Robust debate? Murdoch apologizes for London ‘Times’ cartoon of Netanyahu as bloody obstructionist

Israel/Palestine
sundaytimes270113
Gerald Scarfe cartoon Jan. 27, 2013 Sunday Times

After The Sunday Times of London published a cartoon of a scowling Netanyahu making peace by building a wall with bricks, blood, and bodies writhing in anguish on January 27, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, all hell broke loose. The cartoon by Gerald Scarfe carries the caption ‘Israeli Election–Will Cementing Peace Continue?

Today Rupert Murdoch “took the unusual step of apologizing personally,” says the New York Times, for the cartoon, calling it “grotesque and offensive.”
While Scarfe himself says he “very much regrets” the timing of the cartoon. He didn’t realize Sunday was Holocaust Memorial Day.

Jewish groups had reacted with condemnation and outrage. The European Jewish Congress demanded The Sunday Times apologize. The Anti-Defamation League called it a blood libel and The Times of Israel reported Israel was going to demand an apology. The Board of Deputies of British Jews complained to the Press Complaints Commission.

Initially, The Sunday Times defended publication of the cartoon. Responding to an inquiry from the website The Algemeiner:

“This is a typically robust cartoon by Gerald Scarfe,” said a spokesperson for The Sunday Times, adding, “The Sunday Times firmly believes that it is not anti-Semitic. It is aimed squarely at Mr Netanyahu and his policies, not at Israel, let alone at Jewish people.”

Israeli Ambassador to London Daniel Taub had this to say:

“The newspaper should apologize for this. We’re not going to let this stand as it is,” Israeli Ambassador to London Daniel Taub told The Times of Israel in a telephone interview. “We genuinely think that a red line has been crossed and the obligation on the newspaper is to correct that.”

Taub added that he was going to meet with the newspaper’s editor “at the earliest opportunity, perhaps already today,” to express the government’s concern about a cartoon that draws “on classical anti-Semitic themes.”

In a meeting Monday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Tony Blair, the representative of the Middle East quartet who’s also a former British premier, deplored the caricature….

Responding to an outcry from Jewish groups — Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Israel office, called the cartoon “absolutely disgusting” and said it “makes all the talk of fighting anti-Semitism seem irrelevant,” and Michael Salberg of the Anti-Defamation League said “The Sunday Times has clearly lost its moral bearings — a spokesman for the newspaper told The Times of Israel Sunday the cartoon was not anti-Semitic but critical of the prime minister’s policies, as it was “aimed squarely at Mr. Netanyahu and his policies, not at Israel, let alone at Jewish people.”

For those offended by Scarfe’s cartoon of Netanyahu, check this out. How soon can we expect an apology?

bfgbxac
“I Saw A Baby Die Today” Gerald Scarfe depicts Assad

Oh and the double standard for Everything Israel is even embarrassing folks in Israel. Anshel Pfeffer in Haaretz says, “Pillorying Scarfe and his cartoon cheapens a noble cause, as this was not anti-Semitic by any standard.” 

(Hat tip Mondoweiss commenters Krauss, justicewillprevail and ritzl)

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

64 Responses

  1. Tzombo
    January 29, 2013, 10:44 am

    In this article in the International Business Times the case is made that the cartoon is a bit crude and not very funny, but definitely not anti-semitic: link to ibtimes.co.uk Gerald Scarfe’s Sunday Times Cartoon Anti-Semitic? You’re Having a Laugh

  2. FreddyV
    January 29, 2013, 10:51 am

    From what’s written here, it’s good to see Scarfe only apologising for the timing and not the content.

  3. Woody Tanaka
    January 29, 2013, 11:03 am

    The organized zionist community are such a bunch of babies. Holy crap, it’s barely even critical of the ‘yahoo, as far as these things go. And as for it being on Holocaust day… grow up. The whole world isn’t obligated to revolve its criticism of israel based this.

  4. Bumblebye
    January 29, 2013, 11:13 am

    “Another Brick in the Wall”
    link to en.wikipedia.org
    For the connection to Waters.

