Federal Labor MP Michael Danby – bully and Zionist apologist – believes that cartoonist Michael Leunig was being deliberately offensive to Jews when he supposedly compared Nazi Germany to present-day Israel. Writing to online magazine Crikey, Danby complains about anybody daring to defend Leunig against such charges:
“I am writing to strongly disagree with Charles Richardson’s comment in yesterday’s Crikey (item 17) that only ‘a few fanatical Zionists’ place Michael Leunig’s ‘Auschwitz’ cartoon in the same category as the cartoons of Muhammad published in Denmark. In fact they belong in the same category: both were designed to cause the maximum possible offence. The Danish cartoons were designed to offend Muslims. The Leunig cartoon was designed to offend Jews – all Jews, not just Zionists, fanatical or otherwise. I represent an electorate with more Holocaust survivors and their families than anywhere in Australia. I am myself the grandson of German Jews who died in Auschwitz. To see the Nazi genocide of six million people compared with the actions of the democratic government of Israel in defending its population against terrorism, and to see this comparison made by someone who has never had to face either of these situations, from the comfort of his olive groves in Euroa, is deeply offensive to me, to the people of my electorate of all political stripes, and, I am sure, to the majority of Australians. It is no excuse to say that Leunig was trying to make ‘a serious political point.’
“So was Julius Streicher when he published anti-Semitic cartoons in Der Sturmer. As Streicher’s career proved, cartoons have consequences. That the genocidal anti-Semites of the fanatical Iranian regime thought Leunig’s cartoon was a fine entry in their ‘most offensive cartoon’ contest tells us all we need to know about the category to which his current work should be consigned.”
When anybody, including Danby, seriously compares Streicher to Leunig – or, I suspect, anybody who questions Israeli state policy – one realises that the dutiful Zionist will use any means to avoid discussion of Israel’s shameful record. Note how Danby refuses to condemn the occupation. Indeed, when Sharon recently fell into a coma, Danby rushed to be by his side in Jerusalem (though was already in Israel for scheduled meetings.) For individuals like Danby, it doesn’t really matter who runs Israel. It’s simply more important to be a loyal servant of the Jewish state, no questions asked. A true patriot challenges and provokes. Danby is neither.