File talk:BabyKillerZiombies.gif

 

Categories

Here Drork removed[1] the relevant categories Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict cartoons (since it's a cartoon and it's about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) and Category:Zombies (this should be obvious). // Liftarn (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict cartoons seems obviously relevant and so I agree it should be in the category, I'm less convinced by Category:Zombies though. Adambro (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Zionism?

In what way is any form of anti-Zionism shown in this picture? // Liftarn (talk)

I'd presume in the title "Ziombies" (also on the image itself) which seem to be a wordplay on Zion/Zombie. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit far fetched, but OKish. // Liftarn (talk)

•  Support Zionism is criminal ideology. The difference between national socialism (nazism) and zionism is insignificant. Only the number of victims is, momentarily, a little less. --Starscream (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Err, what did you want to support by this comment? The question discussed is if this particular image should be in category:Anti-Zionism - not if zionism is a good or bad ideology. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This cartoon shows Zionism in a negative way. A category of anti-Zionism so it fits. ---Starscream (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No it shows Israel in a negative way, (it says nothing about the so-called "political Zionism" aspect.) Why don't we merely acknowledge that Zionism and Israel is exactly the same thing, and that to be anti-Zionist is to be anti-Israel? Because that is the fact. Latuff also portrays Judaism in a negative way, since the symbol for Judaism and the Jewish state is the Magen David. He could of course just have easily written the name the State on his character's forehead. It rather fits the description of typical blood libel which falls squarely in the antisemitic category. It also fits the EU's working definition of antisemitism, which includes the following Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (eg ...blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis." I hate to see this type of thing get impunity here at Commons! Stellarkid (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

EU is a political organization with own political interests and EU's working definitions are useless for categorization at Commons or Wikipedia. --Dezidor (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be. It does not make the picture any less antisemitic based on RS like EU organizations, Wikipedia definitions, and generally accepted norms. Wikipedia editors do not determine such norms, the wider public does. This is a classic blood libel picture against the Jews and we would not tolerate such a statement against the Palestinians or the wider group of Arabs and Muslims. It is highly offensive. Stellarkid (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The regulations of Wikimedia Commons forbids prolonged debates, because this is not discussion forum. So I will say short: Palestinians are an native population of Palestine. But Zionism treats them as intruders, the malum necessarium and citizens of the lowest category. And still murders of Palestines. From the perspective of the native population, Zionism is very criminal ideology. I quote Carlosa Latuff: "My cartoons have no focus on the Jews or on Judaism. My focus is Israel as a political entity, as a government, their armed forces being a satellite of U.S. interests in the Middle East, and especially Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. (...) My detractors say that the use of the Magen David in my Israel-related cartoons is irrefutable proof of antisemitism; however, it’s not my fault if Israel chose sacred religious motifs as national symbols, such as the Knesset Menorah or the Star of David in killing-machines like F-16 jets." --Starscream (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your perspective is highly biased, offensive to me and other Jews and Zionists. As for Latuff's words, it is a rare human that acknowledges his antisemitism, and I imagine Latuff is no exception to that; especially if he lives in a country where antisemitic speech is illegal. The Institute for Jewish Global Affairs Adam Levik notes "Latuff is one of the more prolific anti-Semitic cartoonists on the web, with a staggering amount of work dedicated to advancing explicitly anti-Semitic political imagery." "Well-known cartoonist Carlos Latuff continued to demonize Jews." - from the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism out of Tel Aviv University. Your view that it is acceptable to demonize Israel because Zionism is a criminal ideology and your support for blood libel propaganda here on Commons is to me grounds to make you ineligible to edit Wikipedia or Commons in this area. Stellarkid (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My perspective is absolutely impartial. It is necessary to use other sources than only Hollywood. You use the pure psychological war. A hard fact is that Palestinians are an indigenous population which abuse by newcomers. You use personal attacks in the face Carlos. This not he chose the star of David as the symbol of the army. Instead of to argue, you pin labels. --Starscream (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)