  5. gingershot
    January 29, 2013, 11:29 am

    It’s entirely OK to hate Israelis for what they are doing in Palestine – if Jews choose to label that ‘Anti-semitic’ then fine and dandy – the world needs more of ‘ it being entirely OK to hate Israelis for what they are doing to Palestinians’ – because THAT is what is going to stop these Israeli Jews from doing that

    This is not rocket science

    If Israelis make it politically incorrect, Anti-semitic, or even illegal to speak out against their atrocities – that is a cute little game but shouldn’t stop us from stopping them.

    If Israelis make it illegal to stop them – well isn’t that a sweet little game? – good work if you can get it – it sure makes it easy to get away with setting up and running Apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

    They laugh at the game they’re running on us – what luck for them to have ‘fools for ‘enemies’, they think

  6. Les
    January 29, 2013, 11:42 am

    Did Israel suspend its ethnic cleansing of Palestinians on International Holocaust Remembrance Day?

  7. tokyobk
    January 29, 2013, 11:56 am

    The artist was correct to apologize for the timing.

    Because of the history of Europe any image with Jews and blood is going to evoke a taint intentionally or not.

    But I think the anti-semitic charge should be saved for the most explicit and intentional cases.

    • braciole
      January 29, 2013, 12:21 pm

      It was the newspaper that decided to run it on that day not the artist, but even then there were no grounds for an apology. The name of the newspaper gives a clue!

      Haaretz published a piece explaining why it wasn’t anti-Semitic. As it is behind their pay hedge (leaky pay wall), the main points:
      1. It is not directed at Jews.
      2. It does not use Holocaust imagery.
      3. There was no discrimination.
      4. This is not what a blood libel looks like.
      When the Israeli ambassador turned up at the Foreign Office, I hope the Foreign Secretary provided a low stool for him to sit on

      BTW, Tony Blair is a c^&tish wh^%e and no one should give toss about what he thinks.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 29, 2013, 1:58 pm

        It was the newspaper that decided to run it on that day not the artist

        braciole, it’s possible the sunday edition is the only addition the times runs cartoons. this was the first sunday after the israeli elections so that likely determined the timing. it is also extremely likely editors at the times and the artist were not aware sunday was holocaust memorial day, after all..isn’t every day the equivalence of holocaust memorial day in our culture.

        therefore there was probably no ‘decision’ to run it on holocaust memorial day. there was a decision to publish it in a timely fashion as it pertained to the election, period.

        anyone deluding themselves into imagining there would not have been howls and screams coming from all corners of the established jewish community had this cartoon been published on any other day of the year needs a wake up call. but, it did add a huge boost to their argument.

        but still, how many people have the day memorized? it’s not like christmas (dec 25th!)

        that said, i agree it was appropriate for the artist to say he didn’t intend for it to be published on holocaust memorial day, because he probably didn’t. but i’m glad it worked out that way, it brought a lot of attention to the cartoon and it’s a great cartoon.

        • tokyobk
          January 29, 2013, 2:13 pm

          The artist commented that the timing was unfortunate (whoever caused it). He is correct, imo. And its further evidence of his intent (not antisemitism). As is the depiction of Assad shown here.

          This event reminds me of one in Japan in 2008 when Obama was running for president. There was a mobile phone commercial with a long standing monkey character and in this case he was at a podium promising “hope” and “change” to cheering crowds.

          Many foreign residents in Japan charged racism and many Japanese were bewildered by that charge since the monkey is often used as a stand in to depict Japanese people in a humorous way.

          Is depicting a black man as a monkey ever possible without reference to a racist legacy? Perhaps in Japan where there was not the same history, but when the ad was taken down the company acknowledged the unintended reference was not illogical on those who were offended by it.

          Artists use images. Images have histories and contexts, which an artists has to be aware of even if it is to say, I understand how that image has been used though it is not my intent here.

          People who want to shield Israel will use this but those who are against Israel’s actions should not feign innocence about why images like these will be sensitive for another century.

          Regarding Islamophobia this is pointed out here routinely.

        • Cliff
          January 29, 2013, 2:57 pm

          There is nothing antisemitic in the cartoon.

          Its just that any kind of political cartoon is going to be controversial and any controversy is spun by Zionists and even you, tokyob, as antisemitic.

          There’s a big difference between drawing Mohammed with a bomb as a turban and showing an Israeli politician, a right-wing pro-settler one at that, blocking off Gaza with chunks of Palestinians here and there.

