By Jonathan S. Tobin
Wednesday, May 01, 2019
On April 29, readers of the New York Times were treated to a rarity in the world of journalism.
While newspapers publish letters and occasionally opinion pieces critical of
their editorial decisions, it is rare for an in-house writer to pen an article
excoriating his employer. But that day, Times
columnist Bret Stephens accused
the paper of anti-Semitism from its own pages.
The headline on Stephens’s column was straight to the
point: “A Despicable Cartoon in The Times.” It concerned a syndicated comic,
published in the paper’s international edition, that depicted a dog with the
face of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu wearing a Star of David on
its collar leading a blind, skullcap-wearing Donald Trump around. The image was
drawn by Portuguese artist Antonio Moreiera Antunes and first published in Expresso, a Lisbon newspaper.
As Stephens — and many others who criticized the Times for the cartoon in the days
following its publication last week —
noted, the problematic nature of the cartoon was not its editorial point of
view, the allegation that Trump follows wherever Netanyahu leads. It was that
the imagery was straight out Der Sturmer,
the official newspaper of Nazi Germany. In one picture it encompasses a raft of
anti-Semitic memes, including the Jew as a dog and Israelis or Jews
manipulating foreign countries like the United States. The depiction of Trump
wearing a head covering consistent with Jewish worship represents the attempt
to depict friends of Israel and the Jews as proto-Jews themselves and, by
definition, apostates to their own faith.
By the time the column appeared in print, the Times had apologized, though it took two
tries. The first was a clarification saying that the cartoon was “offensive”
and that publishing it was an “error in judgment”; the second said the paper
was “deeply sorry” and blamed it on a mid-level editor who, it said, had not
had proper supervision. Since then, the Times
has published an editorial apologizing further.
While Stephens defended the paper against the charge of
institutional anti-Semitism, he also noted that for many Times-watchers, the appearance of the cartoon was hardly
surprising. If groups such as the American Jewish Committee refused to accept
the paper’s apology, it was because the comic was very much in keeping with the
Times’ attitude toward the Jewish
state. The paper’s news coverage is consistently adversarial toward Israel,
while its editorial section seems bent on legitimizing anti-Zionism. It’s hard
to blame that still-unnamed mid-level editor for thinking that Antunes’s
cartoon was in-bounds.
As Stephens wrote, the Times has had a long and troubling relationship with Jews, Zionism,
and Israel. Its publishers, the Ochs and Sulzberger families, were proud Jews
but ardent anti-Zionists in the decades before the establishment of the state
of Israel. As with others who opposed Zionism in this period, they feared a
Jewish state would present a challenge to their American patriotism and
undermine their personal status.
As noted in the recently published Print to Fit: The New York Times, Zionism and Israel, by Wellesley
College historian Jerold Auerbach, most Jews who espoused that point of view
came to reject it after the Holocaust, especially once the reality of Israel as
a place where persecuted Jews could find a safe refuge was established. But the
publishers of the Times still saw
Jewish nationalism and Israel as incompatible with their view of American
liberalism. The fact that the Times’
pages largely ignored the Holocaust while it was happening has long been taken
as evidence that its owners didn’t want to be seen as highlighting the
suffering of Jews, and that they valued this more than they valued combating
anti-Semitism. As Auerbach writes, the Times’
antagonistic coverage of Israel is a natural extension of that unfortunate
history.
But Stephens is right: The problem isn’t so much the
paper’s history as it is the inability of its current leaders it to understand
the connection between the demonization of the Jewish state and anti-Semitism.
While the Times,
like the rest of the liberal mainstream media, remains resolute in its
opposition to right-wing anti-Semitism and eager to connect President Donald
Trump to any uptick in hate crimes, it is blind or indifferent to expressions
of hatred for Jews from left-wing sources. Stephens characterizes this problem
as “ignorance” — but considering that, as he acknowledges, the newspaper is
“hyper-alert” to every other conceivable expression of prejudice, this creates
a terrible double standard. While Israel’s government, like any other, is fair
game for criticism, the point of anti-Zionism is the delegitimization of Israel
itself. Editors who claim to oppose all sorts of bigotry simply don’t grasp
that a movement whose sole focus is the destruction of the one Jewish state on
the planet is inherently anti-Semitic. And once you’ve legitimized
anti-Zionism, imagery and arguments about Israel and the Jews that might once
have been easily seen as beyond the pale are no longer viewed with alarm.
Indifference to anti-Semitism isn’t limited to the staff
of the New York Times. It is a
growing problem that was aptly illustrated by the fawning coverage of Representatives
Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) even after they vented
anti-Semitic tropes every bit as vicious as the Times cartoon. The willingness of the liberal establishment to
rationalize their prejudices and to treat the pushback against them as
inherently anti-Muslim speaks volumes.
Until writers and editors in the mainstream media
instinctively understand that anti-Semitism, whether in the guise of
anti-Zionism or in more traditional forms, is as much of a taboo as other forms
of prejudice, hateful “errors of judgment” like the Times cartoon will continue to proliferate.
No comments:
Post a Comment