News-Record.com

I don't believe that it was anti-Semitic at all, and that the cartoonist was simply weighing in on the disproportionate loss of life. I do agree, however, with a point the author of that letter made: Certainly if the United States was attacked by one of our neighbors, as a result of having the most powerful military in the world, we would simply crush them, much like Israel is with Gaza.

Right now, Israel has the capability to flatten Gaza in a day. However, they pause their attacks to allow aid to enter, provide warning via telephone, sound bombs and flyers to areas that will be attacked, yet so-called humanitarians complain about the disproportionate death toll. Perhaps if the Palestinians had chosen NOT to elect a known terrorist organization whose main reason for existence is to eliminate Israel, their neighbor, this would not be happening.

If the Palestinians would rise up against Hamas, they would no longer be used as human shields, and Israel would be more than happy to institute a treaty.

Doug, two points. First, just because you're not an anti-semite doesn't mean that a cartoon you selected doesn't have anti-semitic implications. Maybe, just maybe, the "anti-semitism card" was played when the cartoon ran.

Second, and this is the broader and more important point, the concept of "proportionality" sure seems to get applied to Israel more than any other country. I'm not one of those who equates any criticism of Israel with anti-semitism, and in fact I have my own criticisms of the state. But when Israel gets singled out for behavior based on bogus concepts like "proportionality," is it really so crazy to wonder about anti-semitism?

When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, should we have been limited to causing only 3,000 deaths in that war, in order to match the number murdered on 9/11? That would have been "proportionate," right? The number of Iraqi deaths since our invasion has dwarfed our military deaths: is that "disproportionate"? (Evening out the number of deaths wouldn't have justified that war, in my opinion.) Was our bombing of Hiroshima in WWII "disproportionate"? Such things seem to be okay when we do it.

Besides, what do you think the U.S. would do if Cuba had shot more than 6,000 rockets into Florida since 2005? What would the "proportionate" response have been?

And what about Israel? In order to be "proportionate," should Israel be limited to shooting back into Gaza only the number of rockets that Hamas shot into Israel? Would it be "disproportionate" if Israel had better rockets? Or better shelters for its people?

The fact is that war is messy and horrible, and not conducive to simplistic counting (remember General Westmoreland?). I wish the war would end, but I also wish the world would hold Israel to the same standards it holds other countries. The cartoon in question reminds us that this is not yet the case.

This is a perfectly legitimate discussion, and I will not try to refute your points about how the U.S. would respond in similar circumstances.

I haven't offered any criticisms of Israel's actions at all. I've simply noted that they were disproportionate. The same is true of the Keefe cartoon.

Whether the concept of proportionality is bogus is a fair argument.

There are those who do argue that the a-bombing of Hiroshima, not to mention Nagasaki, was grossly disproportionate, immoral and militarily unnecessary -- not OK, in other words. They present some legitimate points.

It doesn't make one anti-American to raise those issues, nor is it holding the U.S. to an unfair standard.

First, what Andrew said.

Second, I think the cartoon was of questionable taste due to the underlying misconception of many Americans about the difference between "eretz Yisrael," (the holy land of Israel from the Bible) and "medinat Yisrael," (the political state of Israel). The proportionate argument often stems from wanting to apply the moral imperatives of the biblical holy land to the realities of modern politics and survival. The very word "Israel" evokes that confusion.

Many people hear and see antisemitism in cartoons such as the one you approved because Israel, which is often called the "Jewish state" but is not limited to Jews in the population, makes some people demand the country respond in a biblical manner and ignore the realities of constant, 24/7 death threat to the country's existence. It's one thing when David slays Goliath with a slingshot and too often world opinion is that Israel should respond with the equivalent of that weapon because it worked back then, so what's different now?

Americans and others are quick to understand when Israel says, "enough is enough! Stop launching missiles against our civilians!" But when they actually do something about it, it's labeled "disproportionate." Those who condone cartoons like you did merely serve to support the "suffering Jews" stereotype that I, for one, am simply tired of enduring.

Never again means just that. Never. Again.

Sue, with all due respect, I really can't accept your assertion that I am supporting the "suffering Jews" stereotype by holding the position that there is a legitimate proportionality issue here.

