Monday, May 29th | 4 Sivan 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
January 20, 2015 6:49 pm

A Cartoonist Urges Restraint – Except When it Comes to Israel

avatar by Rafael Medoff / JNS.org

Email a copy of "A Cartoonist Urges Restraint – Except When it Comes to Israel" to a friend

Related coverage

May 28, 2017 8:32 pm
0

Alan Dershowitz: Mueller’s Roving Commission to Investigate ‘Evil’ Is a Danger to Civil Liberties

Special Counsel Robert Mueller was commissioned to investigate not only crime, but also the entire Russian “matter.”  That is an...

"All is forgiven." I am Charlie." Cover of the Jan. 14 edition of Charlie Hebdo featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Photo: Twitter.

"All is forgiven. I am Charlie." Cover of the Jan. 14 edition of Charlie Hebdo featuring the Prophet Mohammed. The first post-attack issue of the magazine was sold out in minutes after going on sale. Photo: Twitter.

JNS.org – One might think cartoonists, as champions of irreverence and untrammeled free speech, would be unanimously resolute in defending their martyred comrades at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Yet Joe Sacco, one of the most popular and outspoken of today’s political cartoonists, is actually constructing an argument for self-censorship. What Sacco prescribes is a kind of selective self-censorship, in which cartoonists refrain from insulting Muslims—but are free to target Israelis.

Showered with accolades and awards for his book-length graphic stories about serious historical topics such as World War I, Bosnia, and the Arab-Israeli conflict, Sacco has emerged as one of the most influential figures in making the comic art form respectable beyond the confines of comic fandom—and providing educators with an effective new way to teach history.

Thus it was no surprise that Sacco was a much-sought after commentator on the Charlie Hebdo slaughter. He told the New York Times that he was, of course, “disgusted” by the “really contemptible” killings. “But,” he hurried to add, “I also come from a position of trying to understand why people are affected by images, and not just say, ‘Why can’t you take a joke?’ An image of Muhammad in some compromising position isn’t meant to be just a joke.”

Salman Rushdie, perhaps the world’s most famous target of Islamist intolerance, recently referred to these rationalizers as “the ‘but’ brigade.” For Joe Sacco, Charlie Hebdo‘s satirical portrayals of Islam’s founder were not satirical at all. They were not “meant to be just a joke.” They were meant to inflict harm. He is suggesting that it was the Charlie Hebdo staffers who started it, and the men who gunned them down were guilty—but with extenuating circumstances.

Sacco elaborated on his point in the way a cartoonist does best—by creating a 10-panel comic strip for the British newspaper The Guardian. Sacco’s piece, “On Satire,” attempts to discredit critics of theCharlie Hebdo massacre, both among his fellow cartoonists and the wider public. He begins by contrasting the response of other cartoonists to his own. The others are depicted as self-righteous cavemen, obnoxiously beating their chests in affirmation of free speech; he is a sober, thoughtful visitor to the graves of the victims, respectfully doffing his hat.

Sacco then shifts into “Oh yeah? Let’s see how you like it” mode. He presents distasteful caricatures of blacks and Jews, accompanied by two sarcastic questions. Next to the black man in a tree with a banana, Sacco asks, “I’m allowed to offend, right?” Next to the hook-nosed Jew counting money, he asks, “If you can take the ‘joke’ now, would it have been as funny in 1933?”

There are two glaring problems with Sacco’s comparison of the Muhammad cartoons to racist cartoons about blacks or Jews. The first is that a cartoon about Muhammad is not ipso facto a racist attack on Muslims or Arabs. It is a satirical poke at a religion. A cartoon satirizing, for example, Moses, is not automatically antisemitic. Mocking the tenets of a religious faith is not the same as making negative statements about all members of a particular race or ethnic group.

The second problem is Sacco’s superficial understanding of history. Of course, neither blacks nor Jews find it funny when a cartoonist depicts them in a bigoted fashion—but they do not murder the cartoonist. Sacco asks if his grotesque depiction of a Jew “would have been funny in 1933,” that is, the year the Nazis rose to power. It certainly would not have been funny. But German Jews did not murder anti-Semitic cartoonists in 1933. Civilized people respond in a civilized way when they are offended. In the free world, the answer to Sacco’s sarcastic question, “I’m allowed to offend, right?” is a resounding “yes.”

The climactic scene of The Guardian cartoon shows the infamous photograph of the hooded Abu Ghraib detainee with his arms spread, with Sacco commenting, “Perhaps when we tire of holding up our middle finger we can try to think about why the world is the way it is—and what it is about Muslims in this time and place that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image.”

