Reminder that the dude turned out to be a fucking zionist
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
45 points (100.0% liked)
Comics
552 readers
2 users here now
Your comm for all things comic book! From Golden Age classics to webcomics, welcome.
General site-wide rules apply.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
in doing so kinda proving the main point of his book tbh
What was the main point of the book?
I believe it was that suffering doesn't necessarily make you a good person.
I was curious about this so I looked around and found this podcast from Sept 2025 where Spiegelman says this (emphasis mine):
I was, you know, I was certainly talking with my friends [about Gaza], talking about everything, but how do you actually make a difference? The thing is, I had to because the people who are defending the Israeli position were defending from a position of Israel being the last bastion of defense for Jews. That this was where you go and you'll be protected and you'll be fighting for your people and your religion. I'm not very religious. I have friends that are Jewish, but also some others here and there, so it's not like that. And I had no interest in Israel ever, ever, from the time I was there once as a kid. So all I knew for sure is I'm a diaspora Jew, and all I found out as I was looking at the news and hearing Netanyahu is his only big enemy besides Hamas is the diaspora Jews. We're the target. Because if you're not there fighting for the Zionist cause, you're a traitor of some kind.
I thought, okay he doesn't seem like a raging zionist but wow it's really disappointing he doesn't use the term genocide ONCE in this interview despite him talking about his collaboration with Joe Sacco. Then I found (at least part of) the comic they drew together and, well:
"Horror at the scale of the atrocities" referring to the shitty electronic dance music festival right outside the Gaza City perimeter fence, right?
"Netanyahu sucks, but have you considered the Innocent Israeli Civilians[TM]??"
That’s surprising, he wrote a comic with Joe Sacco that viciously shit all over Netanyahu, Biden and the genocide
The comic that I saw him make with Sacco is very clearly Zionist and he explicitly calls Hamas just as bad as Israel. I don't remember Biden being mentioned, but perhaps he was.
What. Both of them have gone on record about the comic where they explicitly say it's critical of Isreal. Art Spiegelman heavily criticised Netanyahu, that he's an enemy to the Jewish diaspora (which Spiegelman is a part of,) he called Isreal's actions against the Palestinians "an obliteration," and refers to himself as both an atheist and an a-zionist.
Here's the actual comic: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2025/02/27/never-again-and-again-gaza-sacco-spiegelman/
If you're impressed by people shaking their fist at Netanyahu, then you'll be elated to know that a huge portion of the liberal establishment is "anti-zionist". Netanyahu is a sin-eater that Spiegelman focuses on because he's a fucking coward, like so many liberals do.
Sacco calls the response an obliteration, but later Spiegelman responds to the question of if it is genocide saying it's "kinda 'genocidish'" (following the tradition of Wiesel being a Holocaust exceptionalist piece of shit) and he says that calling it an ethnic cleansing is not enough but then gets too distracted talking about the Holocaust to explain what his supposedly improved term for what Israel is doing is. Sure could have stood to revise that during the 9 fucking months they spent on this three-page comic that a normal professional could have done better in two weeks.
Meanwhile, again, he calls Hamas just as bad as Israel and says they are only prevented from doing just as much harm by their lack of resources. When Sacco pushes back, he just has more bullshit to spew: "Sigh It's just one group of traumatized victims traumatizing another".
It's very helpful to us that he notes that he personally drew the "apartment without a people" panel, because his depiction of brutal colonialism and ethnic cleansing ends up being mostly equivalent to getting an apartment full of squatters who behave like hooligans and vermin. It makes sense, because in the interview he acts like Israel being evidently a colonial project was only made evident over the past few years. But of course, when asked in the comic, "Can you imagine Israel not existing?" his witty response is "Too late, it does exist . . ." And Sacco continues "And neither side has anywhere else to go." Spiegelman concludes the thought, "Yup. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube."
Which part of this should I explain?
The article you linked seems to be paywalled, I can only see the first two "pages" of the comic and the archive versions don't show any of it sadly. But jesus Christ such lib bullshit from him, how does someone like that not know better by now??
