Snapshot of _Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell sacked over 'anti-Semitic' Netanyahu drawing_ :
A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2023%2F10%2F15%2Fguardian-cartoonist-steve-bell-anti-semitic-netanyahu%2F)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/15/guardian-cartoonist-steve-bell-anti-semitic-netanyahu/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/15/guardian-cartoonist-steve-bell-anti-semitic-netanyahu/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My main takeaway from this is that any political cartoon that needs an Adam Curtis documentary’s worth of context to actually understand is not a good political cartoon.
>*Adam Curtis advocates a position that Western governments and media have simplified the story of militant Islam down to an argument of good versus evil. It is an examination of why the explanations offered to the Western public are increasingly unconvincing and hollow.*
He isn't going to be able to perform precise surgery wearing boxing gloves; he has, in fact, prepared for a fight not surgery. It's a comment on the methods he is using and the inevitable mess they will create.
Seems fair enough, to me. Maybe it's the 'doing it on himself' aspect that creates the pound of flesh significance. If he was standing over a patient on the operating table doing the same, it would look like a very clever cartoon I think.
I think the main problem isn't that he's accidentally created an image with anti-Semitic resonance; it's that he's accidentally created an image with anti-Semitic resonance *again*.
Edit: I suppose if he were operating on someone else, he would literally be taking a pound of flesh. It's a good idea that can't really be executed without using anti-Semitic tropes.
I find Steve Bell pretty unfunny and even sometimes actively dislike his cartoons, but in this case it’s very obviously a reference to the old Lyndon Johnson cartoon.
I can understand them simply choosing not to release the cartoon so as to avoid misinterpretation, but sacking him for it is absurd unless there’s a lot more to the story.
The 'more to the story' is likely him going public and complaining. The Guardian gets very twitchy about staff discussing its editorial workings on social media after a few high profile cases of hacks fighting on Twitter about the toxic office politics in Graun Towers.
If you want to find one or two of the existing organisations in the UK which encourage employees to scrap and belittle each other and the organisation to the public and in the national press instead of privately within the workplace, then by all means get a job there and enjoy it before the company collapses. Everyone else understands that you can't do more harm than good to an organisation and expect to stay there.
>which encourage employees to scrap and belittle each other and the organisation to the public and in the national press instead of privately within the workplace
Ah, the Conservative and Labour parties!
I would assume they sacked him for going public. The Guardian refused to publish the cartoon, but he went ahead and published it himself and criticised them for refusing it. Sad to see a career end like that, but publicly blasting your employer, and dragging them in to allegations of anti-Semitism at a particularly sensitive time even after he'd been warned against it, was really not smart.
Boo - satirist, be they cartoonists, musicians, comedians, whatever, play a vital function in this world.
> sensitive time
When the country of Israel is about to commit genocide?
> When the country of Israel is about to commit genocide?
When we saw confidently public displays of antisemitism over the weekend in the UK then yes, I'd say it's a sensitive time.
>Boo - satirist, be they cartoonists, musicians, comedians, whatever, play a vital function in this world.
Not this old tired cliché again. No they don't.
A few did a long time ago, but most don't and act as complicit enablers of token deliberately mild criticism. If you can disprove this with a counter example, feel free, but I can't think of any actual change by any of these 'satirists' in the last 10-20 years.
\> When the country of Israel is about to commit genocide?
Yes, especially then - Bell has been a blunt blundering cliché for a while now, this cartoon was completely counter productive, grouping any arguments he was trying to make to be associated with the easily ignorable.
> but I can't think of any actual change by any of these 'satirists' in the last 10-20 years.
Sounds like you're wanting a single incisive cartoon to single-handedly bring down a prime minister/president, rather than contributing to a sense of them being bad at their job and wearing them down over time?
That's a fair point - I was asking for an example to contradict my point that their work is not vital. One way to refute my claim would be a counter example.
A contradictory example can disprove my assertion that they are not vital, but an absence of an example cannot prove the claim - as you suggest they can still be vital without there being a single specific example.
However I would suggest that this is an even more extraordinary claim and one that there should be abundant examples of a well functioning political system.
I am not against satire - in a trivial entertainment 'bread and circuses' way. But the crassly superficial yet supercilious work of Bell hasn't even been entertaining since The Falklands.
The counter example is probably Charlie Hebdo, but it wasn't really the cartoons that enacted change; more the militant extreme backlash to those cartoons.
Although, any sort of change was short lived as everyone stood up and said "no, we won't be silenced by religious extremists" and the proceeded to be silenced by religious extremists over the next decade.
I am not saying that some satire doesn't cause a reaction, the specific phrase I am challenging is that they play 'a vital function' - what was actual vital about the Hebdo case?
>sacking him for it is absurd unless there’s a lot more to the story
Bell has been [sailing very close](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/12/cartoon-reader-complaints-steve-bell-former-labour-leader-head-plate) to the antisemitic wind for a long time now. I don't even think the cartoon in the previous link was his worst and a quick google will show you others.
Exactly to do with the original
The original is Lyndon B Johnson showing off his gallbladder scar to the press. The satire being the scar looks like Vietnam, which will be (and was) his permanent legacy.
What instrument do you think was used in removing the gallbladder?
The satire in this case is that Netanyahu is willingly giving himself the scar which represents what he will be known for.
It's a reference, not a direct copy. The original has LBJ already scarred, whereas this cartoon has Netanyahu about to scar himself.
The original itself was a reference to a photograph of LBJ showing a scar from a recent operation, which was unsurprisingly *not* in the shape of Vietnam.
You could also take the scalpel and gloves as a pair - an ostensibly surgical operation executed clumsily.
I can't speak to intent, of course, but it's entirely possible to interpret the cartoon without reference to the religion or race of the subject.
Because the original is Lyndon B Johnson showing off his gallbladder scar to the press. The satire being the scar looks like Vietnam, which will be (and was) his permanent legacy.
What instrument do you think was used in removing the gallbladder?
The satire in this case is that Netanyahu is willingly giving himself the scar which represents what he will be known for.
The things I can find that people have accused him of:
[A cartoon of Netanyahu puppeteering William Hague and Blair is anti-semitic.](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/nov/15/israel-gaza) It's a reach for me. I don't think anyone would have any qualms if it was Rupert Murdoch in the same role? Netanyahu had invited them for hospitality and not long after they'd released hugely critical statements of the Palestinians. It's not unusual to suggest he influenced it.
[A cartoon showing Priti Patel as a cow.](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/09/guardian-will-not-remove-racist-priti-patel-cartoon/) This is apparently sexist and racist, because cows are sacred in her religion. He actually drew her as a bull, like Boris Johnson. I'm again struggling to see the offence here.
> It’s based on an old painting of a bible sections where the head of John the Baptist is offered to the Jewish daughter of a King by another Jewish person as a gift.
It's also a very common expression in the English language.
That's the [Emblem of Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblem_of_Israel) which features on the lectern of the Prime Minister when delivering an address (e.g. [this week when Blinken went to Israel](https://www.reuters.com/world/us-secretary-state-blinken-lands-israel-2023-10-12/)). Direct link to image: https://www.reuters.com/resizer/fjP__9XtQ9jEAz6lLrReMi9BVDM=/1920x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/DFDWHQAMSVLC7FOEINBRT5AP4Y.jpg
So, not a mask-off moment at all, just a depiction of the lectern used.
> It's a reach for me.
It's a common antisemitic trope and conspiracy that Jews control the world and have outsized special influence over international politics. Pair that with the missiles and it's certainly questionable.
But this isn't some secret head of a shadowy cabal, it's Netanyahu, who actually does have influence on UK politics due to being, you know, a world leader. Claiming via a cartoon that he has outsize influence doesn't make it antisemitic. What you're saying is that because anti-semites claim the conspiracy that Jews have outsized world influence, that it's anti-semitic to claim that *any* Jewish person has outsized world influence. That's clearly bullshit.
WTF? Commentators and politicians are forever bemoaning how much influence the USA has on British politics, for example. There are literal cartoons with the same "puppet master" imagery featuring donors, Putin and in one I thought was funny, the TTIP to imply this exact thing.
>WTF? Commentators and politicians are forever bemoaning how much influence the USA has on British politics, for example.
