I keep noticing these little digs at Jews from certain quarters for not being pro-Israel and/or hawkish enough. Apparently Jews are obliged to push a neo-con agenda in order to be accepted as equals. Nasty stuff. Not that anybody here cares.
Of course the neocon agenda. Here's a little snippet for you Discredited Andrew. At our 1980 Annual General Meeting at an undisclosed location, those of us who favoured calling it the Protocols of the Neocon Elders of Zion were only narrowly outmaneuvered by those preferring to call it the Neocon Agenda. Basically, the Neocon Agenda camp were not at all suggesting any break with the agenda of the early 20th century Protocols, rather they wanted a name that would lull enough of the "goyim" into unwittingly acquiescing to that agenda without glimpsing any linkage or continuity between the early 20th c Protocols and the contemporary manifesto outlining our nefarious machinations.
We are succeeding in this ruse and so you Discredited Andrew and those like you who truly grasp the linkage between the Neocon Agenda and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have a steep uphill climb to convince the masses of our nefarious schemes. You have your work cut out for you. Good luck with that.
Murdoch would not know irony if it bit him in his rear. He may have been sarcastic when he asked why Jewish-owned newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times are so critical of Israel, but irony is beyond a bully like Murdoch
Of course, disliking Rupert Murdoch automatically means he is incapable of comprehending or employing irony. And why just stop at irony, disliking Rupert Murdoch must also automatically mean he is incapable of smiling, laughing or crying.
The overwhelming impression I got from listening to Steve Bell's appearance on the Today programme was that a) he was way out of his depth and does not understand properly what antisemitism is - certainly not the blood libel - and b) he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
From the PCC ruling on Steven Bells puppet Cartoon:
"Under the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Code, newspapers ‘must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or to any physical or mental illness or disability’. The terms of the Clause do not, however, cover references to groups or categories of people, such as Jewish people in general. While the Commission acknowledged that many complainants considered the article to have been anti-Semitic and prejudicial toward Jewish people as a group, therefore, it was unable to establish a breach of the Code on this basis."
This suggests that they dont view anti-semitism as racism as they see Jews as a group, not a race.
So something could actually be deemed to be anti-semitic and wouldn't breach the PCC code so they wouldnt rule on it.
Perhaps this is why Mr Bell and his fellow travellers keep getting away with this crap.
While the Commission acknowledged that many complainants considered the article to have been anti-Semitic and prejudicial toward Jewish people as a group, therefore, it was unable to establish a breach of the Code on this basis." On that basis the PCC would have no problem with Motoons or publishing "Charlie Hebdo" as a guest writer.
In fairness I think political cartoons are shit in general.
By its nature characature attracts 'artists' who see others purely in terms of skin colour, hooked or flat noses, ginger hair, big ears, buck teeth, squinted eyes or an actual disability.
Physical characature is the art of demonising those who don't conform to the Aryan ideal: once you've made them physically abhorent it's easy to characterise them as wicked, corrupt, manipulative, sexually perverse, etc.
Bell is a self-righteous bullying pillock. He lost control on the Today programme when debating with a dignified Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle, and he's still fuming with shame and embarrassment.
And now he's making an even bigger tit of himself. He can dish it out, but the poor fellow can't take it. Nice to see him being on the receiving end for a change.
These new cartoons go a step further than Bell's last Netanyahu cartoon - in addition to using the puppetmaster trope again, he also defiantly asserts his right to use it, while mocking the idea that anti-Semitic tropes even exist.
He's really not even trying to keep his mask from slipping anymore.
I realize this wasn't his intent, but in that first comic strip, he's actually undermining the position of those who think like him. He probably believes he's saying that the press can't be anti-Israel because it's Jewish owned, but it can just as easily be read the other way: i.e. how can the press be "jewish-owned" if it's consistently anti-Israel, which in Britain, seems pretty much to be the case, whereas, also in Britain, the press ISNT primarily Jewish owned. (Actually, it isn't primarily Jewish owned anywhere, but that's another story.)
I do of course recognize that the figures as they're drawn lend themselves to the interpretation Bell wanted, but given the fact that the British press does take an anti-israel line most of the time and that it isn't Jewish owned, the latter interpretation is more accurate (in my opinion, anyway).
In fairness to steve Bell, he doesn't only hate Jews. He hates Brits, Americans, tories, the labour party, and anyone who isn't a quasi-progressive ultra-liberal pro-Islamist f*ckwit like him. So that leaves a few Guardian readers and writers, basically.
I'd suggest that Steve Bell is giving the finger to his critics.
Further, I suspect that he might be making an extremely pertinent point, i.e. that it's very odd indeed that many people - folk from various ethic, national and religious backgrounds, but who share very similar political beliefs - will go absolutely berserk about certain forms of antisemitic tropes, but find excuses or generally tut-tut and mildly fingerwag others.
