The [O]liphant in the Room: Moral Offense, Redux

In my July 17, 2008 post “Morally Offensive”, I made the following comment about the Obama fist-bump New Yorker cover:

“It was offensive.

It was funny.

It was funny precisely because it was offensive.”

So:

Am I now forced to say the same thing about the recent Pat Oliphant cartoon containing unequivocal Israel-as-Nazi imagery?

Thankfully, no, for a very simple reason: Oliphant was obviously not trying to be funny; he was trying to be very clear about who he thinks has the moral high ground in the conflict.

Fine; I hear my critics carp. (All 1.6 of them). Oliphant was probably dead serious (when he’s trying to be cute, he’s got his little guys at the bottom making side comments) and wanted to very clear about whose side he’s on.

BUT—I hear (from whomever, or wherever, it may come from)—aren't you, as a Jew and Zionist, OFFENDED? And don’t you consider what he did immoral? And, therefore, does that not explode your theory about “moral offense” being a contradiction in terms?

Actually, no, I wasn’t offended. Not even viscerally.

To be sure, if there is ever another Holocaust, I won’t be seeking refuge with Pat Oliphant. However, he would likely claim that he has nothing against Jews, or even Israelis, and, despite the fact that he has displayed the same antisemitically influenced bias that all self-styled “critics” of Israel exhibit, he might actually not be completely deluding himself.

Ironically, one might even deem that a cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban is more “inciteful” than this Oliphant cartoon, not as a matter of morals, but at a matter of behaviorism. I don’t have to go into detail explaining how that actually distinguishes between each respective target’s behavior; one target protests via letters, the other via rioting and murder. QED.

Tangentially, I would almost defend Oliphant’s “right” to publish such calumny, because I would like to reserve myself (and my side) the right to publish equally offensive—and, regards them, completely true--depictions of my mortal enemies.

The bigger problem, however, might be just that these “critics” and “criticisms” of Israel, to paraphrase Larry Summers, are “anti-Semitic in effect, if not intent”. It almost doesn’t matter if these people are actually antisemitic (especially since so many of them seem to be Jewish). It seems, almost, that people are trying to be antisemitic without being labeled as antisemites, and they are getting away with it, since “bigotry” and “racism” have been so obviously politicized (see: Durban).

Therefore, even if there is an imperative to protest such calumny (which is definitely describes Oliphant’s cartoon, in case anyone is unclear about where MY stand is on the picture), a new line of attack may be needed. It might be time to divorce intent from effect: these behaviors themselves should be enough to warrant a different kind of label.

Accessory.

Because even if these people don't necessarily "hate" us, we end up just as dead.