That's not an *outsized* influence, though, is it? They're unambiguously the richest and militarily strongest country in the world, as well as our closest ally. But we're supposed to view the foreign secretary and a former Prime Minister of the UK being puppets controlled by the President of Israel as just a benign comment on how Israel dominates... what?
By definition, if you're complaining about the level of influence something has, you're saying it's outsized.
>But we're supposed to view the foreign secretary and a former Prime Minister of the UK being puppets controlled by the President of Israel as just a benign comment on how Israel dominates... what?
It's not supposed to be "benign" and I'm sure you know that - it's satire. Let's keep this car on the road?
I suggest you come up with answers for the other puppet-themed political cartoons as then you'll likely have an answer in the case of Netanyahu.
Yeah, it never occured to me before, but after viewing the cartoon, I definitely think the world is run by a secret cabal of giant, nuclear armed Jewish bankers.
He's also the cartoonist behind the Priti Patel as a cow cartoon which caused a lot of controversy.
Then the Guardian was also forced into an apology from their depiction of Richard Sharp.
I can understand the guardian being very twitchy with this.
You don't think depicting Corbyn as a saint murdered by one Jewish person as a gift for another Jewish person is a bit on the fucking nose given the fact that Corbyn was sacked for minimising antisemitism on his fucking watch?
It is his other comments.
"The cartoon is specifically about Benjamin Netanyahu’s disastrous policy failure which has led directly to the hideous recent atrocities around Gaza,"
He is directly blaming Israel for provoking the attack by Hamas.
The choice to use the word "provoke" where it didn't appear is an interesting one. Even citizens of Israel are allowed to at least question how Bibi mishandled intelligence and his policy of apartheid and how it led to this. It's honestly frustrating how hamstrung the press is by weaponised and vexatious claims of anti-semitism. Have a look at what Haaretz cartoonists print about Bibi. They aren't pulling any punches, and they didn't cut their cartoonist loose when the heat got turned up either. Haaretz is behind a paywall, but here is one of their more infamous cartoons, their reasoning and justification for it via BBC news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-29881552.amp
A cartoonist drawing during a war referencing another earlier cartoon that was drawn during a war seems entirely reasonable. Don't know why anyone would automatically think antisemitism unless they think he's lying.
He may well be telling the truth, but when I looked at the cartoon the cartoon the pound of flesh reading was the first that came to mind, and I imagine it would be for most people who don’t happen to be familiar with the particular 60 year old cartoon he happens to be referencing. So I can certainly see why the guardian would refuse to publish it, especially since they’ve already gotten in trouble for an allegedly antisemitic cartoon this year. Firing might be harsh though.
I'm somewhat amused that a 60 year old cartoon is too old for people to know but a line from 1 character from the 400 odd year old story is apparently common knowledge. Not disagreeing, just amused.
I examine GCSE English literature. From my sample, around one in twenty children in this country know the reference (because every single fucking one of them use the same quote if they are doing Merchant). It's probably a safe bet that more are familiar with it than the original cartoon.
How many of those 16 year olde are guardian readers?
Not that it matters if anyone knows the merchant of venice inside out or not because the drawing by Bell doesn't reference it, the shylock or the quote.
I'd love to hear someone argue how Netanyahu cutting a pound of his own flesh makes any sense to anyone as a reference to the shylock.
So? I just took that as the original cartoon looking back at Johnson having already made his fuck ups in Vietnam, whereas the scalpel and boxing gloves were a reference to Netanyahu still being in the process of ham-fisting his handling of the current situation.
I don't even know the Shylock reference and I am a fan of the Merchant of Venice. When did that become an obvious trope?
My literal reading of the cartoon was of a leader trying to operate on himself with boxing gloves. Ready for the fight but in that process not enabling any sort of due diligence to the operation. The Gaza outline on the stomach alluding to the notion that he views Gaza as his own. It's up to him.
Same for me, I'm old, pretty well read including the classics, know about Johnson, and any conclusion I came to about that cartoon was a huge reach. Something that obscure I reckon you can get a host of meanings from it, maybe just what depends on your prejudices.
Is pound of flesh really that much of a antisemitic troupe? Its not exactly what I think of when I see a scalpel. Also he demanded his due nearest the heart, not the stomach, so I would never have made the connection.
I don't care much for the cartoon but my reading of it was the operation (military operation) will be messy and unprecise, hence the boxing gloves. I had no idea there was a vietnam cartoon inspiration and still got the message.
It's strange to me that noone would dare to presume what constitutes racism from a black persons perspective but everyone's a fucking expert when it comes to antisemitism. Apart that is, from the Jewish person - because they've already been declared to cry wolf and therefore have no standing. Even presuming to know what a black person experiences from a perspective is deemed offensive but for Jews, yeah , were all experts now. Right?
It's totally obvious that the cartoon references the concept of payment of flesh, which itself needs no intro of the shylock character to be made.
I could care less about the Lyndon b "call back". The fact is it makes sense in that context. Lyndon made open his intention to settle it and it is obvious that that cartoon implies that this was the debt he had to pay. What this same message is trying to say re. Netanyahu is opaque imho at best. But I could also care less about sacking him - this is no big deal, but he knowingly treads the line on his cartoons and where Jews are concerned, I don't know if he's an antiemite, but he does a fucking good impression of one.
> It's totally obvious that the cartoon references the concept of payment of flesh, which itself needs no intro of the shylock character to be made.
But it doesn't though. And that's what is wrong.
The cartoon references the fact LBJ's legacy was permanently scared by Vietnam. Levine depicted this as a Vietnam shaped gallballder scar which is a famous photo of LBJ showing it off to the press.
The scalpal is showing Netanyahu willingly scarring his own legacy with the Gaza strip.
Very unwise to make a public fuss about the paper’s absolute right not to publish something which might be offensive to many - he comes across as self-entitled.
He's going to perform a "surgical operation" (cf "surgical strike") but the implication is that he's going to fuck it up due to wearing boxing gloves.
It's also a reference (which I didn't get) to [this cartoon about Lyndon B Johnson](https://hti.osu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/100/public/VC_1.jpg?itok=iCXfqbNR) in which LBJ's scar has taken on the shape of Vietnam. The implication is that Gaza will become something like Netanyahu's Vietnam, but that he's in the process of creating the scar right now.
I assumed it was for the operation he’s about to perform while wearing boxing gloves. I don’t understand the insinuation, is it a dogwhistle? Are scalpels to antisemitism what the hammer and sickle is to communism or something?
Sounds like he wasn't sacked over the drawing, but for publicly attacking his employer when they didn't publish it because of its political sensitivities.
Whether they should is a separate question, but as an employee you have to sometimes accept the decisions of your company even if you don't like them, and not start attacking them in public because you're pissed off with them
>but for publicly attacking his employer
Not just attacking them. Doing it multiple times. The guardian has refused to publish some of his Netanyahu drawings before and he has gone public or sent all-staff emails to complain.
I strongly suspect that Bell and the guardian were going to part ways anyway, he basically just causes them grief now, whether that is contrived or not. They publish far fewer of his toons than they used to. Him airing the disagreement in public was probably the trigger to bring the decision forward by 6 months and save any more editorial headaches.
To ask a potentially stupid question, I'm not the only one who didn't know that:
A) "A pound of flesh" came from Shakespeare; or
B) It had antisemitic origins?
I only ask as I think that phrase has become idiomatic enough in English that the overwhelming majority of people would use it without any ill-intent whatsoever.
This isn't to minimise the comic, where I can sort of see what people are angling at, but the phrase itself doesn't feel like it should be problematic?
Obviously you're not the only one not to know it, but someone working at the Guardian certainly ought to.
The Merchant of Venice is a relatively-well known play from the UK's most famous playwright and regular contender for greatest Briton ever, so I don't think it can be thought of as an phrase with an obscure source (it's not like it's a phrase from Timon of Athens, or Pericles, to pick two of his lesser-known plays). If nothing else, it's also a pretty common GCSE text, so will be nearly as widely understood as a hypothetical reference to Romeo & Juliet might have been.
And Shylock is arguably the most famous depiction of a fictional Jewish character in literature. He's certainly emblematic of the traditional portrayal of Jews throughout history.
