Les Vietnamiens se battent pour tous les hommes, et les forces américaines contre tous. Sartre
L’islam est aujourd’hui la foi des opprimés comme le communisme l’était hier. Robert Redeker
A l’heure où les Iraniens s’apprêtent à annoncer le lauréat de leur concours de la meilleure caricature antisémite, quelqu’un devrait peut-être les avertir que celui-ci est connu depuis belle lurette et qu’il a déjà une abondante oeuvre derrière lui.
On aura bien sûr reconnu, bien plus fort que Serguei ou Plantu, le célèbre dessinateur brésilien Carlos Latuff, coqueluche des sites palestiniens et anti-américains occidentaux (dits « Indymedia »).
Infatigable compagnon de route du nazislamisme, il est, comme au bon vieux temps de l’agitprop du Komintern et de ses légendaires « Appels » ou « Conférences pour la Paix » (appelée aussi en interne: « défaitisme révolutionnaire »), passé maitre dans l’art du détournement et du retournement de toutes les images (camps nazis, ghetto de Varsovie, apartheid, esclavage, racisme, guerre du Vietnam, etc. – ne dédaignant pas à l’occasion les bons vieux stéréotypes médiévaux du juif dévoreur d’enfants ou détournant à son profit le fameux faux tsariste des « Protocoles des sages de Sion »!).
Et notamment dans l’inversion systématique du rapport oppresseur-opprimé, tout se ramenant dans ses dessins à l’équation de base juifs = nazis ou Américains = nazis (les deux apparaissant interchangeables, notamment via le thème commun du lien supposé guerre-affairisme et ses symboles habituels Mc Donald’s et Coca Cola) et les Palestiniens reprenant tout aussi systématiquement la place de victimes.
D’où, en plus d’un réel talent graphique et artistique, une redoutable efficacité idéologique (on peut difficilement faire plus « simple » ou plutôt plus « simpliste ») et une instante lisibilité qui ne sont pas pour rien dans son succès dans les divers milieux anti-américians (pardon: « anti-impérialistes ») et antijuifs (repardon: « antisionistes ») de la planète.
Carlos Latuff is a political cartoonist, born in November 30, 1968, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
He is the author of the famous « We are all Palestinians » series, depicting oppressed people of the world over history (Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, Blacks in South Africa and so on), and comparing them to Palestinians. Latuff’s works have been published on different Indymedia websites and on the Gush Shalom website, as well.
A Swiss-based Jewish organization « Aktion Kinder des Holocaust » sued him in 2002 with anti-Semitism allegations. The subject was the last cartoon of « We are all Palestinians » series (published in Switzerland Indymedia), depicting a Jewish boy in Warsaw Ghetto saying: « I am Palestinian. »
Criminal proceedings which AKdH had instituted against Indymedia and the Brazilian cartoonist were suspended by Swiss court. In the official judgement, it is said:
Even if the observer is emotionally biased against the Jewish people with this [cartoon], it is not the Jewish people as such that is being criticized, but their political behaviour towards the Palestinians. The issue is not a certain characterization of the Jews, but their stance in the current conflict. The constitutional equality of the Jews as human beings is thereby not denied. (p.2, paragraph 1.2.) In February 2006, Latuff had one of his artworks published in an Iranian Web site for cartoonists, « Iran Cartoon », which launched a contest for cartoons about the Holocaust, in response to a series of caricatures about the Prophet Mohammed. Latuff’s cartoon depicts an old man wearing a Nazi-era concentration camp uniform, with the Israeli « Separation Wall » and guard tower in the background. On his chest is a red Muslim crescent with a letter « P » for Palestinian:
Voir aussi la très complète collection du site de l’historien antisioniste américain Norman Finkelstein.
« D’où, en plus d’un réel talent graphique et artistique, une redoutable efficacité idéologique (on peut difficilement faire plus “simple” ou plutôt plus “simpliste”) et une instante lisibilité qui ne sont pas pour rien dans son succès dans les divers milieux anti-américians (pardon: “anti-impérialistes”) et antijuifs (repardon: “antisionistes”) de la planète. »
Antisémite et antiaméricain Latuff?
Ahv oui, Finkelstein, ces parents ont goûté aux camps nazis car ils étaient juifs….
Moi ceux qui crient à l’antiaméricanisme et à l’antisémitisme, je trouve que c’est eux qui ont des airs de fascos! 1984, le crime par la pensée, tu connais? C’est votre merde de loi gayssot en France! La liberté d’expression, vous connaissez?
