this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
28 points (91.2% liked)

United Kingdom

4105 readers
166 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sounds like the guardian wanted to get rid of him for a while. Apparently he has been involved in antisemitism incidents in the past. They don't need the controversy he brings.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OrlandoDoom@feddit.uk 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The description of the comic didn't sound anti-semetic, unless there's some anti semetic trope that I'm unaware of. Being against the state of Israel, apartheid, ethno-states and genetic cleansing of Palestinians isn't anti-semetic. Self surgery with boxing gloves actually seems rather apt imagery.

There's no mention of past anti-semetism in the article either as far as I can see, something about Tories which I don't quite understand the reference, nose rings? Is that a trope I don't understand?

Help me out here.

[–] Uranium_Green@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/guardian-steve-bell-cartoon-netanyahu/ this article goes into the past accusations a bit more, tbh I'm struggling to see it as well:

" The incident is not the first involving Bell, The Guardian and allegations of anti-Semitism against his cartoons. In 2018 he said he was censored by the newspaper’s editor, Katharine Viner, when the editorial team declined to publish a cartoon depicting a Palestinian medic shot dead by Israeli forces in a fireplace besides Netanyahu and then-prime minister Theresa May.

Bell subsequently sent the cartoon in an email to the entire Guardian editorial staff, from where it was leaked to Huffpost. Critics argued the image evoked Nazi gas chambers, which Bell responded was “the last thing on my mind when I drew it”.

Viner told The Guardian’s reader’s editor that Bell’s point “could easily have been made in a way that didn’t reference fire or ovens”.

In 2019, another of Bell’s cartoons – this time depicting Labour deputy leader Tom Watson as a witch hunter looking for anti-Semitic tropes – was blocked. In November 2020, The Guardian received 32 complaints of anti-Semitic imagery over a Bell cartoon which did make it to print and depicted Labour leader Keir Starmer holding the head of predecessor Jeremy Corbyn on a plate, alluding to the beheading of St John the Baptist. "

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Honestly what I get from here is "repeat it long enough it will start sounding true"

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

My understanding is that the cartoon is based on a cartoon of Lyndon B Johnson from decades ago. However, the cartoon uses the common metaphor of taking a "pound of flesh" from something to make it's point.

That metaphor is attributed the character Shylock from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. Shylock is considered by many to be an offensive stereotype of a Jewish person (I think it is) that is sort of "tolerated" when used in a historical context, but not otherwise. i.e. if you call a Jewish person "Shylock", expect rightly to be called a racist.

The cartoon applied to LBJ isn't offensive because, afaik, he isn't Jewish. But take the character and Netanyahu, smush them together and bam: antisemitism claims.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago

The cartoon applied to LBJ isn’t offensive because, afaik, he isn’t Jewish. But take the character and Netanyahu, smush them together and bam: antisemitism claims.

Also Johnson isn't operating on himself - he's just lifting his shirt to show the scar.