To take this out of the context of Israel for a moment, I suggest that India would be making a disproportionate response to the Mumbai terrorism if it were to launch airstrikes against a city in Pakistan.

Would that make me anti-Hindu?

Doug, with all due respect back atcha, and with the understanding that what happened in Mumbai was beyond awful, is/are:

(1) Pakistan trying to annihilate the country of India and all its citizens?

(2) There repeated, constant, 24/7 missile strikes against cities in India condoned by the Pakistani government?

(3) There repeated, constant suicide bombings in major Indian cities by Pakistani government-sponsored terrorists trying to kill as many Indians as possible out of hatred for the Indian people per se?

(4) A global history of genocide by the Pakistanis against Indians that the Indians have vowed to never let happen again?

(5) A biblical-inspired international imperative that India must never defend itself outside of another country's idea of how big that defense should be?

(6) A multi-national threat to destroy India since its inception?

(7) A worldwide stereotype of Indian people that is simply tiresome, always inaccurate and generates more worldwide hatred of its people for simply being Indian?

Want to change the context? How long would the US tolerate Mexico's launching missiles at El Paso? Would we build the El Paso-ites bomb shelters so they could be as safe as possible and accept the losses, provide therapy for shell-shocked children, tell them to just suffer through it? Or would we bomb the crap out of those who launched the missiles for years on end?

Nah. There is no understanding without context and history of Israel is replete with context. The ultra-logical "proportionality" argument *can be* antisemitism without the vocabulary.

Sue, you've constructed a rhetorical defense that no one can assail without being anti-Semitic. It's simply impossible to question or criticize any actions of the Israeli government on that basis. If they want to launch a nuclear strike against Iran, they're justified, because Iran is the Hamas/Hezbollah puppeteer and has a stated desire to destroy Israel. Only anti-Semites will object.

Doug, of course we could get into a whole thing about who's right and who's wrong in the Middle East. I apologize for broadening the topic, because I think it comes down to something pretty simple and understandable.

If white Americans were to hold black folk to a different and stricter standard (say of behavior) than the one to which they hold themselves, it wouldn't be crazy to see racism in that. Similarly, when Americans hold another country to a standard of behavior when their own country has violated it on a regular basis, it's not crazy to see bias in that. When that other country has been subject to special and unique condemnation for violating that standard, as has Israel, it's not crazy to see anti-semitism in that.

And of course this has special resonance when the standard in question is so, well, questionable. Here's a good piece on that.

I yield to Andrew. He wrote what I meant and was much more economical with words.

Is war not about killing more of them, than they do of you?
My question is,what Israel, supposed to do, just sit there and take it?
I also understand that about as many Arabs live in Israel as Jews, So it appears to me this folks do not care who they kill.
Its also odd that the people who talk about the use of the atom bomb never mention Pearl Harbor.

Andrew:

You and I agree (yipee): The discussion about "proportionality" would be silly if it was not down right irresponsible. If all wars were governed by this new rule, and one side could not inflict more damage or more casualties on the other side than was inflicted by the other side, we might still be fighting WWII.

We need some moral clarity here. On the one side we have a state governed by a liberal democracy and on the other, we have terrorists hide among women and children and fire rockets at Israel. Israel has a right to incapacitate all the folks who lob thousands of rockets at them. Hamas does not even recognize the right of Israel to exist. On the other hand, however, a peaceful Hamas/Palestine has nothing to fear from Israel.

Andrew has deftly shifted this discussion from one thing to another. Perhaps it is unfair to hold Israel to higher standards than those to which other countries are held. Is that the case here? I don't know, because there are no situations elsewhere exactly comparable. At any rate, being unfair is not necessarily being racist or, in this case, anti-Semitic. I can be unfair to a person of another race, but maybe I would be equally unfair to a person of my own race in similar circumstances. In order to know for sure, you'd have to make observations over some period of time and compare and evaluate my actions in all circumstances.

In the case of Israel's current actions in Gaza, what exactly is our standard of comparison? How does anyone know that any other country could act as Israel has and escape any criticism?

Yes, I agree that if El Paso were struck by missiles fired from Juarez, the U.S. would take some action to stop it. Would the U.S. essentially flatten Juarez, and if it did would that response meet with universal approval? We can't say because it hasn't happened. Maybe some U.S. action should be taken against Juarez, though, on account of the drug violence that's beginning to spill over the border. But that's another matter.

