The Troublemaking Cartoon: We Know Who Is Meant by the Chimp Now But Is That All?

A cartoon likening the author of the stimulus bill with the rampaging chimpanzee that was shot dead in Thursday's New York Post has been the subject of much discussion in the States. The cartoon depicts two police officers standing over the dead chimp, with one of them saying, “They'll have to find someone else to write the next bill.” According to some politicians and various human rights organizations, the chimpanzee was supposed to represent President Obama and that this depiction was an unacceptably racist move by the New York Post that exceeded the limits of freedom of expression. Other criticisms included the fact that making fun of a situation in which a woman was seriously hurt was not appropriate.

A day after the cartoon crisis and hundreds of demonstrators' complaints, an official response came from the New York Post: “It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill. But it has been taken as something else – as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism. This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.” Unfortunately, the following statement makes this apology conditional: “However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with the Post in the past – and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback. To them, no apology is due.” These last two sentences may be a tactical step by the newspaper in order to get out from under taking responsibility by calling attention to those who 'benefited from the situation' as the real trigger for raising the issue. At this point, I understand the newspaper's concern regarding the intention of the cartoon and appreciate the apology but making an apology conditional without being specific about the "some in the media and in public life," one is addressing overshadows the sincerity of the apology. In addition to this, I also agree with the criticism that it is absolutely not ethical to use such a dramatic event after which the chimp victim was transferred to the Cleveland Clinic, which performed the first successful face transplant in the United States of America. The Post's editorial team should have considered the seriousness of the situation before publishing the cartoon.

Some remember the cartoon crisis that took place between Muslims and the Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper, that published Mohammed cartoons in 2005. As we all remember, months-long protests targeted Israeli, Danish and American flags and embassies around the world. Even after what the protesters wanted – an apology from the newspaper – came in January 2006, the publication of similar cartoons by others re-strained relations. Yes, this recent cartoon has been the most controversial one since  the 2005 crisis. However, in terms of freedom of expression, I do not think that the two cases are comparable. Although both newspapers have apologized to those who felt offended, the misunderstanding of what had been intended by the New York Post is somewhat different to the offense caused to Muslims that picturing the prophet Mohammed caused. The real reaction behind the 2005 cartoon crisis was not that the pictures showed Mohammed as a 'terrorist' , but that he was pictured for any reason. We should take this fine distinction into consideration before comparing these two cases.

At the end of the day, the apology of from the New York Post is likely to diminish the tension. However the criticisms  --- that the New York Post's editors should have realised that the chimp could be perceived as Obama himself (and by extension whether shooting Obama was being encouraged), and that they should have considered the critical situation of the woman who was seriously hurt by the chimp --- are unlikely to end.

Anticipating the New Israeli Government: Netanyahu or Livni?

According to the Associated Press, the Obama Administration has praised the Israeli elections and has called the voting by millions of Israelis the sign of a strong democracy. The White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stated that the President Obama was excited to work with the new Israeli government, and on Wednesday, Obama called Israeli President Shimon Peres to express his gratitude for American and Israeli model democracies and to emphasise his personal efforts for a two-state Israel-Palestine solution.

The question is how much room there is for such a solution. While relatively moderate Tzipi Livni, the leader of the Kadima Party is ready to pursue peace talks with the Abbas Government, Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, considers the US-backed negotiation process as a waste of time.

Meanwhile, Livni has demonstrated her "hawkish" reflexes in the name of "Israeli interests" during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. This was reminiscent of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's 2006 Lebanon War when there were serious questions in Israelis' minds whether the inexperienced Olmert was able to handle the weight of the Israeli politics after his predecessor Ariel Sharon's illness. The only difference is that Olmert had to prove himself after Sharon was no longer able to be the Prime Minister, while Livni had to sharpen her position against Hamas, "the common enemy" of all Israelis, to increase Kadima`s votes. Waging war against Hamas while giving priority to the peace process with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas --- including giving up land, dismantling settlements in West Bank, and sharing Jerusalem --- indicate the balance of her expected policies. Livni`s position is closer to peace when compared to that of Netanyahu, but the Iron Lady offers no concession on the most sensitive notion of the Israeli society: "security".

For Netanyahu, as we see in his election motto (“Likud: Because the state needs to be run”), Kadima has been incompetent in its rule, including its conduct of the Lebanon War and the most recent Gaza War. Netanyahu has criticized the government for being insufficiently strong against Hezbollah and Hamas in these two wars and insisted on the continuation of Operation Cast Lead. Netanyahu`s "security pack", which includes toppling Hamas in Gaza, keeping the Golan Heights, and expanding current settlements in the West Bank, is much more important than giving priority to the peace process.

It is clear that a peace agreement is unlikely to come under an Netanyahu administration, but his agenda is wide enough to keep peace proponents busy, at least in the mid-term. What is missing in this analysis, however, are the Obama Administration`s regional policies the application of these to Israel and its new Gvoernment, as it seeks a "secure" Israeli society and/or "strong" steps for peace.