Is this anti-semitic?
 

Just curious.

http://www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatur...jpg&code=eddik

vote no.

i dont get offended by comics and i dont think anyone should.

it's just a comic!

Without saying what I think of the cartoon (and without meaning offense), I think that this answer is weak.

A cartoon is the way an artist speaks. It's the exact same thing as a writer putting his thoughts into an essay or a poet into a poem. This is how he expresses himself. The real question is, "is the thinking behind the cartoon anti-semitic?".

There is no spoon...

:confused:

i wouldnt call it antisemetic.

look, if people started taking cartoons seriously, the everyone would always be mad.

cartoons are going to offend somebody in some way, if they take it seriously

Personally, I don't think that a comic that appears to have a message along the lines of, "He's not doing it on his own, so lets appeal to his pockets..." dictates anti-semitism. Now, if they showed Bush arguing with a subordinate and saying, "they like money" or something like that, that would be more along the lines of racism. This cartoon is purely political, not a statement about racist beliefs.

On a side note, the artist, in portraying America's desire to please Israel, does so pretty well.

I would say that it's reality rather than anti-semitism.

Yeah, it's "just a comic" like Mein Kampf is "just a book". Are you honestly saying that you can't see the difference between this cartoon and Peanuts?

No. As Im seeing it: Sharon is wearing the Star of David, but I think thats just for those who would recognize Sharon. This is a suggestion into personal character rather than an entire religious philosophy.

Its not even a really good one.

The problem with this is that whether or not it's anti-semitic boils down to intent. It's right on the line. On the one hand, it harks back to the myth of the greedy Jew ("How was copper wire invented? "). On the other hand, paying Israel aid money to go along with US peace initiatives has been pretty standard since Carter. So it depicts actuality in a way that could be argued as tactless. So it's borderline. If it was intended to be anti-semitic, then it is, but no one would ever admit that such was their intent (with the possible exception of Jim Moran, that fumbletongue). If it wasn't, it's not.

Personally, I think The star of David on the sleeve is the equivalent of putting an American Flag and a cowboy hat on a horses ass so that everyone will know it's Dubya, or the Khaffieyeh on the obvious Palestinian on the far side of the Gulch.

i dont think it is

There's a big difference between being anti-Semitic and being anti-Israel.

I'd love to see the comments from the Yes crew too...

Spit it out! ;)

Well then...Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! And why...? The Star of David. It identifies Sharon as a Jew, not as an Israeli (and yes, I know that Israelis are for the most part Jewish).
If he had an Israeli flag on his jacket it would be a different matter- simply that of the offensive stereotype of the money-grubbing Jew.
Are offensive stereotypes part of racism or anti-semitism? Of course they are.

I'm surprised no has commented on who's putting the money down...

If you think that giving or withdrawing money are needed to grease wheels and twist arms in these peacenegotiations then you must be hyper-politicly correct to be offended by this cartoon.

Not nescessarily hateful, but definitely critical of at least one Semite. But there have been many political cartoons starring our president current or past that aren't necessarily anti-US. Hard to say without your definition of anti-Semetic.

I suppose individuals will see what they choose to see. Thats not right or wrong. Its just like looking at the vase with 2 faces. I dont see this as singling out Jewish people as being greedy. If the characture didnt look like Sharon, perhaps a Rabbi, or even an unrecgonizable character with the Star, yes I could see that going into that direction.

So by adding a line above and below the star your saying that makes the difference?

One thing that annoys me (not accusing you) is where someone disagrees with some of the things Israel is doing or showing any sympathy inthe direction of the Palestinians; they are anti-semetic. Sean Hannity is notorious for this.

So I guess the real question here is if someone is against Zionist philosophies are they anti semetic?

Here's the scoop:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...epagenews2-utl


Don Wycliff
When a cartoon offends readers


Published June 1, 2003


In my nine years as the Tribune's editorial page editor, the moments of greatest controversy and personal anguish all were the result of editorial cartoons.

