Do I need to place trigger warnings or is the title enough?
A friend sent me the following cartoon with a tag, “Unbelievably offensive!”
I immediately agreed that it was offensive but my friend and I soon discovered that we had differing opinions as to whether Israelis or Palestinians should be more offended with it.
To me, this was hugely offensive to the Israelis.
“Look,” I said, “the Palestinian woman is portrayed as powerful and important. She stands tall and proud, facing the enemy with her head held high. She is a leader in this family, and she stands her ground. The Palestinian man, in the meanwhile, is a good father. Even though he has a job, he has figured out how to take care of the baby. If this family weren’t doomed to perish (as evidenced by the explosives attached to their bodies), they could do great things. And now look at the Israeli family. The woman is kneeling behind the man. She has no presence and no role other than that of a terrified victim. She’s nothing without the man who is all alone in the struggle against the enemy. This is no compliment to the Israelis.”
Then we had a long debate about the importance of the authorial intention. And I’m sure that my friend is right, the author wasn’t trying to be complimentary towards Palestinians. What I find curious, though, is how in every image the first thing I see are people who are like me, women. This could work as a psychological test to determine one’s salient identity (in sociology, this means the identity among all of your many identities that matters the most to you.)
Clarissa's Blog 
In this cartoon I see first of all Israeli / Palestinian divide. Both women are not agents, but are acted upon. Palestinian woman is pushed ahead to provide a live shield for the man, but even if she is killed, the truly important members of the family: a father and a son, a future fighter, will survive.
I also notice that Israeli-Jewish woman is at least national religious, if not outright Haredi (Orthodox), unlike secular women, who serve in IDF (some even in combat units).
It’s very offensive to Palestinians, but since this deeply religious Israeli woman looks nothing like me, secular women are not represented by her and shouldn’t be offended. That was first impression.
LikeLike
// even if she is killed, the truly important members of the family: a father and a son, a future fighter, will survive.
And even if they don’t, she still won’t be the one to kill the enemy.
She also looks at her man, as if frightened.
LikeLike
“And even if they don’t, she still won’t be the one to kill the enemy.”
– She’ll stare him down, and he will run away in terror.
LikeLike
// – She’ll stare him down, and he will run away in terror.
She stares in terror at her man.
LikeLike
Every reader truly brings him or her self to the text, every single time. :-)I don’t see anything even remotely like terror. Especially in contrast with the other woman, who is obviously terrified.
LikeLike
In cartoon drawing conventions, the way her eyes are drawn (round, small irises, very arched eyebrows) is standard code for fear. This is insulting for everyone.
LikeLike
The two women have completely different facial expressions. They look the exact opposite. If one is afraid, then the other one has to be something different. The Israeli woman obviously signals fear. And the Palestinian woman is doing the exact opposite.
LikeLike
Different is not opposite. What the Israeli woman is signalling is vulnerability (shrunk shoulders, curled around the baby, tense, slightly downturned mouth and eyebrows raised at the corner near the nose).
LikeLike
The whole point of the cartoon is to create a binary opposition. One woman is crouching like an animal and the other one stands tall like a human being. One is hiding, one isn’t.
LikeLike
Seems to me that the opposition is between women who are “treated right” by their men and women who aren’t. Delagar’s comment is worth reading – both the women are treated like they’re not fully human, with the opposition being between a human shield and someone too helpless to bring to the fight (do note, btw, how the Israeli woman curls around the baby, being grouped with him in a way that neither the Palestinian man nor the Palestinian woman are). The cartoon heavily relies on anti-Muslim stereotypes of monstruous sexism, as maintained by a society that tolerates almost-as-disgusting sexism in its ultrareligious fringe.
LikeLike
On Shakesville, they would call this “secular women are ERASED.” I’m now even starting to speak the Shakesville language. 🙂
What makes you think that baby is a boy? i think I see a pink pacifier.
LikeLike
Is this yellow band put on girls too?
