Aaaaand Another Cartoon Accused of AntiSemitism – Update

Comments ²⁵

1. Atanwat

   It would appear that this could be a new corollary to Godwin’s law: overly sensitive individuals who claim “antisemitism” any time a comic (or article) doesn’t agree with their pro-Israeli politics. They (can) do nothing to refute the correctness of the presentation, they simply hide behind their victimhood and cry “Foul!“

   1. Srulik Lem

      “mask off take”? Did I really need to add a \s at the end of that bit?

      Of course Jewish and Black people are the ones who are best able to recognize antisemitism and racism when they see it. And of course others should acknowledge their concerns instead of mocking them and saying they are too sensitive. I didn’t think I was being that subtle about it!

      1. Srulik Lem

         And of course the above comment was meant to be a response to Ed’s, down below. My confusion about how to post to this site led to it being up here above rather than below his comment.

   2. Yosef ben-Moshe

      So depicting Netanyahu with an exaggerated hook nose & American Christian politicians in Jewish religious garb is about Israel’s policies. Got it.

      Anyone who believes that line, I have a bridge to sell you…

   3. Sean Delonas

      Thank you, Atanwat. I agree with you 100%

2. Srulik Lem

   And it is not just Jewish individuals. Black people are always playing the race card whenever someone posts something they disagree with that just coincidentally happens to contain racist stereotypes. But that is what happens when you let minorities have a voice in deciding whether something is hate speech or not. Minorities are always emotional and overly sensitive over these kind of things; you just can’t trust them to be objective when it comes to bigotry.

   1. Ed

      “Black people are always playing the race card …” ok man. Thanks for the mask off take.

      1. Brad Walker

         “Minorities are always emotional and overly sensitive over these kind of things; you just can’t trust them to be objective when it comes to bigotry.”

         They might be missing the /sarcasm tag.

3. Dan

   Why do they have Jewish prayer shawls and yarmulkes on? There’s literally no non-antisemitic way to interpret this cartoon.

   1. Mike Peterson

      If they were Texans, they’d wear 10-gallon hats and chaps. If they were French, they’d wear berets.

      1. Yosef ben-Moshe

         They’re American Christian conservatives dressed up in Jewish religious garb. So no. Also, drawing Bibi with a stereotyped oversize nose? Really?

      2. Peter

         Except there is no history of Texans with ten gallon hats being discriminated against, harmed or murdered. That is a HUGE difference.

      3. Richard Furman

         Ann Telnaes knows how to dress Hegseth and his Ilk. Crusaders are not Zionists and Zionists are not crusaders, and I recall reading that MBS was not without a role in getting this clustermess off the ground.

   2. David Deutsch

      Terrible argument for several reasons

      1. When you have a recognizable world leader, you don’t need to add the national accoutrements. I.E., I a generic Frenchman might be put in a beret to signify that he’s French; De Gaulle wouldn’t be. Churchill would be put in a bowler because he wore a bowler; nobody is putting Keir Starmer in one. And while the fur hat is a pretty identifiable mark of Russianness, you don’t often see Putin wearing one.

      2. Berets and cowboy hats and bowlers and pickelhaubes and szlapas might be used as shorthand for a particular national group because of their association with that national group, but in fact, if you know anything about Israelis, you’d know that most of them–including the Netanyahu family–are not religious. I.e., a tallis and yarmulke are not actually customary “Israeli” wear. They are most definitely traditional Jewish wear. A caricature in a beret tells you that somebody is French. A caricature in tallis tells you that somebody is Jewish, not Israeli.

      3. This point is even more poignant when one considers that most of the figures in the cartoon aren’t even Jewish, much less Israeli. So what does it say that Trump and Graham and Cruz–all self-identified as American Christians–are wearing tallises? That is not the same as a Frenchman wearing a beret or a Texan wearing a cowboy hat, because none of these figures are from the group for whom the garment is supposed to be representative.

      4. Your argument is made particularly ridiculous by the claim that “if they were Texans, they’d be wearing ten-gallon hats and chaps.”, because of course, Ted Cruz is a Texan, and he is not wearing a ten-gallon hat and chaps, he is wearing a blood stained tallis. So what does it say when, by your own logic, the caricature isn’t wearing the “appropriate” “national” garb, but rather the garb of a different group?

