tip off

The dangerous essentialism of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic cartoons

In Australia, there should be no place for reactionary essentialism while we debate politics and ideas, says Overland editor Jeff Sparrow.

What do the cartoons by Glen Le Lievre and Bill Leak tell us about racism and the Gaza conflict? Most obviously, that bigotry against both Jews and Muslims exists in Australia and has almost certainly been exacerbated by the crisis in Gaza. But there’s more to it.

It’s worth thinking through the reactions to the images. The Sydney Morning Herald was widely — and correctly — condemned for the Le Lievre cartoon, both in Australia and overseas. Much of the commentary also focused (in my view, incorrectly) on the Mike Carlton opinion piece that the drawing illustrated.

The Australian Jewish News argued that, by referencing the Holocaust, Carlton too had essentialised his argument, just as Le Lievre had with the image. “This column was no longer about a country,” the AJN argued. “This was about a people and a race.”

In its eventual apology for the cartoon, the SMH applied the same argument. “The Herald now appreciates that, in using the Star of David and the kippah in the cartoon, the newspaper invoked an inappropriate element of religion, rather than nationhood, and made a serious error of judgment.”

Indeed it did. But there’s two points to make here. First, that essentialism — the attribution of unchanging traits to an entire people — is just as wrong when it happens to Muslims as to Jews. And yet in reference to Islam, it generally passes without comment.

Here’s an example from a few years ago.

The image accompanying a Paul Kelly article entitled “Islam should accept a secular state” shows an Aussie bloke (cork hat, prawn on the barbie) confronted by an array of snarling bearded men and veiled women, who seem about to leap at him from the bushes. One carries a sign reading “Jihad”, accompanied by some squiggles presumably intended to represent Arabic (hey, it’s all just jibber jabber, isn’t it?).

There’s a simple test for such cases. If you replace “Muslim” with “Jew”, how would the image (and for that matter, the article) read then? We wouldn’t accept articles opining about “Jewish immigration” or suggesting that “Jewish culture” has a problem with violence — and nor should we accept a similar essentialism when it comes to Muslims.

The Australian’s decision to stand by Leak (who has some form with racialised cartoons) is disappointing but not surprising. But let’s return to the Le Lievre image. The AJN is quite correct to insist that those who want a non-racialised discussion about Israel-Palestine need to refuse the conflation between Israel and Judaism: Israel is a nation, and Zionism is a political philosophy — supported by some Jews and opposed by others.

But in a recent piece for The Jewish Daily Forward, Sigal Samuel has noted how, in other contexts, mainstream defenders of Israel themselves confuse that distinction:

You can’t insist that every Jew is intrinsically part of the Israeli state and that Jews are also intrinsically separate from, and therefore not responsible for, the actions of the Israeli state. You can’t support or attend a birthright trip, the basic premise of which — just look at the name — is that a Jew has only to be born to win the “right” to romp all over Israel, and then act all surprised when these things are conflated. You can’t applaud Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he goes around calling himself ‘the leader of the Jewish people’, and then get all huffy when Arabic-speakers use a single word to denote ‘Zionists’ and ‘Israelis’ and ‘Jews’.”

Samuel’s point is simple. When discussing Gaza — or indeed, community relations in Australia — we need to debate politics and ideas, rather than accepting claims (which, we might note, are made by some Islamist organisations as well) about the unchanging identity of entire peoples or faiths.

The AJN piece notes a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe, which is indeed a disturbing trend. But let’s not forget that European Islamophobia has also reached a fever pitch. Which is not really so surprising; the two kinds of hatred possess a shared history and rely on similar tropes, so much so that many far-Right groups have transitioned from one to the other — or, indeed, uphold them both at the same time.

Essentialism is always reactionary — and, at times like this, it’s particularly dangerous.

17
  • 1
    John64
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Along the same lines:

    “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

    That’s from the Likud Party’s Platform under the Chapter on “Peace and Security”. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud)

    It goes on and talks about how Likud will not accept “a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

    So if you’re against that, are you anti-Likud? Anti-Israel? Or Anti-the Jewish people?

  • 2
    mark argy
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    When did Judaism become a race?

  • 3
    MarilynJS
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

    I think it was outrageous that the stupid Herald caved into the big mouthed whiners like Vic and the Jewish board of deputies over a cartoon that was in fact factual. They Jews of Israel were sitting on the hill in their skull caps and their bloody flag is the star of David so what was wrong with the cartoon?

    Spooner on the other hand had two cartoons outrageous and just plain cruel and racist.

    One had Hamas supposedly stopping refugees entering the tunnels and being the evil doers, the stated aim of Bibi is to destroy the tunnels. Spooners cartoon was actually advocating genocide.

    The second was just as dreadful but the AGE hasn’t taken them down or apologised to the Palestinians here.

  • 4
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    Well argued Jeff Sparrow.

  • 5
    Hiroya Sugita
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure about Bill Leak’s racist streak. One thing I’m sure is that he is a News Ltd employee and thus his cartoons are in line with his editors/employers.

  • 6
    AR
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    I was extremely disappointed that the SMH disavowed the cartoon accompanying Carlton’s article - I thought that both were accurate and pertinent.

  • 7
    James
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    In response to Mark: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.428664

  • 8
    Glen
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    So if Le Lievre had omitted the star and the cap, the cartoon would have been unobjectionable? I suspect the squeals may have been just as loud. It was the content of those photos that was grossly objectionable here, and Mr Sparrow — and AJN — don’t appear to have noticed.