Je crois que vous ne vous rendez pas compte qu’à force de crier au loup pour rien, un jour si le loup vient, on ne vous croira plus! Vous banalisez ces actes!
Merci pour la référence à la très complète collection du site de Finkelstein.
Mais, pour moi, la liberté d’expression marche dans les deux sens.
Si je suis d’accord avec vous sur l’aberration et même les aspects liberticides de lois dites mémorielles à la Gayssot ou Taubira et l’importance de chercheurs critiques comme Finkelstein, je n’en revendique pas moins le droit d’appeler un chat un chat et quelqu’un qui recycle, fut-ce avec talent, les pires formules antiaméricaines et antisémites un antiaméricain et un antisémite …
Carlos n’a jamais était antisémite il est antiimpérialiste et contre tous les crimes commis dans ce sale monde.
JEW HATERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE ! (Obama legacy: Guess who fresh from its historic nuclear deal is holding yet another Holocaust denial cartoon contest)
« Why does the United States have the Ku Klux Klan? Is the government of the United States responsible for the fact that there are racially hateful organizations in the United States? Don’t consider Iran a monolith. The Iranian government does not support, nor does it organize, any cartoon festival of the nature that you’re talking about. When you stop your own organizations from doing things, then you can ask others to do likewise. »
Javad Zarif (Iranian Foreign minister)
« Holocaust means mass killing. We are witnessing the biggest killings by the Zionist regime in Gaza and Palestine. »
Masuod Shojai Tabatabaei
“Iran denies the Holocaust, it mocks the Holocaust and it is also preparing another Holocaust. I think that every country in the world must stand up and fully condemn this.”
In “The Boys From Brazil” (Random House, 1976), Josef Mengele, alive and well in South America, plots to clone a new Hitler from the old….
THE ONLY THING MISSING WAS THE DOLLAR SIGN (Desensitization: Like the slip of the tongue that reveals the deeper institutional prejudice: what was long suspected is, at last, revealed)
As prejudices go, anti-Semitism can sometimes be hard to pin down, but on Thursday the opinion pages of The New York Times international edition provided a textbook illustration of it. Except that The Times wasn’t explaining anti-Semitism. It was purveying it. It did so in the form of a cartoon, provided to the newspaper by a wire service and published directly above an unrelated column by Tom Friedman, in which a guide dog with a prideful countenance and the face of Benjamin Netanyahu leads a blind, fat Donald Trump wearing dark glasses and a black yarmulke. Lest there be any doubt as to the identity of the dog-man, it wears a collar from which hangs a Star of David. Here was an image that, in another age, might have been published in the pages of Der Stürmer. 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 problem with the cartoon isn’t that its publication was a willful act of anti-Semitism. It wasn’t. The problem is that its publication was an astonishing act of ignorance of anti-Semitism — and that, at a publication that is otherwise hyper-alert to nearly every conceivable expression of prejudice, from mansplaining to racial microaggressions to transphobia. Imagine, for instance, if the dog on a leash in the image hadn’t been the Israeli prime minister but instead a prominent woman such as Nancy Pelosi, a person of color such as John Lewis, or a Muslim such as Ilhan Omar. Would that have gone unnoticed by either the wire service that provides the Times with images or the editor who, even if he were working in haste, selected it? The question answers itself. And it raises a follow-on: 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. Add to the mix the media’s routine demonization of Netanyahu, and it is easy to see how the cartoon came to be drawn and published: Already depicted as a malevolent Jewish leader, it’s just a short step to depict him as a malevolent Jew.
The paper (…) owes itself some serious reflection as to how its publication came, to many longtime readers, as a shock but not a surprise.
Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post.
A Despicable Cartoon in The Times
The paper of record needs to reflect deeply on how it came to publish anti-Semitic propaganda.
April 28, 2019
WHAT DEAFENING DEMOCRAT SILENCE OVER THE ANTISEMITES IN THEIR MIDST ?
