Re: anti semitic or anti Zionist : Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:28 pm  

Kosh wrote:

Only the deliberately obtuse and the professionally offended have misconstrued his message. Nothing he could have done would have avoided this. There are some people that you simply can't communicate with unless it's exclusively on their terms, and that is not the job of artists in general and political cartoonists in particular.

Honestly, you have to be pretty stupid not to be able to tell what the cartoon was about. Or someone with an agenda. Neither group is worth engaging with.

There was plenty he could have done to avoid it. He knew he was stepping into a controversial area, when you do that you either need to make extra sure that you aren’t going to be misconstrued and If you are, then you apologise for it. Its not a big price to pay for not offending people.

I doubt there would be this robust defence, from the same people, had it been something that for instance a conservative politician had said about poor people, or an ethnic minority, or something printed in the daily mail.

Nobody is really expecting or even asking Gerald Scarfe to apologise for his intended meaning, if they were I would disagree with them, I would expect anyone, anyone at all, to apologise if they had unintentionally communicated something offensive.

The fact is, I would agree with you, that taken in isolation there isn’t much to be offended by, but the imagery in there is, unfortunately, very reminiscent of some clearly anti-semitic imagery that has and is used elsewhere.

Gerald Scarfe isn’t responsible for that, but if he has unintentionally strayed in to it, I cant see why he wouldn’t want to apologise. Apologising for the misunderstanding wouldn’t take anything away from his intended point.

Re: anti semitic or anti Zionist : Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:40 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Holocausts a term has more meaning than as a euphemism for the "The Final Solution (to the Jewish Question)" which is the Nazi's literal term for what they did. There was the Armenian Holocaust around 1917 the killed about 1.5m Armenians. It's basically a term for genocide.

Whether it should apply to Isreal's actions is debatable but it certainly gets used outside of that context and was used to liken what went on the Balkans recently to what happened in WWII to the Jewish people. So to say it only gets used because Israel is a Jewish state is rubbish.

Personally I prefer the term ethnic cleansing to describe what Israel is up to. Whether you can achieve that without genocide and therefore by implication without the implementation of what could be described as a holocaust remains to be seen.

Im not arguing that the holocaust is only used in relation to Jews, Judaism or the Jewish state, im saying that if Israel wasn’t a Jewish state it wouldn’t be used to describe that situation. The situation isn’t anything like The Holocaust, or the Balkans. There were parallels between what happened in the Balkans and during the Holocaust. There isn’t parallels between what happened in the Balkans and what is happening in the Israel-palestine conflict.

Personally I wouldn’t agree it was ethnic cleansing, a genocide or anything more complex than a plain and simple land grab. What Israel is doing isn’t worse than what has happened in pretty much every conflict that has happened ever, they are simply a westernised, democratic state which means people whether intended or not hold them to a higher standard. What they are doing isn’t worse than some of the things which happened in Sri Lanka for instance. I wouldn’t agree that it was on the level of what happened in the Balkans. Im not defending what they are doing, im just trying to put it in some sort of perspective.

Why are you surprised the term gets used anyway given the history of the Jewish people in Europe? They suffered such injustice people are amazed they meat out the kind of treatment they do to others. You should simply not be surprised the term holocaust gets brought up because of the Jewish peoples own history whether it is semantically correct to do so or not when the state of Israel behaves as it does.

Because I would, im afraid, find it anti-semitic, to use the Holocaust, and the history of Jewish persecution, as a stick to beat Israel for something which isn’t a holocaust. There are Jews, who don’t support Israel, that lived through the Holocaust, and they shouldn’t have the memory of their suffering and the deaths of their friends and families, appropriated as an insult by those who disagree with the state of Israel towards the state of Israel.

Re: anti semitic or anti Zionist : Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:19 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

... Because I would, im afraid, find it anti-semitic, to use the Holocaust, and the history of Jewish persecution, as a stick to beat Israel for something which isn’t a holocaust. There are Jews, who don’t support Israel, that lived through the Holocaust, and they shouldn’t have the memory of their suffering and the deaths of their friends and families, appropriated as an insult by those who disagree with the state of Israel towards the state of Israel.

Well indeed.

It's not as if the state of Israel is actually trying to gently persuade those swarthy Arab types to just up and leave their homes and land peacefully now, is it?

After all, they actually want to buy the land and homes – it's not as though they're stealing it. Or bombing little children's head off with their ever-so-sexy jets and 'smart' bombs, is it? Obviously, if they were doing things like that, it might be a bit more than a "land grab", wouldn't it?