          If this was Bush and not BiBi, no one would take seriously the accusations of anti-whatever.

          Tokyob, address the cartoon. What is antisemitic about it?

        • braciole
          January 29, 2013, 3:06 pm

          Annie – the paper is called The Sunday Times because it is a separate newspaper with a separate editor and largely separate staff rather than the Sunday edition of The Times. This is a common feature of British newspapers, for instance, The Guardian and The Observer, The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph, The Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday all have separate editors and largely separate staff***. Gerald Scarfe’s work appears in The Sunday Times, while The Times has Peter Brookes and Morten Morland as political cartoonists. So Sunday was the only day that Gerald Scarfe’s cartoon could be published (first Sunday after the Israeli elections) without losing its freshness. That Sunday was also the UKs ‘ Holocaust Memorial Day is irrelevant since the cartoon is so patently not anti-Semitic.

          And you are right, these baseless complaints have meant that far more people have seen the cartoon than would have otherwise, since it was behind The Sunday Times’ pay wall which is far less porous than Haaretz’s.

          BTW, I apologize to wh^&es everywhere for comparing them to Tony Blair as they invariably have more heart than Tony Blair ever could.

          *** – The Daily Mirror and The Sunday Mirror currently share an editor but this has only been so since 2012, before that they had separate editors but editors did move from one paper to the other though never working on both at the same time.

        • eljay
          January 29, 2013, 3:10 pm

          tokyobk, I agree with your comments. I do have a couple of questions, though. Setting aside the matter of timing:
          - Do you think a modified version of the existing cartoon could have made the same – or essentially the same – statement about Netanyahu without being offensive to sensitive Jews?
          - If ‘yes’, how do you envision that modified cartoon?

        • Annie Robbins
          January 29, 2013, 7:03 pm

          any controversy is spun by Zionists and even you, tokyob, as antisemitic.

          i guess i am not clear how you construed tokyob’s opinion from his statement.

          The artist commented that the timing was unfortunate (whoever caused it). He is correct, imo. And its further evidence of his intent (not antisemitism).

          he said it wasn’t anti semitism.

        • Annie Robbins
          January 29, 2013, 7:07 pm

          So Sunday was the only day that Gerald Scarfe’s cartoon could be published (first Sunday after the Israeli elections) without losing its freshness.

          that was my hunch braciole. hey, thanks for the info re the times.

    • Avi_G.
      January 29, 2013, 12:22 pm

      tokyobk says:
      January 29, 2013 at 11:56 am

      The artist was correct to apologize for the timing.

      Jews are so sensitive it begs the question whether the so-called persecution of centuries past was a figment of their imagination or a reality.

      • Rusty Pipes
        January 29, 2013, 2:04 pm

        Wouldn’t it be rather odd for the artist to run bloody cartoons every day but Holocaust remembrance day? As for timing, this was the week before Israel’s elections and the cartoon was about candidate Bibi’s electoral strategy.

      • tokyobk
        January 29, 2013, 2:16 pm

        Really, Avi?
        Have you read records of Jewish persecutions written by Jewish and non-Jewish historians. And what is the time frame of your (hopeful sarcastic) statement.

        • Cliff
          January 29, 2013, 2:59 pm

          How will Jews depict the present, in the future, tokyob?

          Who comprises this Jewish intellectual class? I mean, who writes what and why do we read and listen to them?

          I think you should ask yourself who is writing history today and tomorrow and what they say about anti-Semitism.

          Shouldn’t we be looking for patterns? Putting things in historical context?

          What is your approach, tokyob?

        • American
          January 29, 2013, 8:39 pm

          tokyo says:
          January 29, 2013 at 2:16 pm

          Really, Avi?
          Have you read records of Jewish persecutions written by Jewish and non-Jewish historians. And what is the time frame of your (hopeful sarcastic) statement….”

          Tko……..How would you have liked to see the walling in of Palestines portrayed in a satirical cartoon?
          Describe what you think would have been correct and still a satirical cartoon…which is the point of those kinds of political cartoons.
          Or don’t you think there should be any at all.

        • Avi_G.
          January 29, 2013, 11:12 pm

          tokyobk says:
          January 29, 2013 at 2:16 pm

          Really, Avi?
          Have you read records of Jewish persecutions written by Jewish and non-Jewish historians. And what is the time frame of your (hopeful sarcastic) statement.