For instance - isn't it odd that there's such a massive outcry when little-known cartoonists draw politicians with puppets or blood and so on, but barely any upset at all from the same people when Rupert Murdoch, the most powerful media figure on Earth, starts blathering about Jewish-controlled media?
I mean, that is odd, isn't it? Rupert Murdoch has a global reach, in media terms, whereas 99.9% of the populace of the UK will never even see a Steve Bell cartoon.
Which would certainly lead me to believe that the entire issue may have more to do with heavily-politicised bullshit than it does with any matter of principle.
Does Steve Bell believe that? I've no idea, but I suspect he'd be correct if he did. It would certainly mean that he isn't laughing at anti-semitism, so much as he's laughing at his critics as individuals, for being mendacious, opportunistic fannies. Which is fair enough, in at least half the cases I've seen, I'd say.
It's not impossible that Bell thinks he is making this deeply ironic point. But successful irony depends on the ironist having understood what it is he is trying to be ironic about. Otherwise he seems dim-witted or incomprehensible.
You might think about that in your own case.
By the way, since satirists are supposed to get us to laugh at the ridiculousness of nasty opinions, rather than just feel deeply shocked and outraged, it's rather a pity that Bell doesn't try to get as to "laugh at antisemitism" but rather to jeer or otherwise emote "with antisemitism".
It's not impossible that Bell thinks he is making this deeply ironic point.
I'd say it's fairly clear that Bell is saying - screw Murdoch, screw Stephen Pollard in particular and screw the type of militant radge that hangs about in HP comments threads, detecting racism all over the place, but with convenient frequency in the behaviours of folk they just happen to violently disagree with anyway. Murdoch having previously made comments that would land non-right-wing-nutters in deep hassle with such folks is just a club to hit you and your political fellow-thinkers with.
I think Bell's a bit of an arse, as it happens. He could've made his point - that every Israeli assault on wherever turns into a feeble political charade worldwide, as western leaders automatically side with Netanyahu or his predecessor for self-interested reasons, IIRC - without the whiffy puppet analogy, and that once brought up on it he should've shown a bit of humility. Very clearly, he thinks that his cartoon was of a piece with the way he'd treat any other politician in such circumstances, and that his critics are basically politically-motivated bullshitters, rather than upstanding anti-racist crusaders.
There's more than a ring of truth to this, by the way, but there are diplomatic ways to phrase reasonable arguments that are guaranteed to enrage people who are already pissed. Instead, he's reacted to the Scarfe nonsense by basically extending a middle finger to the lot of his critics. It's an arsey, childish and counter-productive way to deal with the situation, but he's always struck me as that kind of guy. I'm often like that myself.
That said, this kind of thing didn't used to happen. The usual crowd here are saying that this is all because the Graun is the new Sturmer, and who knows? Perhaps they hold black cabals of violent bigotry, just out of the throbbing black hate in their middle-class, metropolitan hearts.
On the other hand, I'd ask you to consider for a moment that quite a few folk in the media now seem to be treating these kinds of complaints not as a serious issue, but much as they would bitching from any kind of loony minority interest group with a bee in its bonnet that accuses them of Nazism.
Assuming I'm right about that - and I'm reasonably sure that I am - how do you think the fight for Israel's good name and anti-racism in the UK is going, guys? Is the instant-Nazi-accusation-without-pause-for-thought mode of argument working well, would you say? Having the desired results?
And if it isn't, well, maybe it's time for a change of tack, eh?
when Rupert Murdoch, the most powerful media figure on Earth, starts blathering about Jewish-controlled media?
You are being disingenuous. Murdoch was mocking the 'anti-zionist' trope that Jews control the media (as well as politicians etc.) and that as a result critics of Israel are 'silenced'. His tweet is a comment on the absurdity of that trope - in the first place anti-Israel critics aren't silenced in the media; in the second, Jewish people in the media are if anything accomodating, not obstructing of criticism of Israel. And in the third case, the source of the tweet itself is a reminder that obviously Jews don't control the media - Murdoch himself is not a Jew (although countless 'anti-zionists' have assumed he is), and in fact he's the most powerful media magnate in the world.
By contrast, when Steve Bell depicted the Israeli PM as puppeting British politicians, he wasn't mocking or ironising the trope of Jewish control. He was simply re-using it.
I mean, that is odd, isn't it? Rupert Murdoch has a global reach, in media terms,
Yes, and I am sure he knows that. It's only odd if you insist on reading Murdoch, of all people, as truly arguing that Jews control the global media, rather than taking the piss of that trope.