Sorry, I use an adblocker and apparently nybooks has basically no countermeasures since I didn't even notice that it was supposed to be paywalled. Anyway, half of what I said was in screenshots another user posted and the parts I'm quoting are verbatim, so the only really interpretive element is the apartment drawing, which was sort of tangential because I just found it tone deaf and tasteless.
I don't know why he's so awful, though his viewpoint is mostly terrible in how completely typical it is, which is part of why I made the Wiesel comparison. Israel's propagandizing of some segments of the diaspora, elevating friendly elements and casting out hostile ones, has been extremely effective.
A bit rude assuming anything about my ideology, kinda makes me feel like I'm taking a very condescending purity test. So, I'll toss in my two-to-five cents and skip out. You can have the last word.
I read Maus 1&2 about ten years ago in a crimes against humanity course and have been loosely following Spiegelman since then. He's an interesting (albiet flawed) guy who openly struggled with his identity and generational trauma, both major themes in his work.
In this comic Art's struggle with the term "genocide" is put in context of his fears about using the wrong word, because people use his work to justify movements he's against. That's not him trailing off, it's part of the message. Cowardly or not, it's an understandable anxiety and a clever way to (hopefully) prevent anyone from looking to this comic as anything other than condemning violence.
What Art's caricature says about Hamas is as his character and part of that narrative, not his actual view, that's the context. The statement about trauma is to say that If hamas had the means, they would strike back Because of what Isreal did to them, and the Isrealites themselves came to escape genocide, thus the title "Never again, and again..."
I can't see the part of the interview you're referencing, I'm paywalled even with an ad blocker and web archive. But the guy's been criticising Isreal for at least a decade. I won't speak to his reasons for avoiding it, but he has likened Isreal's occupation of Gaza to the bloody colonialism of europeans against indigenous people for a while. I doubt it's new to him.
The apartment comic is meant to invoke the racist, colonial mantra that zionists called Palestine "A land without a people." If anything, it's calling out zionism for its dehumanizing "flawed premise." I mean, it says "flawed premise" right there on the page. This tracks with everything Spiegelman's said about Isreal's history in Gaza. The fact that he donates to Palestinian charities is pretty telling about where his sympathies lie.
The closing remarks aren't supposed to be witty, it's sad and another reiteration of the theme "Never again, and again..." about how difficult it is to break a cycle of violence.
He's an artist and a writer who condemns isreal's violence, calls out zionism's flawed premise, says he's not a zionist, and donates to Palestine. If you still think he's a zionist, I don't know what to tell you.
Either way, have a good one. Again, that's all I got for this conversation, it's fine if you still respond.
A bit rude assuming anything about my ideology
Looking at my comment, the only time I comment on your own views are where I say "If you're impressed by him shaking your fist at Netanyahu." I didn't say that because I was assuming you were, I said that because you literally were praising him for doing that, pointing to it as evidence of . . . whatever you want to say. Perhaps I missed something.
In the meantime, I notice that you never actually addressed how Bibi is used as a sin-eater by liberals.
kinda makes me feel like I'm taking a very condescending purity test.
I really don't like "purity test" rhetoric and it doesn't make you less condescending for using it that you're using it to call me condescending.
In this comic Art's struggle with the term "genocide" is put in context of his fears about using the wrong word, because people use his work to justify movements he's against. That's not him trailing off, it's part of the message
Oh, so in your interpretation he didn't trail off, he deliberately neglected to complete the thought on the appropriate language for the "genocidish" thing happening in Gaza because it was raised in service of making this point? In that case he's a self-centered asshole and I was too gentle before! I was being charitable to him because he is by his own account in the interview an old man who likes to complain.
What Art's caricature says about Hamas is as his character and part of that narrative, not his actual view, that's the context.
Bullshit. That's him, or his authorial character, which it would be whether it had a mouse head or not.
The statement about trauma is to say that If hamas had the means, they would strike back Because of what Isreal did to them,
So he says something that's completely fucking wrong, classic accusation-in-a-mirror, and which is not refuted (Sacco's "pensive look" is not a refutation) for what great artistic purpose? So we can hear the same hasbara from him that we hear daily from the news? Wonderful contribution to the discourse.