Carlos Latuff, the Brazilian political cartoonist who drew this latest cartoon, has a history of producing anti-Semitic imagery. He, too, defends his work as anti-Zionist, or run-of-the-mill Israel criticism. And yet, in 2006, he participated in the infamous Iran-sponsored Holocaust Cartoon Contest. He came in second with an entry that appropriated Holocaust imagery to depict Palestinians as the “new Jews” who experienced supposedly the very same atrocities at the hands of the Jews that the Jews had once experienced at the hands of the Nazis. So far so outrageous, yet so ordinary. There is, sadly, nothing new about anti-Semitic cartoons in the progressive blogosphere or on “woke” social media. Latuff and his explanations are well-known entities. And confined to their corners of the internet, those cartoons are easy to ignore: All you have to do is avoid the sites that publish them. Most Jews have learned to do just that. What made things different this time though was the fact that this cartoon was embraced and promoted by two American elected officials with a cumulative Instagram following of 1.3 million. Making things worse was the fact that the cartoon came on the heels of the revelation that on their Israel trip, the two Congresswomen had planned to use the services of an NGO that had spread a blood libel about Jews, published an American neo-Nazi treatise about Jewish control of American media and entertainment, and celebrated terror attacks against civilians.
When anti-Semitism is on the rise, as it is now, one ingredient for putting it in check is a robust response to anti-Semitic incidents from civil society and government officials. It sends a signal to the offending party and the rest of society that this particular form of bigotry is not tolerated. Silence from those quarters is tantamount to condoning and legitimizing it. We enter an altogether different territory, however, when high-profile political figures themselves promote anti-Semitic content. A reaction then is crucial. And yet, so far none has materialized from the Democratic Party.
In an attempt to coax a response, Yascha Mounk, contributing editor to the Atlantic, tweeted, copying at every Democratic presidential candidate: “Trump and Netanyahu are authoritarian populists. They are a danger to democracy and decency. But that’s no reason to pretend it’s OK to partner with organizations that publish the blood libel, or to tweet cartoons by people who ridicule the Holocaust. The silence is deafening.”
The silence has been deafening indeed — and for a while. The cartoon, in fact, is not the first time in recent months that Democratic presidential candidates have turned the other way when confronted with anti-Semitic content in progressive spaces. At the recent Netroots Nation summit — “the largest annual conference of progressives” — panelists suggested that Zionism was equivalent to white supremacy. The summit sold t-shirts grouping Zionism with racism, sexism, homophobia and anti-Semitism “as maladies to be ‘resisted.’” ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt condemned both, but the four Democratic presidential candidates who spoke at the summit — Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jay Inslee, and Julian Castro — remained mum on the issue.
When it comes to anti-Semitism, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party seems to be the tail that’s wagging the dog, pushing the boundaries of the acceptable further and further. It is meeting only minimal public resistance from the rest of the party. The losers are, undoubtedly, American Jews, whose safety and standing are being gradually eroded. But it’s not only Jews; the party as a whole is losing too. We are now way past the time when it was possible to say that the far right is the sole source of threat to American Jews. There’s been an ongoing string of attacks against Jews in New York City whose perpetrators are not white supremacists. Some attackers seem to have been influenced by the rhetoric of Louis Farrakhan, showing — as if we still needed proof of that! — a direct link between anti-Semitic words and actions. And then there is another uncomfortable fact: appreciation that some anti-Semitic far-right figures heap on far-left “anti-Zionists.” Holocaust denier David Irving famously referred to the UK Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn as “impressive” and “a fine man” in the context of a discussion about the Party’s crisis over anti-Semitism. For the “resistance to ZOG” (Zionist occupied government, a far-right conspiracy theory), white supremacist David Duke called Omar the most important member of US Congress.
What this shows us — as if we still needed proof of that too! — is that anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism, no matter where on the political spectrum it resides. Once it’s out, particularly when expressed by a high-profile political figure, it isn’t confined to some clearly defined space. It resonates across the entire spectrum. And when there is no push back, it loosens taboos against anti-Semitism throughout the entire society. True, thus far the deadly synagogue shootings have been executed by white supremacists. But who is to say that the New York Times cartoon, published right on the eve of the Poway Chabad shooting, didn’t play into the shooter’s mindset? And who is to say that the Latuff cartoon Omar and Tlaib circulated isn’t going to contribute to a future mass shooter’s decision to take action?
When it comes to anti-Semitism, it is time for the left to do some serious soul-searching. Pointing to the right as a worse offender is hardly a convincing strategy; surely, the left has better benchmarks than that.
One place to start is to learn the boundary of where the criticism of Israel ends and anti-Semitism begins. (Hint: Israel’s ban against Omar and Tlaib unleashed a storm of criticism from U.S. Jewish institutions and individuals. None of it was anti-Semitic.) Doing nothing will cause the left to lose its moral edge and ensure that it keeps walking right into the trap that Trump seems to be setting up for it, one that cynically paints its most radical wing as representative of the whole party in an attempt to peel American Jews’ support away from it.
I can’t imagine that the Democratic Party would want to hand Trump that victory.