Political Cartoons

won't lie: i thought the ones that were sickle-like ones were some kind of communist Russia thing that i just wasn't getting especially because there was supposed to be a hammer part and i didn't know why it was missing.

From:

Muslim Crescent

Hammer and Sickle

From:

I know. Once you said it I got it.

From:

From:

(I know what flags are... all I didn't get was the sickle thing, but once you mentioned muslim it clicked).

From:

Well, I wasn't familiar with the Syrian and Egyptian flags. So I'm sure some others aren't as well. So it's here for reference for them.

From:

torasama.livejournal.com

And much appreciated. Saved me some googling.

From:

Critiquing a mish-mash with more mish-mash is not much of a contribution.

From:

If malasadas considers concepts unrelated, then they must be unrelated.

From:

I guess I'll just try my best to not weep at how much that stung.

From:

I thought the complaint was that it was anti-Semitic, not that it was too simple in the way it is anti-Semitic.

From:

That was the "complaint" in ontd_political. That was not the complaint in politicsforum.

http://community.livejournal.com/politicsforum/2090680.html

From:

It was also the complaint I generally heard everywhere else.

...plus, your conclusion in that link seems to focuses on if it is anti-Semitic or not, or if he is just using visuals that relate to anti-Semitic mindsets or not.

So as I said, this cartoon seems to be saying the original cartoon is too simplistic, while most people are discussing on if it is anti-Semitic.

It's like making a political cartoon response to the Obama-ape-stimulus-nypost cartoon that talks about how the real issue is the drawings weren't as well refined as they could have been.

From:

Well, the anti-semitic/not-anti-semitic argument comes with misunderstanding over the use of the star of David symbol. Many just don't recognize the top and bottom stripes of the Israeli flag in the original Oliphant cartoon. So I made those stripes more congruent and defined. Additionally, controversy arises over the concept that the Israeli government could possibly be using religion in relation to its conflict with the Palestinians, even though it's obvious that they are - one cannot separate the Jewish-Muslim dynamic from the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic. Thirdly, there is the issue of the teeth protruding from the star - teeth that are inherent to the star, implying that Judaism itself is evil. My revision is to give the eye and teeth a drawn-on, make-shift appearance rather than the appearance that the star (religion) itself is monstrous (but rather that the star is being misused for aggressive purposes).

From:

For what it's worth, it seems we agree on that, too.

From:

Additionally, controversy arises over the concept that the Israeli government could possibly be using religion in relation to its conflict with the Palestinians, even though it's obvious that they are - one cannot separate the Jewish-Muslim dynamic from the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic.

The existence of the Jewish-Muslim dynamic does not mean that the Isaeli government used the Jewish religion as a reason/rational to attack Gaza.

So no, one cannot dismiss the dynamic, but one sure as heck can dismiss the attempt to pin the recent crisis in Gaza on Israel using Judaism to "gobble up" Palestinians as your interpretation of Oliphant states.

From:

The other comment isn't meant as a personal sting. It's meant to lampoon snark in the hopes of cultivating more reasonable conversation. That is all.

The cartoon doesn't concern a myopic view of a single operation, but the larger Israeli-Palestinian dynamic, which involves governmental approval of the the acquisition of territory under a religious rationale, coupled with the further desire for everything west of the Jordan River to belong to a Jewish state of Israel that is to be free from Palestinian control.

While the Israeli government has recently taken inroads into actively opposing the Manifest-Destiny-esque expansionism of the most fundamentalist radical Jews, the history of the Palestinian territories and the nature of the wall and settlements encroaching into Palestinian territory depict a different story:

Have you seen the 60 minutes piece on Israeli settlers and the "two-state solution" by David Edwards?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_UwGgLdmdI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8KwUSQL9zc

From:

Those graphics miss the part where it was ALL white and large swaths of it are being given back...not to mention ignoring the whole capturing Sinai and giving it back. Is there a nation state in modern history that has captured as much contiguous territory, proportionally, from hostile neighbors and given it BACK? A nation motivated by religious zeal to claim all the land it can would not act that way.

which involves governmental approval of the the acquisition of territory under a religious rationale, coupled with the further desire for everything west of the Jordan River to belong to a Jewish state of Israel that is to be free from Palestinian control.

The "manifest destiny" faction has recently seen its people frog marched by the IDF out of settlements. That group is marginalized and out of significant power. Of course, there are zany settlers -- they are not the Knesset or any recent Prime Minister. The state of Israel's policy is not for "everything west of the Jordan River" to be Israel. The only way that you get where to your interpretation of religion in this case vis-a-vis the cartoon is if you treat the existence of ANY state of Israel in the former Mandate as a religious attack on Palestinians.

The cartoon that sparked the hubub is aimed at the recent attacks on Gaza. It occurs in the wake of the recent war, and the woman is labeled "Gaza" not "Palestine" or "Palestinians". If Oliphant wanted to have the cartoon reference the entirety of the conflict from say, the 1920s forward, he didn't give visual references that establish that. The cartoon is about Gaza.

To claim, as your interpretation does, that the headless soldier of the IDF is wheeling the Magen David as a means of using JUDAISM to justify the war is a blatant misrepresentation of why the Israeli government attacked. If the toothy Magen David is there to represent a "use of religion" against the Palestinians in Gaza it fails to represent why the war was launched.

And, for good measure, uses the trope of rapacious Jews out to "eat" non-Jews and is therefore plainly anti-Semitic.

From:

I cannot so easily dismiss, as you do, the Israeli encroachment on Palestinian territory post-'67 illustrated in the above graphic because some was given back.

