Given how radically left-wing so many "prestigious" newsrooms have become, I really shouldn't keep getting surprised by stories like this -- but I still do. The Washington Post published an editorial cartoon on its website this week depicting a Hamas leader criticizing Israel for inflicting civilian casualties, while civilians are literally strapped to his body. The point of view of the cartoon is obvious: It's skewering Hamas' evil duplicity, in which the terrorist organization deliberately embeds its leaders, munitions and operations among civilians, specifically for the purpose of making Israeli strikes as likely as possible to incur collateral damage. Said collateral damage is then manipulated, exaggerated, and paraded before the world, in order to strike a public relations blow against Israel. Despite Israel's exceptional efforts to warn civilians and avoid unnecessary and undeserved casualties, many in the "international community" are always eager to parrot and amplify anti-Israel, and pro-Hamas propaganda.
But Hamas' own officials give away the game with their explicit, globally-televised comments. One recently boasted about how the terror group takes pride in 'sacrificing martyrs' for the cause. Another scoffed at the notion that Hamas' network of tunnels should be used to protect civilians from falling bombs. The tunnels are for attacking Israel, he explained, adding that care of innocent Gazans above ground is the job of the United Nations, and -- incredibly -- Israel. There is so much evidence of Hamas running its terrorism out of hospitals, schools, mosques, residential areas, and children's centers, it shouldn't even require further explanation. It's just an established fact. During the current war, it appears that Hamas has gone beyond merely instructing civilians not to flee to safety (per Israeli instructions); they've reportedly attempted to enforce this sick decree by killing some of the people who disobey. So pointing out Hamas' disgusting, inhumane practice of deliberately putting civilians in harm's way, and the galling hypocrisy of blaming Israel for these Hamas-caused deaths, is reasonable and righteous fodder for criticism, including in the form of a political cartoon like this:
Kind of surprised the Washington Post pulled this cartoon, given that it's a completely accurate depiction of Hamas's tactics. pic.twitter.com/jvI2DnbAgd
— Sonny Bunch (@SonnyBunch) November 9, 2023
That image is no longer available on the Post's website, however. Why? Apparently, the newsroom had a meltdown over it, and management decided to censor the cartoon at the behest of offended journalists and some readers:
Sally Buzbee, the executive editor of the Washington Post, sent an email to staff members on Wednesday night acknowledging their "many deep concerns and conversations" about a cartoon criticizing Hamas that the newspaper earlier in the day published and then deleted...Buzbee forwarded an email that Shipley had sent opinions staff in which he said he had personally "taken down" the cartoon. Shipley included the full text of an editor's note in which he publicly expressed "regret" that he had "missed something profound, and divisive" in publishing the image...Along with Shipley's editor's note, the Post published letters to the editor that variously called the cartoon "deeply malicious," "deeply racist," and "full of bias and prejudice." The Post also reported on Wednesday evening about its removal of the cartoon by Ramirez, who twice won the Pulitzer Prize at the Las Vegas Review-Journal before joining the Post in May. The report said "the drawing was criticized as racist and dehumanizing toward Palestinians" and described the Hamas caricature as having a "large nose and snarling mouth."
First, it remains striking and alarming how many of the most aggressive advocates for censorship in the US today are journalists, who have traditionally been pretty close to First Amendment absolutists. No more. Second, I'd love to know more about these "deep concerns." What is inaccurate about the cartoon's premise? And to whom is criticizing a profoundly evil Hamas practice offensive or insulting -- beyond, well, Hamas, and its most hardcore supporters? It appears the claim is that the Hamas character (who bears a striking resemblance to one of Hamas' explicitly pro-genocide spokesmen) is depicted in a "racist" way, supposedly because of his nose and "snarling mouth." Well, he's a genocidal, Jew-hating terrorist. In what way is it problematic to portray him as snarling?
As for the nose complaint -- and I just cannot believe people are rushing to nitpick the sketching of a bloodthirsty terrorist as somehow unfair -- please read on. Would there have been no complaints if the Hamas avatar were masked? Also, how is it impermissible to be "biased and prejudiced" towards Hamas, for cripes sake? The cartoon isn't broadly anti-Muslim, or anti-Arab, or anti-Palestinian. Indeed, the victims being used to shield the terrorist are innocent Muslims. Once again, the people who seem most committed to conflating Hamas and Palestinians are Hamas apologists in the West. It's not clear who may have been involved in leading this pro-censorship, Hamas-whitewashing revolt inside the newspaper, but I have a guess. Meanwhile, this is a good, disturbing catch:
Want to know what's still available on the Washington Post's YouTube page? https://t.co/IzT5BjQBrf pic.twitter.com/o3YNfO2POE
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) November 9, 2023
Same WaPo artist who depicted Sen. Cruz's daughters as dancing monkeys. Real peach, that Ann. pic.twitter.com/N6u9F6slCw
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) November 9, 2023
So a cartoon showing Hamas cynically and horribly protecting its terrorists with blameless human shields is offensive enough within the Washington Post community to be taken down. But a cartoon portraying Israel's leader (with a big nose, I'll note) punching a child while a Hamas terrorist looks on -- as if Israel is going out of its way to hurt children, instead of Hamas, passed muster, as did a cartoon conveying a Hispanic Senator's young daughters as monkeys? The Hamas depiction is accurate. The Israel depiction is a disgusting lie and a grotesque mischaracterization of, well, everything about this conflict. I think the artist and the message are backwards and reprehensible, but I don't think it should be censored or removed. But, evidently, plenty of Washington Post journos are so consumed by Israel hate and/or identity grievance, that they successfully lobbied to have a trenchant, reality-based, anti-Hamas cartoon ripped down, almost as if it's a hostage poster. There is something broken and rotten at the Washington Post. I'll leave you with this scene outside another major newspaper's offices last evening:
Oh look, ‘pro-Palestine’ protesters shouting “shut it down” at NYT headquarters pic.twitter.com/PGKRksFQlz
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) November 9, 2023
One wonders how many journalists inside wanted to open a window and shout, we're on your side!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member