4 ms·

The cartoon wasn't anti-Semitic as far as I'm concerned. I get that 'pound of flesh' is a anti-Semitic trope but I don't see that connection between the PM oper

by s_dev 3y ago

The cartoon wasn't anti-Semitic as far as I'm concerned. I get that 'pound of flesh' is a anti-Semitic trope but I don't see that connection between the PM operating on himself with boxing gloves but rather it plays to the hammer vs scalpel analogy when enacting policy.

RobbyRoberts22 3y ago
[flagged]
nonethewiser 3y ago
> The cartoon, featuring Netanyahu operating on his own stomach, showed a cut in the outline of the Gaza Strip. > Moneylender Shylock, from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, is considered to be one of the most notorious Jewish stereotypes in English literature due to his greedy nature. > In the Bard's famous play, Shylock asks for a pound of Antonio's flesh a loan isn't repaid within three months. Seems like the right call not to publish it, but not sure I see how the cartoon would have been referring to the “pound of flesh” from that description.
defrost 3y ago
It's an even more tenuous accusation when you get to: In the same year, senior Conservative MP Sajid Javid tweeted that Bell's cartoon - depicting former Home Secretary Priti Patel and ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson as bulls with rings through their noses - was "incredibly offensive". Mr Javid said it was "reminiscent of antisemitic cartoons from the last century," adding the Guardian "should know better". Pratel having been raised Hindu (IIRC) and Johnson having great grandparents all over the spectrum (one jewish great grandmother according to wikipedia). It all smacks of want to cast shade over The Guardian's cartoons, which is an understandable position but these "reasons" seem pretty thin.
vidarh 3y ago
It's very typical, but also really sloppy reporting, that none of the articles I've seen have actually included even a thumbnail of the cartoon he says was the inspiration. It took me one search to find several links to it: http://academics.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietimages/Cartoons/levine.htm http://academics.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietimages/Cartoon... The reference then is very obvious. One might of course try to imply that the changes were made to intentionally change the context and reference Shylock and that the reference is just a smokescreen, but to me at least it seems contrived and driven by the same willingness to just view everything in the worst possible light when it is convenient that pervade the British press. Bell has been a thorn in the sides of a lot of people for a long time, so I'm not surprised.

by s_dev 3y ago

RobbyRoberts22 3y ago

[flagged]

nonethewiser 3y ago

> The cartoon, featuring Netanyahu operating on his own stomach, showed a cut in the outline of the Gaza Strip. > Moneylender Shylock, from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, is considered to be one of the most notorious Jewish stereotypes in English literature due to his greedy nature. > In the Bard's famous play, Shylock asks for a pound of Antonio's flesh a loan isn't repaid within three months. Seems like the right call not to publish it, but not sure I see how the cartoon would have been referring to the “pound of flesh” from that description.

defrost 3y ago

It's an even more tenuous accusation when you get to: In the same year, senior Conservative MP Sajid Javid tweeted that Bell's cartoon - depicting former Home Secretary Priti Patel and ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson as bulls with rings through their noses - was "incredibly offensive". Mr Javid said it was "reminiscent of antisemitic cartoons from the last century," adding the Guardian "should know better". Pratel having been raised Hindu (IIRC) and Johnson having great grandparents all over the spectrum (one jewish great grandmother according to wikipedia). It all smacks of want to cast shade over The Guardian's cartoons, which is an understandable position but these "reasons" seem pretty thin.

vidarh 3y ago

It's very typical, but also really sloppy reporting, that none of the articles I've seen have actually included even a thumbnail of the cartoon he says was the inspiration. It took me one search to find several links to it: http://academics.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietimages/Cartoons/levine.htm http://academics.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietimages/Cartoon... The reference then is very obvious. One might of course try to imply that the changes were made to intentionally change the context and reference Shylock and that the reference is just a smokescreen, but to me at least it seems contrived and driven by the same willingness to just view everything in the worst possible light when it is convenient that pervade the British press. Bell has been a thorn in the sides of a lot of people for a long time, so I'm not surprised.