Guy Delisle's biased focus on Jerusalem

A reviewer at Comic Book Resources wrote about moonbat Guy Delisle's graphic novel Jerusalem, and confirmed some concerns any Zionist like myself could have that this really is biased in favor of the so-called palestinians:

This time Delisle’s wife’s job with Doctors Without Borders takes them to the heart of much of the turmoil in the Middle East, the city of Jerusalem. Far from a city of wonder, Delisle is shocked to find how dirty and garbage-strewn Jerusalem is and lacking in infrastructure, at least on the Palestinian side of things. Much of the book is filled with Delisle wandering about the city and the outlying areas, making sketches and talking to denizens that hail from a variety of cultures and backgrounds.

Delisle doesn’t delve too deep into the whys and wherefores of the Palestinian situation, no doubt assuming most readers understand the two sides’ positions and issues regarding things like the Jewish settlements. Indeed, this is one of Delisle’s subtlest graphic novels to date. His sympathies clearly ally with the Palestinians, but rather than use a sledge hammer to get his points across, Delisle relies on small observations: the thin hungry wrists of a woman in his cartooning seminar, or the way everyone seems to casually carry assault rifles. More often than not he simply presents a situation and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Some advice to the man who wrote that: don't try to fool me or anyone else by arguing that it's not hammer-handed. Subtlety is an even more effective tool, and if Delisle's sympathies are biased in favor of those Golda Meir and Newt Gingrich said were never a real race, and if he considers Jewish rights to Jerusalem illegitimate, then that is simply unacceptable.

Now, about the lack of cleanliness on the side Delisle takes. Here's a clue to why it's not easy to work on that (Hat tip: Vlad Tepes):

Two civilian employees of the Defense Ministry are recovering from a near lynch attempt on Monday.

The two were traveling to Mount Scopus in Jerusalem when they accidentally made a wrong turn and ended up stuck in a traffic jam between two Arab cars. A crowd of Arab youths then showed up and began throwing rocks at them.

At one point the rock throwers, some of whom were students from a nearby school, approached the vehicle and slammed a large stone into the windshield. The rock struck the driver, Yehuda Attias, in the head. Attias, who was all bloody, hit the gas and the two Israelis then fled toward a nearby hotel. They called security and rescue forces and were taken to the hospital. Attias was since hospitalized several times because of the severe head injuries.

Eliezer Hakshur, Attias’ brother-in-law, told Arutz Sheva that it was a miracle that Attias survived the lynching attempt.

“He is suffering from headaches and has twice been hospitalized with vomiting and chills,” Hakshur said, adding the rock throwers were “probably a group of children from the nearby Arab school who realized the two were stuck, and called their friends who began to throw rocks at them. They smashed the car’s windshield and my brother-in-law’s head. He had deep cuts and his head is full of stitches.”

See also this article, and here's a news clip about some more junior jihadists who were arrested for attempting another of what we describe as lynches. How are sanitation and medical officials supposed to work properly there when Jewish lives are in danger of gangs raised under indoctrination of Jew-hatred and jihad? Something Delisle clearly doesn't want to research.

The CBR reviewer goes on to say that:

If there’s an overall enemy in Jerusalem, it’s not Israel but organized religion. The book is filled with squabbling sects of various monotheistic religions, each one eager to place their own concerns and traditions ahead of the others, or of general decency. Even different sects of the same religion, like the various groups of Christians that run the Holy Sepulchre, seem incapable of getting along. A Lutheran minister, a comics fan who owns copies of Hellsing and gives Delisle a small studio space, provide a contrast to the zealotry that surrounds the city, but he’s a lone voice of sanity in a city suffocating with extremists. Despite Delisle’s considerable dry wit this might be his darkest, saddest travelogue book yet, and that’s saying something for a man that’s been to North Korea.

He may not mention it, but one can only wonder if Hasidic Judaism - or any sect of Judaism with the possible exception of Reform - comes under assault here. While far from the most religious person myself, my default is Orthodox, but even if it's not under attack here, I can't say I'm happy to hear that Christianity is apparently attacked in this graphic novel. And while I will be more than honest enough to acknowledge that yes, there are Hasidics who've gone downhill into committing atrocious behavior (the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta are certainly an abominable bunch themselves), it is in complete violation of the Jewish faith and the arguments of Leviticus, for example.