But the Abu Ghraib abuses took place 12 years ago. The Paris killers were not yelling about Abu Ghraib. They shouted, “We have avenged the Prophet!” Sacco is literally inventing excuses for the killers.

In the final panel of Sacco’s cartoon diatribe, men with axes are chasing two unarmed Muslims, one of them a woman carrying a baby. Sacco sarcastically declares, “If we answer ‘Because something is deeply wrong with them’—certainly something was deeply wrong with the killers—then let us drive them from their homes and into the sea, for that is going to be far easier than sorting out how we fit in each other’s world.”

Those who are familiar with Sacco’s graphic novels about the Arab-Israeli conflict will note the irony of that “driving them into the sea” reference in The Guardian. In Sacco’s vivid imagination, Westerners are shown driving Muslims into the sea. But in the real world, that phrase is best known in connection with an historical event where it was actually employed: the attempt by five Arab armies, in 1948, to slaughter the Jewish residents of the newborn state of Israel—to perpetrate a Charlie Hebdo massacre, writ large.

Yet Sacco’s 2009 magnum opus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the 388-page Footnotes in Gaza, contains exactly one panel about the 1948 war, and even there Sacco cannot bring himself to acknowledge that the Arabs’ intention was to destroy Israel. The centerpiece of the book is an Arab claim that Israeli soldiers massacred 275 Arab civilians in the Gaza city of Khan Younis during the 1956 war. Sacco, who accepts the Arab version hook, line, and sinker, says this explains why Arabs hate Israel—the killings in Gaza “planted hatred in their hearts.” That’s why he skips over the 1948 war. It would disrupt his narrative that the Arab-Israeli conflict essentially began in 1956.

Sacco was unable to locate a single Israeli soldier who witnessed, or even heard about, the alleged massacre. He relies entirely on his interviews with elderly Gazans, who regale him with gory (but often implausible or contradictory) tales. The reader is inundated with so many images of Israelis beating, harassing, and generally humiliating defenseless Arabs that it is not hard to believe the Israelis massacred some of them, too.

The notion that an anti-Jewish cartoon must include a hooked nose and some dollar bills, as Sacco suggested in his cartoon for The Guardian, is passé. In today’s world, the monstrous Israeli mass murderer can serve a similar purpose. Sacco’s definition of cartoons that are racist provocations in effect preserves an important exception: slandering the Jewish state is legitimate.

Joe Sacco has sharpened the lines of the post-Paris debate. Do provocative cartoonists share the blame for their own grisly deaths? Should satirists restrain their pens when the offended parties have at their disposal armies of jihadists—or, in the case of North Korea, nuclear missiles? Thanks to Sacco, perhaps this is also the moment to consider whether malicious cartoons of Jews are illegitimate only if the targets are Diaspora Jews.

Dr. Rafael Medoff is a historian who has worked with Marvel Comics and Disney’s educational division to create comics and cartoons about historical topics. He is the coauthor of the forthcoming book “Cartoonists Against the Holocaust.”

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Alexi

    So Sacco is arguing in favor of his own assassination; just so it’s not by Muslims in the name of Islam?

    Did I get that right?

  • wkovacs

    im an avid comic book collector and know sacco’s works of propaganda only too well.

    but rather then take aim at joe myself, i will allow a superior cartoonist to answer his claims

    http://theinterrobang.com/robert-crumb-draws-hairy-ass-muhammed/

  • Pierre Elie Mamou

    people, in general, must know 1 things at least: 1) the French Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen (ok: no woman mentionned) allow peaople to mock any religion (without been slayed) 2) this declaration was first adopted (out of France, of course) en…. 1948 by Israel. Do this Sacco know that USA adopted it too, later but anyway adopted it. It’s not only Sacco’s ignorance which make me vomit, but the ignorance who allows slaughters

  • Michael Mulcahy

    A thoughtful analysis. Here’s a BIG problem: young people are no longer actually taught history here in the USA and the popular graphic novel form may be their only source of information. Can we can applaud the art while deploring its message? A tricky subject. Voltaire, T S Eliot, and many other members of the Western Canon were also anti-Semites.

  • judithg

    gee. it didn’t take him long to crap his pants now did it. this sacco is the example of the new defining spirit of western civilization. going nuclear full blast seems the best idea we’ve got.