          “Records” like this manufactured outrage at hand? It wasn’t so much sarcasm as it was an exercise.

          What exactly was the cartoonist supposed to do, wait a month after the elections in order to skewer Netanyahu, lest Jews the world over find the timing offensive?

          How about every time a cartoonist would like to criticize Israel he or she checks the Jewish calendar and the Israeli calendar and then marks off two weeks before and two weeks after? That way, whenever a cartoon is published, said artist won’t have to worry about the timing coinciding with one sensitive Jewish commemoration/event/holiday or another.

          Or better yet, out of respect for Jewish sensibilities, let’s just abolish and outlaw all criticism of Israel.

          Does that work for you?

        • yonah fredman
          January 30, 2013, 1:30 am

          Avi g. -”It wasn’t so much sarcasm as it was an exercise.” WTF does that mean?

          BTW- I agree with you. Criticism of this cartoon on grounds of antiSemitism and poor timing is stupid.

        • marc b.
          January 30, 2013, 5:05 pm

          that’s the point of all this wailing and gnashing of teeth, aviG et al. complete dominion over the discourse about israel and ‘the jews’ as a racial/historical category and mythological character. (the ‘sensible, objective’ TBK can’t even bring himself to merely reject the baseless critiques, he’s compelled to place the critics’ intellectual and ethical retardation into historical context) it’s not that the cartoon is ‘anti-semitic’ or is simply an unfair artistic representation of the netanyahu character; scarfe is violating a divinely granted copyright. another example of how this works is included below from a recent LRB article on the author william styron.

          Sophie’s Choice, published in 1979, was a more calculated risk, the non-Jewish author having to know he was juggling nitro in using a non-Jewish victim – a Polish Catholic – for tragic universality. In March 1979, Styron wrote to his daughter Susanna that sinister mutterings had reached him that at least one powerful Jewish organisation had it in for him, ‘that Sophie was violently anti-semitic and would be “dealt with” accordingly’. Not the sort of news a novelist wants to hear on the eve of publication. ‘Can it really be that the furor over Nat Turner [styron's historical fiction on the slave rebellion] is going to be duplicated?’ The furor turned out to be less than he feared, the most withering attacks originating from the high parapets at the New Yorker and New York Review of Books, but resentment would recur like a rash. In 1997, Nat Turner: Ten Black Writers Respond was reprinted under the even angrier title The Second Crucifixion of Nat Turner. Eventually a younger generation of African-American scholars, prominent among them Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates Jr, came round and paid respects to The Confessions of Nat Turner, and some even designated Styron the inadvertent father of the postmodern slave narrative, but by then he may have been so bruised by the initial beatdown that it wasn’t much consolation. In 1999, Cynthia Ozick published an essay in Commentary imposingly titled ‘The Rights of History and the Rights of Imagination’ that called Styron’s intent into suspicion. ‘The investigation of motive is history’s task, and here a suspicion emerges: that Sophie in Styron’s novel was not conceived as a free fictional happenstance, but as an inscribed symbolic figure, perhaps intended to displace a more commonly perceived symbolic figure – Anne Frank, let us say.’ That’s a pretty loaded insinuation. As late as 2005, Ozick, speaking at Harvard, was still condemning Styron’s decision to position a non-Jewish protagonist at the narrative centre, thereby diluting, obscuring and ultimately expunging ‘the real nature of the Holocaust’.

          in other words, according to ozick, there was no authentic non-jewish suffering arising from the nazi exterminationist project, or at least no place for it in literature, the ‘narrative center of tragic universality’ of the war experience. how funny is that? universality can only be portrayed by a specified type.

    • Shmuel
      January 29, 2013, 12:22 pm

      any image with Jews

      But Netanyahu is not “Jews”; he is Netanyahu. And nothing in the cartoon suggests otherwise.

      • tokyobk
        January 29, 2013, 2:31 pm

        Shmuel,

        I agree that is another reason why it is not an anti-semitic cartoon.

    • marc b.
      January 29, 2013, 12:54 pm

      what silly set of statements and insinuations.

