Jewish journalist fired for running libelous depiction of Israel

At first glance, the article entitled, “I was fired after running cartoon about Gaza” would get anyone’s injustice juices flowing, because, as guardians of free speech, most of us are automatically programmed to defend the right of anyone to say what they believe, even if it’s contrary to our own opinion. This, especially applies to journalism, which must offer a variety of viewpoints in order to fairly represent the positions of all people.

However, when reading further, it quickly became clear that this was not a black and white issue relating to the wrongful termination of a journalist who became mired in an ordinary controversy.  

On February 23rd, I wrote an article, which appeared in All Israel News, called, “When freedom of speech crosses the line,” the subject of which centered around an anti-Israel protest in the heavily Jewish-populated Boro Park section of Brooklyn, which turned violent, as a result of threatening words that constitute incitement – disqualifying that speech as being protected under law.

Similarly, in this particular case, a Florida editor claims that he was the victim of being fired after having published a cartoon which depicted the IDF helping hostages to leave Gaza while stepping over piles of dead bodies in order to do so. The message read, “Over 40 thousand Palestinians killed.”  

Tony Doris, the journalist in question, who, ironically, happens to be Jewish, sees himself as the unfortunate victim, made to suffer the consequences of what happens when a large local Jewish organization, such as The Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County, takes out a full-page ad in another Florida newspaper, “decrying the cartoon as ‘a modern-day blood libel,’ and saying, ‘Hate speech turns into hate crimes. Journalism must inform, not incite.’ 

This is just one example of the type of dilemmas with which we are being forced to confront these days. On the one hand, there is the cherished ideal of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, an honored value which is the hallmark of any democracy. But on the other hand, there is the vital consideration of what actions are likely to occur, following the demonization of a people, a country or those who undertake the defense of their citizens.

When taking the time to dissect such a cartoon, it’s impossible to deny that the underlying depiction of the IDF is one of a cruel, callous and immoral military, which is guilty of having executed the genocidal aspirations of the Jewish homeland whom they are commissioned to defend. In fact, it feeds into the fallacious and inflammatory claim which has been lodged by the ICC - International Criminal Court at the Hague, justifying their decision to issue arrest warrants for our prime minister, defense minister, military leaders and even extending to enlisted soldiers. 

This malicious characterization has been responsible for the highly biased media reporting which has, undoubtedly, influenced an entire generation, who already had the propensity and natural inclination to divide humanity into two categories – oppressors and victims. Given the emergence of antisemitism, throughout each century, it’s no wonder that Jews, especially those in their own homeland, would eventually be viewed as the oppressors, just by virtue of the fact of their self-determination, no longer reliant on the goodness of host nations who took them in, but often threw them out. 

Unfortunately, once that oppressor label is slapped on, and then cemented by an effective visual image, albeit, in this case, an imaginary one, the result is an intensified loathing which then endangers the alleged oppressor, further adding fuel to the fire, only serving to enflame an already volatile situation.   

Consequently, when Tony Doris approved the publishing of such a cartoon, he became a facilitator of literary arson. By using such bad judgment, he cannot cry foul, because his approval of such a careless and malevolent representation of the State of Israel and their right to defend themselves, as any other nation which is brutally attacked, is what earned him the ensuing outrage that caused Diaspora Jews to feel unsafe and vulnerable. They know that this venomous cartoon could put them in a very precarious position by a world that already is not too keen on them from the start.

How could Doris, a fellow Jew, not figure this out? Does he believe that his distinction as a journalist will guarantee his protection? Because, even if he disagrees with many of Israel’s policies or their response to the October 7th massacre, he also has to realize that allowing publication of this shameful portrayal of our military is not only incitement, which is troubling in itself, but also the creation of enraged sentiments from Jew-haters which will also impact badly on him, as part of the tribe.

There is the old adage that anyone can speak badly of their family, but if they catch someone else saying something nasty about the people who are part of their bloodline, watch out! Doris, not only spoke badly of his family, but he is also guilty of amplifying a toxic opinion to others who don’t need much to set them off as it relates to Jews. Consequently, he enables them to speak badly of the family to which he belongs.

However, rather than accepting the responsibility for his bad judgment, it’s so much easier to play the victim while hiding behind the cover of freedom of the press and protected speech. And that is the dilemma of which I touched on earlier.

Navigating our way through the complexities of what constitutes the right of free speech, as opposed to crossing the line into the stirring up of anger through the means of hateful pictures or words, is no longer easy. It demands a careful examination of the predictable outcome as well as the self-discipline to avoid the temptation of being seen as that daring editor who is courageous enough to push all the limits. In this case, Doris’ own Jewish community were outraged by knowing that he did them no favor by agreeing to run a libelous cartoon, besmirching the Jewish homeland.

For this, there are consequences, and if you’re not willing to face up to them, such as having someone pull the plug on your employment, as a result of the fallout being too great, then you shouldn’t invite that kind of outcome. Claiming victimhood just affirms Tony Doris’ lack of sensitivity when it comes to the negative repercussions felt by the Diaspora Jewish community worldwide. If he doesn’t get that, then he truly deserved to be fired.