However, the reaction to the image convinced me that I had missed something profound, and divisive, and I regret that. Our section is aimed at finding commonalities, understanding the bonds that hold us together, even in the darkest times.
In this spirit, we have taken down the drawing. We are also publishing a selection of responses to the caricature. And we will continue to make the section home to a range of views and perspectives, including ones that challenge readers. This is the spirit of opinion journalism, to move imperfectly toward a constructive exchange of ideas at all possible speed, listening and learning along the way. —David Shipley, Opinion Editor
Letters from readers
The Nov. 8 editorial cartoon has been perceived as deeply malicious and offensive by a considerable number of readers, including me.
The caricatures employ racial stereotypes that were offensive and disturbing. Depicting Arabs with exaggerated features and portraying women in derogatory, stereotypical roles perpetuates racism and gender bias, which is wholly unacceptable.
The essence of responsible journalism lies in its ability to give voice to those who might not have one, to champion transparency and to promote informed dialogue. When content is published that contradicts these principles, it raises legitimate questions about the editorial processes, integrity and reliability.
Hind Kamal, Fairfax
There is no topic in reporting in which word choice is as fraught as in reporting on the Gaza Strip. Why does The Post not subject the visual language of its cartoons to the same scrutiny?
I am a scholar of religion and media; I recognize a deeply racist depiction of the “heathen” and his barbarous cruelty toward women and children when I see it again in Michael Ramirez’s Nov. 8 editorial cartoon. It is in no way informative, helpful or thought-provoking to look at this conflict through the glasses of 19th-century colonialists.
Suzanne van Geuns, Princeton, N.J.
The writer is a postdoctoral research associate at the Center for Culture, Society and Religion at Princeton University.
Michael Ramirez’s Nov. 8 editorial cartoon depicted a Hamas representative tying women and children to himself to use as human shields, then blaming Israel for their deaths. Though no one disputes that Hamas hides in civilian areas to evade the Israeli army, this cartoon amounted to an attempt at excusing Israeli war crimes.
Every major human rights organization has accused Israel of committing war crimes with its massive and indiscriminate bombing campaigns of civilian areas. So, thousands of Palestinian children are getting killed, not because Israel is making a pinpointed effort to kill Hamas and failing but because Israel is making no meaningful effort to spare civilians.
The Israeli military also has a documented record of using Palestinian civilians as human shields and has protested the Israeli Supreme Court’s 2005 ban of the practice. Even after the ban, the Israeli military still occasionally used Palestinian children as human shields.
In light of all this, laying the deaths of Palestinian civilians at the feet of Hamas instead of the people actually killing them is a gross mischaracterization of the situation.
Omar Baddar, Washington
Michael Ramirez’s Nov. 8 editorial cartoon depicting Hamas hostages with the Hamas character condemning Israeli attacks on civilians was full of bias and prejudice.
Is the message meant to be that Israel is justified in bombing civilians? And is the Palestinian flag on one side of the cartoon meant to conflate Hamas with all Palestinians? And is the background photo — on the other side of the cartoon, of the Dome of the Rock meant to conflate Hamas ideology with Islam? Ramirez ought to have thought about these elements in the cartoon. They are offensive not only to Muslims, but to me and all of my Palestinian Christian sisters and brothers.
Philip Farah, Vienna
The writer is a co-founder and board member of the Palestinian Christian Alliance for Peace.
Michael Ramirez’s Nov. 8 editorial cartoon showing babies strapped to a Hamas leader is clearly intended to criticize Hamas for using civilians as cover. But Mr. Ramirez unintentionally put his finger on the reason Israel’s response is indefensible: If everyday police encountered a similar one-on-one hostage situation, nobody would support a solution that involved murdering all the children just to get the bad guy. Instead they would negotiate, negotiate, negotiate — and put all their effort into saving lives.
Only when Israel starts working that hard to rescue the innocent hospital patients that Hamas is hiding behind will it be able to claim the high ground.
Geoff Kuenning, Claremont, Calif.
I was profoundly dismayed over the blatant mockery of human beings in the Nov. 8 editorial cartoon. This caricature is outrageously offensive, not only to the Arabs who are unfairly portrayed but also to the countless innocent lives lost in the ongoing war. It is a morally reprehensible depiction that implies a justification for the deaths of more than 10,000 individuals, with the overwhelming majority being women and children. An apology, not just to readers, but to the countless victims of Israel’s heinous actions, is in order.
Diana Barahona, Columbia
Finally, an editorial cartoon that captured the essence of the Hamas terrorism. Please keep it up.
Henry Romberg, Round Hill, Va.
I object in the strongest terms to the Nov. 8 editorial cartoon by Michael Ramirez. As I write, 10,000 Gazans, including more than 4,000 children, have been killed. Based on the Israeli army’s own count of having successfully targeted 60 Hamas leaders, the civilian kill rate in the Gaza Strip is now at 99.5 percent. If mere logic was what was at play, Mr. Ramirez’s regurgitation of one of the Israeli military’s favorite talking points could not possibly explain how we find ourselves at such a catastrophically skewed percentage of civilian deaths.