This discussion, however, is drawing our attention away from the debate about proportionality and the question of whether raising the issue is, on its face, anti-Semitic. I hold to my position that it is not.

I fully understand that the U.S. on many occasions has responded to threats or attacks with disproportionate use of force, and that most of those actions have been generally accepted as justified. The current war in Iraq is an exception. I contend one is not necessarily anti-American to draw that conclusion about the war in Iraq, by the way.

In regard to Israel's offensive in Gaza, I hope that those who support a disproportionate use of military force as necessary to achieve vital objectives would still recognize that there must be limits. Surely you wouldn't accept a policy by Israel to specifically target Palestinian children on the grounds that otherwise they might grow up to be Hamas terrorists. Nor would you support the use of weapons of mass destruction.

So, assuming you agree that there must be some restrictions on the use of force by Israel in Gaza, then you are engaging in a legitimate debate -- which is, where do you appropriately draw the line? Or, if you will, how much disproportionaility is justified?

That is not a discussion rooted in anti-Semitism.

Doug, you appear to be arguing that "proportionality" is a perfectly valid topic for an argument, and I agree with you. In the abstract you and I could argue whether or not it's "bogus," as I put it earlier. But what you're missing is that the argument seems never to be made except when it's focused on Israel. Oh sure, we condemn violent regimes from time to time, but never on the basis of this particular hair-split of a moral argument. This one we reserve for Israel.

So sure, proportionality is valid in theory; it's valid in the abstract. But in the real world it's used as a cudgel against the only Jewish state in the world. Call that coincidence if you wish. But it's not crazy to call it anti-semitism, and that's the claim you started this thread by so blithely dismissing.

Paul, my dream of some day agreeing with you has come true!

Andy, I can't agree with you on your point because doing so would be to concede that it's anti-Semitic to suggest Israel should use any restraint whatsoever in its use of military force in Gaza.

Of course, Israel should use some restraint. Of course, unchecked, unlimited disproportionality is wrong, no matter by whom or under what circumstances it's applied.

Any country should be held to a standard of reasonable restraint.

In all fairness to Doug, it is my experience that he is as fair and honest as they come (even if we sometimes disagree). Accusing Doug of anti-semitism is unfair at best.

Paul, thanks for the kind remarks. I really do not take it that I am being called anti-Semitic.

If they want to launch a nuclear strike against Iran, they're justified, because Iran is the Hamas/Hezbollah puppeteer and has a stated desire to destroy Israel. Only anti-Semites will object.

If and when they do, gee I hope it'll be on TV!

Something to think about.

Fighter pilots would paint the number of "kills" on
their aircraft. It says I'm proud of these.

What does that say about the so called cartoon .

You tell me.

"A picture is worth a thousand words"

The cartoon is a representation, not to be viewed literially.

Maybe.

You don't get directions with the cartons.

This will really add to the confusion.

"The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern people originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites".

I think Palestinians are Semites

Doug, at the risk of trying once again to teach a blind man to see colors...

You say that "any country should be held to a standard of reasonable restraint." I agree completely. This is the basic principle on which war-crimes tribunals are based. But the selective application of a sound ethical principle can be unfair. It can be an indication of bias.

For example, do you recall any general discussions of whether the U.S. should use "restraint" in its use of military force in Iraq? I'll bet you don't. To be sure, from time to time observers of that war registered specific complaints about what happened in this particular village or in that particular neighborhood. But as overarching critiques of the war, "restraint" and "proportionality" have been missing from analyses of U.S. military involvement in Iraq. And that's a war we started because we felt like it, not because someone rained rockets on our cities!

And yet the principles of "restraint" and "proportionality" are used again and again as general criticisms of Israel during its wars of self-defense. One read and heard those terms quite often during the 2006 war in Lebanon and now again during this year's war in Gaza.

If you refuse to concede this real-world imbalance simply because you don't like the implications, then I give up.