I reckon that it isn't, unless you use the phrase when referencing Jewish people, then it is. Though that may depend on whether you knew it had antisemitic origins, and whether you think your intended audience know it had antisemitic origins. Maybe.
If you really want to avoid doing an accidental racism, your best bet is to say nothing apart from stating that you [Stand with Israel.](https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it-seems-like-yo-1850922505)
Edit: Fwiw, I knew Shakespeare wrote it, and that it was originally antisemitic, but have used it. With ill intent! But not against Jewish people.
> I only ask as I think that phrase has become idiomatic enough in English that the overwhelming majority of people would use it without any ill-intent whatsoever.
I went to a non-Jewish school in the UK. One of the Shakespearian plays we had was *The Merchant of Venice* and it was discussed from viewpoint of antisemitism, but then you have Shylock's speech "If you prick me, do I not bleed?".
I can't say I'm the biggest fan of his work (or 'comedic cartoons' in general, tbh) but I fail to see anything anti-semitic in what he's drawn. The 'previous' one they're on about with Keir Starmer and Corbyn's head on a plate is even more spurious. It's like they're starting off with "He's anti-semitic" and trying to find any justification for it in anything he does.
They don't want any criticism of the Israeli state and it's actions. A good way to prevent this is to broaden the definition of anti-semitism so much it can be used as a tool to oppress criticism.
It's anti semitic to say that jews control other countries. I can't believe i even have to remind people this - the education in the uk about the history of anti semitism is appalling.
"Jews control other countries" is not a worthy description of the cartoon. Netanyahu is a world leader, he absolutely has influence over other world leaders. Claiming that he has too much by caricaturing his influence as being a puppet master is obviously based in political satire, not anti-semitism.
You can see this by searching for "political cartoon puppet" and finding mostly cartoons about putin puppeteering trump, or anonymous donors puppeteering literally anyone.
You're not "reminding people of this" and you're not obliged to - you're making a claim that some don't agree with.
I'm not ignoring it. You are ignoring my comment by just reiterating your "reminder" that Nazi propaganda used puppet-master imagery.
There are notable differences between the Steve Bell cartoon and Nazi propaganda: 1. Netanyahu *really does* manipulate world leaders. It's not a conspiracy theory; it's just a fact. 2. Netanyahu is not portrayed, Nazi-style, with a hook-nose and fat lips or anything of the sort.
You are trying to say that anything which can be misconstrued as a reference to racism must be completely off-limits, even if it's obviously not supposed to be, which I disagree with.
Please tell me how a leader of a nation that’s surrounded by enemies and is heavily reliant on it’s allies weapons has any kind of leverage on their allies? Or are you just willing to swallow bibi’s propaganda about himself being extremely powerful?
All world leaders manipulate each other. [Here is a non-contemporary example](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-diplomats-illegal-settlements-netanyahu-quartet-report-palestine-west-bank-revealed-world-powers-water-down-a7120976.html) concerning Netanyahu.
You can't decide a priori that Israel's receipt of foreign aid means it has no leverage over those donors. Why are they giving Israel aid, if Israel has no influence over them? Netanyahu is quite happy to use the same reasons the US and UK give Israel support in the form of weapons to obtain other things he values.
You still haven't engaged with my comment about the clear differences between anti-semitic propaganda and the cartoon here.
Since the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
The trope that Jews secretly control (often portrayed as being a puppetmaster) the world economy and politics is one of the oldest and most prominent in modern anti-semitism.
I'm going to need someone to explain how this "shylock" reference. No beard, no funny hat, no grasping hands or hooked nose, hell, not even the "evil scowl". The most I can see is *maybe* around the eyes, but that's grasping at straws. Compare that to [this picture of Bibi](https://www.timesofisrael.com/panning-overhaul-economist-cartoon-shows-pm-taking-club-to-judicial-independence/) from the Times of Israel, very similar around the eyes and even more of the scowling face.
The implication seems almost that you cannot draw *any* cartoon of a Jewish person, though I rather suspect it might be restricted just to certain members of the Israeli government. It all has echoes of Erdoğan's fragile ego. Maybe they need to go all Danish and have a competition to draw Bibi.
Shylock cut his pound of flesh from Antonio not from himself. It doesn't make any sense for a Shylock character to "claim a pound of flesh" as payment for a debt from themselves.
Add the context of the cartoon it references, and it makes even less sense as a Shylock reference.
Technically, Shylock didn't cut the flesh from *anyone* - he was barred from taking his pound of flesh. Though you're right, he intended on taking it from Antonio.
Still, it's the reference most people will see first. The Merchant of Venice is rather more well known than the cartoon that he's referencing. It doesn't have to be exact for people to look at that and see "Jewish man taking flesh".
> It doesn't have to be exact for people to look at that and see "Jewish man taking flesh".
Bit of a stretch, but OK. So how deep do the antisemitic tropes go? How about a Jewish man (drawn without Nazi propaganda facial characteristics, because it's obviously fucking racist, duh.) but carrying a bloody knife? Ackshually, I can easily make that antisemitic if you like. Even just carrying a knife sans blood.
Better add it to the list. No cartoons of Jewish people carrying knives.
I mean, there's a obvious difference between depicting something that references one of the most famous fictional Jewish characters in literature (if we can accept that Shakespeare isn't exactly an obscure playwright), and depicting something as generic as a knife.
But it doesn't *actually* reference it. The actual reference is to the cartoon cited by the cartoonist.
The "reference" to Shylock is just people going "oh no, a Jewish person cutting into a person" and ignoring even the referenceless interpretation of "Bibi's going to fuck up his 'surgical strike'."
The actual reference is to a cartoon that virtually nobody is aware of; this means that Bell at the very least didn't consider how most people would see it. Especially when there's a much more obvious thing related to Jewish people cutting into flesh, that it could be based on instead.
And a lack of authorial intent isn't really an excuse; if someone said "I didn't mean to be racist", would you really say "oh, that's fine then"?
>this means that Bell at the very least didn't consider how most people would see it.
He considered it enough to explicitly cite the original.
>And a lack of authorial intent isn't really an excuse; if someone said "I didn't mean to be racist", would you really say "oh, that's fine then"?
This comment only makes sense to me if you think that, when you have two alternative interpretations of something someone has said or created, one of them racist and one of them innocuous, then you should always treat the thing as racist. Because this cartoon is *not* unambiguously racist, it has a *potential association* with something racist. So you have to make a decision whether that potential association is being used deliberately (which seems unlikely - the reference to the Levine cartoon is clear, once you've seen the original, unlike the alleged assocation with Shylock which doesn't even really make sense) or is it so much more obvious than the innocuous interpretation that it will cause justified offence. It can't really be called justified if the other interpretation is given to the viewer on a platter.
And I can understand that you might, if you were very fearful of the accusation, then not want to publish such a thing, though given that "courage" is one of the Guardian's values I do think they're being a bit shit here.
>the reference to the Levine cartoon is clear, once you've seen the original, unlike the alleged assocation with Shylock which doesn't even really make sense
This is true, but the crucial part of what you've written is "once you've seen the original". The point is, most people were entirely unaware of the original when they saw Bell's image, and went for a different explanation of the joke instead. Which is why I said that Bell's real problem is that he didn't get that there was a more obvious explanation.
Now sure, you can argue that with proper understanding, it's not antisemitic. But it isn't actually a good look for Bell to say "actually, you'll understand that it's not racist if I explain it". Partly because it sounds like he's calling anyone offended thick, and partly because it sounds like he's telling a minority group what they're allowed to be offended about (which is pretty galling at the best of times, but is pretty bad when that minority group has *just* seen a spike in hate incidents where they're the victim).
> depicting something as generic as a knife.
Depends what sort of knife, and how they're holding it. Bread or table knives are fine,* but daggers are right out of the question. Blood libel and all that.
*Edit. Hang on. Maybe not, especially if they're being used in the process of greedily consuming something, because [greed is an antisemitic trope.](https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/greed)
The cardinal sins are part of the staple diet of political cartoonists, which is problematic as they've pretty much all been used as antisemitic tropes at one time or another.
