Washington Post Apologizes, Deletes Accurate Hamas Cartoon After Critics Call It Racist

Thursday, the Washington Post deleted an editorial cartoon that criticized Hamas, the terror group currently massacring Jews.

The outlet then apologized for the drawing after readers and staffers called the photo -- wait for it -- racist.

In the drawing, cartoonist Michael P. Ramirez depicts a Hamas spokesperson using Gaza civilians as "human shields," the title of the cartoon, shouting "How dare Israel attack civilians?"

The Post featured the cartoon online and in the Nov. 8 print edition of the paper. Take a look:

Washington Post editorial editor David Shipley says it was his decision to take down the cartoon because it was "not his intent" to offend the people the photo offended.

"I saw the drawing as a caricature of a specific individual, the Hamas spokesperson who celebrated the attacks on unarmed civilians in Israel. However, the reaction to the image convinced me that I had missed something profound, and divisive, and I regret that," he wrote during his apology.

"Our section is aimed at finding commonalities, understanding the bonds that hold us together, even in the darkest times."

So, who were the people the photo offended?

One of them was a postdoctoral research associate at the Ivy League university Princeton, named Suzanne van Geuns.

She had the following to say:

"I am a scholar of religion and media; I recognize a deeply racist depiction of the ‘heathen’ and his barbarous cruelty toward women and children when I see it again in Michael Ramirez’s Nov. 8 editorial cartoon. It is in no way informative, helpful or thought-provoking to look at this conflict through the glasses of 19th-century colonialists."

To be fair, van Geuns was likely programmed to be susceptible to the whims of Islamic nationalism by her Princeton administrators. Her naivety is not all her fault.

After all, the road to hell is ... well, just read the below column to better understand what makes imps like Van Geuns tick:

Owen Jones is a columnist for The Guardian. He describes himself as a "socialist, antifascist." He also claims the cartoon offended him:

"This is a cartoon in the Washington Post. It's not even subtle in its racism. This racist dehumanization is always a precondition for mass murder of the sort currently taking place in Gaza," tweeted Jones.

Jones didn't attend an Ivy college. It appears he is just a guilty white dude.

Elsewhere, Fox News Digital compiled an extensive list of other complaints about the image.

There's a hint of amusement in columnists and Ivy students falling for the propaganda that Hamas spokespeople spew and using it in their defense of a cartoon depicting a Hamas spokesperson.

(Is your mind in a blender, yet?)

The depiction is accurate. Hamas does, in fact, use civilians as human shields in Gaza.

This is not a new development. In fact, NATO declared that Hamas has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel "since at least 2007."

Photos show the terror groups using humans for protection in 2014, during what is known as "Operation Protective Edge."

Yet apparently, the Post would rather avoid offending members, staffers and the cultural elite than portray Hamas accurately.

While troubling, the decision is hardly surprising.

The Washington Post has established itself as one of the most compromised news organizations on the topic of Hamas -- right there with NBC News.

The Post is one of the many legacy media outlets that cited numbers from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry during a hospital explosion last month.

But unlike CNN and the New York Times, the Washington Post defended its choice to report numbers that the terrorist group provided.

"Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources, and accuracy in past statements," said the outlet.

No wonder the Washington Post is no longer profitable.