor. Otherwise it is complicit in that editor's anti-Semitism. Furthermore, the New York Times owes the vast majority of 2.5 million Jews living in the New York Metro area an apology for 150 years of anti-Semitism. That's right from the unfriendly the paper greeted our Eastern European ancestors fleeing the Tsar , to relegating the Holocaust to a page 7 story while Cordell Hull, FDR , and Breckenridge Long were slamming the gates of America closed to desperate Jews trying to escape NAZI Occupied Europe prior to 1941, to the negative attitude adopted by the Paper to the formation of a Jewish State in the aftermath of the Shoah-concerned about adding gasoline to the charge of due loyalty and the plight of Palestine's Arab population while the Jews languished in DP camps and finally most recently when one of your female editors wrote that Israel must be punished and censored for being an apartheid state. Israel is not an apartheid state.
28
Not accepted. Your paper is obsessed with Israel and Jews, even to the point of using Nazi imagery to make your point. Why this single minded obsession? Two cartoons about Netanyahu in a week? Nothing else going on in the world? Israel’s a tiny country surrounded by fanatical enemies who have repeatedly threatened genocide. Given the Times’ “sensitivity” to micro-aggressions and its repeated lies and whitewashing of Palestinian aggression (for example, the most recent was your reporting of the “peaceful demonstrations” at the Gaza border fence when video shows they were Hamas sponsored riots which Hamas intended to breach the fence so Israel would be forced to shoot them), I don’t believe your apology for a second. Your editors need therapy to address their sickness.
27
Why is the NYT publishing anti-Semitic propaganda? Exactly what happened in pre-World War 2 in Nazi Germany.
16
@Rose Dunn
Same paper, different day.
8
I agree with the statement in The New York Times apology that "such imagery is always dangerous." The newspaper and readers (in comments responding to Bret Stephen's piece) have the right to be critical of Trump and Netanyahu. But the cartoon that made it into the international edition was too reminiscent of anti-Semitic ones from the period that preceded the Holocaust.
45
I'm glad the Times leadership saw the cartoon as anti-Semitic.
At least one of your employees didn't. More concerning were the comments to Bret Stephens' column. Most commenters did not think the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
I have to wonder how much I have in common with the others who read your paper.
70
@Talbot It probably explains why they are so quick to defend Ilhan Omar and her antisemitic remarks
14
Nothing says I hear you, I take your concerns seriously, and I'm sorry like an apology by tweet.
40
Seriously!
Particularly since many subscribers may not have Twitter or may not follow the Times.
And they undid some of the healing from the apology by allowing anti-Semitic comments to Bret Stephens' opinion piece and to other articles to appear in its online publication(s).
The moderators of the Comments Section need better training and oversight as well.
Allowing inflammatory or offensive assertions or questions in the Comments that would (should) not be considered publishable in the Letters section is confusing and hypocritical at best, and it undermines The NYT credibility and value -- particularly in terms of apologies.
9
@ROI I think the best way we can combat this sort of lightly-veiled anti-Semitism is to continue to do call it out when we see it. This sort of sentiment has been gestating in liberal circles for a while now and just deleting the comments won't make it go away. Hopefully, readers will recognize the anti-Semitic sentiment inherent to these comments rather than simply latching on to them. I, for one, was shocked when I began to see these overtly anti-Zionist ideas proliferate in the comment sections, and hope that a similar response, and accompanying recognition of the unfortunate consequences, will be elicited in other readers.
6
The cartoon accurately portrayed the relationship between trump and Netanyahu, and was not anti-Semitic. There's no need for an apology from the Times.
47
Totally disagree, both that it wasn't antisemitic and that it accurately portrays the relationship (if anything, it's the US and maybe Europe that keep Israel as their attack dog -- and their scapegoat).
Also, the cartoon is offensive and dangerous in its use of negative tropes about people with disabilities and the blind specifically. Disabled people were also the focus of the Nazi genocide and of unjustified and too often murderous persecution throughout history. It is only your (willful?) ignorance of life as a blind person and of the nature of the assistance animal - handler relationship that allows you to read the cartoon as "accurate"
17
The first ten most recommended comments on Mr. Stephens essay refute his take on the cartoon.
Sixty six pictures of the Israeli flag on Google feature a Jewish star.
Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem was done by Trump to curry favor from both from the evangelical right awaiting the rapture and the hard right Zionists in Israel.
The cartoonist should have had Trump being lead by a pair of seeing eye dogs.
14
@James Griffin The New York Times is an anti Semitic rag ,Fake News purveyor ,with a naked left wing progressive bias. What if the cartoon was making fun of Blacks.Sharpton would be so far up their rear end the editor who cleared it would be coming out of his mouth but I guess when U insult the Jews no one cares!Let me tell you something this is a Jewish city. There are 2.5 Million Jews in the Metro area. You can disagree with Israel but anti Semitic cartoons in a newspaper run by Apostate Jews will not be tolerated!!!!
6
@James Griffin
Those are the "Most Recommended" published by the paper . The moderator for all comments is an employee of the paper. Draw your own conclusions.
5
The cartoon was certainly beyond the pale and well below what I expect of the New York Times. I appreciate an actual apology, which takes full responsibility. Far too often official apologies run the lane of "sorry if anyone was offended" rather than saying loudly and clearly 'mea culpa.'
35
@Anne-Marie Hislop
Did you really expect anything else? I hoped for more, but then again, consider the source. And they they went and blamed it all on a mid-level employee? We've seen that excuse, lame as it is, from Wall Street, VW and now the NY Times. Next? The Sgt. Schultz excuse?
8
I am looking forward to reading about the "significant changes."
32