      The artist was correct to apologize for the timing.

      there is nothing morally or ethically ‘correct’ about his apology. the artist apologized because he realized that some sort of deferential gesture had to be wrung from him. and tell us, are there any other ‘holidays’ on which netanyahu (who apparently is a symbol for all victims of the holocaust) can expect that his policies won’t be subject to criticism?

      Because of the history of Europe any image with Jews and blood is going to evoke a taint intentionally or not.

      the din isn’t rising ‘because of the history of europe’. it’s arising out of a specific late 20th century environment which has been constructed to defend zionism and the state of israel more particularly. would the image in a press photo of an IDF soldier shooting a palestinian woman in the head, for example, necessarily ‘evoke a taint’ (whatever the f*ck that means) of anti-semitism? it wouldn’t in my mind, and i have nothing positive to say about the mental state of someone who would associate anti-semitism with that photograph.

      But I think the anti-semitic charge should be saved for the most explicit and intentional cases.

      and so the circle of insinuation is complete. the artist should ‘apologize for the timing’ of the publication of his work (although i presume that a times editor would have had the authority to pull the cartoon if s/he wanted), but, skipping part 2 of the smear, the substance of the cartoon really is *wink* anti-semitic. public exploitation of the charge in this instance, however, is counterproductive due to the potential for overuse of the tactic.

      what a piece of work.

      • tokyobk
        January 29, 2013, 2:17 pm

        There is no insinuation in anything I wrote.

        The artist is correct that the timing blunted his work by mingling it with a specific legacy that was not his intent.

        The work is not anti-semitic.

        • marc b.
          January 29, 2013, 2:57 pm

          There is no insinuation in anything I wrote.

          pffft. psssftt.

          The artist is correct that the timing blunted his work by mingling it with a specific legacy that was not his intent.

          i don’t see where scarfe used any of your ‘blunting’ and ‘intermingling with a specific legacy’ terminology in the much regrets link above. if he did elsewhere, please provide the link. his sentiments as expressed second hand are pretty bland quite frankly, seemingly cut and paste from some editor’s ‘apologies’ file.

          The work is not anti-semitic.

          so why did you reference the ‘proper uses of the anti-semitic charge’ at all then in your introductory comment? this is typical horse bleep. scarfe depicts a head of state in a much less gory image than could be warranted given netanyahu’s policies, and somehow the cartoon is turned into yet another opportunity to expound on the ‘blood libel’ in the main stream press, and for you to drone on about the history of anti-semitism in europe. this cartoon has nothing to do with either.

        • marc b.
          January 29, 2013, 5:58 pm

          oh there i see his apparently personal response to the controversy. you’re right in a manner of speaking. i guess a bit of groveling is good for the soul.

          Statement from Gerald Scarfe
          Posted on January 29, 2013
          Mr Scarfe has asked that we issue the following statement following the publication of his cartoon in the Sunday Times.

          First of all I am not, and never have been, anti-Semitic. The Sunday Times has given me the freedom of speech over the last 46 years to criticise world leaders for what I see as their wrong-doings. This drawing was a criticism of Netanyahu, and not of the Jewish people: there was no slight whatsoever intended against them. I was, however, stupidly completely unaware that it would be printed on Holocaust Day, and I apologise for the very unfortunate timing.

          link to geraldscarfe.com

        • American
          January 29, 2013, 8:44 pm

          tokyobk says:

          The artist is correct that the timing blunted his work by mingling it with a specific legacy that was not his intent”….

          tok….your legacy is not everyone’s legacy…..it’s in your mind, not everyone’s elses.

      • tokyobk
        January 29, 2013, 2:19 pm

        “the din isn’t rising ‘because of the history of europe’. it’s arising out of a specific late 20th century environment which has been constructed to defend zionism and the state of israel more particularly. would the image in a press photo of an IDF soldier shooting a palestinian woman in the head, for example, necessarily ‘evoke a taint’ (whatever the f*ck that means) of anti-semitism? it wouldn’t in my mind, and i have nothing positive to say about the mental state of someone who would associate anti-semitism with that photograph.”

        I agree with you completely about this example and it does not in anyway negate my comments about this specific cartoon.

    • American
      January 29, 2013, 1:04 pm

      Considering the history of Israel, past and current, I can’t say the image of ‘ ‘Israeli’ Jews and blood, or Netanyhau specifically, is inappropiate re today’s events.
      Israel can’t skate on it’s crimes by invoking the nazis, Jews and anti semitism forever……although they keep trying.

