Rupert Murdoch apologises for 'grotesque' Middle East cartoon

[UnrepentantLiberal]

Source: The Telegraph

Rupert Murdoch has offered a “major apology” for a “grotesque” cartoon in The Sunday Times, after the newspaper was accused of anti-Semitism.

The media chief took to Twitter to distance himself from the picture by Gerald Scarfe, even after the newspaper had issue a defence of the work.

“Gerald Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of The Sunday Times. Nevertheless, we owe major apology for grotesque, offensive cartoon,” Mr Murdoch said.

The Sunday Times was criticised by a Jewish lobby group after it printed the cartoon, which showed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu building a wall using what appeared to be the blood of Palestinians as cement. The picture carried the strapline: “Will cementing peace continue?”.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/9832768/Rupert-Murdoch-apologises-for-grotesque-Middle-East-cartoon.html

---

[CBGLuthier]

1. What the Fuck is ant-Semitic about the TRUTH?

Seems that is the agenda being carried out by the man.

[procon]

5. Such a phony!

Since when did Anti-apartheid become synonymous with anti-Semitism?

[notadmblnd]

2. I don't see it as anti Jewish

I see it as anti Netanyahu.

[dipsydoodle]

3. Scarfe apologised for not knowing it was Holocaust day

and the Chief Rabbi in London said it was inflamatory : not anti-semitic.

[onwardsand upwards]

4. Calling this cartoon "anti-semitic' is nonsensical and disingenuous

Inasmuch as "semitic" means anything at all, both Jews and Palestinians are semitic peoples.

This is a cartoon the points to the brutality of the State of Israel towards Palestinians. The cartoon is grotesque because it depicts a reality that is grotesque.

Criticising the violent and oppressive actions of any state is the duty of any moral person.

Calling this type of criticism "anti-semitic" is like calling criticism of the Nazis "anti-aryan".

[HERVEPA]

7. A couple things

Do you call out the violent tactics of Hamas? Haven't seen it.
The meaning of words and phrases in common usage changes. Anti-semitic is generally currently understood to now mean anti-Jewish.
It is not a reality that Israel or Netanyahu builds walls with Palestinian blood. This is not to agree with Netanyahu, who is a bully, a jerk, and has policies counter-productive to any chance of peace for Israelis and Palestinians, and probably personally thinks peace is impossible, and only cares about himself.

[onwardsand upwards]

15. A curious couple ...

First of all, what is the relevance of Hamas, in particular, here? (There are many groups in the world that use violence against civilians, and I condemn all these acts.) The issue at hand is whether or not the cartoon depicts the truth about what the state of Israel, and Netanyahu in particular, is doing to the Palestinians.

Secondly, have you really checked through all my posts to see whether or not I've called out the violent tactics of Hamas? Really?

Thirdly, the fact that it may be common for many people to misunderstand the meaning of the word "semitic", through ignorance, doesn't mean that we should encourage this ignorance and misunderstanding. This is particularly true in the context of Israel and Palestine. In this context, using the phrase "anti-semitism" makes it sound as if this is an issue of race. It isn't. This is an issue of religious intolerance, and naked power.

Fourthly, while it may not be a literal truth that Netanyahu builds walls with Palestinian blood (at least, not yet), he is building walls, and he is killing, maiming, and destroying Palestinian lives. The cartoonist is using the wall, made of blood, as a metaphor. This is something that cartoonists do all the time! Given the actual walls, and the actual blood, this is a very powerful and appropriate metaphor.

Fifthly, I agree with your assessment of Netanyahu. Unfortunately, demagogues arise in times of crisis, in any society, and they feed on ignorance and hatred. One way to fight this, for the average Joe (or Josephine) is to battle ignorance and misunderstandings wherever they rear their ugly heads. Another way is to speak the truth to power, which is what this cartoon does.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. The "common" word being misunderstood is "anti-Semitic."

You are the one who is wrong. "Anti-Semitic" does not refer to being "against Semites," it means "discrimination/hate against Jews." It may be an inaccurate word, in your opinion, but, nonetheless it is a well-established word meaning only "discrimination/hate against Jews." Homophobia does not mean "fear of the same," it means " an irrational fear of or discrimination/hate against gays."

[onwardsand upwards]

18. Well, I learned something today!

Although I couldn't find this meaning in the Oxford English Dictionary, I did find it in the Oxford American Dictionary:

"an.ti-Semit.ic adj. hostile to Jews."

Point taken. Thanks for the info.

Nevertheless, my main point (the cartoon is not anti-semitic, and calling it so is misleading and disingenous) stands.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. The cartoon may not be anti-Semitic, but the timing is suspect.

The artist claims he didn't know it was International Holocaust Remembrance Day, but posting that cartoon on that day is why some saw the cartoon as anti-Semitic and disrespectful of Jews. It wasn't the cartoon, but the timing. It would be the same as Obama announcing an economic plan, then someone like David Duke, calling the plan "niggardly" (meaning "cheap&quot . Though the word has nothing to do with the racial epithet, someone like him using that particular word could have a double meaning and would likely cause a number of people to be quite upset and call his use of a completely appropriate word, racist.

[onwardsand upwards]

20. Now you've done it!

You've gone all the way to equating it with racism!

This is precisely the sort of rhetoric that is so unhelpful and divisive. Instead of discussing whether or not the cartoon points to a truth, you are tarring the messenger with the accusation of racism.

Here's an analogous situation to put this into perspective. Suppose the year is 1938, and a cartoonist depicts Hitler as a monster massacring Jews, on a day that happens to commemorate an event that is very sensitive to Germans. Someone in your role (if you're able to make the abstraction) would be saying: "Depicting Hitler in this way is anti-aryan, because of the timing."