And they didn't start the process of creating the state of Israel by being terrorists did they? They didn't for instance, poison wells, did they? They didn't shoot British soldiers in the back of the heads like cowards, did they? They didn't bomb hotels, did they?

That wasn't them, now was it?

Because at the end of the day, you're such a decent progressive, right-on geezer that you wouldn't remotely support or excuse things like that, now would you? After all, you've told us, at length, just how much you detest those nasty terrorists (while, entirely coincidentally, refusing to say whether you thought Mandela was just such a one because old Maggie said so).

What do you think, incidentally, about sonic booms that cause miscarrriages? Would you do more of them? After all, it could reduce the birth rate amongst those nasty Arabs.

Could you explain why razing orchards to the ground is A Good Thing? Because some people are confused, and think it's not very nice – indeed, that it's almost 'terrorist' behaviour.

How about detention without trial? Are you okay with that?

And collective punishment – now obviously, the Nazis set the standard, so perhaps you could explain why your support of it, when carried out by the state of Israel, differs utterly and completely from what the Nazis did.

[Kosh]

Re: anti semitic or anti Zionist : Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:35 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

There was plenty he could have done to avoid it. He knew he was stepping into a controversial area, when you do that you either need to make extra sure that you aren’t going to be misconstrued and If you are, then you apologise for it. Its not a big price to pay for not offending people.

What arrant nonsense. You either didn't understand my post or have deliberately ignored the point I was making.

I see no benefit in further engagement with you on this issue, as you clearly fall into one of the two groups I mentioned at the end of my post.

Re: anti semitic or anti Zionist : Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:46 pm  

Kosh wrote:

What arrant nonsense. You either didn't understand my post or have deliberately ignored the point I was making.

I see no benefit in further engagement with you on this issue, as you clearly fall into one of the two groups I mentioned at the end of my post.

You're just a damned sight more disciplined than me, who acts like a bleedin' terrier with a bone.

Re: anti semitic or anti Zionist : Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:29 pm  

Looks like the peace-loving State of Israel have upped the stakes in the Syrian conflict: Israel bombs "research facility" inside Syria This could turn out bad, very bad, for all concerned, including us.

Looks like the peace-loving State of Israel have upped the stakes in the Syrian conflict: Israel bombs "research facility" inside Syria This could turn out bad, very bad, for all concerned, including us.

Re: anti semitic or anti Zionist : Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:32 pm  

cod'ead wrote: Looks like the peace-loving State of Israel have upped the stakes in the Syrian conflict: Israel bombs "research facility" inside Syria This could turn out bad, very bad, for all concerned, including us. Comes to something when Syria are claiming the moral high ground though

cod'ead wrote: Looks like the peace-loving State of Israel have upped the stakes in the Syrian conflict: Israel bombs "research facility" inside Syria This could turn out bad, very bad, for all concerned, including us. Comes to something when Syria are claiming the moral high ground though

Re: anti semitic or anti Zionist : Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:40 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

There was plenty he could have done to avoid it. He knew he was stepping into a controversial area, when you do that you either need to make extra sure that you aren’t going to be misconstrued and If you are, then you apologise for it. Its not a big price to pay for not offending people.

I doubt there would be this robust defence, from the same people, had it been something that for instance a conservative politician had said about poor people, or an ethnic minority, or something printed in the daily mail.

Nobody is really expecting or even asking Gerald Scarfe to apologise for his intended meaning, if they were I would disagree with them, I would expect anyone, anyone at all, to apologise if they had unintentionally communicated something offensive.

The fact is, I would agree with you, that taken in isolation there isn’t much to be offended by, but the imagery in there is, unfortunately, very reminiscent of some clearly anti-semitic imagery that has and is used elsewhere.

Gerald Scarfe isn’t responsible for that, but if he has unintentionally strayed in to it, I cant see why he wouldn’t want to apologise. Apologising for the misunderstanding wouldn’t take anything away from his intended point.

Thank you for that exquisitely embroidered load of bollox that resolutely ignores the other side of the argument.

Re: anti semitic or anti Zionist : Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:44 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

...
The fact is, I would agree with you, that taken in isolation there isn’t much to be offended by, but the imagery in there is, unfortunately, very reminiscent of some clearly anti-semitic imagery that has and is used elsewhere.

I am finding it increasingly hard to credit that you actually believe what you are writing. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's analyse that, shall we?

"Reminiscent of some clearly anti-semitic imagery..."

