Im not arguing that the holocaust is only used in relation to Jews, Judaism or the Jewish state, im saying that if Israel wasn’t a Jewish state it wouldn’t be used to describe that situation. The situation isn’t anything like The Holocaust, or the Balkans. There were parallels between what happened in the Balkans and during the Holocaust. There isn’t parallels between what happened in the Balkans and what is happening in the Israel-palestine conflict.

Personally I wouldn’t agree it was ethnic cleansing, a genocide or anything more complex than a plain and simple land grab. What Israel is doing isn’t worse than what has happened in pretty much every conflict that has happened ever, they are simply a westernised, democratic state which means people whether intended or not hold them to a higher standard. What they are doing isn’t worse than some of the things which happened in Sri Lanka for instance. I wouldn’t agree that it was on the level of what happened in the Balkans. Im not defending what they are doing, im just trying to put it in some sort of perspective.

Because I would, im afraid, find it anti-semitic, to use the Holocaust, and the history of Jewish persecution, as a stick to beat Israel for something which isn’t a holocaust. There are Jews, who don’t support Israel, that lived through the Holocaust, and they shouldn’t have the memory of their suffering and the deaths of their friends and families, appropriated as an insult by those who disagree with the state of Israel towards the state of Israel.

Well indeed.

It's not as if the state of Israel is actually trying to gently persuade those swarthy Arab types to just up and leave their homes and land peacefully now, is it?

After all, they actually want to buy the land and homes – it's not as though they're stealing it. Or bombing little children's head off with their ever-so-sexy jets and 'smart' bombs, is it? Obviously, if they were doing things like that, it might be a bit more than a "land grab", wouldn't it?

And they didn't start the process of creating the state of Israel by being terrorists did they? They didn't for instance, poison wells, did they? They didn't shoot British soldiers in the back of the heads like cowards, did they? They didn't bomb hotels, did they?

That wasn't them, now was it?

Because at the end of the day, you're such a decent progressive, right-on geezer that you wouldn't remotely support or excuse things like that, now would you? After all, you've told us, at length, just how much you detest those nasty terrorists (while, entirely coincidentally, refusing to say whether you thought Mandela was just such a one because old Maggie said so).

What do you think, incidentally, about sonic booms that cause miscarrriages? Would you do more of them? After all, it could reduce the birth rate amongst those nasty Arabs.

Could you explain why razing orchards to the ground is A Good Thing? Because some people are confused, and think it's not very nice – indeed, that it's almost 'terrorist' behaviour.

How about detention without trial? Are you okay with that?

And collective punishment – now obviously, the Nazis set the standard, so perhaps you could explain why your support of it, when carried out by the state of Israel, differs utterly and completely from what the Nazis did.

What arrant nonsense. You either didn't understand my post or have deliberately ignored the point I was making.

I see no benefit in further engagement with you on this issue, as you clearly fall into one of the two groups I mentioned at the end of my post.

You're just a damned sight more disciplined than me, who acts like a bleedin' terrier with a bone.

Looks like the peace-loving State of Israel have upped the stakes in the Syrian conflict:

[url=http://news.sky.com/story/1045063/israel-strike-hit-military-centre-syria-claimsIsrael bombs "research facility" inside Syria[/url

This could turn out bad, very bad, for all concerned, including us.

Comes to something when Syria are claiming the moral high ground though

Thank you for that exquisitely embroidered load of bollox that resolutely ignores the other side of the argument.

I am finding it increasingly hard to credit that you actually believe what you are writing. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's analyse that, shall we?

"Reminiscent of some clearly anti-semitic imagery..."

IN WHAT WAY? The cartoon contains images of
(a) the oppressor. That is 100% clearly Netanyahu. It is him. It is not drawn in any way reminiscent of anti-semitic imagery, he is not demonised, or given prominent "jewish" features or turned into a devil, it is a pretty much standard caricature type drawing which emphasises features enough to make it 100% clear that it is him.