    • traintosiberia
      January 29, 2013, 1:25 pm

      May be that is s the time (Holocaust anniversary ) when Nethahooo and other Jewiish leaders should refrain from hollering and yelling at the World for not shedding Iranian blood.

    • W.Jones
      January 29, 2013, 1:57 pm

      Toby,

      What do you think about the fact that the picture of Assad was even more explicit- with Assad actually drinking the blood from a US-backed civil war?

  8. Krauss
    January 29, 2013, 11:58 am

    Another important detail to remember is that, as you alluded to but perhaps not fully fleshed out, British caricature culture is far more vitriolic and full of gore when compared to American caricatures.

    Blair was often portrayed as a ghoulish bloodsucker after the Iraq disaster.

    This is an important context and I saw only an AP report mention this, everyone else ignored it alltogether. Also, I do feel sympathy for the editor of the Times. He can’t do much when the owner is looking to be with the cocktail crowd on Manhattan. If the price to pay is political consistency then so be it. Besides, after Murdoch’s “Jewish media” comment he knows he’s already deep in the red, so he has that incentive too.

  9. seafoid
    January 29, 2013, 12:22 pm

    I kept a newspaper photo of holocaust memorial day 1996 that showed a crew of israeli soldiers taking a break from the indiscriminate shelling of innocent civilians in Lebanon to honour the memory of innocent Jewish civilian victims of ww2. I guess it made sense in hebrew.

  10. pabelmont
    January 29, 2013, 12:41 pm

    ““This is a typically robust cartoon by Gerald Scarfe,” said a spokesperson for The Sunday Times, adding, “The Sunday Times firmly believes that it is not anti-Semitic. It is aimed squarely at Mr Netanyahu and his policies, not at Israel, let alone at Jewish people.””

    This was correct. Nuff said, tho more WILL be said.

    Les, above, said it well: Zionists defame those whose WORDS criticize Israel, but do not criticize Israel for ACTS which deprive Palestinians of human and national rights, property, health, and life. For them, preventing WORDS is a higher calling than preventing CRIMES.

    Sadly, by now, it can be seen that N’hu’s policies and practices are those of most Isrfaeli political parties and a huge number, perhaps a majority, of the Jewish 80% of its citizens. And, of course, that Israel claims to be the nation of the (putative) “Jewish People”. If this cartoon is NOT aimed at the Jewish people, perhaps, by now, it should be.

    (BTW, how is it a “blood libel” to accuse Israel of spilling Palestinian blood improperly, when in fact they do so daily? Are er back to the days of “the greater the truth the greater the libel”?)

  11. Stephen Shenfield
    January 29, 2013, 1:34 pm

    Not only is it a trope, it’s a meme — and that is even worse. Or is it vice versa?

  12. W.Jones
    January 29, 2013, 1:58 pm

    Since Murdoch is a Zionist, isn’t this like a Republican CEO apologizing for one of his newspapers’ cartoon against Bush?

    • lysias
      January 29, 2013, 5:12 pm

      Upon the recent death of Murdoch’s mother, Elisabeth Joy Murdoch, confirmation finally appeared in the mainstream press that she was technically Jewish, because of her maternal line of descent.

      • seanmcbride
        January 29, 2013, 7:14 pm

        lysias,

        Upon the recent death of Murdoch’s mother, Elisabeth Joy Murdoch, confirmation finally appeared in the mainstream press that she was technically Jewish, because of her maternal line of descent.

        Does that mean that Rupert Murdoch automatically qualifies for citizenship in Israel? How does that law work exactly?

        Murdoch has always been very militant on Israeli issues and has promoted Likud Zionist pundits for decades in all his media outlets. I’ve often wondered why.

      • W.Jones
        January 29, 2013, 8:40 pm

        I am confused. Wasn’t her own mother Christian with alot of ministers in her family?

        • lysias
          January 30, 2013, 9:56 am

          The details:

          Rupert (actually Keith Rupert) Murdochs father was Keith Murdoch (died 1952), his mother Elisabeth Joy (nee Greene) and yes her mother, Marie Grace de Lancey Forth was born from a jewish mother.