Why do I mention Hasidics? Because I've seen how their image has tragically been exploited by anti-semites/Israelists as a way of targeting even non-Hasidics, certainly ever since the 1940s film of Dickens' Oliver Twist featured that revolting take on Fagin-as-Hasidic, and it sickens me to no end. What I'm saying is that should we ever learn that the GN does attack Hasidics in any way, it will be very sad, because of how Delisle may consider them worse in every way than Muslims.

In the comments section on CBR, someone said:

How utterly sad to me that Delisle saw such a different Jerusalem than I saw last year. Granted, I am a Jew and pretty devout (though also not what anyone would call a fanatic), but even so I saw a city with a thriving economy and a construction boom and a lot of life and joy. And I surely didn’t feel overwhelmed by “extremists.” If anything, I think I see more “ultra-Orthodox” Jews most days here in NYC than I did there. I did not expect to love my visit to Jerusalem, but I did and look forward to my return next month. I understand that non-Jews are not likely to see Israel the same way Jews do – and it’s valuable that they don’t since we need wake up calls – but I have to wonder if the author’s preconceived notions prevented him from seeing what I saw as well as what he saw.

The reviewer, whose name is Chris Mautner, replied with a clearer confirmation of just what's going on here:

Simon — Sorry if I made Delisle’s book sound like a screed. It’s not. If anything, he generally expresses annoyance and occasionally bemusement at how the different religions interact (or fail to) and generally prevent him from, say, getting an ice cream cone at the playground. Beyond that, there’s a deep sadness at how certain Israelis, especially the settlers, use religion as a means to justify their behavior. I didn’t get the feeling he came with preconceived notions. If anything he expresses a good deal of surprise at certain behaviors and attitudes throughout the book.

Also, remember he stayed in East Jerusalem, which is different than other areas of the city.

Well well well. So Delisle - and Mautner by extension - are basically attacking "settlers" by calling them "occupiers" as implied, and even stooping to something like an atheist position, but more disturbingly, are delegitimizing the Jewish claim and heritage to Israel by implying that Judaism is abominable? In that case, I've got a challenge for Mautner: do you consider "honor killings" committed in the name of Islam like this horrifiying case in Switzerland justified in any way? Do you even consider the murder of Jessica Mokdad from Michigan justified? Is murder committed in the name of the Religion of Rape justified? And what about sexual harrassment of Jewish women in the name of the same religion? What about the rape of Lara Logan? And what about terrorist attacks like this one in Nigeria? Is that justified?

It's definitely weird how people like Mautner can take these kind of positions when the late Will Eisner, while I don't know if he was religiously observant himself as a Jew or even a conservative per se, did write a few things taking pride in being Jewish, religiously or otherwise, with A Contract With God being a standout example. And as I'd noted before, Eisner also more or less took the Islamic world to task for their own part in supporting the Protocols of Zion monstrosity, just shortly before his death. And let's not forget what Martin Luther King said about what one does when one attacks Israel:

Shortly before his death, Dr. King had the moral courage to confront the burgeoning Jew hatred of both extreme leftwing Black organizations, including the Black Panthers and the radicalized Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee, as well as the Black Muslims. For example, during a 1968 appearance at Harvard University, he stated bluntly:

"When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism." [ from "The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews and Israel" by Seymour Martin Lipset; in Encounter magazine, December 1969, p. 24. ].

King immediately recognized anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism- Judenhass - refusing to indulge what he believed was simply another manifestation of the same hatred confronting Blacks. As Georgia Congressman John Lewis, who worked closely with Dr. King during the civil rights movement, observed last year on Martin Luther King Day,

So just what exactly is it that brings so-called comics readers of any sort to condone the positions Delisle's apparently got here? By doing so, they are in effect rejecting the beliefs of great folks like MLK, and come to think of it, they're even indirectly assaulting many of the Jewish comics creators of yore. What a shame that here's one more graphic novel dedicated more to delegitimizing Israel than anything truly crucial or productive, like combatting jihadism.

Update: the Wash. City Paper interviewed this pretentious man too, telling that he's of mostly Canadian background, and unsurprisingly, he still tends to stay ambiguous while still managing to show some bias, as does the interviewer himself when they tell:

On his travels he meets and shows his readers a variety of people including Israeli Jews in the military, Bedouins, ultra-extreme Jewish settlers, Palestinian student cartoonists, and a Christian minister (who provides him with studio space). Unlike his earlier books, here Delisle stretches into cartoon journalism, when he’s asked to do a story on Doctors Without Borders and “what they’re doing in Hebron, a West Bank city where the settlers are known to be especially militant,” he explains.