  • Reform School

    Anybody remember the Italian anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti?
    Like a chip off the old block, Joe Sucko seems possessed to complete the job Grandpa Nick began. Despite a Leftist PR machine heaping praises deep enough to drown King Kong, author/co-author/Hamas boot-licker cartoonist Sacco (unlike Charlie Hebdo’s gang) cannot claim to be a disinterested party. Not worth the ground Charlie Hebdo was buried beneath, Joe’s brand of ‘cartoons’ are meant to evoke fear and hatred, not mockery. Why is no one asking who furnished the terrorists the exact names of the victims they assassinated? Who within the industry would know them? Was there an ulterior motive, like killing-off your competitors?

  • TheAZCowBoy

    Frikken Jews, you have made ‘creating’ ANTI-SEMITES, an art form!’

  • steven L

    For many, antisemitism is second nature. The leaders in the field include BBC, the guardian and the NYT.

  • Andy

    It seems that Mr. Medoff mistook Khan Younis for Dier Yassin.
    Medoff says, “The centerpiece of the book is an Arab claim that Israeli soldiers massacred 275 Arab civilians in the Gaza city of Khan Younis during the 1956 war.”

    He meant the Dier Yassin massacre in April 1948 when Jewish terrorists from Irgun and Lehi groups killed 600 innocent unarmed villagers to spread fear among the Arabs and force them to leave their homes and farms.

    • wkovacs

      no, sacco cited the khan younis myth, not the deir yassin myth.

      but thanks for playing

    • JACK TUCKER

      No, Israel was accused of a massacre in Khan Younis in 1956. In reply to Fedayeen acts of terror, Israel’s IDF was responsible for lining up Palestinian men and killing them on suspicion of Fedayeen crimes. There were no doubt innocents murdered, but Israel was attempting to teach the Arabs the price of terror. Justified? Well, terror often begets counter acts that are justified to the victime of that terror.

    • Alexi

      Tripe. YOU need to do some research.

    • Mark.

      Andy has it wrong on several accounts.

      Deir Yassin was an Arab village overlooking the road from the coast into Jerusalem and thus critical to the Arab siege of the Jewish community in Jerusalem. Begin’s Irgun sought to capture the village to break the siege. The effort to take the village led to a fierce battle in which there were large numbers killed on both sides; yes, far more Arabs than Jews.

      Because of the political implications of allowing the Irgun, their political opponents, to break the siege, when the Haganah heard what was going on, it sent forces there. They arrived toward the end of the battle and are responsible for declaring the event a massacre, for purposes of discrediting the Irgun.

      Because the Haganah controlled the message, it took decades before the truth came out. By then, the image of Deir Yassin as a massacre was so imbedded that it has been nearly impossible to get a respectful hearing for the truth.

  • Andy

    Mr. Sacco was trying to say that Muslims couldn’t take an insult because they have been humiliated in the past two decades and faced a wave of hatred and Islamophobia in the West.
    Charlie’s cartoons were not satire. They were deliberately hateful and bigoted. Mr. Medoff forgot to mention that Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist (Maurice Sinet) when he allegedly wrote an “anti-Semitic” column, but he did not treat Muslims and Christians the same way.

    • wkovacs

      actually, the artist was fired for making what were considered slanderous claims about the son of the then president of france.

      that was also done under a different editor, so no connection to the current version of charlie

  • Anthony dayton

    Joe Sacco writes fair is fair so he can insult Jews and blacks and that should be OK. But since the Muhammed cartoons lead to the slaughter of the cartoonists, which Sacco seems to suggest is understandable given the provocation, then I’m sure that he’ll understand in advance if his racist cartoons insulting blacks and Jews eventually lead to his own assassination

  • Donald Krausz

    Isn’t there a very simple and obvious answer when pontificating about cartoonists and Muhammad? Blood is thicker than ink! Don’t spill it!

  • Gregg Solomon

    So the Arabs Muslim hated Israel and attacked in 1948 because they knew they would loose the 1948 War and 8 years later that certain Gazans would claim Israelis butchered other Gazans…

    I’m not familiar with this guy, I wonder what his familiarity is with Mohammed and his self-imposed competition with the “People of the Book” and what he wrote and why he wrote about his self-imposed competition with the People of the Book 1400 years ago in the Koran, or his familiarity with the Hadtih and its line “Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him” and its relation to Mohammed’s competition with the People of the Book.

    Or his familiarity with Hassan-al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and his expansionist, violent Jihadist philosophy, al-Banna’s essay “The Industry of Death” which outlined Jihad and acclaimed it the greatest honor.

    This guy deserves a cartoon!

  • art

    sacco is an example of the so called even handedness or equivalence approach. Always “balance’ a muslim or arab act or statement with and Israeli or Jewish “equal” to spread the blame or equivalence. Thus plo/pa/hamas murder and terror is equated with Israeli home building. This is indicative of moral bankruptcy and cowardice

Algemeiner.com