IN WHAT WAY? The cartoon contains images of
(a) the oppressor. That is 100% clearly Netanyahu. It is him. It is not drawn in any way reminiscent of anti-semitic imagery, he is not demonised, or given prominent "jewish" features or turned into a devil, it is a pretty much standard caricature type drawing which emphasises features enough to make it 100% clear that it is him.

(b) the oppressed. Indeed, I can see how some could compare some of that imagery with some of the jew-demonisation images of history; but whether or not that is the case, or intention, the point you miss is that, in this case, as in the case of Nazi cartoons, those persons are the VICTIMS. The irony is that the Nazis didn't see them as victims, rather devils, but it doesn't change the fact.

You have thus turned the cartoon, with logic, on its head. The only way you could reasonably object to it is if you believed that Scarfe was demonising the people in the wall, and praising the construction of a barrier with or over their dead bodies.

SmokeyTA wrote:

... Apologising for the misunderstanding wouldn’t take anything away from his intended point.

WHAT misunderstanding, though? Several have pointed out that the ambiguity in the situation is nothing to do with Scarfe and 100% down to the choice of date of publication. So the maximum Scarfe needed to do was point that simple fact out. Which he has. What ELSE then could you be talking about? Are you able to actually articulate this "misunderstanding" that you think exists? If not, then I think the conversation has gone as far as it can, and you need to accept that you are arguing from a Black Knight position.

Re: anti semitic or anti Zionist : Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:00 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I am finding it increasingly hard to credit that you actually believe what you are writing. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's analyse that, shall we?

"Reminiscent of some clearly anti-semitic imagery..."

IN WHAT WAY? The cartoon contains images of
(a) the oppressor. That is 100% clearly Netanyahu. It is him. It is not drawn in any way reminiscent of anti-semitic imagery, he is not demonised, or given prominent "jewish" features or turned into a devil, it is a pretty much standard caricature type drawing which emphasises features enough to make it 100% clear that it is him.

(b) the oppressed. Indeed, I can see how some could compare some of that imagery with some of the jew-demonisation images of history; but whether or not that is the case, or intention, the point you miss is that, in this case, as in the case of Nazi cartoons, those persons are the VICTIMS. The irony is that the Nazis didn't see them as victims, rather devils, but it doesn't change the fact.

You have thus turned the cartoon, with logic, on its head. The only way you could reasonably object to it is if you believed that Scarfe was demonising the people in the wall, and praising the construction of a barrier with or over their dead bodies.

I haven’t turned the cartoon on its head, I don’t find it offensive. My argument has always been I can see people would be offended by the use of that imagery to demonise Netenyahu.

WHAT misunderstanding, though? Several have pointed out that the ambiguity in the situation is nothing to do with Scarfe and 100% down to the choice of date of publication. So the maximum Scarfe needed to do was point that simple fact out. Which he has. What ELSE then could you be talking about? Are you able to actually articulate this "misunderstanding" that you think exists? If not, then I think the conversation has gone as far as it can, and you need to accept that you are arguing from a Black Knight position.

An analogue I would use be if someone used slave imagery in a cartoon about Robert Mugabe. Robert Mugabe is a bad man, horrible person, doesn’t really deserve protection, and I doubt many Zimbabweans never mind the wider black community have a particularly high opinion of him. However I would still accept that slave imagery or imagery which recollects slave imagery could offend Zimbabweans and some in the wider black community if used in a cartoon which insults Robert Mugabe, and where the intention was only insult him and his policies. Would I expect anyone to apologise to him? No, would I expect anyone to apologise to anyone in the wider community who found using that as a tool to denigrate him offensive? Yes.

The ambiguity is in using imagery reminiscent to that previously used to denigrate a whole community to denigrate one individual.

I think if we were in a perfect world where anti-semitism doesn’t exist, and the holocaust wasn’t in living memory, and cartoons which did have anti-semitic intentions were being published regularly in the arab world and by the far-right in the western world, where this image existed in isolation then I would accept that it would be difficult to find offense in it. As we don’t I don’t think it a stretch for people to misinterpret a cartoon which is reminiscent of anti-semitic imagery as anti-semitic. What is to gain by not addressing that by saying, “ this image wasn’t intended as anti-semitic, I apologise if it was misinterpreted in that way”

And whilst your defence of the image maybe correct, and your argument over why it shouldn’t be offensive may be cogent. You aren’t the arbiter of offence, neither am I, the argument isnt over whether it is or isn’t offensive, whether I should or shouldn’t be offended or whether others should or shouldn’t be offensive, it is whether there was the potential for offence even if it was misinterpreted. I find it quite rich that we have so many people telling someone else, somewhere else what they are and aren’t allowed to be offended by.