      5. One might say it’s just sloppiness on Delonas’ part, but here’s wear the real antisemitism comes into play. There is no antiFrench or antiTexan canard that the French control the world or Texans manipulate world leaders. So yes, depicting American politicians wearing Jewish garb would in fact be a pretty classical bit of antisemitic imagery, just like in the 1950’s, Soviet cartoons regarding the antisemitic Doctors’ Plot would show the mask of the doctor slipping, exposing the Jew beneath.

      6. One way to gauge any type of bias, including antisemitism, is to ask if a different group would be treated the same way. So let’s look at your views on things. You use the example of Texans and Frenchmen. I think a better example, given the religious component of the imagery, would be Islam and Hinduism. Zohran Mamdani is a Muslim of Pakistani descent, but he does not dress in traditional Pakistani Muslim garb. If some right wing cartoonist depicted Mamdani wearing a turban and a kurta while running a cabinet meeting, it might raise some questions as to the cartoonists intentions. But of course, the cartoon we are discussing also includes non-Jews in Jewish religious garb. Given the hysteria over Sharia law in right wing circles, if he was shown wearing a turban and kurta while running a meeting of cabinet members all dressed similarly, it would obviously be viewed, quite correctly, as anti-Muslim. If a right-wing cartoonist depicted Vivek Ramaswamy wearing a kurta and a bindi on his forehead–which he doesn’t wear–then obviously it would be seen, quite correctly, as anti-Indian and anti Hindu, even though, in fact, lots of Hindus do have bindis. And while we’re at it, if John F. Kennedy was a practicing Catholic, but given the hysteria about that, if somebody made a cartoon in 1960 showing him with prayer beads and a picture of the people, it would be pretty obvious what the message was.

      There are no shortage of extremely valid criticisms one can make about Israel and Netanyahu–I can’t think of any them that are made more cogent or clear by depicting a secular Israeli politician–much less Christian American ones (including a Texan who, by your own argument, should be in a ten-gallon hat)–in bloody tallises.

      1. David Deutsch

         sorry, “rosary beads and a picture of the pope.”

4. Sean Delonas

   The neocons have been criticizing me and fellow journalists lately for our anti-war stance. As is typical, neocons avoid debating any issue, which in my case is a cartoon about the war with Iran that Israel instigated. Instead, they resort to name-calling against all they disagree with (I know what you’re thinking, isn’t that exactly what I do as a political cartoonist). Regardless, Alana Goodman from the Washington Free Beacon (owned by major AIPAC donor Paul Singer) is leading the latest of attacks against me with charges of anti-Semitism for being against the Iran war.
   Goodman, according to a Max Blumenthal , pointed out that she’s “an admirer of the late genocidal fascist Meir Kahane…” and has in the past expressed her support for the “killing” of individuals she deems “terrorists.” Are the Palestinian children murdered in Gaza terrorists too, Ms. Goodman? Just asking. Maybe she includes cartoonists in that category as well.
   Goodman wrote, “It also features Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu with an exaggerated nose.” OMG, the horror! She added it was an “age-old efforts to dehumanize Jews.” First, all the figures have exaggerated features — it’s a cartoon. I drew more exaggerated noses on Senator Ted Cruz and the GOP elephants in the cartoon than on Bibi. Is that anti-Semitic as well?
   An anti-Semitic claim of using the word “Amalek” was alluded to by her as well. A recent comment by Benjamin Netanyahu about Iran was, “Remember what Amalek did to you. We remember and we act.” Am I not allowed to quote Bibi’s religious references? I used “Amalek” because Bibi used it.
   She also had the nerve to contact the news outlet for publishing my cartoons. Neocons have been contacting publications that use my work for years, and sometimes are successful in getting them to stop publishing my work. I don’t blame news outlets or other publishers for not using my work — they just don’t want the hassle. I also don’t have a problem with people criticizing my work either, but do have a problem with people trying to get me banned. So much for the First Amendment.
   The word “anti-Semitism” has been so overused by Goodman and the neocons to criticize their opponents that the word has lost all meaning. For decades, it has been employed to ruin journalists’ and politicians’ careers, and is now being used to target college students for protesting the Gaza genocide or the war with Iran. In Europe, they have been successful in passing hate speech laws that have led to imprisonment for expressing opinions, with an effort to introduce such laws in the US. The Israeli lobby bribes politicians from both parties, and those they can’t bribe, they blackmail, as seen with the Mossad agent Jeffrey Epstein scandal. People need to stand up against these neocons. I am an American citizen, not an Israeli, and I will express whatever opinions I choose, especially about a foreign country. I oppose the war with Iran and am against the genocide of the Palestinian people. If Ms. Good wants to murder innocent Muslims, then she should go fight in the war. Leave Americans out of it. Name-calling won’t stop the public’s growing awareness of the AIPAC lobby’s stranglehold over the American government and its responsibility for this war.
   Both Goodman and I worked at the New York Post and the Weekly Standard. Small world. Did she inquire with any of our shared colleagues regarding the accuracy of her defamatory remarks? Nevertheless, because of our mutual ties, I will refrain from resorting to personal insults and slander against this truly untalented and vile person.