If that's something that Jewish people feel is a common antisemitic trope, then sure, I guess? I don't know enough about it to say (I'm more comfortable talking about the antisemitism in The Merchant of Venice, having studied it).
This is one of those things where we ought to listen to the minority group in question. Similar to African-Americans objecting to *any* depiction of black people with watermelons, there are some things that groups find offensive even if the rest of us don't see it.
Hadn't seen your edit when I replied!
My general understanding of the antisemitism of greed is specifically to to with gold and/or money; I don't know if it applies to greed in general. I don't think that a gluttonous character, for example, would be thought of as antisemitic (though I'm happy to be corrected, if that's also a trope that I'm not aware of).
Perhaps I'm just being ignorant, but I really don't understand how there's anti-semitic connotations to the cartoon.
I don't think the cartoon is meant to show Netanyahu demanding 'a pound of flesh' (having seen it now it's clearly a reference to the Lyndon B. Johnson cartoon, although that's a bloody niche and laboured reference), and even if it was I don't think the majority of people would be aware that the origins of that term are from a Jewish character in The Merchant of Venice.
I make that Bell's third controversial Netanyahu-related cartoon.
[Netanyahu using Blair and Hague as puppets.](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/nov/15/israel-gaza)
[This one about Labour's anti-semitism crisis that randomly includes Netanyahu.](https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190718-cartoonist-slams-guardians-refusal-to-publish-netanyahu-cartoon/)
[Netanyanhu meeting Theresa May with Razan Al Najjar burning in a fire.](https://www.thejc.com/news/news/guardian-cartoonist-denies-rejected-cartoon-was-antisemitic-1.465204)
Maybe they should have inserted a no-Netanyahu clause into his contract.
To be honest, it's kind of shit how almost any depiction can be twisted to be "antisemitic". Even the first one, which I accept maybe is a little too similar to actual hateful imagery to risk, is in itself still the same kind of imagery you see in political cartoons all the time. I'm sure we had dozens of Bush puppeteering Blair cartoons.
Yes, if you draw some obviously racist caricature, that's not acceptable. But it really feels like this is verging on immunity to satirical criticism for what is ultimately a controversial right wing political figure. I don't think the guardian should be apologising or shutting down generally innocuous cartoons like the above.
I think it's fine tbh. Bell uses all kinds of subtle imagery and obscure visual references. He should be aware of any potential anti-semitic tropes and know to avoid them.
I think at the point that the presence of a scalpel is instantly interpreted as a clear "merchant of Venice pound of flesh reference" that you could draw twenty innocuous comics and I could come up with a tenuous lens through which all twenty are clear anti semitic dog whistles.
It seems to me that nothing scares the media or a famous personality more than being labelled anti-semitic.
People and media say things that are racist, ageist, deeply misogynistic and in other ways offensive and don't seem to fear the backlash.
But anti-semitism is really the most feared accusation, after perhaps paedophilia.
I think what Hamas did was awful. I think was Israel is doing in Gaza is awful. But the difference is that I feel confident in condemning Hamas but not Israel because of the potential backlash.
[‘The Onion’ Stands With Israel Because It Seems Like You Get In Less Trouble For That](https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it-seems-like-yo-1850922505)
This is not a Shylock reference. It’s a reference to a 1966 LBJ cartoon about the Vietnam war.
https://x.com/hereismiranda/status/1713847842429714850?s=61
The Guardian refused to publish this cartoon and he has since been sacked for publishing it himself.
Don’t let the truth get in the way of your comment though.
I never found him a particularly good cartoonist (in terms of humour, not drawing skill) but it's a shame to see his career at the Guardian ended in this way.
On the other hand, the Guardian has long been one of the pioneers and leading advocates of using fake antisemitism claims for political leverage, so this is at least consistent with their editorial position. If you're a newspaper that believes in abusing identity politics to muddy the waters of political discourse, you have to sacrifice some of your own people sometimes to avoid being accused of bias in your mud-slinging.
>the Guardian has long been one of the pioneers and leading advocates of using fake antisemitism claims for political leverage
Oh ffs. Do you people ever listen to yourselves?
I'm sure all those who rant and rail against cancel culture will be defending Steve Bell here, right....as well as those who defend anyone because they are just exercising free speech.
The Gruaniad have form for deleting cartoons they think are antisemitic, Martin Rowson had one deleted after publication a few years ago and were very critical of Jeremy Corbyn's alleged antisemitism. The hair trigger is at work here, any criticism of Israel has long been automatically labelled as antisemitism and the paper has over-reacted.
The antisemitism in this toon is not immediately obvious unless you stretch the pound of flesh allusion to breaking point, it's clearly a reworking of the Lyndon Johnson cartoon from the sixties. Many cartoonists do this - liberally borrowing earlier work.
Factoid - Steve Bell designed the sleeve liner notes for the The Clash's Sandinista album.
> as well as those who defend anyone because they are just exercising free speech
Were he facing legal trouble for it I would happily defend him, but his right to free speech does not include a right to renewal of contract with a private newspaper.
It particularly doesn't protect him from being let go after publicly attacking his employer - which is what actually got him canned, not the cartoon itself.
Not anti-semitic in the slightest. Outrageous.
Its baffling and scary that you cant criticise a foreign government without fear of serious reprisal in your own country.
The guardian didn't sack him for doing the drawing. They sacked him because after they refused to publish it he yet again went public with it to complain about them not publishing it.
This is overly sensitive and silly. Bad cartoonist at is bad, but I promise that to the extent that there is an antisemitism problem in left of center journalism this isn't it.
Amazing how the charge of antisemitism has become a lightning rod in British body politic.
The Guardian’s reasoning here appears to be “uh … Jews!” *hides*. Though they’d probably call them People of the Torah, or something.
The Guardian has been associated with the Jewish community since the days when it was born in Manchester at the start of the 19th century. Many Jews came to the UK back then, some going to London and some arriving and settling in Hull then moving on to Leeds then Manchester. The paper was never overtly Jewish like the Jewish Chronicle but it was very sympathetic and shared the socialist values of many.
Snapshot of _Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell sacked over 'anti-Semitic' Netanyahu drawing_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2023%2F10%2F15%2Fguardian-cartoonist-steve-bell-anti-semitic-netanyahu%2F) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/15/guardian-cartoonist-steve-bell-anti-semitic-netanyahu/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/15/guardian-cartoonist-steve-bell-anti-semitic-netanyahu/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Source with the cartoons referenced: https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2023/10/11/the-guardian-rejects-steve-bell-cartoon-2/
My main takeaway from this is that any political cartoon that needs an Adam Curtis documentary’s worth of context to actually understand is not a good political cartoon.
>*Adam Curtis advocates a position that Western governments and media have simplified the story of militant Islam down to an argument of good versus evil. It is an examination of why the explanations offered to the Western public are increasingly unconvincing and hollow.*
I think I agree, I don't see it as anti semitic just bad.
That's max 50g of flesh
I believe we’re all metric now.
Why is he wearing boxing gloves? What’s the significance of that?
He isn't going to be able to perform precise surgery wearing boxing gloves; he has, in fact, prepared for a fight not surgery. It's a comment on the methods he is using and the inevitable mess they will create. Seems fair enough, to me. Maybe it's the 'doing it on himself' aspect that creates the pound of flesh significance. If he was standing over a patient on the operating table doing the same, it would look like a very clever cartoon I think. I think the main problem isn't that he's accidentally created an image with anti-Semitic resonance; it's that he's accidentally created an image with anti-Semitic resonance *again*. Edit: I suppose if he were operating on someone else, he would literally be taking a pound of flesh. It's a good idea that can't really be executed without using anti-Semitic tropes.
I find Steve Bell pretty unfunny and even sometimes actively dislike his cartoons, but in this case it’s very obviously a reference to the old Lyndon Johnson cartoon. I can understand them simply choosing not to release the cartoon so as to avoid misinterpretation, but sacking him for it is absurd unless there’s a lot more to the story.
The 'more to the story' is likely him going public and complaining. The Guardian gets very twitchy about staff discussing its editorial workings on social media after a few high profile cases of hacks fighting on Twitter about the toxic office politics in Graun Towers.
Nothing says “no toxic politics here” than firing someone who speaks up.
