Anshel Pfeffer writes:
A cartoon that appeared in this London's Sunday
Times this week depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu building a
wall with blood-red colored cement, trapping in between the bricks
Palestinian-looking figures, is causing the latest is-it-or-is-it-not-anti-Semitism
furor.
The usual suspects have all weighed in: the
Anti-Defamation League [whose business it is not], the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and Israel's
ambassador to the United Kingdom [at least arguably likewise], clamoring for the venerable cartoonist Gerald
Scarfe's head and asking how the pro-Israel Sunday Times's proprietor, Rupert
Murdoch, could allow such a travesty.
The accusation is straightforward enough.
Scarfe's drawing is classic anti-Semitism using typical motifs of Judeophobia,
and is doubly hateful for having appeared on international Holocaust
Remembrance Day.
It is hard to argue that 68 years after the
liberation of Auschwitz, the hatred of Jews has disappeared from the civilized
nations of western Europe, but there are more than enough real manifestations
of racism and xenophobia, directed at Jews and other religious and ethnic groups
in Britain and the rest of the continent, for us to be spending our efforts
confronting. Pillorying Scarfe and his cartoon cheapens a noble cause, as this
was not anti-Semitic by any standard. Here are four reasons why.
1. It is not directed at Jews: There
is absolutely nothing in the cartoon which identifies its subject as a Jew. No
Star of David or kippa, and though some commentators have claimed Netanyahu's
nose in the cartoon is over-sized, at most this is in line with Scarfe's style
(and that of cartoonists) of slightly exaggerating physical features. Jew-noses
are prevalent in truly anti-Semitic cartoons that routinely appear in Arab
newspapers - you can find them easily on the web. They are big, bulbous and
hooked snouts, and look nothing like Netanyahu's nose a-la-Scarfe. Furthermore,
Netanyahu is an Israeli politician who was just elected by a quarter of Israeli
voters, not a Jewish symbol or a global representative of the Jews.
2. It does not use Holocaust imagery:
It has become generally accepted - justifiably I think - that comparing
Israel's leaders and policies to those of the Third Reich is borderline, if not
full-on anti-Semitism. Not only because there is no comparable genocide in
human history, but because choosing it to describe the actions of the Jewish
state is a nasty slur identifying Israelis as the successors of the Holocaust's
victims turned into perpetrators of a second Holocaust. But there is nothing in
Scarfe's cartoon that can put the Holocaust in mind. Perhaps someone thinks that
the wall should remind us of the ghetto, but don't forget, Scarfe is the
original designer of Pink Floyd's The Wall. Should the Sunday Times have not
published the cartoon on International Holocaust Memorial Day? Only if one
believes that is a day in which Israeli politicians have immunity from being
caricatured. Such a belief would certainly cheapen the memory of the Shoah. The
Sunday Times, as it names indicates, appears only on Sundays and this was the
end of elections week in Israel - when else did you expect them to feature a
cartoon of Netanyahu?
3. There was no discrimination:
If Gerald Scarfe had been a benign and gentle artist, treating the subjects of
his cartoons with due respect and reverence, sharpening his pencil only on
Israeli and Jewish figures, there would be grounds here for assuming he was
tainted by the most ancient of hatreds. Anyone who has had even a casual glance
at Scarfe's oeuvre of over half a century knows that is not the case.
Netanyahu's depiction is grossly offensive and unfair, but that is only par for
the course for any politician when Scarfe is at his drawing-board. Scarfe has
spent his entire career viciously lampooning the high and mighty - Netanyahu is
in illustrious company.
4. This is not what a blood libel looks like:
Some have claimed that the blood-red cement Netanyahu is using in the cartoon
to build his wall indicates a blood libel motif. Well of course it's blood but
is anyone seriously demanding that no cartoon reference to Israeli or Jewish
figures can contain a red fluid? The classic European blood libel, like many
other classic European creations, had a strict set of images which must always
contain a cherubic gentile child sacrificed by those perfidious Jews, his blood
to be used for ritual purposes. It was a direct continuation of the
Christ-killer myth. Scarfe's cartoon has blood-cement but no blood libel
components - it almost seems he was careful not to include any small children
among his Palestinian figures (one of the eight is arguably an adolescent) so
as not to have any sort of libel scenery. The blood libel was a terrible
feature of Jewish life in Europe up until the beginning of the 20th century,
and the myth still occasionally emerges from between the cracks in some East
European backwaters to this day. To ascribe Scarfe's cartoon with any of its
features distorts another chapter of Jewish history.
David, suggest you read The Pinnacle of Hatred the Blood Libel and the Jews by Darren O'Brien and bring yourself up to date. This is blood libel mutation without doubt "leader" of Jews using the blood and flesh of people (if not Palestinians) for disgraceful purposes beyond the killing itself. Ahuman monsterous behaviour performed by anti-humans is the message, this time for the first time since 2009 and Aftonbladet appearing in western as opposed to Arab newspapers.
ReplyDeleteTake it up with Ha'aretz.
ReplyDeleteWhen the only person whom you can find to agree with you is Rupert Murdoch...