Just read “President Obama’s Remarks in Brussels to European Youth” where he talks about Ukraine :
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/03/20140326296962.html#axzz2xT3xcsAo
LikeLike
“Understand, as well, this is not another Cold War that we’re entering into. After all, unlike the Soviet Union, Russia leads no bloc of nations, no global ideology. The United States and NATO do not seek any conflict with Russia.
– Oh Lordy. “It’s not a war till I say it’s war.” More willful obtuseness.
“Moreover, Russia has pointed to America’s decision to go into Iraq as an example of Western hypocrisy. Now, it is true that the Iraq War was a subject of vigorous debate not just around the world, but in the United States as well. I participated in that debate and I opposed our military intervention there. But even in Iraq, America sought to work within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead, we ended our war and left Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state that could make decisions about its own future.”
– And this paragraph just makes no sense. God forbid Russians do to Ukraine what the US did to Iraq. We are certainly not hoping for something of that kind.
What can I say? He makes pretty speeches but how many more speeches to we need to hear?
LikeLike
// i think I see a pink pacifier.
The pacifier is red like the triangle on the Palestinian flag.
LikeLike
I think it’s meant to be offensive to Palestinian men.
The Palestinian woman (probably meant to look pregnant) isn’t looking in defiance at the Iraeli, she’s glancing back in fear at the man using her as a shield, implying she’s at least afraid of him as she is of the Israeli soldier. The open mouth and wall eyed look are standard graphic conventions for fear.
In addition the baby has a bomb attached to it.
The Israeli soldier is meant to be shown guarding the civilian woman (who’s also doing what she can to guard the baby. Her facial expression is concerned and anxious but not fearful.
The intended meaning is that the Israelis are following a natural order of a kind. Young men put their bodies and lives on the front lines to protect civilians and children. The armed Palestinian is hiding behind a woman and ready to blow up a baby to make a political point (in addition to hiding his face like a bandit, unlike the Israeli, and propogandizing the baby-note the headband)
LikeLike
// – Oh Lordy. “It’s not a war till I say it’s war.” More willful obtuseness.
I am sure Obama understands, but openly saying “we are at war” would be a wrong, dangerously stupid move.
// God forbid Russians do to Ukraine what the US did to Iraq.
Alexander wished USA would have Ukraine as an official colony, which imo means doing much worse to it.
LikeLike
\\ On Shakesville, they would call this “secular women are ERASED.”
No, it’s not that. Each figure represents a concept. Since a secular woman is too powerful to be a damsel in distress, super-religious, probably a settler (*) woman is chosen in her stead. It also brings to mind a massacre of Itamar, where a terrorist entered a home in a settlement and killed several very young children.
(*) Settlers are in the most danger, whatever you think about settlements politically.
LikeLike
“He makes pretty speeches but how many more speeches to we need to hear?”
A lot more? (not my opinion, but probably Obama’s)
LikeLike
On another topic: have you read THE SURVEYOR by HENRY ROTH?
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1966/08/06/1966_08_06_022_TNY_CARDS_000282572
Since your expertise is Spain, I thought you would be interested.
LikeLike
I feel that secular women like me are represented by the Israeli soldier most of all. But since putting a secular woman instead of him wouldn’t symbolize The Protector as well as he does, this kind of propaganda made the protecting agent a man and not a woman.
LikeLike
The soldier is obviously a man. How can he represent women?? Especially if both women in the picture are obviously religious.
LikeLike
He represents the concept of being a protecting agent. Leave man / woman for a moment, think strong-protecting-the-country-Jew vs weak-protected-Jewish-somebody. All Israeli secular women serve in IDF too, religious women usually do a year of national service at most. I explained why a secular Jewish woman wouldn’t suit the role.
I live in Israel, and by looking at the picture see that this man is the closest to secular Jewish women (on the level of Ideas, metaphysics, if it’s a suitable word). I may be mistaken, of course.
Also notice how young this Jewish-Orthodox woman is. Less than twenty years old. Married and had a child, while her secular sisters (for lack of a better word) serve in IDF!
LikeLike
“Leave man / woman for a moment,”
– The whole point of the post is precisely that I’m physiologically incapable of doing that.