In the early `90s there was the late Jeff MacNelly's irreverent depiction of the thoughts of a group of Catholic priests as they watched the singer Sinead O'Connor on television. That one prompted then-Cardinal Joseph Bernardin to take up the cudgels against the newspaper--and made me wish I had a bunker instead of an office.

A bit later on there was another MacNelly panel in which he compared Slobodan Milosevic's Serbs in Yugoslavia to a barnyard animal wallowing in filth. That brought a torrent of angry phone calls and a number of visits from members of the local Serbian community.

In the late `90s MacNelly hit upon a visual device with which to hammer a Monica-bedeviled Bill Clinton: He drew the lantern-jawed president naked, except for a necktie that covered his private parts. Result: another torrent of rancorous phone calls.

The editorial cartoon is a permanent stranger in its own environment.

With written material--editorials, commentary articles, even letters to the editor--we nip, tuck, trim, fine-tune and adjust so that the piece will say just what the writer and editor want it to say, no more and no less.

The best editorial cartoons, by contrast, have all the nuance and delicacy of a stick in the eye.

But even at its roughest and bluntest, there are lines that a cartoon should not cross. On Friday, our editorial page ran a cartoon that crossed all the lines.

Drawn by former Tribune cartoonist Dick Locher, the cartoon depicted President George W. Bush on one knee on a bridge over what was labeled "Mideast Gulch." The president is laying down a carpet of bills--U.S. currency, presumably--in front of a portly male figure with a large, aquiline nose and clad in a black suit marked with the Star of David.

As a Yasser Arafat-like figure looks on with arms crossed, the black-suited man--is he Ariel Sharon? a generic Israeli? a generic Jew?--remains riveted on the money, and says, "On second thought, the pathway to peace is looking a bit brighter."

Locher could not be reached for comment Friday evening.

But editorial page editor Bruce Dold said, "I think Dick Locher intended to comment on the influence the U.S. can exert through the foreign aid it provides to Israel. I think that's all Locher intended. But the cartoon carried several other messages that could be seen as drawing on anti-Semitic symbols and stereotypes. It also implied that the U.S. is bribing Israel to support the road map to peace, but there is simply no evidence to support that. On those levels, the cartoon failed."

Did it ever.

The telephones began ringing early and continued to ring late. E-mail inboxes started to show that telltale subject line: "cartoon."

Some callers identified themselves as Jewish; some did not. But all identified themselves as offended.

"One need not be a supporter of either Ariel Sharon or many current policies of the state of Israel to be deeply offended by today's editorial cartoon, which suggests that money alone is the incentive for Israel/Sharon to engage in peace talks," wrote long-time Chicago political activist Don Rose.

"The cartoon is blatantly anti-Semitic, reinforcing the long-held racist image of Jews as avaricious and greedy."

My own reaction was very much the same as Rose's. It is no secret to readers of this column that I have been no fan of Sharon and his policies. But I was jolted when I looked at the cartoon and saw that figure with the hooked nose, the Star of David and those words (particularly since money has never been the decisive issue in the Middle East dispute).

Since the Tribune does not currently have a staff editorial cartoonist, each day's cartoon is selected from a batch bought from various syndicates. Locher's cartoons come through Tribune Media Services.

Dold was out of town on Thursday, so the selection of Friday's cartoon fell to his deputy, John McCormick, with help from Voice of the people editor Dodie Hofstetter. McCormick said he settled on the Locher cartoon because the policy issue it depicted--the use of U.S. aid to influence the Israeli government--was one that had often been discussed in editorial board debates.

There is no question in my mind that McCormick and Hofstetter, two of the most honorable people I have ever worked with, did not knowingly try to smuggle an anti-Semitic cartoon into the newspaper.

But that this cartoon did indeed give grievous offense to many good people is beyond question.

Not according to the Jewish lobby and related jewish organizations not to mention the mainstream North American media.

popo I respect your experience; you have an extensive amount of it with your past history. Being that I didn’t draw the cartoon I can only state what you asked for in the beginning of this thread, my opinion and/or interpretation.

