Thanks!

I believe the point here is not only the cartoon that should or shouldn't be removed. Unfortunately many people that never researched about the Middle East think themselves as experts in the matter. First, Jewish people never left their land even after the second temple be destroyed. Secondly people forget that British colonizers create an Arabian State called Jordan where it was also part of the Ancient Israeli State to give a place to rein to that real family that was expelled from Syria. It means that Israel already gave the Arabs a part of what was their Ancient land. Third the Jewish agreed with the solution of two states and the Arabs dictators decided to fight against it. Even though they never bothered with that land before. Fourth Jewish people converted useless swamps in productive land and only after that they bought land from lairds that lived in Syrian, South Arabian,etc. Fifth You never hear United Nations condemning Arabs attacks against Israeli civilians. To sum up, before judge we should first investigate the matter and not let be influenced by the appearance and emotion.

I thought the cartoon was appropriate, inasmuch as the state of Israel unfortunately is, and has been, "doing unto others as was done unto them." The jackboot imagery therefore fits. If anything is offensive it is Israel's arrogant, bullying behavior, not the cartoon.

For me there is a very big divide between being anti-Israel and antisemitic. As at least one reader pointed out above, there are a lot of Jews who disagree with many of the positions taken by the state of Israel. I've long thought it tragic that the state of Israel has missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate true Jewish values in how they have approached living with people of other faiths in the same land. I don't think "my way or the highway" is in the Talmud.

I have great respect and affection [I've never met a rabbi I didn't like] for Judaism and the Jewish people; however I don't think Israel represents either very well, and they shouldn't hide behind the Star of David as they do. Oliphant was right on in targeting the actions of the political entity that is Israel--and that really is what he was doing.

I think what a lot of people are forgetting is that anyone would have a hard time managing an image of muhammed, since there never have been any - it's against ANY branch of Islam to have images of the prophet's face. That's why any media outlet that has any type of sensibility steers clear; it would offend all muslims.
That said, I also think this image shouldn't have run; I can't see it not offending most Jews. Surely there is a better way to critize groups/countries - if you even have to- without dragging in what is sacred to them? (not that, last time I checked, the Star of David was sacred to the Jewish religion).

Israel also has blood on its hands. No honest man can deny this. The conflict will never end because too many have (defensible) interests.

When Israel was created in 1948, what did people expect would happen? Land was taken from people (Arabs)arbitrarily and given to others (Jews). And, please, don't submit that it was the ancient Israeli holy land. By that argument, Americans should be returning the vast majority of the US, lest we forget that the genocide of the Native Americans dwarfs that of the Jews in terms of population.

"Israel . . . went out of its way to avoid civilian casualties." Maybe by direct fire, but destroying vast infrastructures produces casualties also. Such as what happened in Lebanon. There's no excuse for ANY of the violence -- including that wrought by the Israelis.

Isn't the cartoonist's name Pat Oliphant?

All I have to say is, "here, here Mike Klein. Beautifully stated."

It's vile. Not only does it blatantly use Nazi imagery, it characterizes Gaza as a cute little alligator awaiting it's imminent extermination.

First of all, there was no "extermination" or "genocide" in Gaza. No place with a 5.0 birthrate is on the receiving end of a genocide. Full stop. In fact, the Israelis to a large extent went out of their way to avoid civilian casualties.

Second, there is nothing cute about Hamas and those who support it. Hamas is a medieval, genocidal, Islamist political cult who assassinates those it disapproves of, amputates the limbs of those who violate its rules. They are of the same ilk as the Taliban who America fights to this day in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Do I think Oliphant is an anti-semite? Yes. Should he have the freedom to publish scribblings of this nature--but any publication who goes along should be clear on what they are signing up to--and to the wrath of those aggreived.

1. I don't think that the Jewish Star is the Christine equivelant of the Cross
2. I think most Jews would see this is as an attack on Israel
3. There are plenty of Jews who don't support the State of Israel (believe it or not)
4. I think that sometimes people should stand back and think about a world without Jews/Israel before they publish editorial cartoons like this one.

The media double-standard is answered in the question about the image of Muhammad. I'd never advocate depicting this religious figure to spark violence or hatred. But we all know that the very depiction of the Muhammad image is inflammatory.

Still, cartoonists have no problem depicting inflammatory images (as above) to "stimulate dialogue" because they know in this case, the Jews will not resort to violence in response to free expression. This is true when they want to "stimulate dialogue" by picking on Catholics, Christians and any other religious group.

But diaologue is not so important when there is honest fear of violent reprisal from Muslim extremists.

