Sharon caricature by Dave Brown 2003

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sharon caricature
Dave Brown , 2003

Link to the picture
(please note copyrights )

Ariel Sharon (2002)

The Sharon caricature by British cartoonist Dave Brown shows Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon biting off a child's head. It appeared on January 27, 2003, the day before the parliamentary elections in Israel , in the British newspaper The Independent . Brown, who took up a painting by the Spanish painter Francisco de Goya in his representation , wanted to criticize a military operation in Gaza ordered by Sharon shortly before the election .

The cartoon sparked a controversial debate about the boundaries between legitimate satire and anti-Semitic propaganda. Anti-Semitism researchers and other critics saw in it a use of the anti-Semitic ritual murder stereotype, which assumes Jews would rob and murder non-Jewish children. The cartoon is part of the widespread strategy of comparing the situation of the Palestinians with the Holocaust and thereby playing it down. Other commentators defended Brown against these allegations.

background

The Second Intifada began in September 2000 and, according to the Arab version, was triggered by the visit of the opposition politician Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount on September 28th. In 2001, Sharon was elected Israeli Prime Minister in a direct election as a representative of the conservative Likud . On January 28, 2003, the new election of the Knesset took place, which, after the abolition of the direct election of the Prime Minister, also went hand in hand with the appointment of the new Prime Minister. Likud won this election, doubling the number of its parliamentary seats. Three days before the election, Sharon ordered an attack on Gaza City . It was in response to Qassam rockets being fired at the Israeli city of Sderot the day before. According to the Israeli Armed Forces , their attack, which was carried out with tanks and attack helicopters, was directed against workshops where Qassam missiles were made. According to human rights organizations, houses, shops and market stalls were also said to have been destroyed in the attacks.

description

Saturn devours one of his children (1819–1823) by Francisco de Goya

The caricature shows a naked, overweight Sharon, whose genitals are covered by a sticker with the English inscription "Vote Likud" ("Vote Likud"). In his hands he holds a child whose head he has bitten off. In a speech bubble is Sharon's statement “What's going on… Have you never seen a politician kissing babies before?” (“What's wrong… You never seen a politician kissing babies before?”). Four combat helicopters can be seen in the background on the left , one of which calls for the election of Sharon ("Sharon ... Vote Sharon ... Vote"). Underneath there is a destroyed and burning city in which bullets hit. A tank is depicted to the right behind Sharon.

At the bottom of the caricature is the signature of the artist and the year as well as the text “after Goya”. Brown is referring to the painting Saturn devours one of his children by the Spanish painter Francisco de Goya , which depicts a myth about the Roman god Saturn and formed the basis for the depiction of Sharon and the child. Taking up well-known masterpieces is quite typical for Brown. For example, two years before his Sharon caricature, he had used the Goya motif in a caricature showing the then President of the European Commission Romano Prodi eating the British national allegory Britannia . In 2012, nine years after the Sharon cartoon was published, he picked it up again. This time he portrayed the German Chancellor Angela Merkel eating a child. She wears the Greek flag as a bib , while the burning Athens can be seen in the background .

Reactions

The day after the release, the Israeli embassy in London sent a protest letter to the Independent . Among other things, it said that the drawing conjured up an old Jewish stereotype that could also have been found in the striker . It also misinterprets the real reasons for the Israeli military's operation and feeds hostility to Israel.

In response to the criticism, the Independent published on January 31, jointly titled "Satire or Anti-Semitism?", Comments by Dave Brown, journalist Philip Hensher , editor of the Jewish Chronicle Ned Temko and politician Gerald Kaufman . Brown said he wanted to use the cartoon to criticize the attacks on Gaza shortly before the election, which he considers to be a macabre form of voting. In addition to the campaigning helicopters, which pay homage to the Valkyrie ride scene from the film Apocalypse Now , he wanted to use the typical scenery of a politician kissing babies. At first he planned to put rocket-like fangs in Sharon's mouth. Only later did he come up with the idea of ​​adapting Goya's painting. He hoped that some readers would draw parallels with the myth that Saturn is afraid of being ousted by his children. Since the cartoon was intended to be a criticism of Sharon, he also dispensed with Israeli insignia on the helicopters and the tank.

For Hensher, Goya's submission is a symbol of the civil war and a political leader who murders the poor for whom he actually has parental responsibility. Brown's intention is to state that the Palestinians are primarily not Sharon's enemies, but his children. In addition, it must in principle be possible to caricature a Jewish person without being exposed to accusations of anti-Semitism.

Temko sees the cartoon as anti-Semitic and describes it as "not only offensive, not only shocking - but scary" ("not only offensive, not only shocking - but appalling"). Her portrayal of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as Israeli aggression is so simplified and one-sided that it represents a distortion of the truth. In addition, she uses the legend of the ritual murder, one of the oldest European images of anti-Semitism, according to which Jews rob and murder Christian children. Temko also points out that the cartoon was published on UK Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Kaufman, however, saw the accusation of anti-Semitism as "completely flimsy - but completely predictable". Like Brown, for example, he referred to the lack of a representation of a Star of David , which would make a reference to Judaism. In his view, the accusation of anti-Semitism is part of a campaign by the Likud that has been going on for several years to discredit criticism of its policies as anti-Semitic.

In early March, Sharon filed a complaint with the UK's Press Complaints Commission (PCC) through the Israeli embassy . In doing so, he relied on Section 13 of the PCC's Press Code, which prohibits derogatory references to race, skin color, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Sharon's lawyer argued that the cartoon alludes to the ritual murder legend. There had previously been several complaints from third parties, but the PCC can only start work if the person shown has reported. The complaint was dismissed by the PCC in May. She justified this, among other things, with the fact that she did not want to make a decision that would restrict the ability of newspapers to make critical or satirical comments about states or governments with the help of cartoons. In addition, one accepts the explanation given by Brown in the caricature. The PCC does not see anything inherently anti-Semitic in Goya's portrayal, nor does the caricature show a devaluation of Sharon's race or religion. She accepts that the cartoon has been seen by many as an insult or an attack. However, it is too great a burden and a restriction on its freedom for a newspaper to consider all possible interpretations of a publication.

Award

The cartoon was named Political Cartoon of the Year 2003 by members of the Political Cartoon Society and cartoonists from national British newspapers . The award was presented to Brown on November 25, 2003 by former Secretary Clare Short . In his award speech, Brown thanked the Israeli embassy, ​​which had significantly increased awareness of the caricature through its criticism. The decision to award the caricature aroused further criticism. The Chairman of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Neville Nagler, described them as "beneath contempt".

reception

In the academic reception, the accusation made shortly after its publication that the caricature used the anti-Semitic stereotype of ritual murder is taken up and repeated. It is impossible for the lawyer Anthony Julius, who represented Sharon’s complaint to the PCC, to ignore the legend of the ritual murder in a depiction of a Jew eating a non-Jewish child. For this reason, regardless of Brown's intention, the cartoon is tainted with anti-Semitism. In doing so, he explicitly contradicts the PCC's assessment and, in contrast to it, sees the depiction as a derogatory reference to Sharon's religion. For the historian and anti-Semitism researcher Robert S. Wistrich , the caricature is an insidious example of the connection between anti-Israeli defamation and anti-Semitic symbolism by taking up this stereotype.

Woodcut by Peter Wagner from 1492, which mixes the depiction of Saturn with anti-Jewish propaganda.

In the Middle Ages , the legend of Saturn and his children was used for anti-Jewish propaganda. For example, a woodcut from an almanac published in 1492 by the Nuremberg printer Peter Wagner depicts Saturn eating his children as Jews with a Jew hat and a Jew ring . In addition, the symbolism of ritual murder is also often taken up in Muslim newspapers. For example, in May 2001, about two years before Brown's cartoon was published, a cartoon appeared in the Palestinian newspaper al-Quds showing Sharon devouring children at breakfast. For this reason, for the Jewish theologian Richard L. Rubenstein, what is particularly shocking about the caricature is its appearance in a supposedly reputable British mainstream newspaper. According to Rubenstein, the Jewish origins of the editor-in-chief of the Independent Simon Kelner show that the new anti-Semitism, if it exists, is characterized by the fact that it is supported by uprooted, left-wing Jews.

In contrast, the philosopher Brian Klug does not rate the caricature as anti-Semitic. The reference to Goya is unmistakable, the caricature does not use any stereotypical characteristics of Jews and shows neither Jewish symbols nor badges of the State of Israel. Instead, it refers explicitly to a political party and a political personality.

The historian and anti-Semitism researcher Juliane Wetzel and the journalist Winston Pickett see the caricature in the context of an argumentation pattern that draws parallels between the Holocaust and the fate of the Palestinians and accuses Israel of its own bloody genocide. Wetzel describes this as an integral part of the strategy of comparison and trivialization, not just of right-wing extremism . Pickett justifies this classification - in addition to the personification of Israel as the state of the Jews by the bloodthirsty Sharon - by the appearance of the caricature on Holocaust Remembrance Day. However, Helga Embacher , Bernadette Edtmaier and Alexandra Preitschopf object that it is difficult to assess whether the caricature was deliberately published on Holocaust Remembrance Day. On the one hand, she referred to the Knesset election that took place the following day. On the other hand, the day of remembrance had only been introduced in Great Britain the year before, which means that it is entirely possible that the publication was made out of ignorance. That being said, the cartoon is problematic because it alleges that Sharon is killing Palestinian children, thereby contributing to the demonization of Israel.

In addition, Brown's work has also been received as an example of the difficulties involved in interpreting caricatures. Ilan Danjoux sees it as an example of how readers let their own cultural heritage flow into their interpretation of a caricature. In his view, both the reference to Roman mythology and the allusion to classic anti-Jewish propaganda are credible, depending on the cultural glasses through which you look at the caricature. Nicholas Hiley sees it as confirmation that scientists need to view cartoons in a precise context. He confirms the statement of the PCC that newspapers cannot take into account all possible interpretations of their publication. This is especially a problem in today's world, where cartoons could be spread across the globe within a few hours, losing their original context and taking on new, unintended meanings. This also happened with the Sharon caricature, which was shown on an anti-Israel protest poster by radical Muslims in India .

Brown's Sharon caricature was part of the traveling exhibition Anti-Semitism? Anti-zionism? Israel criticism? , which was developed by the Center for Research on Antisemitism at TU Berlin and the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial . Due to the lack of permission to print, however, she was only seen in a photo of a demonstrator, which showed a large-format picture of her. The exhibition was presented for the first time in Berlin in 2007 and was later shown at the Jewish Museum Westphalia in Dorsten and the Prora documentation center, among others.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Press watchdog says 'Independent' cartoon of Israeli PM was not anti-semitic. In: The Independent. May 21, 2003, accessed September 16, 2018 .
  2. ^ Chronological Review of Events Relating to the Question of Palestine. Monthly media monitoring review. January 2003. In: United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. February 1, 2003, accessed October 12, 2018 .
  3. ↑ Julia Quante: Drawn into the Heart of Europe? British European Policy in the Mirror of Caricatures (1973–2008) (=  Hans J. Kleinsteuber [Hrsg.]: Medien & Politik . Volume 44 ). Lit, Berlin / Münster 2013, ISBN 978-3-643-11538-6 , pp. 145 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  4. ↑ Europe devouring Britiannia. In: British Cartoon Archive website. Retrieved May 15, 2019 .
  5. ↑ 96353 - No caption. In: British Cartoon Archive website. Retrieved May 15, 2019 .
  6. ↑ Sharon Sadeh: Cartoon in UK Paper Draws Israeli Protest. In: Haaretz . January 28, 2003, accessed August 30, 2018 .
  7. ↑ Dave Brown: Satire or Anti-Semitism? The cartoonist writes. In: The Independent. January 31, 2003, accessed September 21, 2018 .
  8. ↑ Philip Hensher: Satire or anti-Semitism? Looking at Goya. In: The Independent. January 31, 2003, accessed September 16, 2018 .
  9. ^ Ned Temko: Satire or Anti-Semitism? Anti-semitism. In: The Independent. January 31, 2003, accessed September 16, 2018 .
  10. ↑ a b c Ciar Byrne: Sharon: Independent cartoon 'anti-Semitic'. In: The Guardian . March 5, 2003, accessed September 21, 2018 .
  11. ^ A b Ciar Byrne: Independent cartoon cleared of anti-semitism. In: The Guardian. May 22, 2003, accessed September 16, 2018 .
  12. ↑ 'Independent' cartoonist wins award. In: The Independent. November 27, 2003, accessed September 16, 2018 .
  13. ↑ Julia Quante: Drawn into the Heart of Europe? British European Policy in the Mirror of Caricatures (1973–2008) (= Hans J. Kleinsteuber [Hrsg.]: Medien & Politik . Volume 44 ). Lit, Berlin / Münster 2013, ISBN 978-3-643-11538-6 , pp. 8 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  14. ↑ 'Idiots call me a Nazi over cartoon'. In: Times series. December 3, 2003, accessed September 21, 2018 .
  15. ^ Anthony Julius: Trials of the Diaspora. A History of Anti-Semitism in England . Oxford University Press, Oxford / New York 2010, ISBN 978-0-19-929705-4 , pp. 526 (English, limited preview in Google Book search).
  16. ^ Robert S. Wistrich: From Ambivalence to Betrayal. The Left, the Jews, and Israel . University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln / London 2012, ISBN 978-0-8032-4076-6 , pp. 544-545 (English, limited preview in Google Book Search).
  17. ↑ Efraim Safe, Linda Weinhouse: Under Postcolonial Eyes. Figuring the "jew" in Contemporary British Writing . University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln / London 2012, ISBN 978-0-8032-4503-7 , pp. 21–22 (English, limited preview in Google Book Search).
  18. ↑ Winston Pickett: Nasty or Nazi? The use of antisemitic topoi in the left-liberal media . In: Paul Iganski, Barry Kosmin (Eds.): A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st Century Britain . Profile Books, London 2003, pp. 148-166 (English, wordpress.com ). For the picture see Robert S. Wistrich: Muslim Anti-Semitism. A Clear and Present Danger . The American Jewish Committee, 2002, pp. 29 (English, ajcarchives.org ).
  19. ^ Richard L. Rubenstein: Jihad and Genocide . Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham / Boulder / New York / Toronto / Plymouth 2010, ISBN 978-1-4422-0198-9 , pp. 104 (English, limited preview in Google Book search).
  20. ^ Brian Klug: Is Europe a lost cause? The European debate on antisemitism and the Middle East conflict . In: Patterns of Prejudice . tape 39 , no. 1 , 2005, p. 46–59, here: 52–53 , doi : 10.1080 / 00313220500045253 (English).
  21. ↑ a b Winston Pickett: Nasty or Nazi? The use of antisemitic topoi in the left-liberal media . In: Paul Iganski, Barry Kosmin (Eds.): A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st Century Britain . Profile Books, London 2003, pp. 148-166 (English, wordpress.com ).
  22. ↑ Juliane Wetzel: New anti-Semitism or updating of an old phenomenon? An inventory . In: Hansjörg Schmidt, Britta Frede-Wenger (eds.): New anti-Semitism? A challenge for interfaith dialogue . Frank & Timme, Berlin 2006, ISBN 978-3-86596-049-8 , pp. 9–30 , here: 14 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  23. ↑ Helga Embacher, Bernadette Edtmaier, Alexandra Preitschopf: Anti-Semitism in Europe. Case studies of a global phenomenon in the 21st century . Böhlau, Vienna / Cologne / Weimar 2019, ISBN 978-3-205-20774-0 , pp. 144 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
  24. ↑ Ilan Danjoux: Don't Judge a Cartoon by Its Image . In: Dvora Yanow, Peregrine Schwartz-Shea (Ed.): Interpretation and Method. Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn . Routledge, London / New York 2015, ISBN 978-0-7656-3540-2 , pp. 353–367 , here: 358 (English, limited preview in Google Book Search).
  25. ^ Nicholas Hiley: Showing politics to the people: cartoons, comics and satirical prints . In: Richard Howells, Robert W. Matson (Eds.): Using Visual Evidence . Open University Press, Maidenhead 2009, ISBN 978-0-335-22864-5 , pp. 24–42 , here: 38 (English, limited preview in Google book search).
  26. ↑ "Anti-Semitism? Anti-zionism? Criticism of Israel? ”- an exhibition in Berlin. In: Websites of the Brandenburg State Center for Political Education . August 22, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2018 .
  27. ↑ "Anti-Semitism? Anti-Zionism? Criticism of Israel?" - Exhibition in the Jewish Museum Westphalia. In: Website of the state center for political education North Rhine-Westphalia . Retrieved November 3, 2018 .
  28. ^ Archive 2010. In: Web pages of the Prora Documentation Center. Retrieved November 3, 2018 .