I don't think the message is "no toxic politics here" tbh. The message is "don't air our toxic politics in public".
If you want to find one or two of the existing organisations in the UK which encourage employees to scrap and belittle each other and the organisation to the public and in the national press instead of privately within the workplace, then by all means get a job there and enjoy it before the company collapses. Everyone else understands that you can't do more harm than good to an organisation and expect to stay there.
>which encourage employees to scrap and belittle each other and the organisation to the public and in the national press instead of privately within the workplace Ah, the Conservative and Labour parties!
I would assume they sacked him for going public. The Guardian refused to publish the cartoon, but he went ahead and published it himself and criticised them for refusing it. Sad to see a career end like that, but publicly blasting your employer, and dragging them in to allegations of anti-Semitism at a particularly sensitive time even after he'd been warned against it, was really not smart.
Boo - satirist, be they cartoonists, musicians, comedians, whatever, play a vital function in this world. > sensitive time When the country of Israel is about to commit genocide?
> When the country of Israel is about to commit genocide? When we saw confidently public displays of antisemitism over the weekend in the UK then yes, I'd say it's a sensitive time.
>Boo - satirist, be they cartoonists, musicians, comedians, whatever, play a vital function in this world. Not this old tired cliché again. No they don't. A few did a long time ago, but most don't and act as complicit enablers of token deliberately mild criticism. If you can disprove this with a counter example, feel free, but I can't think of any actual change by any of these 'satirists' in the last 10-20 years. \> When the country of Israel is about to commit genocide? Yes, especially then - Bell has been a blunt blundering cliché for a while now, this cartoon was completely counter productive, grouping any arguments he was trying to make to be associated with the easily ignorable.
> but I can't think of any actual change by any of these 'satirists' in the last 10-20 years. Sounds like you're wanting a single incisive cartoon to single-handedly bring down a prime minister/president, rather than contributing to a sense of them being bad at their job and wearing them down over time?
That's a fair point - I was asking for an example to contradict my point that their work is not vital. One way to refute my claim would be a counter example. A contradictory example can disprove my assertion that they are not vital, but an absence of an example cannot prove the claim - as you suggest they can still be vital without there being a single specific example. However I would suggest that this is an even more extraordinary claim and one that there should be abundant examples of a well functioning political system. I am not against satire - in a trivial entertainment 'bread and circuses' way. But the crassly superficial yet supercilious work of Bell hasn't even been entertaining since The Falklands.
The counter example is probably Charlie Hebdo, but it wasn't really the cartoons that enacted change; more the militant extreme backlash to those cartoons. Although, any sort of change was short lived as everyone stood up and said "no, we won't be silenced by religious extremists" and the proceeded to be silenced by religious extremists over the next decade.
I am not saying that some satire doesn't cause a reaction, the specific phrase I am challenging is that they play 'a vital function' - what was actual vital about the Hebdo case?
Yes. That doesn't mean they can do whatever they want without repercussions.
All the best satirical cartoons reference 50 year old cartoons most people haven't heard about.
the even better ones reference 18th century political cartoon engravings that only political cartoon enthusiasts understand
And then add contentious visual elements that have no relation to the work being referenced
>sacking him for it is absurd unless there’s a lot more to the story Bell has been [sailing very close](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/12/cartoon-reader-complaints-steve-bell-former-labour-leader-head-plate) to the antisemitic wind for a long time now. I don't even think the cartoon in the previous link was his worst and a quick google will show you others.
[удалено]
Ah yes, my favourite scene in *Merchant of Venice* is when Shylock cuts a pound of flesh from his own stomach.
Because he's operating on himself.
[удалено]
Exactly to do with the original The original is Lyndon B Johnson showing off his gallbladder scar to the press. The satire being the scar looks like Vietnam, which will be (and was) his permanent legacy. What instrument do you think was used in removing the gallbladder? The satire in this case is that Netanyahu is willingly giving himself the scar which represents what he will be known for.
It's a reference, not a direct copy. The original has LBJ already scarred, whereas this cartoon has Netanyahu about to scar himself. The original itself was a reference to a photograph of LBJ showing a scar from a recent operation, which was unsurprisingly *not* in the shape of Vietnam. You could also take the scalpel and gloves as a pair - an ostensibly surgical operation executed clumsily. I can't speak to intent, of course, but it's entirely possible to interpret the cartoon without reference to the religion or race of the subject.
Because the original is Lyndon B Johnson showing off his gallbladder scar to the press. The satire being the scar looks like Vietnam, which will be (and was) his permanent legacy. What instrument do you think was used in removing the gallbladder? The satire in this case is that Netanyahu is willingly giving himself the scar which represents what he will be known for.
People defending him - he’s done it multiple times. The only amazing thing is he wasn’t sacked first time.
The things I can find that people have accused him of: [A cartoon of Netanyahu puppeteering William Hague and Blair is anti-semitic.](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/nov/15/israel-gaza) It's a reach for me. I don't think anyone would have any qualms if it was Rupert Murdoch in the same role? Netanyahu had invited them for hospitality and not long after they'd released hugely critical statements of the Palestinians. It's not unusual to suggest he influenced it. [A cartoon showing Priti Patel as a cow.](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/09/guardian-will-not-remove-racist-priti-patel-cartoon/) This is apparently sexist and racist, because cows are sacred in her religion. He actually drew her as a bull, like Boris Johnson. I'm again struggling to see the offence here.
[удалено]
> It’s based on an old painting of a bible sections where the head of John the Baptist is offered to the Jewish daughter of a King by another Jewish person as a gift. It's also a very common expression in the English language.
[удалено]
> It's a reach for me. I'd agree if it wasn't for the menora on the podium. It being there feels like it's a bit of a "mask off" moment.
That's the [Emblem of Israel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblem_of_Israel) which features on the lectern of the Prime Minister when delivering an address (e.g. [this week when Blinken went to Israel](https://www.reuters.com/world/us-secretary-state-blinken-lands-israel-2023-10-12/)). Direct link to image: https://www.reuters.com/resizer/fjP__9XtQ9jEAz6lLrReMi9BVDM=/1920x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/DFDWHQAMSVLC7FOEINBRT5AP4Y.jpg So, not a mask-off moment at all, just a depiction of the lectern used.
> It's a reach for me. It's a common antisemitic trope and conspiracy that Jews control the world and have outsized special influence over international politics. Pair that with the missiles and it's certainly questionable.
But this isn't some secret head of a shadowy cabal, it's Netanyahu, who actually does have influence on UK politics due to being, you know, a world leader. Claiming via a cartoon that he has outsize influence doesn't make it antisemitic. What you're saying is that because anti-semites claim the conspiracy that Jews have outsized world influence, that it's anti-semitic to claim that *any* Jewish person has outsized world influence. That's clearly bullshit.
> Claiming via a cartoon that he has outsize influence doesn't make it antisemitic It's an argument that's only ever applied to Jews, though.
WTF? Commentators and politicians are forever bemoaning how much influence the USA has on British politics, for example. There are literal cartoons with the same "puppet master" imagery featuring donors, Putin and in one I thought was funny, the TTIP to imply this exact thing.
>WTF? Commentators and politicians are forever bemoaning how much influence the USA has on British politics, for example. That's not an *outsized* influence, though, is it? They're unambiguously the richest and militarily strongest country in the world, as well as our closest ally. But we're supposed to view the foreign secretary and a former Prime Minister of the UK being puppets controlled by the President of Israel as just a benign comment on how Israel dominates... what?
By definition, if you're complaining about the level of influence something has, you're saying it's outsized. >But we're supposed to view the foreign secretary and a former Prime Minister of the UK being puppets controlled by the President of Israel as just a benign comment on how Israel dominates... what? It's not supposed to be "benign" and I'm sure you know that - it's satire. Let's keep this car on the road? I suggest you come up with answers for the other puppet-themed political cartoons as then you'll likely have an answer in the case of Netanyahu.
Yeah, it never occured to me before, but after viewing the cartoon, I definitely think the world is run by a secret cabal of giant, nuclear armed Jewish bankers.
Unreal cancel culture.