I'm reliably informed that Hamas fired 2900 rockets and mortars into Israel during 2008. T-W-E-N-T-Y N-I-N-E H-U-N-D-R-E-D.
How many of those 365 days saw the mainstream media and world leaders imploring Hamas to STOP the attacks, which were largely not responded to by Israel?
Where were the arguments and pleas for restraint when Hamas was the aggessor?
Is it Israel's fault that Hamas chose to pick on someone who possesses a greater amount of firepower?
Act a fool and suffer the consequences, I say...(to Hamas)

Jaycee, simple its called a double standard.
Doug Clark said, Israel should not target children. They do not.
Hamas kills children on the ground, Doug Clark says nothing. Double standard.
Dave Collin, I am glad you brought up about the aircraft kills.
Did Doug Clark mean for the cartoon to be anti Jewish, I think not.
I have yet to see anyone in the liberal media, blame Hamas for anything.

Andy, we all have our blind spots.

U.S. military personnel have been TRIED and CONVICTED for actions against civilians and prisoners in Iraq. How's that for discussions about restraint?

This discussion reminds me a little of the Roland Burris fiasco and the accusation by some that it's racist for the Senate not to seat him. You can build a circumstantial case to support that. There are currently no black senators; he's black; therefore, the Senate is blocking him to make sure there won't be any black senators.

Israel is a Jewish state; therefore, any criticism of Israel must be anti-Semitic. End of argument.

Put Simply

It is just a poorly thought out cartoon.

That is a perfectly valid opinion.

Doug, this is nothing like your silly Roland Burris example. I'm done banging my head on this particular wall.

I have the same headache.

Man, you always have to get in the last word, don't you? Your wife must love that. Well, it just bought you a story. Like your Roland Burris analogy, my story involves racism. Unlike your Roland Burris analogy, mine is actually relevant.

Years ago, a friend of mine, a white dude, claimed that it was racist for black folk to vote for black politicians just because they're black. I said, um, is that really "racist"? And he said, if it's racism for whites to refuse to vote for the black guy because he's black, then it's racism for blacks to vote for the black because he's black. I replied that his claim would make sense if there were no such thing as history and hence no historical context in which blacks suffered a whole lot more from white racism than whites did from black racism. I said that his was an intellectually rigid view that ignored the real world.

My friend jumped on my comments and announced triumphantly that I'd effectively claimed that black folk can never be guilty of racism. I'd said no such thing, of course, and I don't happen to believe that blacks can't be racists. But I did think that the particular issue at hand was more complicated and interesting than he'd admit. He couldn't be persuaded that his simplistic view was wrong. Either he lacked the gene that sees nuance and context, or he had a particular blind spot when it came to African Americans and racism. For him, things were black and white (so to speak), and gray areas were the province of the weak-minded.

I presume you see the parallel I've drawn. I don't know you well enough to say that you're generally unable to see nuance and context, or if it's something particular to this issue. But there's something going on there.

"Israel is a Jewish state; therefore, any criticism of Israel must be anti-Semitic. End of argument"

Change any to much and must be to is and I'll buy that.

The problem is weeding out which.and how much.

Andy, the Burris analogy is spot on. There is a history of discrimination against blacks. The deck was stacked against them for many years to keep them out of elective offices. So, in one sense, it's easy to call it racism when a black man who possesses basic qualifications equal to other senators is barred from taking his seat. Now, we know rationally that there are other factors at play here and it's not correct to use racism as the explanation for the stance against Burris. But to those inclined to see racism first, that's the only answer that fits.

That is precisely how I view your attitude in this matter, that it is anti-Semitic to even question whether Israel is overdoing it just a little bit in its military action in Gaza.

I said in response to Paul's comment above that I really didn't think I'd been called anti-Semitic here on the basis of my arguments, and I hope that's true. But, frankly, I'm not particularly sure of that.

Now, I have said all I want to, so you're free to have the last word if you want it.

"On the one side we have a state governed by a liberal democracy and on the other, we have terrorists hide among women and children and fire rockets at Israel."

This is a fallacy, Paul. As long as Israel is an occupying force (with civilian settlers) in the West Bank, and exerts hydraulic despotism on Gaza, they are either a) not a liberal Democracy, or b) the Palestinians (as a whole) can't be held completely responsible for the governing of the lands they inhabit. Israel can't have it both ways, which is why the two-state solution is so important.

I would personally love to see this (current) military operation result in the removal of Hamas as the ruler of Gaza, even if they are replaced by a corrupt but secular PA. But until Israel withdraws settlers and troops from the West Bank and stops imprisoning the population of Gaza, they simply cannot claim moral superiority over their "subjects".