(b) the oppressed. Indeed, I can see how some could compare some of that imagery with some of the jew-demonisation images of history; but whether or not that is the case, or intention, the point you miss is that, in this case, as in the case of Nazi cartoons, those persons are the VICTIMS. The irony is that the Nazis didn't see them as victims, rather devils, but it doesn't change the fact.

You have thus turned the cartoon, with logic, on its head. The only way you could reasonably object to it is if you believed that Scarfe was demonising the people in the wall, and praising the construction of a barrier with or over their dead bodies.


WHAT misunderstanding, though? Several have pointed out that the ambiguity in the situation is nothing to do with Scarfe and 100% down to the choice of date of publication. So the maximum Scarfe needed to do was point that simple fact out. Which he has. What ELSE then could you be talking about? Are you able to actually articulate this "misunderstanding" that you think exists? If not, then I think the conversation has gone as far as it can, and you need to accept that you are arguing from a Black Knight position.

I haven’t turned the cartoon on its head, I don’t find it offensive. My argument has always been I can see people would be offended by the use of that imagery to demonise Netenyahu.

An analogue I would use be if someone used slave imagery in a cartoon about Robert Mugabe. Robert Mugabe is a bad man, horrible person, doesn’t really deserve protection, and I doubt many Zimbabweans never mind the wider black community have a particularly high opinion of him. However I would still accept that slave imagery or imagery which recollects slave imagery could offend Zimbabweans and some in the wider black community if used in a cartoon which insults Robert Mugabe, and where the intention was only insult him and his policies. Would I expect anyone to apologise to him? No, would I expect anyone to apologise to anyone in the wider community who found using that as a tool to denigrate him offensive? Yes.

The ambiguity is in using imagery reminiscent to that previously used to denigrate a whole community to denigrate one individual.

I think if we were in a perfect world where anti-semitism doesn’t exist, and the holocaust wasn’t in living memory, and cartoons which did have anti-semitic intentions were being published regularly in the arab world and by the far-right in the western world, where this image existed in isolation then I would accept that it would be difficult to find offense in it. As we don’t I don’t think it a stretch for people to misinterpret a cartoon which is reminiscent of anti-semitic imagery as anti-semitic. What is to gain by not addressing that by saying, “ this image wasn’t intended as anti-semitic, I apologise if it was misinterpreted in that way”

And whilst your defence of the image maybe correct, and your argument over why it shouldn’t be offensive may be cogent. You aren’t the arbiter of offence, neither am I, the argument isnt over whether it is or isn’t offensive, whether I should or shouldn’t be offended or whether others should or shouldn’t be offensive, it is whether there was the potential for offence even if it was misinterpreted. I find it quite rich that we have so many people telling someone else, somewhere else what they are and aren’t allowed to be offended by.

That is one hell of a hissy fit. Im not sure where you think i have said those things arent bad, or havent been done, or where i addressed or mentioned them. But it was an opportunity for you to have a go at Israel, however irrelevant and its obviously an opportunity you couldnt bring yourself to miss.

Maybe some sort of echo-chamber would be more useful for you?

Quote ="SmokeyTA"That is one hell of a hissy fit. Im not sure where you think i have said those things arent bad, or havent been done, or where i addressed or mentioned them. But it was an opportunity for you to have a go at Israel, however irrelevant and its obviously an opportunity you couldnt bring yourself to miss. Maybe some sort of echo-chamber would be more useful for you?'" Well, y'see, I get kind of wound up by people trying to pretend that the murder of innocent people, ethnic cleansing and the use of war as an electioneering tool are just nothing "more complex than a plain and simple land grab', which was what you claimed. In other words, you dismiss all these things I described (and more) to describe the behaviour of the state of Israel in that dismissive way: 'a simple land grab', FFS. Open this and find out what your "simple land grab' really means. 3.bp.blogspot.com/_mFkRlsMQAlY/S ... a-2009.jpg Or this: 4.bp.blogspot.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/S ... Victim.jpg