  • 9
    Andrew McIntosh
    Posted Tuesday, 5 August 2014 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    That Lobbecke cartoon doesn’t make me sympathetic to either side portrayed.

  • 10
    david hare
    Posted Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    The SMH was wrong to back down over these standover tactic. The worst thing about the backdown is it also implies some sort of censure to Carlton’s completely objective article. It seems to me that since 1976 if not earlier the first line reaction of Zionists to any criticism of Israel - the state - is consciously mired in terms of “anti-Semitism” and supposed Religious bigotry. Apart from being an egregious slur as a tactic, this ignores the realities of who and how many people are identified as semitic, including many Arabs and Mediterranean people. But it seems as though this appropriation of the term Semitic” by Zionists is merely part of an armory of attack responses, no matter how apt the comment or comparison.

    It’s a disgrace Carlton and Lievre were duped by Fairfax over this.

    And Carlton also made the fatal mistake of mentioning the Holocaust. Again any use of this term no matter how contextualized is inevitably a red rag, especially to the Likud supporters. Apart form being an egregious slur and atctic, it ignores the realities of who and how many people are identified as semitic, including many Arabs. But it seems as though this appropriation of the term Semitic” by Zionists is aprt of an armory of attck which extends to the mass indiscriminate murder of civilians. You can’t have it both ways, in the end. And this is where responses from intelligent and morally honest Jewish commentators is most necessary

  • 11
    Damien McBain
    Posted Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    The “bigotry against both Jews and Muslims [that] exists in Australia” has been thoroughly earned, bought and paid-for buy Jews and Muslims all over the world.

  • 12
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    James:

    the Haaretz article makes its case for a Jewish gene with a heap of grand but scientifically unsupported statements which I won’t bother to rebutt here, as they’ve been comprehensively rebutted by many commentators/academics e.g. Nora Ephron’s rebutal of the Nobel prize winning rate.

    However, John Entine manages to torpedo his Jewish gene message in his final para when he says:

    As humankind becomes more genetically sophisticated, identity becomes both more fluid and more fixed. Jews in particular can find threads of our ancestry literally anywhere, muddying traditional categories of nationhood, ethnicity, religious belief and “race.” But such discussions, ultimately, are subsumed by the reality of the common shared ancestry of humankind. Ostrer’s “Legacy” points out that — regardless of the pros and cons of being Jewish — we are all, genetically, in it together. And, in doing so, he gets it just right”.

    I’m surprised that Israel’s finest newspaper would print such race supremacist tosh.

  • 13
    Sharonjj
    Posted Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    I understand the sentiment and largely agree, however, the two factions are not interchangeable. Hamas which formally represent the Palestinians is an internationally recognised Terrorist group. A big difference I’m sure you agree.
    Israel defends herself at all times, spends money on defence and protecting her population. Hamas spends money on destroying Israel and Jews alike.
    There is a popular adage being bandied about at this time which really says it all:
    Take away Hamas’ arms and there will be no war
    Take away Israel’s arms and there will be no Israel.

  • 14
    Sharonjj
    Posted Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    PS what Mike Carlton said was disgusting but he could have taken the objections and criticism as a journalist should, instead he was abusive and defensive and inappropriate. That was his even bigger issue.
    Everyone is due a right of reply when an article has been published for the general population. What did he think was going to happen? There are way to defend one’s beliefs without being abusive.

  • 15
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Sharonjj:

    More totally innaccurate Zionist propaganda re Hamas from yet another hasbara. You provide no evidence at all re your claim that HAMAS is a recognised terrorist State…I think you’re referring to the Quassim Brigade, but I doubt you’ve ever heard of it.

    You’re clearly quoting from the pernicious 2009 Israel Project’s Dictionary Talking points indeed (see below link):

    http://mondoweiss.net/2009/07/no-it-isnt-the-pentagon-papers-but-heres-a-small-sign-that-the-msm-is-finally-going-to-take-on-the-b.html

    Your ‘soft’ attack on Mike Carlton is also from the same playbook….surely yet another sign of the rapidly declining stocks of tghe intellectually & morally corrupt Zionist racist apartheid State.

  • 16
    czarcasm
    Posted Thursday, 7 August 2014 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Meh - the Jews didn’t like the cartoon so they complained. And used their considerable buying power to force a back step. What’s the big deal here?

    Luckily this cartoon wasn’t railing on the Palestinians - cause you know if you make a cartoon that insults Islam - you’re likely to start riots and book burnings across the globe.

  • 17
    McGookin Malc
    Posted Friday, 15 August 2014 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    Le Lievre was simply guilty of a schoolboy error. He’s a brilliant cartoonist, one of my favourites, but drawing the Star Of David on its own technically denotes “Jew” rather than Israeli. Otherwise the cartoon was spot on. The Yarmulkah denotes “Jewish Israeli” as distinct from “Arab Israeli”, the big nose (NOT “hook nose” as was reported in Haaretz) is a cartoonist stock in trade, and the armchair, the age of the man, the slippers, recliner, etc, were all excellent aspects to get across the point, i.e. Israelis DID set up couches ostentatiously for the cameras to watch the Gazans, men women and children, being slaughtered at Israeli leisure. I would have expected a little more piss and vinegar in support of Le Lievre from Crikey, rather than the quisling cop-out in your second paragraph.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...