With your explanation I understand why you see what you state, but looking at it again I don’t see the cartoon downing Jewish people for being Jewish. The Israelis have a unique situation that no others have; a country they have created within a fellowship of their religion. On top of that, the flag of their country is the symbol that represents who they are religiously and culturally.

Perhaps the fact that its easy to tell Arafat in this cartoon because of his headpiece, so it would be assumed that a fat black suited figured would be looked at in context as Sharon. Perhaps to guide slower people the star was placed interpretational guidance. (Again it only MO, I didn’t create it) The funny thing is I’m apart of the "slow crowd" because I honestly did not know who was laying out the money. Sure it would make since that it would be President Bush, but for one thing it doesn’t look like him; and two since when does he EVER smoke cigars? So I was going through my mind who in his administration is this supposed to be representing? If he would have put a cowboy hat on him; even if he had the same face as he does now I would have instantly interpreted it to be GWB.

If he had put a cowboy hat on him does that mean he is stating that American are conniving hicks that think they can buy their way out of anything, or would it just be referencing the Bush Administration latest actions.

I’m not saying your wrong so please don’t take it as such, but I do feel the word or accusation of anti-Semitic can be misused if not abused.

Some interesting comments. FWIW, I never said what I thought about it, nor did I say what my background is. :)

Here's what I do think. Like another poster said, it HAS to come down to what the cartoonist meant with it. The caroon itself can really be seen both ways, dependng on your viewpoint. Some things that I did not like about it are:

1) the HUGE nose on Sharon is very reminiscient of another era's propaganda, especially considering the fact that Sharon himself does not have a large nose. If he'd been drawn as a man weighing ~500 lbs, that would be more apropos.

2) I do think it would've made a huge difference if the star of david was drawn with a stripe above and below it, like the flag of Israel. Again, without it being the flag it could easily be thought to represent Jewry instead of the state of Israel. The way it's drawn here is the way it's drawn in propaganda cartoons.

3) It doesn't reflect what's going on in the news. Yes, there's the tired old screams about Israel getting $2.5-3B/year in aid/loans while no one frets about Egypt getting $2.1B/year while at the same time fomenting hate against the US in govt run newspapers. But the current peace process is not about money and to my knowledge Bush has not been dangling it in Sharon's face in order to get him to negotiate.

Sharon has always said that he will not negotiate while there is terror going on and when he does negotiate that it will not be with Arafat. Well, he seems to be willing to negotiate now that Arafat is sort of out of the picture. Where has money come into it? Have finacial deals been in the news recently? Not that I've seen.

Usually, editorial cartoon are meant to comment on what's on in the news, but this cartoonist seems to have a message that he wants to get out without any regard for what's actually going on.

This being said, these are very bad caricatures.

If I got offended every time some comedian made a white guy joke, I'd have busted an artery by now.

Searched a little about the topic of Israel, "road map", and bribe. Came up with an article entitled "The Bribe" from 5.22.2003. Here's a brief quote from the article, followed by a link to the full article. Granted, the source is miftah.org (The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue & Democracy) so as is anything written in the 21st century, take it for what you will:
Full Article

And in other astonishing news, PETA has proof that people who eat meat are direct descendants of Satan.

Why don't you try researching the claims?

Sorry the way it was laid out and the fact I couldnt get to the link made me think you had nine years working as an editor. You see I told you I was sllllllloooooowwwwwww. :-)

Greed is universal. Not a religious phenomenon.

Because it's meaningless. The Phalcon is Israeli-developed and Israeli-made. The US asked Israel not to sell it to India because Bush needed Pakistan's support in Afghanistan. Now that things have settled, Bush is giving up his objections.

This is Israel's product to sell or not to sell. To suggest that Bush easing up here is buying ($$$) Israel's support for negotiations is really stretching it.

Wow,..do you ever have alot to learn.

Brilliant contributions to the thread!

Seems to me that the cartoonist isn't talented enough to show who is who without resorting to stereotypes. I'd vote for no, but the cartoonist should withdraw and practice.