   1. David Deutsch

      Well, I’m neither a fascist nor an admirer or Kahane, nor did I mention anything about noses–I happen to agree with you that caricaturists exaggerate physical features, and in fact, your depiction of Netanyahu’s nose is not actually a traditionally antisemitic one. One might argue, however, that while both Bush and Obama were at times caricatures as monkeys for their big ears, one of those is far more problematic than the other, and perhaps at times, if one wishes to ignore those sensitivities, one must accept some criticism.

      But I am intrigued–how does depicting secular Israelis and American Christians in bloody tallises make a point about Israeli or American policy in Gaza or Iran?

      1. Sean Delonas

         Hi David,
         Thank you for comment. As for the religious garb such as the prayer shawls, I really didn’t consider them much beyond a way to add visual interest and contrast to the business suits. In my view, this conflict has nothing to do with religion, though many would likely disagree.

         Bibi talks about Amalek. Hegseth is referencing a Psalm and expressing a desire for Iranians to convert to Christianity. For Ambassador Huckabee, this conflict is seen as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy and a precursor to the Second Coming of Jesus. The late Ayatollah spoke of the Great Satan, while statues of Baal are being incinerated in Iran. While I’m not particularly religious myself, I don’t judge others for their faith. However, these leaders all sound completely out of their minds.

         In support of my cartoons, I’ve created works showing crucifixes, the Last Supper, the empty tomb, nativity scenes, as well as fanatical Muslim beliefs. Incidentally, the reluctance to publish materials featuring Muslim symbolism lies with publishers, not with me. So, is the religious garb necessary? No, not really. Is it antisemitism? No, I don’t believe so.

         Regardless of whatever you think of me or my cartoons, or whether it’s antisemitic or not, you have to admit this was a hit piece by neocon billionaire, Paul Singer, through his news outlet, The Washington Free Beacon. I don’t care if they criticize me, but I have a problem with them pressuring other outlets not to publish my work. Not to mention the army of trolls that they unleashed on me.

         Your other comments were sort of a miss-mash of jumbled jargon. If you shorten them to one or two brief and concise thoughts, I’ll respond.

         I appreciate your comment and for taking the time to read my cartoon.

         Best regards,

         Sean

      2. David Deutsch

         No need for me to admit anything, b/c I didn’t read the alleged hit piece. When I hear about a piece of art being accused of being offensive in some way, I want to see the art, so looked for your cartoon and ended up here. The truth is that I assumed that there was a good chance that the allegations about the cartoon would be hyperbolic, but nope, there were an awful lot of people in bloody tallises for no reason I could see, and no reason than the artist offers other than “visual interest” and “contrast.”

         Not being the Shadow, I do not know what evil lurks in the hearts of men, but yeah, your cartoon is pretty evocative of antisemitic conspiracy theories.

