Amid Ilhan Omar reveling in the celebratory parade thrown for her anti-Semitism by liberals, Democrats, and white supremacists alike, The New York Times had entered the anti-Semitism ring—determined to win big. "Hold my beer, Ilhan Omar," The New York Times insinuated, as they proceed to marvel in the dehumanization of Jews. The New York Times printed a Nazist reincarnation of a cartoon: a Jewish leader depicted as a dog, wearing a Jewish Star of David, the dog being walked by our president as he adorns a Jewish kippah and sunglasses to indicating blindness, our president holding on to a leash attached to the Jewish star of the dog leading him.

The image was intended as derogatory commentary on the famous friendship between the two Western leaders, most recently in the news after Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he is naming new neighborhoods in the Golan Heights after Donald Trump in a show of gratitude to Trump for his unfettered support of Israel.

The crude artwork, however, exceeds the bounds of political commentary and sits squarely within the realm of anti-Semitic propaganda. 1930s Nazi cartoons frequently dehumanized Jews as animals wearing the Star of David, malevolently attempting to control the world—the exact representation put forward in The New York Times in 2019.

The outrageous drawing was the work of António Moreira Antunes of Lisbon, Portugal and was published in the international print edition of The New York Times, a publication disseminated across the world. The damage, as a result, cannot be undone.

After sharp criticism, The New York Times made an attempt at an apology two days after the Thursday edition was published - on Twitter - and wrote that they will print a small apology note in Monday’s edition. “A political cartoon in the international print edition of The New York Times on Thursday included anti-Semitic tropes,” read the Time’s editor note posted to Twitter in advance of print publication. “The image was offensive, and it was an error of judgment to publish it.” The apology note will not contain a large cartoon to attract any attention, and the plain, small text is unlikely to be read or even noticed in any way comparable to that of the large, colorful image of hate.

Most jarringly, the New York Times arrogantly shrugged off responsibility for the intentional cartoon selection as some sort of mild mistake, ignoring the magnitude of their influence throughout the world and failing to advise how this “error” would be avoided in the future—the “apology” thus aggregating more anger amongst Jews and conservatives alike.

“The @nytimes would never publish something as vile, racist or obscene targeting Muslims, gays, African Americans or any other minority group. What thought process led you to believe this was ok? And will those responsible be reprimanded / fired,” asked international human rights lawyer Arsen Ostrovsky on Twitter. “Even if unintentional, the left has normalized anti-semitism under the guise of criticizing US-Israel foreign policy. It is radicalizing people. NYT was latest example along with their weak-at-best apology,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw tweeted in outrage. “Apology not accepted. How many @nytimes editors looked at a cartoon that would not have looked out of place on a white supremacist website and thought it met the paper’s editorial standards? What does this say about your processes or your decision makers? How are you fixing it,” asked an angry AJC, a Jewish rights advocacy group. “The @nytimes owes its readers more than an apology. We are to entitled to an investigation and explanation: how did the anti-Semitic cartoon get published? Who approved it? What steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence,” famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz tweeted in agreement. “Naked antisemitism such as in this image is not ‘an error of judgment.’ We have to wonder if the @nytimes editors would’ve published a similar cartoon depicting any other country or people,” the AJC stated in a later tweet.

Anti-Semitism has been on a drastically sharp up-climb amongst the Democrats over the past few years, and The New York Times is widely known as a left-orientated, pro-Democrat publication. Democrats have defended Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism as free-thinking anti-Israel discussion by a woman of color, discounting conservative concerns of clear anti-Semitism and what appears to be a regurgitation of Islamist propaganda. Democrats have happily joined Omar in her hatred of Israel and the regurgitation of suspected Islamist propaganda.

But why is this happening? Why are Democrats in a race to burn bridges with pro-Israel and Jewish communities? “Democrats are reaching a tipping point where they can no longer fake caring about their Jewish donors while also appeasing their anti-Semitic activist base, personified by corrupt bigots like Ilhan Omar,” advised political law attorney Dan Backer, the name behind the Hillary Clinton and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez FEC complaints. “Socialism is and always has been inherently anti-Semitic. The left, in fact, has always been anti-Semitic,” he told TownHall. “As the more virulent anti-semites like Omar increasingly drive the party’s activist base, the Democrats are making a simple calculation - they get more votes by being anti-Semitic than being decent and honorable. It’s the same reason they are increasingly abandoning the interests of African Americans - and all Americans - while pursuing illegal immigrant voting rights. The left has only ever cared about power, and if they need to toss the Jews under the train to get more of it, they will,” Backer opined astutely.

As I have previously written, the increase of hatred of Jews and Israel amongst the neo-liberals is due to the growth of socialism in the Democrat party. The basis of neo-liberal contempt of Jews and Israel rests on the following premises: the economic prosperity of Jews and Israel, their refusal to remain victims, their commitment to independence, their engagement in self-defense. These “conservative” concepts are in direct contrast to socialist opposition to economic prosperity, liberal devotion to continued victimization, socialist enmity to independence, and liberal opposition to self-defense.

Indeed, Democrats have publicly supported discrimination against Jews, have defended anti-Semitic vitriol, and have parroted Islamist propaganda as mainstream neo-liberal opinion. They have even succeeded in securing the support of the hateful likes of David Duke in their new positions, support which their liberal media pets have ignored without seeking denouncement, unlike how they treated Duke’s support of Donald Trump back in 2016.

For as long as the socialist agenda drives the Democrat party, we should not be surprised when we see anti-Semitic propaganda in liberal publications.