Quote ="SmokeyTA"That is one hell of a hissy fit. Im not sure where you think i have said those things arent bad, or havent been done, or where i addressed or mentioned them. But it was an opportunity for you to have a go at Israel, however irrelevant and its obviously an opportunity you couldnt bring yourself to miss. Maybe some sort of echo-chamber would be more useful for you?'" Well, y'see, I get kind of wound up by people trying to pretend that the murder of innocent people, ethnic cleansing and the use of war as an electioneering tool are just nothing "more complex than a plain and simple land grab', which was what you claimed. In other words, you dismiss all these things I described (and more) to describe the behaviour of the state of Israel in that dismissive way: 'a simple land grab', FFS. Open this and find out what your "simple land grab' really means. 3.bp.blogspot.com/_mFkRlsMQAlY/S ... a-2009.jpg Or this: 4.bp.blogspot.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/S ... Victim.jpg

Quote ="Mintball"Well, y'see, I get kind of wound up by people trying to pretend that the murder of innocent people, ethnic cleansing and the use of war as an electioneering tool are just nothing "more complex than a plain and simple land grab', which was what you claimed. In other words, you dismiss all these things I described (and more) to describe the behaviour of the state of Israel in that dismissive way: 'a simple land grab', FFS. Open this and find out what your "simple land grab' really means. 3.bp.blogspot.com/_mFkRlsMQAlY/S ... a-2009.jpg Or this: 4.bp.blogspot.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/S ... Victim.jpg'" Why are you equating how complex something is to how morally acceptable it is?

Quote ="Mintball"Well, y'see, I get kind of wound up by people trying to pretend that the murder of innocent people, ethnic cleansing and the use of war as an electioneering tool are just nothing "more complex than a plain and simple land grab', which was what you claimed. In other words, you dismiss all these things I described (and more) to describe the behaviour of the state of Israel in that dismissive way: 'a simple land grab', FFS. Open this and find out what your "simple land grab' really means. 3.bp.blogspot.com/_mFkRlsMQAlY/S ... a-2009.jpg Or this: 4.bp.blogspot.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/S ... Victim.jpg'" Why are you equating how complex something is to how morally acceptable it is?

I'm also not the Pope, nor a giraffe. Unless I had claimed to be, that's a weird comment.

You are losing it completely in your attempts to plug the holes in your case. I did not claim it shouldn't be offensive. Indeed, probably the majority of political and satirical cartoons are inevitably going to offend someone. I really don't know how you could have made such a basic mistake; do you, for example, believe I would think Netanyahu wouldn't be offended by the cartoon?


Again, who said it was? As I have just said, most cartoons of the genre are "offensive" in the general sense that they take a swipe at some target or other, who is highly likely to take offence. It is also not the point of them.


Absolutely not. For reasons which include the ones stated above. Indeed, if you were right, Scarfe might as well publish a general apology pretty much every cartoon he sketches.


I haven't found anyone doing any such thing. I must have missed it. Do you really believe this is happening? It isn't.

Nobody said you were, why would you bring this up? Blah blah blah blah blah

You see its very easy when we quote part of a sentence to change it and then argue against it, and pretend somehow you are 'winning'

As i told you before, if thats what you want to do, you are free to do so but i dont need to be here for it.

If you really do want me to be here for it, im a patient guy and happy to help. So lets cut to the chase, you tell me what argument you want me to make, Ill make it, you can argue against it feel like a 'winner' and go home happy. It will probably save us wasting some time..........

FFS, the thread is [uabout[/u a cartoon which was having a go at Israel because of its "bad things".
So, how is mentioning those "bad things" irrelevant?

Actually, the cartoon was having a go at Netanyahu specifically. As stated by Scarfe himself.

