The first and only call came from Lach Litwer, a University senior and an active member of Oregon Hillel and the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. Litwer’s phone had rung often on Oct. 13, he said, because of an illustration that appeared in that day’s Emerald.
He called the office to share his and others’ displeasure.
The drawing, titled “The Middle East’s wonderful future,” had upset many in the Jewish community, Litwer said. In the following days, three individuals wrote to the Emerald to share their disapproval.
The heart of this particular issue, as the phone call and letters have illuminated, is the misunderstanding that the Emerald is in some way anti-Semitic.
Litwer said in his phone call that while the illustration wasn’t racist, it certainly was offensive. Specifically, he said, the caricature perpetuated the stereotype of the “Dirty Jew” through its facial exaggerations and the use of the Star of David. Litwer said the drawing reminded him of the sort of propaganda used by Nazis during World War II.
Graduate student Sol Hart also likened the drawing to propaganda and said the illustration implied that Jews control the world. Additionally, he wrote in a letter to the editor, the usage of the Star of David and a yarmulke on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon demonstrated insensitivity on the Emerald’s part. Hart concluded that the cartoon was anti-Semitic.
In another letter, community member Libby Bottero also called the illustration anti-Jewish and anti-Christian religious-political propaganda.
Finally, senior Matthew Peltz made the argument that if the Emerald chooses to print cartoons like the one published Oct. 13, other illustrations — particularly with dead civilians — also should be acceptable. Peltz hinted in his letter, too, that the Emerald shouldn’t discuss issues when it lacks first-hand experience in the matter.
For the individuals who contacted the Emerald, and for those in the community who were affected by the cartoon, let me stress that the Emerald is not anti-Semitic. One cartoon alone does not warrant such a critique.
The purpose of the Page 2 illustration varies from subject to subject, sometimes offering analysis of religion and politics, other times campus issues; sometimes they are drawn with only humor intended. In this instance, religion crept into commentary meant to be strictly political in nature. The religious overtone in the illustration was an error on the part of the Emerald, a grand one at that: Sharon was drawn wearing a yarmulke, while Bush can be seen in a hat most often associated with the Catholic church. Bush is a Methodist.
In light of these circumstances, it is necessary for the Emerald to clarify its position for campus and community members.
The Emerald will not stray from a topic of discussion simply because staff members are not proficient in a particular language or have not been to a certain area of the country or world.
The Star of David resides on Israel’s flag, and Sharon is the Prime Minister of Israel; thus, Sharon is speaking on behalf of Israel.
To draw similarities between the Emerald illustration and Nazi propaganda is possible, but to establish a meaningful philosophical connection is not viable for two reasons. First, Nazis used these cartoons to further their own beliefs and had a military movement aimed at ethnic cleansing. The Emerald has no such beliefs, nor does it have any military power.
Continuing, it is hypocritical to say that someone may draw a caricature of President Bush but not of Sharon, simply because the latter is Jewish. This double standard is not acceptable; the Emerald will not restrict itself to caricaturing white men because they are neither ethnic minorities nor women.
In the future, the Emerald will look more carefully at its illustrations in an attempt to prevent misconceptions about the purpose of the drawing and to remove any underlying, unintentional tones.
To reiterate, the Emerald does not and will not allow racism or racist remarks in the paper.
Finally, the Emerald Commentary section will continue to create illustrations that may draw the community’s ire. If people didn’t disagree over varying viewpoints, this world wouldn’t be very much fun, and this page wouldn’t exist. And if the Emerald didn’t occasionally fire up some of its readers, the Commentary section wouldn’t be doing its job.

Follow this link for related letters to the Editor

Click here to view the related Editorial Cartoon by Illustrator Steve Baggs (10/13/03)