         Whatever your intentions, the image smacks of antisemitism not only because you’ve draped Netanyahu in a particular Jews garment which neither he nor most Israelis are associated with, but because, by draping a group of Christian American politicians in the same garment, you evoke the idea of ze Jews controlling the supposed leaders of the world. “Look at this–when all is said and, Trump and Graham and Cruz are just puppets of ze Jews, if not actually Jews themselves.”

         Please note, I have not called you an antisemite, and perhaps you have no great familiarity with classical antisemitic conspiracy theories or caricatures. That said, I’m not sure that Jews need to be overly generous in distinguishing between the merits of works that evoke antisemitism intentionally and works that evoke antisemitism accidentally, any more than blacks need to spend too much time parsing the true meaning behind the Trump administration’s recent depiction of the Obamas as monkeys, despite the protest that, like you and your use of crucifixes etc. the video included images of other politicians as animals as well.

      3. David Deutsch

         oh, and so for your not understanding my other comments, they weren’t directed at you; rather, they were in reply to specific post made above by somebody else suggesting that putting Trump etc. in tallises was comparable to putting a Texan in a ten-gallon hat. That may be why they were didn’t make sense, or maybe one of us is less literate then he thought (oh God, please let it be you…).

         all the best

   2. Srulik Lem

      Sorry to hear that Politico won’t run your work any more. They should be selecting cartoons of the week on the basis of the merits of the cartoon, not banning the work of particular individuals.

      But then I read you saying that “The Israeli lobby bribes politicians from both parties, and those they can’t bribe, they blackmail, as seen with the Mossad agent Jeffrey Epstein scandal….Name-calling won’t stop the public’s growing awareness of the AIPAC lobby’s stranglehold over the American government and its responsibility for this war.”

      Those statements are more bizarre and caricatured than the cartoon. Any grain of truth – that pro-Israel people make campaign contributions, that AIPAC is a lobby group – is drowning in the swampy water of what sounds like right wing extremist hate speech. Your defence of the cartoon is a lot more offensive than the cartoon. And a lot further from the mark.

5. Sean Delonas

   Updated tonight, Politico will no longer publish my cartoons.

   From the Washington Free Beacon updated tonight:

   Following the publication of this story, a Politico spokesman said the cartoon was removed and replaced with an editor’s note.
   “We removed a cartoon by independent cartoonist Sean Delonas from this week’s gallery after weighing comments from readers that it did not meet our standards,” the note reads. “Sharp arguments and provocative imagery in political cartoons are within bounds. Images that could be reasonably interpreted to rely on ethnic stereotypes or employing tropes that have been involved in historically hateful ways are not.”

6. Ian Chapman

   The original painting by Bosch around 1500 appears as a criticism of the Catholic Church sailing towards destruction by its practices at the time. And a few decades later the Protestant Reformation happened. The Jewish prayer shawls in the modern cartoon replace the Catholic habits of the monk and one, possibly two nuns. I thought the Delonas cartoon was a warning of Zionists worldwide sailing stupidly towards destruction. Outstanding artwork.

   1. David Deutsch

      Bosch’s image, as you note, was a criticism of the Church, and thus depicted Catholic clergy in their clerical garb. Delonas’ image, by contrast, depicts Christians–including, in the person of Mike Huckabee, an actual Protestant clergyman–as Jews. Even the depiction of Netanyahu in a tallis has nothing to do with his Zionism, as the Netanyahus for at least a couple of generations of have not been religious Jews. Bosch’s painting uses distinctively Catholic clerical clothing to criticize Catholicism. Delonas uses clothing widely worn by Jews regardless of their politics to allegedly criticize Zionism.

      Not really the same thing, esp. since the tallis is not a “Zionist” garment, it is a Jewish one. Those are definitely not the same thing. On any given morning, you’ll have a much easier time finding anti-Zionist Jews in tallises in Williamsburg, Brooklyn than you will finding Zionist Jews in tallises in any number of Jewish neighborhoods, including in Israel.

7. Name Omitted*

   what a great country we all live in where we can debate these things openly without the worry of having a van in front of our house full of suits listening to our phone calls. well for now at least…