The fairly obvious answer would be that nobody is disputing those things happening or anyone’s right to criticise them. There is no purpose served in mintball’s response (which addressed nothing I said) by listing them, other than giving Minty a chance to vent about her pet cause and to have this thread fall in to the usual anti-Israel mud-slinging echo-chamber that all Israel related threads on here descend into.

And el barbudos post does, quite clearly, show how the target of a cartoon can be misinterpreted. Though we were all apparently supposed to be pretending that only the professionally outraged could have possibly misinterpreted the cartoon.

There you go, you've run out of arguments, so instead of trying to respond to them, you switch to bleating and whining. And presumably think nobody will notice.

But they do. If you don't want to advance an argument against mine, then that is up to you. The ball's either in your court, or if you like, boot it out of the ground in a fit of pique.

I have no interest in defending arguments you have made by only quoting part of my sentences. They aren’t the arguments I have made, they aren’t ones I would bother defending.

You have flat out ignored parts of my argument, and even when you havent you have only quoted parts of my sentences and ignored the rest. You have also argued that if someone ignores an argument it is because they cant respond to it. Ill leave you to draw the obvious conclusion.............

Excuse me?
I am perfectly well aware that the target of the cartoon was Netanyahu (indeed, I said so in an earlier post), so there was no misinterpretation and you are wrong again.

My point (which you seem to have misinterpreted, probably deliberately) is that those "bad things", perpetrated by the state of Israel, under Netanyahu's leadership, are essential to the meaning of the cartoon.

The professionally outraged British Jews did not misinterpret the cartoon, they knew perfectly well what it was about. They took offence at the imagery of the wall of bodies.

You see, I've just quoted part of one of your sentences. It is a self-contained snippet, which says all one needs to know to understand it. If you'd written another 50 pages, nobody would need to read the rest to understand either your point, or my response to that point.

It's like if I answered exam questions on The Origin Of Species, or whatever. If each time I wanted to run an argument about something I'd read there, Id had to quote the whole feckin book, it wouldn't really work, now would it?

Are you really this stupid, or are you just feigning it for effect?

The target is the State of Israel and their acts under Netenyahu, rather than Netenyahu on his own. Only somebody being deliberately obtuse would argue that criticism of the acts of the state of Israel under Netenyahu’s leadership isn’t a criticism of the state of Israel aswell, especially when the title of said criticism is mentions Israel by name, but not Netenyahu. You can run around in circles all you want, jumping between the criticism being of an individual, and then to the acts of the state under the individual all you want. The fact you cant stick to one of them simply proves my point that there is potential for different interpretations.

And to address your point regarding the bad things, I can only reiterate that because nobody is disputing that ‘bad things’ happen, nor that they were ‘bad things’, listing the ‘bad things’ added nothing to the debate, weren’t relevant or needed and achieved nothing other than giving one poster a chance to unload about how much she dislikes them, That is irrelevant.
It is quite clear that the ‘bad things’ maybe relevant to the cartoon, they aren’t relevant to the debate we were having about it.

When did you answer an exam question on The Origin of Species? I dont believe you, prove it.

You see, I've just quoted part of one of your sentences. It is a self-contained snippet. Yet because i took out the context both before and after it, it completely changed what you had tried to communicate. This allowed me to argue against that self-contained snipped without actually addressing your argument at all.

I also ignored the rest of, this allowed me pretend it didnt happen, but frankly it's as utterly pointless as it is boring to be in a conversation where that is happening.

Hooray, at last.


Quite so.
Which begs the question why you feigned belief that I had misunderstood the cartoon.


Tedious and "deliberately obtuse" twaddle ... you knew exactly what was meant.


Nope, the "bad things" are essential to the meaning of the cartoon. The depiction of the "bad things" (i.e. the wall of bodies) is precisely from whence the offence was taken. To discuss the alleged offensiveness without reference to what caused the offence would be utterly meaningless.

Are you arguing just for the sake of it?