That said, censorship does indeed exist. When a free press around the world bows to the threat of force from one segment of the population, censorship exists. Against that backdrop, we have a small sense of what the state of Israel is up against in the form of hatred and anti-Semitism. For this reason, it's only fair to portray Israel in this way if you are willing to inflame both sides of the issue equally. That said, I wouldn't advocate removal of the cartoon, but I'd encourage the press to address the issue of how it handles the other side with kid gloves.

Terrific question about the American media. Most major publications would probably not run a cartoon depicting Muhammad. However, I don't think papers should run a cartoon with offensive religious imagery simply to say they did it. There should be a reason--and it shouldn't simply be to sell papers.

I think, as one commenter (Reuben Hood) noted, Oliphant's cartoon sparks discussion about Israeli policies. That's its reason for being in the papers.

And I'm sure smart, talented cartoonists could certainly find a reason for depicting Muhammad in a cartoon.

But I continue to return to the censorship issue. I imagine a day when our kids or grandkids marvel when we say editorial cartoons actually made insightful commentary and weren't simply regurgitations of the news (not to mention they were printed on paper).

OK, maybe they won't "marvel," but still ...

I agree that this cartoon used aggressive imagery, and perhaps that was in poor taste. But is it any worse than the reality of recent Israeli actions?

I personally think that Israel has long been able to minimize criticism of its actions in the non-Arab world by hiding behind the screen of alleged antisemitism and Holocaust guilt. Because the state is essentially synonymous with Judaism, and was created in the wake of the Holocaust, it's hard to effectively separate the two.

Personally I think that the culture of (and I hate to use such a cliche) "political correctness" has been a major part of this.

It was started with good intentions, and I supported it in its early days. But now it's become a sort of social more of self-censorship, and has muzzled effective debate and discussion on issues that might be potentially offensive to anyone.

We need to open up, and not act like children whenever our feelings get hurt. Brutal, honest debate may well reopen some old wounds, but better to tear the scab off and let it heal properly than allow it to fester and scar over.

My only comment is that some Jews demand that it be removed, but they don't burn cars or call for the murder of the publisher.

Just saying.

Israel is an easy target. I disagree with Oliphant's opinion. The cartoon is offensive. It stays in the paper. I doubt the US press has the guts to offend intolerant Muslims.

The cartoon does not make "light" of Israel's challenges but depicts a very "dark" irony of Israel's current image in the world. Oliphant is merely noting that a nation founded at least partly as a reaction against fascism has been resorting to fascist tactics itself. Neither the observation nor the counter-charges of anti-semitism are new, and Oliphant's cartoon isn't really "news" either. But if Oliphant gets people talking about the current controversy created by Israel's invason of Gaza, he has done his job well.

As NY Times writer Thomas Friedman observed in the 1990s, Israel's national identity is built on three pillars: a democratic political process, an established state religion, and a geography that coincides roughly with the ancient "Land of Israel" (Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah). Ironically, these three pillars routinely interfere with one another, and that creates conflicts within Israel's own nation-identity. If Israel truly wants democracy, it must find a way to enfranchise its non-Jewish population (which is growing geometrically faster than its Jewish population). If Israel really aims to spread its land area all the way to the Jordan and southward into Sinai (again), it will not be able to live in peace with neighbors, or even with its allies. And finally, if it insists on identifying itself as "the Jewish state" it runs the risk of stifling pluralism, usually a hallmark of a democracy.

Not an easy puzzle to solve, and one that presents numerous thorny facets such as the one Oliphant has pinpointed. And definetly worth public discussion -- as long as we make sure we talk without hate.

Oooh, very good question there anonymous. I say the press doesn't have the guts and that Israel is a much easier target of scorn and ridicule by the press, the UN and assorted elites and fanatics worldwide.

And, I don't think Oliphant walked a tight line, I think he jumped across it with both feet and probably turned and spit on it as he kept going. It's an outrageous message with outrageous and dishonest imagery which would scarce be tolerated if not aimed at one of those deemed okay to ridicule. Censorship? I don't know, but the pubs who support such bile deserve whatever fallout they receive.

This cartoon illustrates that there is a difference between Israel and the Jewish religion and international Jewish culture. Many American Jews, for instance, have supported Obama and he has openly indicated his support for the enemies of Israel. His current foreign relations policies reinforce this. Iran, Syria, the PLO all sense they have a new lease on their agendas for Israel with the departure of George W. Bush.

Israel knows it's the target of universal destruction by its neighbors and it takes a heavy hand in its own defense, as any sovereign nation would when fighting for its very survival. Oliphant has joined the chorus of those who either don't care whether Israel exists, or want to make light of the life-and-death challenges Israel faces as a matter of daily life.

Now here's a question for you. Do you think the American press has the guts to simply show an image of Muhammad on their pages, or do you think they would shrink from such an action, knowing that intolerant Muslim extremists would riot and perhaps target the very editors of the newspapers?