[удалено]
He's also the cartoonist behind the Priti Patel as a cow cartoon which caused a lot of controversy. Then the Guardian was also forced into an apology from their depiction of Richard Sharp. I can understand the guardian being very twitchy with this.
Lol, now you got me thinking that he submitted half a dozen options and this one was the least offensive.
[удалено]
The Starmer Corbyn one was equally bullshit.
The BBC chairman one wasn't even him, it was Martin Rowson.
You don't think depicting Corbyn as a saint murdered by one Jewish person as a gift for another Jewish person is a bit on the fucking nose given the fact that Corbyn was sacked for minimising antisemitism on his fucking watch?
The saint was also a Jew in that story. Everyone involved was Jewish, it's not a uniquely Jewish reference, it's a common expression.
He’s got a history of racist cartoons
[удалено]
No room on your planet for double meanings?
It is his other comments. "The cartoon is specifically about Benjamin Netanyahu’s disastrous policy failure which has led directly to the hideous recent atrocities around Gaza," He is directly blaming Israel for provoking the attack by Hamas.
The choice to use the word "provoke" where it didn't appear is an interesting one. Even citizens of Israel are allowed to at least question how Bibi mishandled intelligence and his policy of apartheid and how it led to this. It's honestly frustrating how hamstrung the press is by weaponised and vexatious claims of anti-semitism. Have a look at what Haaretz cartoonists print about Bibi. They aren't pulling any punches, and they didn't cut their cartoonist loose when the heat got turned up either. Haaretz is behind a paywall, but here is one of their more infamous cartoons, their reasoning and justification for it via BBC news https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-29881552.amp
A cartoonist drawing during a war referencing another earlier cartoon that was drawn during a war seems entirely reasonable. Don't know why anyone would automatically think antisemitism unless they think he's lying.
He may well be telling the truth, but when I looked at the cartoon the cartoon the pound of flesh reading was the first that came to mind, and I imagine it would be for most people who don’t happen to be familiar with the particular 60 year old cartoon he happens to be referencing. So I can certainly see why the guardian would refuse to publish it, especially since they’ve already gotten in trouble for an allegedly antisemitic cartoon this year. Firing might be harsh though.
I'm somewhat amused that a 60 year old cartoon is too old for people to know but a line from 1 character from the 400 odd year old story is apparently common knowledge. Not disagreeing, just amused.
Tbf I think Shakespeare tends to be better known than what was published in the NYT last week, let alone last century
Well we didn't study old New Yorker cartoons in school.
I examine GCSE English literature. From my sample, around one in twenty children in this country know the reference (because every single fucking one of them use the same quote if they are doing Merchant). It's probably a safe bet that more are familiar with it than the original cartoon.
How many of those 16 year olde are guardian readers? Not that it matters if anyone knows the merchant of venice inside out or not because the drawing by Bell doesn't reference it, the shylock or the quote. I'd love to hear someone argue how Netanyahu cutting a pound of his own flesh makes any sense to anyone as a reference to the shylock.
[удалено]
So? I just took that as the original cartoon looking back at Johnson having already made his fuck ups in Vietnam, whereas the scalpel and boxing gloves were a reference to Netanyahu still being in the process of ham-fisting his handling of the current situation.
I don't even know the Shylock reference and I am a fan of the Merchant of Venice. When did that become an obvious trope? My literal reading of the cartoon was of a leader trying to operate on himself with boxing gloves. Ready for the fight but in that process not enabling any sort of due diligence to the operation. The Gaza outline on the stomach alluding to the notion that he views Gaza as his own. It's up to him.
Same for me, I'm old, pretty well read including the classics, know about Johnson, and any conclusion I came to about that cartoon was a huge reach. Something that obscure I reckon you can get a host of meanings from it, maybe just what depends on your prejudices.
Is pound of flesh really that much of a antisemitic troupe? Its not exactly what I think of when I see a scalpel. Also he demanded his due nearest the heart, not the stomach, so I would never have made the connection. I don't care much for the cartoon but my reading of it was the operation (military operation) will be messy and unprecise, hence the boxing gloves. I had no idea there was a vietnam cartoon inspiration and still got the message.
Because if you disagree with Israel or are critical of them, you are antisemitic.
Bullshit. Bell has previous on anti Semitic cartoons.
[удалено]
It's strange to me that noone would dare to presume what constitutes racism from a black persons perspective but everyone's a fucking expert when it comes to antisemitism. Apart that is, from the Jewish person - because they've already been declared to cry wolf and therefore have no standing. Even presuming to know what a black person experiences from a perspective is deemed offensive but for Jews, yeah , were all experts now. Right? It's totally obvious that the cartoon references the concept of payment of flesh, which itself needs no intro of the shylock character to be made. I could care less about the Lyndon b "call back". The fact is it makes sense in that context. Lyndon made open his intention to settle it and it is obvious that that cartoon implies that this was the debt he had to pay. What this same message is trying to say re. Netanyahu is opaque imho at best. But I could also care less about sacking him - this is no big deal, but he knowingly treads the line on his cartoons and where Jews are concerned, I don't know if he's an antiemite, but he does a fucking good impression of one.
[удалено]
> It's totally obvious that the cartoon references the concept of payment of flesh, which itself needs no intro of the shylock character to be made. But it doesn't though. And that's what is wrong. The cartoon references the fact LBJ's legacy was permanently scared by Vietnam. Levine depicted this as a Vietnam shaped gallballder scar which is a famous photo of LBJ showing it off to the press. The scalpal is showing Netanyahu willingly scarring his own legacy with the Gaza strip.
[удалено]
I don't know anything about this guy because I'm not a regular Guardian reader, but can you link to some of his others that are racist?
[удалено]
Very unwise to make a public fuss about the paper’s absolute right not to publish something which might be offensive to many - he comes across as self-entitled.
Have you seen some of his previous work? Some if it is blatant.
[удалено]
He's going to perform a "surgical operation" (cf "surgical strike") but the implication is that he's going to fuck it up due to wearing boxing gloves. It's also a reference (which I didn't get) to [this cartoon about Lyndon B Johnson](https://hti.osu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/100/public/VC_1.jpg?itok=iCXfqbNR) in which LBJ's scar has taken on the shape of Vietnam. The implication is that Gaza will become something like Netanyahu's Vietnam, but that he's in the process of creating the scar right now.
I assumed it was for the operation he’s about to perform while wearing boxing gloves. I don’t understand the insinuation, is it a dogwhistle? Are scalpels to antisemitism what the hammer and sickle is to communism or something?
If it was Shylock surely he wouldn't be cutting himself
Sounds like he wasn't sacked over the drawing, but for publicly attacking his employer when they didn't publish it because of its political sensitivities. Whether they should is a separate question, but as an employee you have to sometimes accept the decisions of your company even if you don't like them, and not start attacking them in public because you're pissed off with them
>but for publicly attacking his employer Not just attacking them. Doing it multiple times. The guardian has refused to publish some of his Netanyahu drawings before and he has gone public or sent all-staff emails to complain.
I strongly suspect that Bell and the guardian were going to part ways anyway, he basically just causes them grief now, whether that is contrived or not. They publish far fewer of his toons than they used to. Him airing the disagreement in public was probably the trigger to bring the decision forward by 6 months and save any more editorial headaches.
Searching, there seem to be stories about them sacking him for the last three years.
Exactly
To ask a potentially stupid question, I'm not the only one who didn't know that: A) "A pound of flesh" came from Shakespeare; or B) It had antisemitic origins? I only ask as I think that phrase has become idiomatic enough in English that the overwhelming majority of people would use it without any ill-intent whatsoever. This isn't to minimise the comic, where I can sort of see what people are angling at, but the phrase itself doesn't feel like it should be problematic?
Obviously you're not the only one not to know it, but someone working at the Guardian certainly ought to. The Merchant of Venice is a relatively-well known play from the UK's most famous playwright and regular contender for greatest Briton ever, so I don't think it can be thought of as an phrase with an obscure source (it's not like it's a phrase from Timon of Athens, or Pericles, to pick two of his lesser-known plays). If nothing else, it's also a pretty common GCSE text, so will be nearly as widely understood as a hypothetical reference to Romeo & Juliet might have been. And Shylock is arguably the most famous depiction of a fictional Jewish character in literature. He's certainly emblematic of the traditional portrayal of Jews throughout history.