Now, the rocket attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad into Israeli cities are not "resistance" to an occupying force, they are an attempt to elicit a military response (like we're seeing), in the hopes that a wider war will result, with the final defeat (and removal) of the State of Israel as the ultimate goal. The Israelis know this, and so do the Arab nations in the region, whether they support Hamas or not.

The people here in the U.S. need to understand that. They don't fire the rockets in the hopes Israel will treat them better, they do it to escalate the violence, and the more dead Palestinians the better. That doesn't mitigate or justify the suffering, but it does go a long way in explaining it.

I wasn't going to try to get in the last word, and in fact I didn't look back at this blog entry for a few days. But something you said can't be left without a response. If you really believe it's possible that I'm calling you anti-semitic, then I've been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining my views.

You might note that I never said that the cartoon shouldn't have been run. In other words, I didn't criticize your decision to run it. Frankly, I like knowing what my fellow citizens are thinking, including thoughts I don't like.

I also never claimed the cartoon was anti-semitic. All I said, in response to your blithe dismissal of the claim that it was, was that it's not crazy for someone to say so. In effect, you claimed that it's flat-out unreasonable to call it anti-semitic. Your headline for this entry said so, simply and without room for disagreement. You're willing to accept as "a valid opinion" that the cartoon was "poorly thought out," as one commenter said. But the claim that it was anti-semitic, now that's impossible!

My comments were intended to point out some reasonable bases for a person to disagree with you. My comments were less about the cartoon, and more about the intellectual ruts that so many people fall into when the subject is Israel. This particular rut doesn't make one anti-semitic, but neither should it rule out talking about it. But you have one way of thinking about this, and boy, that's it. In response that one-dimensional approach, I was trying (I guess like the academic I am) to show you how to understand the other side.

Ultimately, your reaction was to claim that (a) I see any criticism of Israel as anti-semitic, and (b) I may have been using coded language to call you an anti-semite. Neither is accurate, and I'm happy to see it as my failure to communicate effectively. But for your part, you got defensive and saw me as inhabiting the other extreme. Your defensiveness made it impossible for you to join me in the middle, or at least somewhere between the two extremes of always defending and always criticizing Israel.

And no, I'm not saying you always criticize Israel.

I'll accept that Israel needs to use less force when during a bank robbery, the police, SWAT, Federal Marshals, etc. are limited to a sum total of only the number of perpetrators taking place in the robbery. We send that many people into a bank robbery and often a hostage situation in order to take out the bad guys. Sometimes folks get hurt in the process. It does not mean that we do not care about them or that we do not try to prevent their being injured.

Israel is fighting terrorism. If they dropped to the standards held by HAMAS and/or Hizbollah, you would see much more destruction, without any regard whatsoever. H&H target indiscriminately. I do not want to see children injured or killed. However, I do not feel necessarily sorry for adults who very well could have had a great deal to do with HAMAS gaining power.

When Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza, that was not seen as an opportunity to build peace. It was taken by Palestinians as weakness of their foe. It seems every time Israel tries to make an effort in good faith, it is seen as yet another opportunity by the Palestinians to push a little more. H&H do not want the two state solution, they want the destruction of Israel.

Review the data on the decreased number of suicide attacks since the use of security barriers "the walls." If people can not police themselves, then they submit themselves to being policed.

Consider that more than a million people who are not Jewish, many of which are Arab, many of which are Muslim, live in Israel. They could elect to leave if they so desired. They do not want to. They know they have more freedom in Israel than in any other nation in the area.

My heart aches trying to imagine a solution that will include everyone being able to live together peacefully. I mourn that I so often can not find hope. My prayers for peaceful coexistence continue...

Thanks for your input, Yonah.

The irony in Andrew's last post is that I have never criticized Israel or supported the Palestinian position.

The Palestinians lost me forever with their atrocities at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

What I did here was defend the cartoon in question against an allegation of anti-Semitism and state the fact that the Israeli military action in Gaza is disproportionate to the Hamas rocket attacks. That statement was nonjudgmental; I didn't say it's wrong or unjustified to take a disproportionate military action. The charge of anti-Semitism has no place in this discussion.