LikeLike
\\ – The whole point of the post is precisely that I’m physiologically incapable of doing that.
May be, serving in IDF and living for years in Israel would help. 🙂
I think my reading is closer to the ideas of the author and of the intended audience, and thus is more correct here. (I know “everybody’s reading is equally valid” idea, but disagree with it since it’s not always so. Think you insert more of something external, from your own concerns, into the drawing than I do.)
LikeLike
“I think my reading is closer to the ideas of the author and of the intended audience, and thus is more correct here.”
– This is a guessing game that nobody has any chance of winning. We can’t have an author accompany every text with explanations of what was meant. What I find interesting is precisely why and how people form their different readings. I see the cartoon and my first thought is, “Women.” Your first thought is, “Soldiers.”
Now what is curious to explore is whether you’d see the same thing if the flags in the cartoon were of, say, Bolivia and Chile (who have been engaged in a long-standing dispute about access to the ocean.) Mine wouldn’t. I’d still see women. Which obviously doesn’t make my reading superior to anybody else’s.
LikeLike
I like your reading of this cartoon a lot, Clarissa.
And though you might have been tongue in cheek, I think the “proper” or “authorial intent” reading of it does rely on the erasing of the women (pace el’s arguments).
That is, I think the artist probably did mean it to be read as insulting to Palestinians, who would hide behind women (and so on) — but to read it this way we have to erase the women as agents, as human beings: which the artist has done their best to help us do, by making the Israeli woman so twee and helpless looking, and TRYING to make the Palestinian woman ugly and hulking, at least to Western standards of beauty. Neither are acceptable human adults, therefore, by the Western (patriarchal) standard.
Your reading subverts this neatly. Very nice!
LikeLike
I think we’re supposed to sympathize with the Israeli soldier, since he’s protecting innocent civilians while the Palestinian soldier is willing to sacrifice them (the baby is even turned into a human bomb).
As far as women are concerned,the Israeli one is scared and helpless, the Palestinian one is being used as cannon fodder (she doesn’t have a gun, she’s not fighting along with the man). Kinda offensive for both of them, I’ll say.
LikeLike
“the Palestinian one is being used as cannon fodder ”
– We have no indication that she is not choosing to do what she’s doing. Just like there is no indication that the Israeli woman hasn’t freely chosen to be a damsel in distress who can never get off her knees.
LikeLike
Come on, this is simple propaganda, a partisan political cartoon with exactly one point: to show Israel as a decent country defending itself against Palestinian barbarians.
(The human figures in the drawing are totally irrelevant except as national symbols.)
I’ll admit it’s a lot of fun to treat it as a Rorschach test 🙂
LikeLike
This is a terrible cartoon.
The baby in the Snuggli is as high as a kite (it’s supposed to read as terrified baby, but nope). The woman in the abaya is all, “What?” and looking at the man behind her and not the man with the gun in front of her face. Her body language isn’t “OMG let me jump back.”
The GI is holding a pop gun (it’s supposed to be a real weapon but it looks plastic). The woman behind the GI is supposed to be scared, but just looks like she was transported from a manger shoot and is really constipated. And what baby sleeps through terror like that?
Propaganda should never be this confusing.
LikeLike
Certainly a stunningly offensive cartoon (any clue as to its intended audience Clarissa?) I would see it as proZionist. The ‘heroic’ IDF guy is a ‘proper’ soldier, he’s been trained, his face is uncovered and mouth open – is he ready for dialogue? ‘Whattaguy!’ (His wife’s so one dimensional I can find no comment). But his sneaky (all in black, face covered) ‘terrorist’ opponent is much more heavily armed (gun, C4 explosive and a rocket launcher!!). He must be a coward if he would ‘risk’ his baby, wife and possible unborn child. His wife is so fat&ugly(in that distinctively racist way) that she must be bovinely stupid to accede to being a human shield herself (while possibly pregnant&fat at the same time!) while her baby is used as a bombpack carrier. Or maybe she’s just another terrorist with that burka covering more explosive, ‘they’ do that don’t they?! When in doubt always portray an opponent as subhuman 😛
LikeLike