Is there a nation state in modern history that has captured as much contiguous territory

See the United States of America and Indian reservations:

Looks like the European Americans fucked over Native Americans in a similar manner that the Israelis fucked over the Palestinians. But if you listen to some people, they would tell you that the power differential between the Israelis and Palestinians is a myth. There is no power differential. Israel and the Palestinians are equally powerful, because, like the Native Americans, their territory has not been wiped out. Hell, the US government even gives Native Americans welfare for doing nothing and tax-free casinos. Nevermind the economic inequalities, drug abuse, alcoholism and despair pervasive on reservations today. That is ALL THEIR FAULT, NOT OURS. Likewise, the economic and resource inequalities between Israelis and Palestinians is ALL PALESTINIANS' FAULTS, NOT ISRAELIS'.

From my p.o.v., you appear to be denying the larger situation in light of the smaller examples that support your p.o.v. Israel is founded on ethnic and religious identity. One point that we've skirted over is that the star of David is not just a symbol of a religion and a state but also of an ethnic identity. Yes, there are examples of muslims and arabs in Israeli territory, as there are examples of jews in arab countries, but the exceptions don't make the rule.

Your dismissal of the post-'67 encroachment into Palestinian territory makes me question your objectivity in assessing this situation, and makes me think some pre-established ideology is preventing you from assessing empirical facts fairly and reasonably. I've got no dog in this fight. It appears you do. You present a rationale argument and I'll adjust my position, as demonstrated with my change after the doc nuero conversation or after viewing the above graphics. My opinions change with facts and good arguments. I'm hardly a radical here:
http://bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com/268272.html

I'm calling spades as I see spades. Yes, Israel has made some concessions to Palestinians, as the US has made some concessions to Native Americans, but the large story is not a favorable one to either minority group. That much is obvious to any relatively-unbiased observer.

From:

The cartoon was developed out of discussions that occurred in the threads within. Namely:

me: "the power differential between Israelis and Gazans"

doc nuero: "power differentials are a myth. communist revolutionaries, particularly lenin, tse-tung, and guevera (the ones who wrote manuals on guerilla warfare) established that ages ago. the israelis having been in that position vis a vis the british in 47 can attest to that."

doc nuero: "I'm particularly fond of Maos metaphor for it, which is Yin and Yang theory. Within apparent strength is concealed weakness, and within apparent weakness is concealed strength. both guerilla forces and conventional forces have their assets and vulnerabilities. because a guerilla force is strong where conventional forces are weak, and its tactics emphasize those which render conventional forces' greatest strengths useless, the playing field ends up level and battles once again become a question of which commander is smarter."

http://community.livejournal.com/politicsforum/2090680.html?thread=76640440#t76640440

From:

borgseawolf.livejournal.com

I like it, although it took me a while to get what's going on in the 'tunnel' part of the picture.

From:

How would you improve upon the tunnel part to make it more clear to the viewer?

From:

anfalicious.livejournal.com

Are the bombs supposed to be underground? I figured out the tunnel bit, but it almost seems as if the pile of bombs is separate to the tunnel... Not sure how I'd do it better...

Did you do this?

From:

Yes, I see what you're saying about the bombs appearing to come out from underground into the foreground, but that point is inconsequential to me. What's important is what should be obvious: the bombs are being handed from Syria (indicated by the flag on the chest) to the Palestinians who then bring it underground, only to resurface above ground when the bomb(s) are ready to explode in use against Israel.

I did this as a response to a conversation with doc neuro in politicsforum. I go into more detail in one of the comments above.

From:

borgseawolf.livejournal.com

The - I assume - headless soldier giving the bombs up to the ground level looks like some sort of gooey substance or rope ladder at first look. The picture is too small for this kind of detail - and the confusion is increased by the fact that the person above does have a head, so you don't automatically look for a headless person below (is there a reason why the final bomber has a head?). And I don't know what the headless soldier on the right does with his hand(?) - if he's waiting for the bomb, he should stretch out both of his hands.

Perhaps remove the right tunnel group altogether, and have Syria hand the bombs directly to the people in the tunnel?

From:

is there a reason why the final bomber has a head?
The only person with a head is a child (note the size - from head to feet, from crotch to feet - of the child) who is being used as a pawn in the "game" of the headless adults.

if he's waiting for the bomb, he should stretch out both of his hands.
In reality, yes, you'd need two hands to hold a bomb like that. But, as this is a cartoon, a single-hand grab illustrates illusiveness - trying to be incognito about the operation of funneling the cartoonish bombs.

Perhaps remove the right tunnel group altogether, and have Syria hand the bombs directly to the people in the tunnel?
The concept is to retain all possible elements from the original Oliphant cartoon. So the Palestinian women is a crucial element to retain.

looks like some sort of gooey substance or rope ladder at first look
I'm sure there's something I could do to clarify that as more of a readily-recognizable human body.

picture is too small for this kind of detail
Not necessarily. If I was working with better pens, and had displayed more skill in the ink work, I'm sure that I could pull this off with greater clarity. I've seen some amazingly-detailed miniature work. I just got a bit too messy with the "heavy-handed" ink globbiness and shading.

From:

borgseawolf.livejournal.com

The only person with a head is a child (note the size - from head to feet, from crotch to feet - of the child) who is being used as a pawn in the "game" of the headless adults.

That doesn't come out well in cartoon form, since it looks like a funny little cartoon man instead of a child. Perhaps show it from the side, with some kind of 'childish' accessory (school bag, toy)?

So the Palestinian women is a crucial element to retain.

Ah, I didn't catch that - I spent more time looking at your cartoon than the original :)

From: