I love the New Yorker cover. It shows that our politics may actually be more sophisticated than we thought; also it will quickly sort out anyone with a sense of humor from anyone without one (sadly, our great future president, Barack Obama, is in the latter camp). And as for anyone who says this will arm the enemies of Obama, you remind me of all the other p.c. strictures that have limited debate about the Middle East. Too much censorship. I welcome the cover as a signal that the pieties of the clash of civilizations
and world war iv, which had a toehold inside the New Yorker itself, are
coming to an end.
-
-
- Bill Kristol celebrates Republican Party purge of ‘oldfashioned Arabists’ Scowcroft, … 25
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 8
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 59
- Joe Pitts and ‘The Family’ 5
- The Interior Minister’s call to expel African immigrants, in context 2
- This is the gang that is going to save the … 6
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 23
- South African artists, intellectuals and gov’t ministers take steps to … 2
-
- Congressman Joe Pitts: ‘It is incumbent on Ariel Sharon and … 4500
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 698
- ‘New York Review of Books’ calls it ‘apartheid’ and prepares … 556
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 404
- Protests on behalf of prisoners sweep the West Bank 284
- Thaer Halahleh, dying, tells the daughter he’s never seen why … 234
- International attention must be paid to the Palestinian nonviolent movement 210
- Nobel Prize laureate J. M. Coetzee appears to boycott International … 185
-
- On the sidewalk in Hamburg– ‘Hier wohnte’ 285
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 101
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 85
- Walzer says Jews were on the left because the left … 75
- Killing Without Consequence: New campaign challenges Israeli impunity 73
- International attention must be paid to the Palestinian nonviolent movement 71
- More ‘magnet than a mallet’: RAND Corporation warns against striking … 68
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 68
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the Israeli military watches (59)
- tree: Feel free to look at 1:28 on the far left corner. It then spread towards Yitzhar. I see no fire in the far left...
- OlegR: That does not mean that people who tried to set it on fire and gotten hurt in the process should be portrayed...
- OlegR: Annie i do have a life you know. Well this expectantly turned into the usual brawl. Regarding the incident i...
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need for it) (101)
- Klaus Bloemker: - “Most every Christian in the world is Christian because it was the religion of his or her...
- Klaus Bloemker: -”Christianity is not something you’re born into.” That’s right. But Jews are...
- German Lefty: “OlegR is never going to think of you as a Jew in the same sense as he thinks of someone with the...
- Bill Kristol celebrates Republican Party purge of ‘oldfashioned Arabists’ Scowcroft, Baker and Bush I (25)
- seanmcbride: Here is FailedMessiah.com on this story: BEGIN ARTICLE TITLE Haredi Leader Calls Non-Jews “Murderers,...
- Hostage: I’m sick and tired of hearing how this sort of debate “arms the anti-semites”. To my mind, it’s the likes of...
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm nerves in the region’ (23)
- John Smithson: farsnews.com link is bad – can you update it?
- Feeling the hate in Long Island (68)
- evets: A bad side of coleslaw might be all it takes. I’m feeling the heartburn.
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the Israeli military watches (59)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Annie Robbins
- Allison Deger
- Alex Kane
- Today in Palestine
- Kate
- Paul Mutter
- Adam Horowitz
Blogroll
the cartoonist's name is Barry Blitt. the editor is David Remnick. Phil, you seem to be deviating a bit from your line here. the magazine has run many pieces on Mideast by Goldberg (tho to its everlasting credit, also by Sy Hersh). i think this cover is questionable. not even so much the turban on O, but the afro and automatic on Michelle. many many people are trying to revive memories of '68
The machine gun doesn't cry "terrorist" to me — more like "Black Panthers '68", especially with that huge Afro.
I think it would have been a lot funnier, considering Obama's recent toadying to the Israel lobby, to have him and his wife dressed as Orthodox Jewish settlers in the West Bank, smiling serenly as Israeli security men load a family of Palestinians onto a truck in the background (or just gun them down, but maybe that would be a bit much for the New Yorker).
_______________________________________________________________________________________
This is JedReport's take on it, and I agree.
"If the New Yorker cover artist's point was to critique right-wing framing about Barack Obama (which I believe), the thing that was really missing from the cover was context. Imagine if he had taken the exact same drawing and placed it inside of a drawing a television set — perhaps FOX News. Or maybe on a web browser — perhaps LGF or The Free Republic. Even on the cover of another magazine like The Weekly Standard.
The way it is now, the question confronted by the viewer is (a) is this caricature true and (b) if not, then who is spreading it. If the artist had placed it inside of some sort of context, (a) would have receded as an issue, and (b) would have been more clear. Given that I don't think the artist was trying to stir up a debate about (a) or (b), this is why I think it fell short."
There is insufficient context.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
I find the drawing accurate in terms of the nonsense used to smear the Obamas, but worry about the memes planted with those who do not deconstruct the image any further.
"I don't care a straw for your newspaper articles, my constituents don't know how to read, but they can't help seeing them damned pictures." ~ Boss Tweed
The magazine says the cover is meant to satirize the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Obama
(AP Photo/New
O.K…let if this is to satirize the use of scare tactics about Muslims let me ask them something.
Why didn't they do a cartoon of Lieberman during his VP run as a Jew with huge hook nose and a Star of David on his robe picking the pocket if the US treasury and running up the Israeli flag over the WH ?
Can you imagine the outcry if that was done?
Nope I don't buy their cover for their cover.
Everyone knows what that David Remmick is a die hard Israeli supporter anyway so we know what his motives for this are:
http://tonykaron.com/2007/08/31/mearshimer-walt-and-the-erudite-hysteria-of-david-remnick/
Phil has an occassional spectacular lapse in judgment and this is one of them. This cover is extremely negative for Obama, it will do him no good at all. I suspect that in coming days we will see this image widely reproduced in the right wing blogs. It is confirmation of what they have been saying for months and they now can state that the liberals are saying the same. The satire will be lost completely.
What utter utter fools.
Seems to me you are trying to make lemon aid out of lemons Phil.
I'm waiting for the New Yorker cover to have Lieberman in full orthodox apparel with the Mrs. holding a menorah and the head of a Arab child while Sharon's portrait looks down from above the mantel and the American flag burns. Now wouldn't that be giving it to all those antisemitic types? What do you think the odds are of that humor happening Philip? Shear Jewish genius right Philip? I look forward to the end of censorship as well.
Amazing. The opposition to the cover seems to be mostly about "those stupid American voters" who will "not get" the obvious sarcasm of it! (Anybody suggesting that New Yorker is somehow anti-Obama really needs to get some sleep or stop smoking that stuff that she/he does). By the way, Obama himself seems to be of quite a high opinion of the American voters' sophistication in his speeches.
My guess is that Remnick (whose "Jewy" or Zionist credentials have absolutely nothing to do with the issue, whoever hard some people try to drag them by the ears) and Blitt are totally flabbergasted by the reaction to their anti-anti-Obama cover.
Guys, get a grip and stop seeing Jewish conspiracies everywhere. If anything, the cover is a por-Obama "conspiracy" gone wrong (or rather, lost on many)
I think this whole thing is just silly. It's possible that there are war supporters at The New Yorker who did this because they secretly want McCain to win. Obama's reaction was just shameful. But ultimately, how many middle-American voters pay any attention to The New Yorker, or as Daniel Patrick Moynihan once put it in another context, how many people in Buffalo do you think read Commentary?
The New Yorker is supposed to be the magazine of the liberal, cerebral, Wine and Cheese crowd. They will read the article. HOW MANY ORDINARY Americans will see the cover but will not read the magazine? I do not agree with censorship but I cetainly can tell what is in good taste. And I am just curious to know your reaction
Mr Weiss, if, instead of appearing as the cover of The New Yorker, it had appeared as the cover of an extreme right wing magazine!
Right cover, right intention, wrong magazine: the New Yorker is too nakedly (but unadmittedly) Zionist to pull it off. It is dishonest in that respect and so, compromised.
Ownership and editorship seem to be the key. Even if I could write, I doubt that given my views on the I/P conflict the mighty Canwest would hire me in my native Canada. And yet, how many of the consumers of the Canwest stable of media outlets have ever heard of the Asper family and their political (geo-political?, religious?, ethnic? – it's so confusing) orientation. Not many, but they do know Palestian militants are "terrorists". QED. Apartheid and seige justified.
To return to the matter of New Yorker cover it might have worked better at Harper's. (Wish Elizabeth Kolbert and Sy Hersh wrote there.)
Obama is going to fail us, but very much hope to proved wrong.
99.9 % of all Americans I have never known or met ever read the New Yorker, or even more remote, Commentary. That's how they all like it, meaning the .1%. Otherwise, the content of both would be different, and delivered differently. Did you ever put water in your catsup bottle to extend the life of the catsup?
Of course! it's all a smarty-pants Jew Remnick ploy to increase the awareness and circulation of the New Yorker among the 99.9% of Americans :)) Rather like the Paris Hilton porn video.
Phil, why dont you ask the NewYorker to satirize a megalomaniac zionist american jew who worked for the defense dept…soliciting Big dollar donations for the War party.
lets see how sophisticated americans and the elitist writers on our magazines and newspapers really are by asking them to do depict zionist donors…
the problem with humor is that whats funny for the goose isnt funny for the gander.
The New Yorker ran a lot of cartoons satirizing all the presidential candidates, including Hillary and McCain. Demanding from TNY to put Lieberman (or any other favorite Zionist bogeyman on the cover) – as some here seem to think as a paragon of even-handedness – would be making mountains of molehills, in some sense: Lieberman – however despicable – is not a presidential candidate (thank god!). And it strikes me as essentially the same infantile tactic used by Israel apologists on hearing any criticism of Israel: they demand to hear criticism of "the other side" in the same breath. Not to mention, again, that TNY cover was not a criticism of Obama!
Funny? More like a glimpse through a dark mirror into the soul of a paranoid.
It didn't even register that it was Michelle doing the dap–I just thought they were showing Obama with Angela Davis.
Truly vile. Funny only if you think character assassination is funny.
Ask yourself–does it help or hurt his election chances? If you think this helps (how? by pulling in the ironically transgressive vote?) then you are singularly lacking in discernment.
"Dangerous to play with such fire in so dry a season."
"The New Yorker ran a lot of cartoons satirizing all the presidential candidates, including Hillary and McCain." Pete D.
Not like this they didn't. Lieberman is endlessly whispering in McCain's ear, so fair game he is. Let's put him on the cover of TNY as I have suggested and we shall see if the Jewish community makes a mountain or a molehill out of it. Just think of it as a little experiment. Only someone willing it not to be could see that cover as inoffensive.
New Yorker Satire on Bush for Comparison
who the hell can buy these m and f'rs bullcrap….
obama is being smeared…if it aint so then the new yorker ought to follow it up with the mandatory smearing of the most vocal and aggressive politically connected racial group in the big bagle, the jewish meritocracy….lets get it on phil dont put up with this bullcrap or try to make it sound like sophistication…more like sophistry on your part trying to sell that crap on the new yorker as artistic critiquing that us mere mortals couldnt possibly understand because were just not that sophisticated to get it…
i say bull crap.
american said above something that ought to be asked of this new yorker mag a gag a zine.
"Why didn't they do a cartoon of Lieberman during his VP run as a Jew with huge hook nose and a Star of David on his robe picking the pocket if the US treasury and running up the Israeli flag over the WH ?
Can you imagine the outcry if that was done?"
they are all a bunch of racist who are picking on the weakest characteristic of this presidential hopeful at this present time in america where muslims are smeared to be feared by the elitist media chumps who serve their masters…the character of the media is to be questioned ..but thats not news to anyone.
Conspiracy or hideous misjudgment – it's been 24 hours since the New Yorker cover hit the stands and for 24 hours the image of a presidential candidate and his wife dressed in full Muslim garb together with literally thousands of sound bytes putting the words 'Obama' and 'Muslim' clearly and unequivocally together have been saturating every single news and political program.
Without wanting to "egg on" the more conspiratorial contributors to Mondoweiss, I find it very, very, very hard to believe the editors of the New Yorker didn't see this firestorm coming.
Guys, I am sincerely amazed to read all your comments. I usually try to listen to all your arguments even when they go against my opinions and try to allow myself to be convinced by them. But to suggest that the New Yorker was trying to shoot down Obama – this is beyond ridiculous, really. I've been reading the magazine more or less cover to cover (fiction included) for the last few years and to question their liberal credentials is plain silly. I-P issue notwithstanding, they are absolutely for Obama and against Bush/McCain. Haven't your read Hertzberg's opinions (yes, another Jewish name)? I first learned who Obama was from a very flattering profile of him published in 2004 before he became a superstar at the Democratic Convention later that year. I agree that it is a "hideous misjudgment", well, obviously, given the outcry; that must be an indication how easy it is to offend some people (or, for some people to protest supposed offending of other people). To suggest a tit-for-tat treatment of Lieberman or whoever is also silly (and Joachim, you probably found the least inoffensive of their Bush caricatures: here and here are a couple of examples; how about this Cheney?) In the end, I'd venture to guess, the joke will be on all the protesters. Most folk will be not as stupid as some of you try to paint them (lamenting they are such) and will see the obvious humor (I am still to see one commenter saying he/she is changing his/her opinion of Obama because of the cartoon, rather than worrying for all the "simple-minded" people who "won't get it").
Obama will do a great service to himself publicly laughing the matter off. And all these "controversies" exploding into thin air well before the November election will only help him to win (knock on wood).
Laurie, you are probably right about the hypothetical reaction on a Lieberman cover as you suggested. Yes, there are a lot of Jews either with sticks up their asses or willing to exploit anything to shout of anti-Semitism (Foxman and such). So? You want to emulate those? And, by the way, surprisingly for me, there wasn't too much outcry after Jon Stewart's sketch on AIPAC as "Elders of Zion" (admittedly, the reaction could have been mitigated by the fact that Stewart is Jewish – any group is more tolerant to criticism from within)
You want to emulate those?
Yes Peter. Let them have a taste of their own medicine, after all an eye for an eye is in their book. Why after all should there be a double standard? I think you've hit the nail on the head about the lack of criticism regarding Stewart's sketch. Let a non Jew criticize (here I'm thinking Walt, Mearsheimer and Carter) and the long knives come out.
Mr. Weiss,you should know by now the Goyim & the Schwartze are so stupid they can't fully appreciate our sophisticated & legendary humor.
Now,take a look at this,that's funny.
http://www.heretical.com/houswitz/index.html
Ah, The Fox In The Henhouse–a child's primer. Or, how about the Poison Mushroom? Yeah, we get it, NY.