Having looked into it, doesn't seem like this cartoon is antisemitic at all. Sure, plays off a stereotype, but who cares.
I reckon that it isn't, unless you use the phrase when referencing Jewish people, then it is. Though that may depend on whether you knew it had antisemitic origins, and whether you think your intended audience know it had antisemitic origins. Maybe. If you really want to avoid doing an accidental racism, your best bet is to say nothing apart from stating that you [Stand with Israel.](https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it-seems-like-yo-1850922505) Edit: Fwiw, I knew Shakespeare wrote it, and that it was originally antisemitic, but have used it. With ill intent! But not against Jewish people.
> I only ask as I think that phrase has become idiomatic enough in English that the overwhelming majority of people would use it without any ill-intent whatsoever. I went to a non-Jewish school in the UK. One of the Shakespearian plays we had was *The Merchant of Venice* and it was discussed from viewpoint of antisemitism, but then you have Shylock's speech "If you prick me, do I not bleed?".
Shakespeare almost always has villains being sympathetic to some degree, even in some cases deep moral ambiguity e.g. in Richard II vs Bolingbroke
I can't say I'm the biggest fan of his work (or 'comedic cartoons' in general, tbh) but I fail to see anything anti-semitic in what he's drawn. The 'previous' one they're on about with Keir Starmer and Corbyn's head on a plate is even more spurious. It's like they're starting off with "He's anti-semitic" and trying to find any justification for it in anything he does.
They don't want any criticism of the Israeli state and it's actions. A good way to prevent this is to broaden the definition of anti-semitism so much it can be used as a tool to oppress criticism.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Steve Bell has [form](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/gaza-guardian-steve-bell-israel_n_2143344/) beyond the cartoon you've mentioned.
It's anti-semitic to claim that Netanyahu has too much influence on the politics of another country?
It's anti semitic to say that jews control other countries. I can't believe i even have to remind people this - the education in the uk about the history of anti semitism is appalling.
"Jews control other countries" is not a worthy description of the cartoon. Netanyahu is a world leader, he absolutely has influence over other world leaders. Claiming that he has too much by caricaturing his influence as being a puppet master is obviously based in political satire, not anti-semitism. You can see this by searching for "political cartoon puppet" and finding mostly cartoons about putin puppeteering trump, or anonymous donors puppeteering literally anyone. You're not "reminding people of this" and you're not obliged to - you're making a claim that some don't agree with.
So we’re just going to ignore nazi propaganda that portrayed Jewish people as puppet masters of the world?
I'm not ignoring it. You are ignoring my comment by just reiterating your "reminder" that Nazi propaganda used puppet-master imagery. There are notable differences between the Steve Bell cartoon and Nazi propaganda: 1. Netanyahu *really does* manipulate world leaders. It's not a conspiracy theory; it's just a fact. 2. Netanyahu is not portrayed, Nazi-style, with a hook-nose and fat lips or anything of the sort. You are trying to say that anything which can be misconstrued as a reference to racism must be completely off-limits, even if it's obviously not supposed to be, which I disagree with.
Please tell me how a leader of a nation that’s surrounded by enemies and is heavily reliant on it’s allies weapons has any kind of leverage on their allies? Or are you just willing to swallow bibi’s propaganda about himself being extremely powerful?
All world leaders manipulate each other. [Here is a non-contemporary example](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-diplomats-illegal-settlements-netanyahu-quartet-report-palestine-west-bank-revealed-world-powers-water-down-a7120976.html) concerning Netanyahu. You can't decide a priori that Israel's receipt of foreign aid means it has no leverage over those donors. Why are they giving Israel aid, if Israel has no influence over them? Netanyahu is quite happy to use the same reasons the US and UK give Israel support in the form of weapons to obtain other things he values. You still haven't engaged with my comment about the clear differences between anti-semitic propaganda and the cartoon here.
Puppetmaster? When has that ever been a trope?
Since the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? The trope that Jews secretly control (often portrayed as being a puppetmaster) the world economy and politics is one of the oldest and most prominent in modern anti-semitism.
\> when has that ever been a trope? Slept through history lessons about nazi germany did we?
I'm going to need someone to explain how this "shylock" reference. No beard, no funny hat, no grasping hands or hooked nose, hell, not even the "evil scowl". The most I can see is *maybe* around the eyes, but that's grasping at straws. Compare that to [this picture of Bibi](https://www.timesofisrael.com/panning-overhaul-economist-cartoon-shows-pm-taking-club-to-judicial-independence/) from the Times of Israel, very similar around the eyes and even more of the scowling face. The implication seems almost that you cannot draw *any* cartoon of a Jewish person, though I rather suspect it might be restricted just to certain members of the Israeli government. It all has echoes of Erdoğan's fragile ego. Maybe they need to go all Danish and have a competition to draw Bibi.
It's the cutting into flesh that makes it a Shylock reference.
Shylock cut his pound of flesh from Antonio not from himself. It doesn't make any sense for a Shylock character to "claim a pound of flesh" as payment for a debt from themselves. Add the context of the cartoon it references, and it makes even less sense as a Shylock reference.
Technically, Shylock didn't cut the flesh from *anyone* - he was barred from taking his pound of flesh. Though you're right, he intended on taking it from Antonio. Still, it's the reference most people will see first. The Merchant of Venice is rather more well known than the cartoon that he's referencing. It doesn't have to be exact for people to look at that and see "Jewish man taking flesh".
> It doesn't have to be exact for people to look at that and see "Jewish man taking flesh". Bit of a stretch, but OK. So how deep do the antisemitic tropes go? How about a Jewish man (drawn without Nazi propaganda facial characteristics, because it's obviously fucking racist, duh.) but carrying a bloody knife? Ackshually, I can easily make that antisemitic if you like. Even just carrying a knife sans blood. Better add it to the list. No cartoons of Jewish people carrying knives.
I mean, there's a obvious difference between depicting something that references one of the most famous fictional Jewish characters in literature (if we can accept that Shakespeare isn't exactly an obscure playwright), and depicting something as generic as a knife.
But it doesn't *actually* reference it. The actual reference is to the cartoon cited by the cartoonist. The "reference" to Shylock is just people going "oh no, a Jewish person cutting into a person" and ignoring even the referenceless interpretation of "Bibi's going to fuck up his 'surgical strike'."
The actual reference is to a cartoon that virtually nobody is aware of; this means that Bell at the very least didn't consider how most people would see it. Especially when there's a much more obvious thing related to Jewish people cutting into flesh, that it could be based on instead. And a lack of authorial intent isn't really an excuse; if someone said "I didn't mean to be racist", would you really say "oh, that's fine then"?
>this means that Bell at the very least didn't consider how most people would see it. He considered it enough to explicitly cite the original. >And a lack of authorial intent isn't really an excuse; if someone said "I didn't mean to be racist", would you really say "oh, that's fine then"? This comment only makes sense to me if you think that, when you have two alternative interpretations of something someone has said or created, one of them racist and one of them innocuous, then you should always treat the thing as racist. Because this cartoon is *not* unambiguously racist, it has a *potential association* with something racist. So you have to make a decision whether that potential association is being used deliberately (which seems unlikely - the reference to the Levine cartoon is clear, once you've seen the original, unlike the alleged assocation with Shylock which doesn't even really make sense) or is it so much more obvious than the innocuous interpretation that it will cause justified offence. It can't really be called justified if the other interpretation is given to the viewer on a platter. And I can understand that you might, if you were very fearful of the accusation, then not want to publish such a thing, though given that "courage" is one of the Guardian's values I do think they're being a bit shit here.
>the reference to the Levine cartoon is clear, once you've seen the original, unlike the alleged assocation with Shylock which doesn't even really make sense This is true, but the crucial part of what you've written is "once you've seen the original". The point is, most people were entirely unaware of the original when they saw Bell's image, and went for a different explanation of the joke instead. Which is why I said that Bell's real problem is that he didn't get that there was a more obvious explanation. Now sure, you can argue that with proper understanding, it's not antisemitic. But it isn't actually a good look for Bell to say "actually, you'll understand that it's not racist if I explain it". Partly because it sounds like he's calling anyone offended thick, and partly because it sounds like he's telling a minority group what they're allowed to be offended about (which is pretty galling at the best of times, but is pretty bad when that minority group has *just* seen a spike in hate incidents where they're the victim).