I can't see the part of the interview you're referencing, I'm paywalled even with an ad blocker and web archive. But the guy's been criticising Isreal for at least a decade. I won't speak to his reasons for avoiding it, but he has likened Isreal's occupation of Gaza to the bloody colonialism of europeans against indigenous people for a while. I doubt it's new to him.
I got this part wrong, it was actually Sacco who said it:
Israel’s continuing conquest and settlement of the West Bank, its genocide in Gaza, and its embrace of Trump’s ethnic cleansing plan have definitively answered the question of whether Israel is a colonial enterprise.
What an embarrassing thing to say. Citing Trump's ethnic cleansing plan answering the "question" reminds me of Biden saying that Trump is the first racist President.
On the off chance you're looking at the wrong link (since I never linked it), it's here: https://www.nybooks.com/online/2025/03/08/cant-go-on-must-go-on-joe-sacco-art-spiegelman/
It's not a very politically incisive interview, it's basically just helpful if you're curious about the brainworms of the authors.
The apartment comic is meant to invoke the racist, colonial mantra that zionists called Palestine "A land without a people." If anything, it's calling out zionism for its dehumanizing "flawed premise." I mean, it says "flawed premise" right there on the page.
I know this. Do you seriously believe that I don't know this? My point is that his attempt at a refutation deliberately obscures the brutal reality, casting it as merely nonsensical rather than barbaric (and arguably both-sidesing the subsequent "conflict", when you actually look closely at the picture and see what the masses of prior tenants are up to).
The closing remarks aren't supposed to be witty
A quip is still a quip, don't hypercorrect me
another reiteration of the theme "Never again, and again..." about how difficult it is to break a cycle of violence.
People love to talk about how difficult and complex the situation is. I left it out, but there's also some wank at the very end of the comic acting like it's such a difficult thing to figure out. I contend that it is not and Israel's violence is not simply a byproduct of Jewish trauma. The Holocaust did not necessitate Apartheid, and Apartheid is not currently serving any purpose but a genocidal, colonial one because Israel was always a genocidal, colonial project that was backed by western powers, including some of the same ones that backed the Holocaust (and indeed even the Nazis gave some support to earlier iterations of the Israel project).
He's an artist and a writer who condemns isreal's violence, calls out zionism's flawed premise, says he's not a zionist, and donates to Palestine.
He's a hack who papers over the violence fundamental to the colonial ethnostate, calls himself not a zionist while declaring that Israel must keep existing (no such thing as cleaning up toothpaste!), and is a rich "progressive" liberal whose credibility rests on humanitarian pretenses, so he ~~bought an Indulgence~~ donated to charity. If you don't think that last point is a fair comparison, consider that you brought up him donating to charity to defend his character in the first place, so clearly it's doing some work to make him more credible to you (or you think others will think that way).
If you still think he's a zionist, I don't know what to tell you.
If you still think that anyone who says Israel must continue to exist isn't a Zionist because they say they're not a Zionist, well . . .
Yes, but it's only critical of Israel's actions. It says that Israel is going "too far". It doesn't acknowledge from what I can see that Israel is a colonial project whose existence is a historic injustice, that Israel depends on ethnic cleansing and genocide to maintain itself as a Jewish ethnostate. He's still a Zionist, he still seems to support Israel's existence, he just opposes the worst excesses of Zionism. Now I could be wrong about his positions, maybe he does acknowledge that Israel itself is the problem, but it certainly doesn't look like it. Hell, he called the current situation "one group of traumatized victims traumatizing another!", which is so fucking gross in the context of one group committing genocide against another that it's really hard not to want to spit in his fucking face. "Israel is there now! They have nowhere else to go!" is also a fucking WILD thing to say about a country where 75% of the people have dual citizenship. "Hamas would be just as bad if they could!" I mean, come on. This dude is fucking desperate to excuse everything Israel does.
Zionism means "supports the existence of Israel", not just "supports everything Israel does". Israel itself is an explicitly genocidal project.
Many
Such
Cases