This, of course, is ludicrous -- but entirely analogous to the position you are taking.

Do you see it?

[Behind the Aegis]

21. No, you have done it. Missed the point!

I didn't equate anything. I provided what is known as an "analogy." Your statement was that the cartoon wasn't anti-Semitic; I agree. I explained to you why some found it anti-Semitic. Saying something is anti-Semitic is not "invoking racism," it is invoking the idea that bigotry was in play. Here's some more information for you; not all bigotry is "racism" in nature.

Your analogy is foolish and ignorant. It wouldn't be depicting Hitler as "anti-aryan," but as "anti-German" (in your failed analogy). The reason your analogy is so ignorant, is because "aryan" and "German" are not analogous to "Jew" and "Israel."

Do you see it?

[onwardsand upwards]

22. Now we're getting somewhere!

I'll admit that I missed that you were making the point that the cartoon was not anti-semitic. We agree on that, then.

I thought, though, that you were making this other point, only minutes ago: by bringing two concepts into close proximity (eg: "niggardly" and, well, the N word) one can mention one and, thereby, slyly imply the other. Your rhetoric in the previous post did exactly that: by bringing in David Duke, and the word racism, in close proximity with the cartoonist. The last word in your paragraph was "racist". Did I miss that point?

I think you're also really splitting hairs with the distinction between bigotry and racism. Again, a rhetorical device to pull the argument away from it's main issue.

The foolishness and ignorance of the analogy is in the eye of the beholder -- especially if the beholder focusses on the picayune points of language, rather than the substance of the argument.

What, are you my ex-wife?

[Behind the Aegis]

23. Perhaps we are getting somewhere; we shall see.

An analogy draws comparisons, but not always the sameness. Had I used Fred Phelps and a homophobic reference, then you would have been unable to draw the erroneous conclusion you did. And yes, you did miss the point. The last word "racist" was in reference to the analogy I provided.

I am not splitting hairs in regards to racism and bigotry; you are failing to understand the difference. Racism is always "bigotry." But, bigotry, is not always "racism." Being homophobic is bigoted, but it is not racist.

The foolishness and ignorance of your "analogy" is not based on my "picayune points of language" but rather, your not understanding the language being used. For your analogy to work, you would have to understand that International Holocaust Remembrance Day does NOT commemorate the remembrance of the massacre of Israelis because Israel didn't exist. It remembers the massacre of Jews, as well as others. If this cartoon had been published on May 14th, then it would be a statement against Israel and the Israeli prime minster. For your "analogy" to work, it would have to be a cartoon published on an "aryan holiday" (if one existed) not a German one.

As for being your ex-wife, that would be difficult on the account of my having a penis. But, I have to say, I can see her point and I haven't heard a word from her.

[onwardsand upwards]

24. Yes, yes, ...

But the analogy you provided was used precisely to make the point that juxtaposition is a rhetorical device that links the two, (and, thus, the cartoonist was guilty of something by juxtaposing his cartoon with International Holocaust Remembrance Day, linking the two). Hence, using your own argument, the juxtaposition of the cartoonist and the (nominally completely independent) word "racist" links the two. QED.

Indeed -- bigotry is more general than racism. How is this relevant to the point at hand? Unless, somehow, bigotry is less of a sin that racism, or vice versa, then fixating on that distinction is splitting hairs.

Your third paragraph carries the maintained assumption that the juxtaposition of the cartoon and the particular date links the two in a special significance.

Here's the big point: the current Israeli administration is brutal towards the Palestinians. The cartoon points that out. Complaining about the timing is just a distraction.

Have a good night ...

[OldEurope]

6. It is the blood that makes it antisemitic.

Over hundreds of years antisemitism and pogroms were justified with the "argument" that jews would use the blood of newborn christian babies for some hidden rituals from hell. Hence it is antisemitic to show a jew using the blood of others to erect a wall. One can surely critizise the policies of Israel and show Netanyahu as a really evîl man. But you should not do this by using antisemitic stereotypes.

[leveymg]

10. He isn't drinking it. This isn't even remotely "blood libel." eom

[marble falls]

8. The blood here is not about the "Blood Libel", its about the killing of Palestinians. Arabs .....

bleed when bombed at night in their sleep or when their homes are bulldozed while they're inside, or when shot while they use slingshots.

[leveymg]

9. Grotesque, yes. But, anti-Netanyahu & anti-Occupation Wall is not anti-semitic.

Netanyahu and the Occupation are grotesque, Rupert.

[GeorgeGist]

11. Obama ...

left center.

[brett_jv]

12. If the art style has a familiar look to you ...

It's probably because Scarfe did the album cover, and the cartoons in the movie version of Pink Floyd: The Wall.

The second I saw the picture I knew who it was by before I read the article.

I find it to be a powerful image (but I'm not going to comment on the politics of it since it's such a sensitive matter to some) & I'm shocked that any outlet owned by Murdoch let it slip into their publication.

It's a bit 'over the top' for a newspaper ... I don't think that's an appropriate medium for it's display.

Now, displayed on protest signs of pro-Palestinian demonstrators ... it'd be the dog's bollocks for that purpose.

[onwardsand upwards]

17. Thanks for the Pink Floyd Wall connection

It does help to put the cartoon into perspective.

I agree that it's amazing that this cartoon managed to slip by the Murdochracy.

I disagree that a newspaper is not an appropriate medium for addressing controversial issues. That's actually what newspapers are for, and why they are given special legal protection. Unfortunately, it's so rare to see, these days, that some people are shocked when they see it.

[DavidWD72]

13. The toon is grotesque but is only anti apartheid.

Better to call Bibi on his bullshit.

[Ash_F]

14. I wonder how he feels about all those cartoons with Middle Easterners strapped with bombs?

Also grotesque?