ARTICLES

 

A cartoon, an uproar, then a useful dialogue By Amanda Bennett and Chris Satullo Political cartoons are drawn in hopes of triggering a vivid and immediate response in readers. Tony Auth's cartoon, published in The Philadelphia Inquirer on August 1, 2003 did more than just that. The cartoon, commenting on the security fence Israel is building in the West Bank, depicted a Star of David formed by a crisscrossing fence. Inside the star, separated by the fence, huddled groups of Palestinians. To Auth, the symbolism at work was clear: The Star of David stood for the state of Israel, and the chain link for that state's literal fence-building. "Many Jews understood that and have told me that in their view the cartoon fell well within the bounds of legitimate political commentary," he said. But the cartoon left others hurt and outraged. Some of the reaction, however fierce, could be placed under the heading of normal disagreement with a cartoon's political message. Many readers disputed Auth's implication that the fence-building harmed Palestinians, rather than being a purely defensive action by Israel in response to suicide bombers. But others felt the cartoon crossed boundaries of taste and bias in offensive ways. Thanks to the Internet - and its ability to spread information (and misinformation) globally in an instant - the cries of outrage soon became international. Some people felt that the use of the Star of David misused a sacred symbol and had the effect of criticizing the Jewish faith and people as a whole, not just the government of Israel, which has the star on its flag. For others, the image of the star-shaped fence suggested an offensive allusion to concentration camps. This feeling was intensified because of an inadvertent similarity between Auth's cartoon and a '30s-vintage piece of Nazi propaganda, about which Auth had been unaware. Inaccurate information passed around the Internet also fueled the furor: Web sites and blogs wrongly claimed that Auth's drawing showed a barbed-wire fence. Auth and Inquirer editors met with representatives of the Jewish community on Aug. 18. During a respectful, free-flowing 90-minute discussion, the representatives disagreed with the allegation that Auth and the paper were anti-Semitic. But the Jewish leaders also conveyed why they found the cartoon offensive and painfully inappropriate at a time when anti-Semitic rhetoric and actions are growing. After the meeting, Auth said: "It was, of course, never my intention to impugn the Jewish faith or to make some sort of allusion to the Holocaust. It is unfortunate that anyone interpreted the cartoon in those ways. It is never my intention in my work to construct barriers to communication." In the wake of the controversy and discussions, The Inquirer thought it worthwhile to offer a fuller airing of the issues of anti-Semitism, the distressing evidence of its revival, and the difficulties of distinguishing between legitimate criticism of Israel's policies and anti-Semitic rhetoric. We asked four local Jewish citizens, as well as one academic expert on anti-Semitism and resolution of religious conflict, to write on those topics. Please read their words as one installment in a continuing dialogue. This article was first published in the August 31, 2003 edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer

More articles on defining anti-Semitism: Enforced silence is not a Jewish value Israel bashing is on the rise In tense times, symbols gain more weight For Jews, a new, unexpected age of anxiety Tips on how and where to draw the line Anti-Semitism or legitimate criticism?