But it is not just logic that is at play. It is also morality. It is the height of irresponsibility for a publication with the history and reach of The Post to publish a cartoon that encourages people to continue justifying the atrocities taking place in Gaza 31 days into its bombardment and after an untold amount of human suffering. To do so while trading in the same grotesque, racist imagery that has jeopardized Arabs’ and Muslims’ safety since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks is all the more distressing.
What is happening in Gaza, in the words of Craig Mokhiber, a former high commissioner for human rights with the United Nations, is a “textbook case of genocide.” Mr. Ramirez’s rhetoric enables it.
Nora Eltahawy, San Jose
From the comments section
What a statement Michael Ramirez made in his Nov. 8 editorial cartoon. I wonder whether he would try to caricature the brutal killing, land dispossession, ethnic cleansing and apartheid oppression that Israel has perpetrated over the past 75 years and continues? Let’s see some real bravery, not this self-indulgent, self-righteous parroting of the Israeli government’s line and craven mainstream media miscoverage. Yeesh. — Tru2Pow
He might not be able to do that, because he might have read the actual history of the past 75 years of the conflict, in which the Arabs have initiated multiple wars to destroy Israel. — Squidoo
Michael Ramirez has perfectly depicted the question no one has been able to answer: How do you eliminate Hamas without civilian casualties? Hamas is getting what it wanted: martyrdom for all its citizens, opprobrium for Israel and a new generation of traumatized children primed to join the cause. — roaxle
The cartoon captures that the so-called human shields are little more than hostages. It doesn’t matter what they think when they have no power to change their situation. — SmarterthantheaverageBear1
So if a mass shooter eluding police runs into your neighborhood, you would be cool with authorities bombing the whole neighborhood and killing everyone to get him? I didn’t think so. — Wheresthecenter
Hamas is not only there to kill Jews but to kill the possibility of peace. — Al Gorhythm
Hamas does use human shields. Callously, its top leaders tell ordinary Palestinians not to flee Gaza in the face of bombardment while they stay well away from the danger zone, living a prosperous life in total safety. — GI Joanne
Yes, what Hamas did is a terrible crime against humanity. But it seems Israel feels justified in killing the terrorist by shooting innocents as well. How many dead Palestinian children will it take to pay back for the dead Israeli children? This cartoon had no redeeming value. We all know how evil Hamas is with its way of waging war. Israel is not doing enough to avoid the slaughter of innocents. More than 10,000 dead Palestinians vs. 1,400 Israelis. And the butcher’s bill is still mounting up. And that’s not counting the noncombat deaths that will result from the humanitarian crisis. — Dr. Bill S
How about Hamas release the hostages and come out with its hands up? — Atllaw
Maybe it’s not about exacting a number of dead civilians for revenge (at least one would hope) but a military objective of taking out a threat that has attacked before and will attack again that’s right next door. Hamas built a system of tunnels going right into Israel’s territory to keep repeating the attacks. Hamas has proved its brutality and is committed to the elimination or extermination of a Jewish state, as echoed by America’s university activists “from the river to the sea”; it’s their objective, and it’s written black on white. If Israel didn’t have the Iron Dome, the number of dead Israelis would have far outnumbered the number of fallen Palestinians long ago. Any government that has a sense of responsibility for the security of its people shouldn’t stop until the threat is eliminated. However, it should be mindful of civilians and make every effort to minimize the deaths of the many innocent. But the other side uses ambulances to move military assets, and it’s built a system of human shields to the point that any action taken against Hamas results in the loss of innocent lives. — Giant-slayer
The cowardice of Hamas does not diminish the crime of choosing to bomb civilians instead of going in and taking responsibility for who is shot. Israel could end the bombing. It could go in and fight on the ground. There would be more casualties to the Israel Defense Forces, but at least they wouldn’t need to flatten apartment buildings and refugee camps. — Middle-aged News
If a terrorist took a family hostage, you wouldn’t think it was okay for the police just to blow up the crime scene. I am for peace. Hamas is not. If the Gazans’ reaction to the action taken by Hamas on Oct. 7 was to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization and do everything to turn over every member of Hamas to a governing authority that would try them as terrorists, then I would see that they are working for peace. But I suspect that some Gazans support Hamas and cheered the action taken on Oct. 7. I don’t like the killing of civilians on either side, but I understand why it is happening. — Onewouldthink
I care very much about those innocent people suffering in Gaza. Do you think Hamas cares about the Palestinian civilians? Hamas brought this upon them. It is hoarding fuel that can power the hospitals. It can release the hostages and bring about a cease-fire. It can surrender and stop the war. Yet some blame only Israel, which was attacked by a group who slaughtered and rejoiced — and has promised to do it over and over again. — Lets be honest
Whatever one thinks of the political point being made, the depiction of Hamas is a grotesque racist caricature, and anyone — sympathetic to Israel or not — should recognize that. — DavidHK-NYC
