I agree with popo on almost everything he/she's said and I voted Yes.
My reasons:
- The only recognisable person is Bush, who is caricatured the way he is in the UK - looking like a monkey with his tongue hanging out (its not a cigar Sun Tzu) . At a *very* big stretch the distant person could be Arafat, but looks more like a generic arab/palestinian.
- The person on the near side of the bridge is a generic Jew. He is fat, has a beak nose, a star of david and is looking lovingly at money. He bears no resemblance to Sharon other than being a big man.
- The message of the cartoon is: The Jew is only genuinely interested in peace with Arabs/Palestinians if they are given money for it.
- This in itself would be okay if it was true. But it isn't. The Jewish people care passionately about the promised land and the security of their state. They care little about money. In fact they are paying billions to keep (what they see as) the Palestinian threat at bay. IMO they would *pay* billions more if it meant a genuine, lasting solution to the perceived threat was achieved.
So in conclusion: The cartoon tells the lie that the Jew is a greedy person only interested in peace if they are bribed with money. This to me is anti-semitic.
Final point: It doesn't really matter what the intention of the cartoonist was. You can offend without intending to. You can hurt without intending to. You can be ignorant without intending to be. You can discriminate or be a rascist without intending to. And you can make rascist statements without intending to.
__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!
|