Why, what do they do exactly? Go around literally robbing banks and committing sexual harrassment and rape, the latter for which many followers of the ummah are known for? This is where we get a clue to how, if there's anyone whom Delisle particularly seems to have a problem with, it's those he calls "settlers". In that case, I am a proud member of that bunch too.

WCP: Obviously you’re familiar with Joe Sacco’s work Palestine—I believe you name-check him in the book…

GD: [Laughs] Yeah. You know people confuse me with Joe Sacco somehow.

WCP: Have you read Sarah Glidden’s book about traveling to Israel?

GD: Yeah, I did and I know Sarah now because I keep seeing her in festivals—we had a conversation in Germany with our books. I like her book and I like her a lot. We were in contact when I was in Jerusalem doing my blog. I think it’s an interesting book.

When we see that he's aligned with people like that, who even blabber vulgarities and seem to think that "right-wing" is the sole cause of all that's wrong with the world, we know something's wrong.

WCP: In the end, would you say that you tend to fall more on the Palestinian side? That’s what I thought I took away from the book…

GD: Yeah, kind of. Well, at first the general idea is that all the Palestinians are suffering unfairly from what the Israelis are doing to them. I guess that’s the feeling I came out with. Being with the Israelis, you know why they’re so paranoid and security is so high, but then again they feed the paranoia to themselves with the media and all that—a bit too much to me. I don’t talk about that in the book. I came back—I’m a left-wing guy, so of course to see what’s going on there and what happens to the Palestinians—you feel sorry for them. I don’t know anyone coming back from the humanitarian work in this region who says, “Everything’s fine.” That’s not possible. They all come back and say, “That’s so unfair.”

Here's where he really lets his bias slip out. He's predictably unclear, but I can guess what he's trying to do - claim subtly that Jews and/or conservatives "control the media" and have come up with the "general idea". But the fact is that a lot of people actually believe the so-called palestinians are suffering "unfairly", this despite how the Religion of Rape is the precise barrier to their ever being able to find a truly better life.

And Delisle's accusing Israelis almost as a whole of "paranoia" is insulting and trivializes a lot of the problems with jihad. Pretty much the only thing he's honest about is being a leftard.

GD: I guess doctors feel like that because they see so much illness and suffering. I was talking to a doctor who works with Doctors Without Borders—they’re in so many extreme situations—I think doctors have to feel like that, otherwise they’ll just go nuts. And I think the same for someone who wants to do a book or reporting—I think it’s better to be kind of cold about the situation and then you don’t get too involved. You can feel for the people, but if there’s not much you can do—well, it’s just the way it is. You can talk about it…you’re going to help them…and that’s it. You’re not going to live their lives, they’re not going to live yours, and that’s how I felt when I was in North Korea. I would feel sorry for these people, but once you go, you can’t even be in contact with them. I think it would be dangerous for them, and that’s it. You just say bye-bye and you know you’re never going to see them. I feel terrible, but I think I have that distance that I can really look at the people. Even though the Palestinians are suffering, some of them were not very nice people and it’s not because they’re suffering that they have all the riots or they should be able to do whatever they want. And both peoples are in different situations—the Israelis, the Jews, they feel like they are the victims, of course, of the history of Europe. And then the Palestinians are the victims as well of something else, so you’re between two victims. Sometimes you just don’t feel sorry for any of them because it’s too much. They’re just showing so much victimization…it’s not because you’re a victim that you’re right somehow. It’s a feeling you get when you’re with the Palestinians for a long time, even though they are in an unfair situation of course.

After all the biases he's signaled against Israel, and I sadly suspect that he's even got one against Judaism too, even though not all "settlers" are religious, or wear kippas on their heads. Delisle's bias, as you see here, remains even when he supposedly criticizes the non-existent race of palestinians, yet at the same time doesn't have the courage to tell whether it's because the Islamic influence led to that kind of personality. And since when did any Jews who feel victimized feel that way just because of Europe? It's not just Europe that was ever a problem, it was Caliphates of the 8th century too. Even long before that, it was the Egyptians. What a fool this man is, to single out Europe, though if we took him as an example of the continent, he's part of the still continuing history of Europe's bad side.

And as mentioned, he still thinks the "palestinians" are the ones to side with here, and the Israelis/Jews the illegitimate ones. So any attempt to claim otherwise falls flat on its face.