(  August  07,  2002  )

Please look at this cartoon that ran in the LA Times....

Hard to imagine in the USA in 2002.

PLEASE MAKE SURE TO FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW; share with them the execrable behavior of what was formerly a premier newspaper. This "cartoon" ran inthe times on July 2, 2002.  Many people have already cancelled their subscriptions to this hate mongering excuse for a journal.  Please let the LATimes editorial board know   your opinion of their exercise in dearth of intellect.  I suggest that the LATimes needs new leadership.

AND when you forward this, please be sure to cc:

feedback@latimes.com

It is no wonder that more than 1000 Jewish readers have canceled their subscriptions.

..................................................................................................................................

Los Angeles Times responses  08.10.2002

Greetings,

The editorial cartoon you wrote in about was published in the Los Angeles Times
and on its Web site in October 2000.  At that time we received a large number of
e-mails and letters, complaining about the cartoon's content.  We've been
surprised by the recent resurgence of interest, over a year-and-a-half after the
cartoon was published. Apparently, someone who downloaded the cartoon in October
2000 has circulated it again through mass e-mailings, with the misleading
implication that the Los Angeles Times' Web site recently published the cartoon
in regard to the current Israel-Palestinian conflict. The cartoon is no longer
on latimes.com.

Unfortunately, in October 2000 there were two versions of the cartoon that
appeared on The Times' Web site. The first drawing from Ramirez, rejected by his
editor, was mistakenly posted on latimes.com on Oct. 3, 2000, and inadvertently
was left there after a revised cartoon, published in the newspaper on Oct. 6,
2000, was posted as well.  Therefore, it is quite possible that the image being
circulated by mass e-mails is not the same as the one published in the
newspaper.

Narda Zacchino, then the Times Readers' Representative, responded to the
controversy in the following article from Oct. 15, 2000:

------------------------------------------------------------

A Fine Line Between Comment and Insult

As civil strife rages in Israel, thousands of readers are expressing anger over
a cartoon on that conflict by Times editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez
published Oct. 6. Most of the complaints have been generated through a campaign
on the Internet, where the cartoon has been widely distributed.
While it's true that coverage of the Middle East in the news pages and in
editorials and commentary articles generally attracts intense reader reaction
from all sides, the response to this cartoon is unprecedented at The Times.

E-mails and phone calls have been received not just from subscribers but from
around the nation and the world. The Times Web site alone in just two days
received about 1,000 complaints on the cartoon, which was condemned by spokesmen
for both Jewish and Arab organizations in a story Wednesday in the Jerusalem
Post. It also sparked a 100-person Jewish protest last week that stopped traffic
outside a Vermont newspaper that carried the cartoon.
The cartoon depicts two men--one wearing a hat commonly worn by Orthodox Jews,
who is standing while reading from a prayer book, and the other on his knees,
bowing and wearing a kaffiyeh, the headdress worn by many Muslims. They are both
praying before a huge wall constructed from the letters "H-A-T-E." A caption
reads: "Worshiping their god."
The wall is clearly reminiscent of Judaism's most holy site, the Western Wall,
which outraged most of those complaining. "Associating the [Western] Wall with
hate is a most monstrous insult to the Jewish religion itself," wrote Steven
Teitelbaum, regional president of the American Jewish Congress. Reflecting the
view of many, he added that "while it would be correct to say that there is
hatred that stems from both sides, it would be incorrect to state that the
hatred comes from the teachings of their gods."
Another reader wondered, "What response do you feel would occur if a statue of
the Virgin Mary appeared on the editorial page with the word 'hate' written on
it?"

A letter from Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and
Sydney M. Irmas, chair in Jewish law and ethics at Loyola Law School, suggested
that Ramirez might not understand the Western Wall's meaning in the Jewish
world, but that "someone on the editorial page should have." They said Ramirez
should "meet quietly with someone in the Jewish community who could
dispassionately explain the fine line between political symbol and religious
icon."

Ramirez denied that the wall in the cartoon was intended to depict the holy site
but rather is "an unspecified wall of hate." He said he intended the cartoon to
be "metaphorical," portraying the "extreme elements" among the Israelis and
Palestinians who "engage in hatred of the other." In a response to readers that
was posted on The Times' Web site Wednesday alongside the cartoon, he asked: "Do
some from both sides seem to have elevated fanaticism to a religion of sorts?
Clearly. Regrettably. That is my point."

Obviously, the cartoon failed to communicate his message. In addition, virtually
no one saw the image as anything but the Western Wall, the use of which in the
cartoon was careless and insensitive. In fact, Ramirez was ordered back to the
drawing board once: The first draft of the cartoon, which was an unmistakable
replica of the Western Wall, had been rejected for that reason by his editor,
Janet Clayton, Ramirez said. Unfortunately, that first drawing was posted on The
Times Web site when he first submitted it Oct. 3 and inadvertently was left
there after his revised cartoon--the one published in the newspaper Oct. 6--was
posted as well.

Although the original cartoon was withdrawn from the Web site Wednesday, that
image's Web link had been distributed widely across the Internet for eight days,
and it was seen by countless e-mailers.

Causing further anger and misunderstanding was the fact that the two praying
figures were so small that a huge number of readers mistakenly saw them as two
Jews, rather than a Jew and a Muslim, suggesting that only Jews hate. Others who
saw it as Ramirez intended it to be seen were angry that the cartoonist depicted
both religions as being devoted to hate. Some were incensed that it appeared
during the Jewish high holy days.

Ramirez reduced the conflict to a religious rather than political dispute, while
"the entire conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is not based on
religion," as one reader put it, but rather over land and security-political
issues. These have been debated in decades of peace negotiations involving the
best efforts of major world powers. Yet they have run aground on the hard rocks
of competing nationalist interests that, while at times inflamed by religious
extremism, are nonetheless real and must be resolved.

To reduce the complex, enduring and seemingly intractable problems of Israel and
Palestine to a simple matter of religious fanaticism mocks the history of the
region.

--- End of column by Narda Zacchino for the Readers' Representative Office --



Take care, and thanks for reading the Los Angeles Times.
..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Bar-Hai:                                       08.12.2002

 Presenting the Western Wall, the holiest place and a national symbol of  the Jewish nation is more than antisemitism. You crossed a red line. We,  the jewish people never hurted the Cristians symbols. I am sure, that  shortly, for supporting the arabs you will publish a new cartoon,  presenting the Ground 0 as a symbol of love to the american nation. Your cartoon is distributed to my friends all over the world.
                                                                                                             A. Bar-Hai
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.