Or, reading exactly what he tweeted, possibly wondering why it is that Jewish owned "liberal" publications and, for that matter journalists like Tom Friedmann who scribbles for the NYT, are generally more critical of Israel than non-Jewish owned "liberal" media. The flip side of this is that the perception out there is that if these publications held Israel to the same standards as they hold most other nations, it wouild be seen as soft-pedalling due to bias.
The flip side of this is that the perception out there is that if these publications held Israel to the same standards as they hold most other nations, it wouild be seen as soft-pedalling due to bias.
Yes - because (some of these) these liberal organs (ooo missus) are owned by Jews and / or have 'a disproportionate' number of journalists who are Jews working in them, they must be seen as attacking Israel fiercely lest they be accused of bias or worse (5th columnblahblah, Israelfirstersblahblah).
He blathered Jewish +owned+ media was consistently anti-Israel. He was scarcely using an antisemitic trope thereby.
And that's fairly convenient, isn't it? Google seems to disagree, since a cursory search brings up a frighteningly long list of nutters, cranks and racists.
So if Steve Bell starts talking seriously about Jewish-owned media's anti-Israel bias, he'll get a free pass, will he? Or is it only not a trope within the very specific context of "Jewish-owned media" being discussed by a man who just coincidentally happens to be a highly belligerent, right-wing fan of bombing the Palestinians and everyone else?
Because you know, that looks pretty convenient too.
[So if Steve Bell starts talking seriously about Jewish-owned media's anti-Israel bias, he'll get a free pass, will he?]
Murdoch didn't get a 'free pass' because he wasn't seen as saying anything particularly harmful, even if anecdotally most Jews I know would have raised eyebrows about its being true, anecdotally most Jews' I know sympathising with Israel.
It depends what he means by being 'anti'-Israel: 'critical' or 'genuinely hostile.' The former is unlikely to rouse much antipathy, the latter chiefly bemusement. If he meant the latter and attempted to effect some end which Jews generally thought detrimental to Israel, that might be different i.e. if they felt Murdoch was genuinely misrepresenting +them+ in some situation that mattered.
I think Murdoch just meant that (in his experience) when non-Jews such as he say or write something sympathetic to Israel, a Jewish journalist or writer will adduce a contrary argument.
Jews have a history of comporting themselves and their views with (what they regard as) the authority, since historically that has ensured their survival. Ironically sometimes a non-Jew, who does not feel so constrained, will feel freer to express views sympathetic to some Jews than other Jews.This has not been an uncommon situation since the Reformation and Enlightenment, the Jewish establishment being often more rigorous in its criticisms of its own than society generally e.g. the British Board of Jewish Deputies historically often overruled or ignored grassroots sympathy for Zionism, publicly criticising it in strong terms, lest, they felt, sympathy for it brought some penalty or discrimination against (what they saw as) their Jewish charges.
Yes - the nutcases in high and low places all believe that Jews exert power via their control of the media which enables Jews and their proxy, Israel, to conceal their and its crimes which range from fomenting war to carrying out genocide.
This is either a vastly greater level of intellectual charity than is normally applied round these parts, or an incredible example of mind-reading.
It's also an exceptional raising of the bar for what is and is not suspicious, isn't it? I'm sure you'd admit that a Bell or a Scarfe would have a thousand angry Tweets shoved down their necks if they tried something similar. That's before we get onto statesmen or media figures.
you've totally lost whatever plot you may once have had. truly pathetic one doesn't need intellectual "charity" to understand Murdoch's remark was quite the OPPOSITE of anti-semitism or of Bell's supposed satire. It fairly screams out. you're embarrassing yourself.
Okay, okay. So, next time some well-known figure drops a zinger about how weirdly "the Jewish-owned media" acts during a crisis, that'll be fine.
So long as it's someone with sufficiently belligerent, bomb 'em all opinions, that is. If they said it while calling for less bombing, that would be unacceptable. More bombing though? Dandy.
Nope, you guys surely have this one right. It's surely perfectly reasonable to imply that media organs should act in a particular manner because of the ethnicity of their owners, even if media as propaganda by folk of that ethnicity was a Nazi favourite. Why, that's the OPPOSITE of racism, isn't it?
[It's surely perfectly reasonable to imply that media organs should act in a particular manner because of the ethnicity of their owners]
How did Murdoch do that?
[even if media as propaganda by folk of that ethnicity was a Nazi favourite. Why, that's the OPPOSITE of racism, isn't it?]
I don't know about 'opposite'. But it isn't necessarily racist. Racism is normally something meant as bad about a particular group.
It's true that philo-ethnicity, such as philosemitism can be a form of inverse racism. 'All Jews are wonderful' can, in its own way, be just as a pernicious as 'All Jews are awful'.
But did Murdoch do that? He just said he found Jewish authors to be anti-Israel. I'm not sure what he meant by that. I think it may have been a kind of criticism. But it was hardly a smear, unless you think it is, do you?