As for anti-semitism - anti-zionism; it's ridiculous to say they're the same. The Jewish lobby is making a big mistake by claiming that. In a way, they are legitimizing anti-semtism by doing so. They are redefining the word "jew" into something most jews would not agree with. They're undermining their own organizations.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...120031mike.gif
No more than this cartoon is also 'anti-semitic'.
I seem to have had this conversation very recently in another thread, but here it goes again.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/S0258700.html
Semite
1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs , Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. 2. A Jew. 3. Bible A descendant of Shem.

It therefore stands to reason that an anti-semite includes all of the above ethnic groups. Although it may not mean this here in this country, we have been using the term incorrectly for far to long because it does mean this in the Tri-Continental Hub region. Any member of the above ethinic groups cannot be an anti-semite without hating their own ethinic group.

Now can someone explain to me why it is 'ok' to have cartoons like this one, but not ok to have cartoons about Israel??? seems like a double standard to me. (cartoon was pulled from June 2, 2003 Newsweek btw)

I think it relates to the belief that Israeli people are the only "non-others" in the Middle East. Consequently, we ally our views with theirs and reject the significance of alternate world views.

This is illustrated by aspersions cast on news reports from various Middle Eastern sources, the inability (or refusal) to make a distinction between semites and non-semites in the region, and a general disdain for the long cultural and political history and innovations of the peoples in that region.

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.

Regarding the anti-Israel vs. anti-Semitism debate, I think that it's much ado about nothing. There's no question that the cartoon is anti-Israel and I (nor anyone else) has a problem with that. You can have an anti-Israel view (like this cartoonist in this instance) but what I'm asking is whether people think it crosses the line into anti-semitism.

There is a distinction, and the discussion is about whether the cartoonist blurred it.

Now, the term "anti-semitism". Yes, a semite is anyone originating from a Semitic region but anti-semitism was originally coined by a German in the late 1800's referring to Jews and it's stuck. Technically not correct but this is the current definition.

Exactly like saying that someone is anti-American does not mean that they are anti-South, Central, and North America (which is what America really is). Technically incorrect but it accepted to specifically point to anti-US feelings.

Again it is reality.If anyone thinks that vast amounts of money and resources are not key points in the negotiations,then I don't know what to say.

Who do you think will foot the bill to reestablish Isreals economy which has taken a severe blow over the last two and a half years?

Who do you think will foot the bill to develop and maintain a sustainable infrastructure if a Palestinian state becomes reality?

Does it seem so incredible that Ariel Sharon is more than likely demanding major concessions since he has to make concessions of his own toward the existence of a Palestinian state? Or is that statement itself anti-semitic?

If this cartoon is anti-semitic for reasons posted,then what about the other side of the equation. An Arab could look at this cartoon and say it's stereotypically racist of how people perceive Arabs,that being looking dishevelled and dirty and not nearly important enough to even be offered money. Or what about proud Americans who think it is distasteful that the most powerful man in the world is on his knees pandering to someone when he has the power to not only make the rules,but also to be the rule.

If this is seen as anti-semitic by some,then so be it. Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees.

I still think it looks more like Ronald Regan with a cigar

gibber, if you think that these 10+ years of on & off negotiations are centered on monetary factors, well then, nothing I can say is going to change your mind.

Message board history has shown that in the end you will still believe what you want to believe and to be honest, a 5th grade debate is not what I have in mind right now.

It has everything to do with Israel and not Jews specifically, so I vote no.

We'll see. That being if any backroom deals ever see the light of day.

Likewise,..sorry your thread didn't work out the way you wanted it to.

I have no problem with how it's worked out. I was just curious about what people would think about the cartoon and that's what I got for the most part.

As far as backroom deals, of course there will be some. And money used to jump start the Israeli & Palestinian economies will be part of it but that stuff has already been agreed to in past discussions in Oslo, Camp David, Taba, etc.

The holdups have been due to security issues and mistrust on both sides. To suggest that it's been about money is simply disingenuous.