          Ruperts paternal grandfather, Patrick John, was the REV., the maternal grandmother was Marie Grace de Lancey Forth, who was born in Warnambool VIC (Australia), HER mother Caroline Jemima (nee Sherson) was born to a jewish family, hence by “jewish law”, making Rupert jewish.

        • W.Jones
          January 30, 2013, 3:59 pm

          Lysias,

          It sounds like you’re right, because her last name was Sherson. Do you think that his background is a coincidence, or relevant to his present position?

        • lysias
          January 30, 2013, 6:48 pm

          I have no idea. But whether or not it has had any influence on his thinking, it is an interesting fact, and an even more interesting fact how the mainstream media have shied away from the subject.

          If Rupert Murdoch qualifies under the Israeli Law of Return, I guess he could always flee to that country if things get too hot for him in the U.S. and/or the UK. I very much doubt if Israel would extradite him.

          The fact that Elisabeth Murdoch died only two months shy of her 104th birthday may mean that we will have her son with us for many more years.

      • W.Jones
        February 9, 2013, 2:14 pm

        Lysias,

        You wrote:

        Upon the recent death of Murdoch’s mother, Elisabeth Joy Murdoch, confirmation finally appeared in the mainstream press that she was technically Jewish, because of her maternal line of descent.

        I somewhat remember reading this in the mainstream press online, like you said, perhaps in the Daily Telegraph, however I cannot find it anymore. Perhaps my memory fails me. Would you happen to be able to point to it?

        Secondly, as to your point about Murdoch and the R.O.R., he would not be applicable for it, taking his story at face value, because he is Christian and Jewish maternally. Under the ROR amendment in the 1970′s, if someone is related to a Jewish person, he or she qualifies, but if the person himself was and became Christian, then they are excluded.

  13. sandhillexit
    January 29, 2013, 2:53 pm

    hmmm. I read Rupert’s tweet and went looking for the cartoon. This served to highlight the editorial position of his flagship newspaper. Mission accomplished, I’d say. Would never have seen it otherwise, as the Times is behind a paywall. The editorial position might be summarized as “We – the West – can’t solve the problem until we name it accurately.” The Times was calling out Netanyahu. Rupert seems to have played the international brouhaha perfectly, as now he has the US talking. This cartoon could not have been published here.

    This ranks alongside the Max Cleland editorial on Mr. Hagel this weekend, which had to be published in the Guardian. The US press has abdicated the kind of accuracy and scope needed to lead in the world, to make international policy. London, which needs the US to function constructively, keeps sending these editorials, stories and cartoons “over the transom.”

    Murdoch has been moving very deliberately – I would say since his public apology for the wire-tapping scandal – back toward the family legacy, and it is a formidable legacy to be sure. ‘Murdoch’ meant telling hard truths to power, in order to build a better democratic society. The legacy deserves a dusting off. With anyone else I would say ‘too late’ but he’s likely to have another 20 years, and all his wits.

  14. eljay
    January 29, 2013, 3:32 pm

    But Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said it had “caused immense pain to the Jewish community in the UK and around the world”.

    “Whatever the intention, the danger of such images is that they reinforce a great slander of our time: that Jews, victims of the Holocaust, are now perpetrators of a similar crime against the Palestinians,” he said in a statement.

    Whatever the intention, statements such as those of Mr. Sacks reinforce a great slander of our times: That Gentiles hold all Jews (not all of whom are victims of the Holocaust) responsible for the crimes of Zio-supremacists and their supremacist state (“+ tss”).

    The fact is that some Jews + tss are responsible for crimes against Palestinians, and it is right to take those Jews + tss to task for their criminal and immoral behaviour.

    To absolve guilty Jews + tss of their past and on-going crimes is to cause immense pain to the Palestinian community in Palestine and around the world.

    • ritzl
      January 29, 2013, 6:48 pm

      @eljay I’m probably being dense, but what does “+ tss” mean?

      • eljay
        January 29, 2013, 7:13 pm

        >> … what does “+ tss” mean?

        … and their supremacist state (“+ tss”).

      • tree
        January 29, 2013, 8:59 pm

        plus “their supremacist state” = “+ tss”

    • American
      January 29, 2013, 9:36 pm

      ”“Whatever the intention, the danger of such images is that they reinforce a great slander of our time: that Jews, victims of the Holocaust, are now perpetrators of a similar crime against the Palestinians,” he said in a statement.”