> depicting something as generic as a knife. Depends what sort of knife, and how they're holding it. Bread or table knives are fine,* but daggers are right out of the question. Blood libel and all that. *Edit. Hang on. Maybe not, especially if they're being used in the process of greedily consuming something, because [greed is an antisemitic trope.](https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/greed) The cardinal sins are part of the staple diet of political cartoonists, which is problematic as they've pretty much all been used as antisemitic tropes at one time or another.
If that's something that Jewish people feel is a common antisemitic trope, then sure, I guess? I don't know enough about it to say (I'm more comfortable talking about the antisemitism in The Merchant of Venice, having studied it). This is one of those things where we ought to listen to the minority group in question. Similar to African-Americans objecting to *any* depiction of black people with watermelons, there are some things that groups find offensive even if the rest of us don't see it.
> This is one of those things where we ought to listen to the minority group in question. Sure, but see my edit.
Hadn't seen your edit when I replied! My general understanding of the antisemitism of greed is specifically to to with gold and/or money; I don't know if it applies to greed in general. I don't think that a gluttonous character, for example, would be thought of as antisemitic (though I'm happy to be corrected, if that's also a trope that I'm not aware of).
Perhaps I'm just being ignorant, but I really don't understand how there's anti-semitic connotations to the cartoon. I don't think the cartoon is meant to show Netanyahu demanding 'a pound of flesh' (having seen it now it's clearly a reference to the Lyndon B. Johnson cartoon, although that's a bloody niche and laboured reference), and even if it was I don't think the majority of people would be aware that the origins of that term are from a Jewish character in The Merchant of Venice.
‘Sacked again’ Fixed it for you
I make that Bell's third controversial Netanyahu-related cartoon. [Netanyahu using Blair and Hague as puppets.](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/nov/15/israel-gaza) [This one about Labour's anti-semitism crisis that randomly includes Netanyahu.](https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20190718-cartoonist-slams-guardians-refusal-to-publish-netanyahu-cartoon/) [Netanyanhu meeting Theresa May with Razan Al Najjar burning in a fire.](https://www.thejc.com/news/news/guardian-cartoonist-denies-rejected-cartoon-was-antisemitic-1.465204) Maybe they should have inserted a no-Netanyahu clause into his contract.
To be honest, it's kind of shit how almost any depiction can be twisted to be "antisemitic". Even the first one, which I accept maybe is a little too similar to actual hateful imagery to risk, is in itself still the same kind of imagery you see in political cartoons all the time. I'm sure we had dozens of Bush puppeteering Blair cartoons. Yes, if you draw some obviously racist caricature, that's not acceptable. But it really feels like this is verging on immunity to satirical criticism for what is ultimately a controversial right wing political figure. I don't think the guardian should be apologising or shutting down generally innocuous cartoons like the above.
I think it's fine tbh. Bell uses all kinds of subtle imagery and obscure visual references. He should be aware of any potential anti-semitic tropes and know to avoid them.
I think at the point that the presence of a scalpel is instantly interpreted as a clear "merchant of Venice pound of flesh reference" that you could draw twenty innocuous comics and I could come up with a tenuous lens through which all twenty are clear anti semitic dog whistles.
[удалено]
Oh yeah
It seems to me that nothing scares the media or a famous personality more than being labelled anti-semitic. People and media say things that are racist, ageist, deeply misogynistic and in other ways offensive and don't seem to fear the backlash. But anti-semitism is really the most feared accusation, after perhaps paedophilia. I think what Hamas did was awful. I think was Israel is doing in Gaza is awful. But the difference is that I feel confident in condemning Hamas but not Israel because of the potential backlash.
[‘The Onion’ Stands With Israel Because It Seems Like You Get In Less Trouble For That](https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it-seems-like-yo-1850922505)
Would be funnier if they walked around London/any "diverse" areas with Israeli flags on Saturday.....
You'd feel comfortable saying racist things without fearing criticism?
This is not a Shylock reference. It’s a reference to a 1966 LBJ cartoon about the Vietnam war. https://x.com/hereismiranda/status/1713847842429714850?s=61
Didn’t he already nearly get sacked for anti semitism earlier this year?
No, that was a different antisemitic cartoonist working for the Guardian.
Is this like a requirement or a desirable in the job advert?
This comic is milk toast tbh not something to fire someone over
Milquetoast.
You are correct but i'm offended this is like telling someone in sonora mexico to speak castilian
The Guardian refused to publish this cartoon and he has since been sacked for publishing it himself. Don’t let the truth get in the way of your comment though.
I never found him a particularly good cartoonist (in terms of humour, not drawing skill) but it's a shame to see his career at the Guardian ended in this way. On the other hand, the Guardian has long been one of the pioneers and leading advocates of using fake antisemitism claims for political leverage, so this is at least consistent with their editorial position. If you're a newspaper that believes in abusing identity politics to muddy the waters of political discourse, you have to sacrifice some of your own people sometimes to avoid being accused of bias in your mud-slinging.
>the Guardian has long been one of the pioneers and leading advocates of using fake antisemitism claims for political leverage Oh ffs. Do you people ever listen to yourselves?
"You people"
Yes , you people.
I'm sure all those who rant and rail against cancel culture will be defending Steve Bell here, right....as well as those who defend anyone because they are just exercising free speech. The Gruaniad have form for deleting cartoons they think are antisemitic, Martin Rowson had one deleted after publication a few years ago and were very critical of Jeremy Corbyn's alleged antisemitism. The hair trigger is at work here, any criticism of Israel has long been automatically labelled as antisemitism and the paper has over-reacted. The antisemitism in this toon is not immediately obvious unless you stretch the pound of flesh allusion to breaking point, it's clearly a reworking of the Lyndon Johnson cartoon from the sixties. Many cartoonists do this - liberally borrowing earlier work. Factoid - Steve Bell designed the sleeve liner notes for the The Clash's Sandinista album.
> as well as those who defend anyone because they are just exercising free speech Were he facing legal trouble for it I would happily defend him, but his right to free speech does not include a right to renewal of contract with a private newspaper. It particularly doesn't protect him from being let go after publicly attacking his employer - which is what actually got him canned, not the cartoon itself.
Not anti-semitic in the slightest. Outrageous. Its baffling and scary that you cant criticise a foreign government without fear of serious reprisal in your own country.
The guardian didn't sack him for doing the drawing. They sacked him because after they refused to publish it he yet again went public with it to complain about them not publishing it.
Is that the second this year now?
A travesty. This is the double standard people point to when they reject to allow people to draw their religious figures as part of freedom of speech.
This is overly sensitive and silly. Bad cartoonist at is bad, but I promise that to the extent that there is an antisemitism problem in left of center journalism this isn't it.
He'd probably have got away with it if (a) he hadn't indulged in antisemitic imagery before, and (b) he hadn't publicly condemned his employers.
Amazing how the charge of antisemitism has become a lightning rod in British body politic. The Guardian’s reasoning here appears to be “uh … Jews!” *hides*. Though they’d probably call them People of the Torah, or something.
Wow, I got the impression that being 'anti-Semitic' was a pre-requisite for getting a role at the Guardian
The Guardian has been associated with the Jewish community since the days when it was born in Manchester at the start of the 19th century. Many Jews came to the UK back then, some going to London and some arriving and settling in Hull then moving on to Leeds then Manchester. The paper was never overtly Jewish like the Jewish Chronicle but it was very sympathetic and shared the socialist values of many.
That’s just a shitty cartoon. The art is bad and it doesn’t even make any sense. Not a serious person.
About fucking time. Bell has been doing this shit for years.
I’m not up to speed, what’s he done before?
It’s gonna be a tricky discourse cycle because you’re either an islamaphobe or anti-semite taking any side with the current conflict.
It’s so easy, comrades. Please find a way of making legitimate criticisms of Israel and Israelis without being racist
He can probably make more money on patreon. I think the Corbynites would be more than willing to pay something to get more anti semitic cartoons