I wasn't suggesting that the Isreali's or anyone else is getting suitcases full of money or secret bank accounts.I'm not suggesting for a minute either that the 'roadmap' is of some secondary importance,but there are many countries that stand to benefit from the outcome and want their piece of the pie as well in their given context's. The 'roadmap' as you know is very complicated and in a lot of instances,just the tip of the iceberg in terms of future foreign policies.

I can understand how you see this cartoon as anti-semitic. I'm not saying your wrong because I understand your position with the detail given.I didn't see it as such and wouldn't have thought that way since I looked at the big picture first regarding the roadmap and what I said above.If anything,I think this cartoonist is guilty of ignorance if in fact he is infering that the U.S has to bribe the Isreali's for peace.I really don't think that the U.S has to bribe anyone. But that connotation is certainly prevalent since it appears that Yasser Arafat is looking on impatiently with his arms crossed.

And one more thing.As stated I can see the anti-semitic overtones some people feel exist but what about the anti-American overtones.Is this cartoonist saying that Yassar Arafat is on the side of the American's or vise versa? Is he implying that the American's are in bed with terrorist's? I don't want to read to much into it,but I think several things are directly and indirectly being said here.If this cartoon was placed in a Canadian paper it would more likely be viewed as anti-American rather than anti-semitic.

Sharon's nose in the picture reminds me of a lot of the Nazi cartoon propaganda I've seen- it's a classic thing to portray Jews as greedy, and the hook nose is a classic. It is anti-semitic. Maybe that other one is anti-arab too- though I don't have much to compare it too. I have seen more anti-Jewish propaganda.

This is not anti-anything in my opinion.

It depicts the United States, lead by doofus in charge, forking cash to Israel in order to get them to stop massacring Palestinians and find some sort of peace agreement.

Using the star is just like using a cross to signify Christianity. It signifies a group. The star is on the flag so really there is no difference unless you want to make it one.

Cartoons are meant to generalize an entire event into one picture. The artist also wants everyone that looks at it to know right away what it has to do with, even if they only have a small amount of knowledge of the event.

If there was a cross on a guys shirt directing a young boy into a dark room while looking over his shoulder would that be anti-Christian? No, it is depicting current events.

Playing the racism card or the anti-this/that card is used to make an argument invalid. No one wants to be a racist so they leave the problem alone. It also generalizes the problems so that when a real issue of racism occurs everyone just pushes it aside as another one of those race issues.

Darkblack

I think the issues are (i) "depicting current events" and (ii) generalization.

i) The cartoon does not depict current events. The peace process is stalled because of violence and fear (e.g. the recent Palestinian shooting of Israeli soldiers), not because the Israelis (or as this cartoon would have you think - the Jews) haven't been given enough money. In fact the issue of money hasn;t been in any newspaper articles I have read is only relevant as part of the continuing framework of talks - there will need to be money to rebuild Palestine, that is all.

ii) When an artist makes a statement about a group that should strictly only apply to a few members of the group then that is unfair generalisation or stereotyping and leads to the charges of racism, sexism or anti-whatever. In the church case it is only a small minority of priests who are paedophiles and if the cartoons intent was to say that priests generally are then it would be wrong. Of course if it was just trying to depict a one off incident (and this was clear from the cartoon or the usual role of the cartoon in the paper - e.g. some always depict one of the day's stories others always make wider political statements) then it is okay.

This to everyone here:
Ask yourself what it is about this cartoon that makes it antisemitic (if anything does) and then ask yourself whether any of those features apply to the earlier cartoon:

http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/...AN/octopus.JPG

That cartoon depicts Jews taking over the world.
That is wrong and anti-Semitic. I agree totally.

The cartoon in question is the artist voicing his opinion on the fact that the US has to give money to Israel in order for them to even talk with the Palestinians. It has nothing to do with the current halt in talks. At least this is what I get out of it.

And the Octopus picture was the cartoonist expressing his opinion that the Jews had come to dominate the banking and business spheres of the world.

And there was some truth in that. These stereotypes and racist cartoons don't come out of nothing.

So the defining line (and it will be a thin one) is whether the opinion is an accurate and genuine one or a cover for a more troubling message.

