If the New York Times can't publish anti-Semitic cartoons, it won't push any cartoons at all

The New York Times’ official response to the appearance of an anti-Semitic political cartoon in its April 15 international edition has been, ironically, cartoonish.

To wit, the paper will no longer publish daily political cartoons in its international edition, bringing to an end long-running contracts with cartoonists Patrick Chappatte and Heng Kim Song, editorial page editor James Bennet announced Monday.

It is as if the paper is saying, “If we cannot run political cartoons that contain anti-Semitic themes, then we cannot run political cartoons at all.”

The simpler fix would be simply to weed out cartoons that contain obvious anti-Jewish bigotry or any overt bigotry, for that matter. But I guess the Times does not trust that its editors could be so discerning.

“We are very grateful for and proud of the work [Chappatte and Heng] have done for the international edition of the New York Times, which circulates overseas,” Bennet said in a statement. "[H]owever,” his statement added, “for well over a year we have been considering bringing that edition into line with the domestic paper by ending daily political cartoons and will do so beginning July 1.”

Bennet's announcement comes after the paper had already ceased publication of all syndicated political cartoons.

Though his statement suggests the decision to cut daily cartoons from the international edition was in the works well before it published a cartoon depicting a blind, yarmulke-wearing President Trump being led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is portrayed as a large-nosed, Star-of-David-sporting service dog, some are not buying it.

And by “some,” I mean at least one of the contract cartoonists whom the New York Times just gave the boot.

“I’m putting down my pen, with a sigh: that’s a lot of years of work undone by a single cartoon — not even mine — that should never have run in the best newspaper in the world,” Chappatte groused on his website.

In April, after the paper published the anti-Semitic, anti-Netanyahu cartoon in its international edition, the paper initially slow-walked its response, claiming in a generic statement on social media that the “image was offensive, and it was an error of judgment to publish it.” The paper added that the bland statement would appear in print in the April 29 edition.

Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy issued a lengthier statement later on April 28 in which she made an actual attempt to apologize for the cartoon.

The cartoon, which was retracted from the Times' website soon after critics noted its obvious anti-Semitic themes, was created by Portuguese cartoonist António Moreira Antunes, the Times reported. Antunes, by the way, blamed the “Jewish propaganda machine” for the negative reaction to his cartoon, in case you were wondering what might have motivated him to draw it the way he did.

Honestly, the Times' handling of this entire ordeal could not be worse. It would be better for the paper to publish offensive materials and defend them, rather than fall back on this weird, childish I’m-taking-my-ball-and-going-home attitude. It is cowardly and censorious, neither of which is a good look for an ostensibly free and outspoken newspaper.