I think that if any public figure not known to be a rock-solid-Israel-is-awesome-bombs-away type came out and started musing on how weird it was that the "Jewish-owned" media acted in a particular way at "times of crisis", we'd find out all the dire implications of those musings in short order. If, say, Rusbridger said the same or similar, we'd hear all about the vile slurs being invoked, forever, and no amount of self-justification on his part would calm it for a second.
Is everybody going to keep pretending not to grasp this? Is extremely difficult to keep up with who's pretending not to understand what, and how transparently they're doing it, with this infuriating comments system.
You think Murdoch believes Jews control the media and use this control to cover up their crimes and that of Israel?
If I thought that, I'd have said it. I'm good like that.
I think the overwhelming majority of political and media figures on Earth would've got a Bell-sized monstering if they'd started yakking on about Jewish-owned media, from your good selves, no less. I think Murdoch not only gets a pass for this, but gets defended to the hilt, because he's a well-known right-wing mentalist with a raging passion for bombing large tracts of the Middle East.
And further, I'm saying that this is because Rupe shares the politics of various other right-wing mentalists who have a raging passion etc. etc. because everything involved - the cartoons, the media mogul, and the highly flexible attitude towards the two - has far more to do with said mentalists and their bomb-happiness than it has to do with anything else.
"if they'd started yakking on about Jewish-owned media,"
Again, you are being dishonest by omission. He was mocking the trope that Jewish-owned press is pro-Israel. He pointed out that on the contrary, Jewish-owned press is extremely accomodating of anti-Israel sentiment - i.e. there is no Jewish zionist media conspiracy.
Bell, meanwhile, is happy to re-use the trope of Jewish control of politicians. And you've spent this whole thread evading that and taking Bell's side. As someone once said: how convenient.
I vote for both. Flying Wanker will bend over backwards to prettify and whitewash on behalf of those who employ bog standard canards targeting Jews as malevolent hegemons hindering peace and justice for their own filthy lucre and he will if necessary also resort as Carol Churchill did, to excusing the bigotry with the alibi that hey the canard that Jews run the world, or the media was only referring to particular individuals who happen to be Jewish: a bog standard response that Norman Geras recognizes as a salient feature of what he termed alibi antisemitism. Herein lies his dishonesty, because he enters the discussion with the a priori determination to whitewash and prettify Jew baiting regardless of the facts at hand in any particular instance as long as the person or persons trumpeting the canard as if it were legitimate politics as opposed to crass bigotry ridden populism are not extreme right white supremacists.
Flying Arsehole demonstrated his obstinate stupidity in this thread by continuing to insist against any semblance of reality that Rupert Murdoch's blatantly obvious dismissal of those who trumpet the Jews control the media canard is instead an instance of antisemitism.
So both: Flying Rodent is both disingenuous and a wanker. And there isn't anything particularly surprising that an arsehole would also be a wanker.
Correct. And thus in flying rodent's strange world Rupert Murdoch is an antisemite while Steve Bell, the man who depicts the Israeli PM manipulating British politicians as puppets is... someone who is not only not an anti-semite, but on the contrary an exposer of anti-semitism.
Well, that's certainly convenient that you think that, isn't it?
Otherwise, a major letter-writing, blog-spamming, email-bombing campaign would be in order, and that would mean a destructive argument with a powerful figure who agrees with your politics. That could take up a lot of time that could otherwise be spent badgering people who don't.
Why is it convenient to point out that Murdoch is capable of using irony? The man tweets the following:
Why Is Jewish owned press so consistently anti- Israel in every crisis?
To note that there are (forms of) 'press' which are owned by Jews - eg the NYT - and that such publications are consistently anti-Israel is worth commenting on in part to illuminate the idiocy of the anti-semitic mantra - 'Jews control the media' with the implication that this control enables 'the crimes of Israel to remain hidden' and in part, of course, to mock his rivals.
Why is it convenient to point out that Murdoch is capable of using irony?
Because the "it's irony" defence would last about three seconds before being ruthlessly demolished by a horde of commentators and blog commenters, if it came from the mouths of 95% of public figures?
Because it's damn strange that a guy like Stephen Pollard, who had a shouting match with Steve Bell over the content of cartoons on the nation's main news radio station just last week, wasn't aware that Murdoch had made this comment until he was told about it, today?
And because freaking out about one and dismissing the other is extremely convenient, if the aim is highly-political trolling?
Pointing out the absurdity of the trope of pro-Israel Jewish-control of the press becomes in mad flyingrodent world an example of antisemitism. Recycling the trope of Jewish control of politicians becomes... not antisemitism at all, just 'putting the finger up' at critics. Convenient indeed.