For me, there is very little truth in the claim "the US has to give money to Israel in order for them to even talk with the Palestinians". The Israelis want (in fact need) a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian issue. Money will come into play - it always does in politics - but it is not a very important issue. As already sated the US gives huges amounts of money to Egypt - an Arab state with no peace process - because that is how America feels it can get influence and create stability in the region, through the giving money.

Having shown the flimsiness of the cartoon's basic message we must now ask what it is acting as cover for. My answer is that it is a cover for the more troubling stereotypes and lies that the cartoon is playing on and propogating:

- Jews are fat and hook nosed
- Jews have less of an interest in peace than other races
- But Jews have an excessive interest in money
- And this is what the US is using to make them interested in peace.

This message has been made before.
I am sorry it is so big.
The German says:
"The Jew: The inciter of war, the prolonger of war"

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/g...rs/derjude.jpg

Nope

I hate political correctness.

wow...you managed to relate this to Hitler....impressive.

Hmm...sounds like you might be taking the piss, eple.

hmmm...sounds like you might me getting the irony, Easytiger.

btw: every cartoonist portraying Arafat gives him a big-ass nose too, truth is, bot of them have huge noses. I think that is more a personal attribute than a racial thing. Stop bitching about anti-semitism everytime someone citizises Israel, they manage to do that fine by themselves.

Comics generally have a funny thought involved, thus the Com in Comics. Anti-semitic? No. Stereotypical? Yes. Many jewish comics have poked fun at the jews and their money ideas that people have. They were in no way being anti-semitic.

Hey people ! The 'beak" nose is not anti-semetic, it distinguishes the "Jew" in the cartoon as a hawk (war-monger) separating him from the main body of Jews. Check this out if you think $ isn't involved in our relations with Israel.

Summary

Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)

Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000

Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200

Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630


Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel

Grand Total
$84,854,827,200

Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000

Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200

Total Cost per Israeli
$23,240
Here's the link :http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

I'm no scholar on the Mid-East, but when I see the news I'm very struck by how conservative the Israeli government is. They Remind me of our fearless leader. I was also watching the news the day that right-wing Israeli politician took his cadre of bodyguards to a Muslim holy site just to prove he could go anywhere in Israel he damn well pleased. This to people who are forced to abide by checkpoints and curfews everyday! What an asshole! I have no qualms about stating that that man (wish I could remember his name) started the latest round of violence. (the last 3 years give or take)
I've enjoyed every Jew that I've known well (only 3 or 4), but they were Americans. I believe the government of Israel must be made up of fanatical Jews. Fanatics are a problem, no matter what belief system they come from. The Israelis have no moral high ground on the Palestinians, and Jews I have talked to are alarmed by the Israeli policy of seek and destroy, much as I am alarmed by the Bush administration's pursuit of tactical nukes. In short, (sorry so long) the cartoon is critical of the Hawks in the Israeli government, and they are somewhat influenced by the HUGE amounts of aid we hand out to them.

I have said it before and I say it again gladly: Zionists and xxtreme right-wingers in Israel have as much to do with the Jewish religion as nazists had to christianity. Hitler based his reich on "chrstian" values, Sharon bases his on holocaust.

Isreal gets the most US aid.

Egypt is second.

Well no, I don't even get the cartoon but it doesn't seem anti-semetic. It just depicts Bush giving Israel money, nothing new. The US has given Israel tons of money and technology.

thats fuckin funny gotta love a little jew humor to pass the time

Hay dude, how nice of you to resurrect this thread with this useful information. Great post!

i would say that it is anti-semetic. not necessarily because it criticizes Israel, but because it plays on the stereotype of jews being greedy/money-grubbing people.

Hmmph. I dunno. I reckon he looks like Ariel Sharon more than he does my mental image of a "generic Jew". The Yasser looks a bit more generic but I'd put that down to lazy cartoonist syndrome. The whole Star of David is just an identifier, maybe it would have been better off putting a proper Israeli flag, but I think thats just nitpicking.

It could be taken in an anti-semitic way if you were so inclined, but I don't think that was the way it was intended.