      LOL…I want to call this the 7th wonder of Zionism.
      It’s magic,…. abracadabra …there are no nazi like crimes against Palestine’s by the Jewish state, ….abracadabra……it’s a hallucination caused by the anti semitic disease.

  15. frankier
    January 29, 2013, 3:52 pm

    … which part of the cartoon the Israeli ambassador claims is not accurate?…

  16. lysias
    January 29, 2013, 5:08 pm

    I am currently reading Patrick Tyler’s Fortress Israel. The book reminds me that in 1982, when people blamed Israel for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, Begin called that a blood libel.

    • marc b.
      January 29, 2013, 5:47 pm

      given the current state of the definition, lysias, begin is/was probably right. yet another instance of zionists outsmarting themselves.

  17. James Canning
    January 29, 2013, 7:44 pm

    Gerald Scarfe is a brilliant, and savage, political cartoonist. No apology was necessary, in my view.

  18. talknic
    January 29, 2013, 8:31 pm
  19. RoHa
    January 29, 2013, 8:56 pm

    “The European Jewish Congress … The Anti-Defamation League … The Times of Israel …The Board of Deputies of British Jews … Israeli Ambassador to London Daniel Taub …Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Israel office … Michael Salberg of the Anti-Defamation League”

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

    Whine, whine, bloody whine.

  20. Mac
    January 29, 2013, 11:33 pm

    So will the Sunday Times or any other Western newspaper apologize the next time they print a cartoon with a hook nosed caricature of an Arab Shaikh?

  21. Walid
    January 30, 2013, 3:29 am

    ” (Ambassador) Taub added that he was going to meet with the newspaper’s editor “at the earliest opportunity, perhaps already today,” to express the government’s concern about a cartoon that draws “on classical anti-Semitic themes.”

    Are Israeli ambassadors the only ambassadors that can short-circuit diplomatic channels and speak directly with with a host country’s newspaper editors to express their concerns? Looks like more special rules for Israel.

    The cartoon is not antisemitic but like the one of Assad, it’s in very bad taste. Nothing very artistic about either of them.

    • James Canning
      January 30, 2013, 7:21 pm

      I would say highly artistic, but one can see the issue of taste might well be seen by many.

  22. James Canning
    January 30, 2013, 7:19 pm

    Gerald Scarfe had a brilliant, and savage, political cartoon in the Sunday Times recently, with the NRA and American obsession with guns as its target.

  23. Ruth Tenne
    February 1, 2013, 11:31 am

    Once again leaders of the Jewish community in Britain and the Security Community Trust – whose aim is to detect and report incidences of anti-Semitism and protect the “jewish state” from any form of criticism – have jumped to action hurling accusations of anti-Semitism at Gerald Scarfe’s cartoon which symbolically portrays the brutal policies/actions of Netanyahu Government against the Palestinians .
    Perhaps we should not be surprised about the latest accusation by those “gate keepers ” as they have been acting with the full support of successive British governments . Back in 2005 the Labour government set up the All -Party Inquiry into Anti-Semitism whose report was followed by a Command Paper that largely backed an action on the majority of the Inquiry’s recommendations as well as expressing its understanding of the anxieties raised by the Jewish community . The All-Party Inquiry Into Anti-Semitism and its follow-up report (March 2007) seemed to single out anti- Semitism while ignoring the more prevailed phenomenon of Islamophobia . Moreover , the follow-up Command Paper has taken a dangerous step by stating that rhetoric about Israel and Zionism “from the far right to the far left and Islamic extremist alike, employs anti-Semitic motifs that are consistent with ancient form of hatred towards Jews” (Re. my article at Palestine Chronicle link to palestinechronicle.com ).

    Such an inflaming statement undoubtedly gives public support for launching a witch-hunt against anyone who has been perceived by the leaders Jewish community to employ anti-Semitic rhetoric or motifs. Gerald Scarfe has now been the victim of this medieval policy. I suppose that the well-known Jewish author and Holocaust survivor – Primo levy – who remarked in an interview that “Everybody has their Jews, and for the Israelis it’s the Palestinians”, would also come under similar harsh criticism and be blamed for anti-Semitism by the leaders of the Jewish community in Britain .

Leave a Reply