Cartoon controversy on Holocaust Memorial Day.

The controversial drawing, by Gerald Scarfe, published on 27th January - Holocaust Memorial Day, has caused fierce debate. Scarfe depicts the recently re-elected Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, using red blood to cement a wall with people trapped within it.  Published by the Sunday Times, the picture features the caption “Will cementing peace continue?”

The central theme of the picture is the red blood that seeps out from the bricks and drips from Netanyahu's trowel. This image has the power to invoke anti-Semitic imagery of Blood Libel, a grossly false accusation that Jews murder children, to use their blood in religious rituals. Yet the theme of blood is a frequent feature of Scarfe’s work. He seems to have gained a ‘thing’ for blood. In another Sunday Times picture, published on 26^th February 2012, Syria's President Assad is seen to be guzzling a cup full of blood that is labelled ‘Children's Blood’, further supporting the notion that this picture of Netanyahu is not just an exception. Scarfe has a long history of provocative cartoons, often coming from a more liberal perspective.

Scarfe’s depiction of the Israeli elections stimulated immediate criticism, one being from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, an elected group representing Jewish people in the UK whose chief executive, Jon Benjamin, stated that the picture was reminiscent of blood libel imagery. Nevertheless, Rachel Lasserson, editor of the Jewish Quarterly, noted that people must be able to distinguish between discussions of settlements and the West Bank and general anti-Semitism. Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz, writing for an article in the Guardian, argues that Scarfe seems to have been careful not to include any small children - one is arguably an adolescent - in order to not have any libel imagery. Pfeffer further argues that attacking Scarfe and his cartoon only cheapens a noble cause, as it is not anti-Semitic. In addition, Mark Gardner, of the Community Security Trust, writing for the Guardian, notes that, irrespective of an individual’s nationality or religion, this is just the way Scarfe draws.

The Sunday Times initially defended the picture, saying that was a typical cartoon by Scarfe, which was "aimed squarely at Mr Netanyahu and his policies, not at Israel, let alone at Jewish people". However the next day, Rupert Murdoch distanced himself and the paper from Scarfe, by tweeting on his personal Twitter account that “Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times”. Additionally, Daniel Taub, the current Israeli Ambassador to the UK, condemned the paper. He argued that the idea of Israel’s security barrier being concocted from Palestinian bodies and blood was ‘baseless’.

On Tuesday, the Sunday Times met with various representatives of the UK Jewish community. One of the main points presented by the Jewish communities is that Jews (and others) around the country reacted with disgust to the image, but even more so to Scarfe’s use of blood and that it was published, by a leading `British newspaper, on Holocaust Memorial Day. Martin Ivens, current acting editor to the paper, condemned Scarfe for crossing the line, with the illustration published in the Sunday Times on Holocaust Memorial Day, despite the illustrator being renowned for his "consistently brutal and bloody" work. Ivens further noted that “insulting the memory of the Shoah or invoking the Blood Libel’ was the last thing the newspaper had wanted to do.  Scarfe also issued his own statement the same day, stating that the Sunday Times had for the past forty-six years given him freedom to criticise world leaders and that the cartoon and criticism was directed at Netanyahu, and “not of the Jewish people”. He also noted that he was  "stupidly completely unaware" it was being published on Holocaust Memorial Day and “regrets the timing” of its publication.

In sum, upon reacting to this image, we should be careful in distinguishing whether it some sort of political comment and a religious insult. Granted the date of its publication on Holocaust Memorial Day is insensitive, yet I do not believe it is an assault on the Jewish religion by any means. The image is an unpleasant one, but confusing it with something else can be problematic and as Pfeffer in the Guardian writes, it only “cheapens a noble cause”.

The cartoon calls on a lot of imagery that is sensitive to a number of parties. It invites criticism and debate, which was Scarfe’s intention - to have some sort of shock factor. However, although there are similarities to the anti-Semitic notion of Blood Libel, it is not one and the same. The caricature includes no children (there is in fact one adolescent), and this may be deliberately done by Scarfe to keep away from any association with the blood libel. Regardless, it is clear from the depiction that this is a jab at Netanyahu's government, as well as his policies. This is not directed at the Israeli people, nor the Nation of Israel, as there is absolutely nothing in the cartoon which identifies its subject as someone of Jewish origin.

Everything is Black and White

With the conflict in Syria escalating day by day, there is an all too natural tendency for Western journalists to paint a picture in black and white. The NCF found this article in the French press particularly interesting. We have done our best to attempt an English translation which is below:

In the opinion of our associated columnist Roland Hureaux, Western reporters in Syria allow themselves too often to be tempted by the trap laid by Manicheism in a context that is certainly more ambiguous than is present in the press.


It is not necessary to be a supporter of the Assad regime, but simply an observer who wants the truth not to be confused by the recent atrocities figures some fellow journalists linked to the civil war in Syria. The total number of victims is very uncertain, just like with any tragedy of this type.

The other question is to know who is responsible for these massacres. Especially as there are two camps with deathly weapons, we can only assume that as with all wars the blame is shared, possibly not equally shared but shared non-the less. But as soon as these atrocities are announced in the Western media, that is the media giants, responsibility is almost exclusively given to the regime.

This was the case with the recent Houla massacre (108 dead of which 49 were apparently children, but who has released these figures and have they been verified?). The western media immediately accused the regime's forces even though that town was, it seems, controlled by the opposition. Information received since re-enforces the theory that the responsibility could actually lie with the opposition. Similar doubts surround many of the prevalent media stories from the last couple of weeks.

The principle source for much of the Western press' casualty figures, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, is headed by one man long ago exiled to Coventry. The information about the number of deaths this June came from this man.

From these observations, we do not say that the Assad regime is innocent, nor that the regime does not carry the largest part of the responsibility. But that they exclusively carry the responsibility of every atrocity is simply untrue. The last 25 years we have seen manipulation on the humanitarian issue to manipulate the international opinion time and time again, East Timor, Kosovo, the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Journalists always search in every complex situation the good and the evil. This approach has for them many advantages: it allows them to think they have quickly understood the complex situation, it creates in each journalist a leader of justice, not only reporters of facts but doing good. Of course presenting information in black and white, attracts the public’s attention, if all the complexities are included they could become annoyed.

The other issue is that journalists, as with all professions, will talk amongst themselves and those who do not know will ask those who seem to know and will thus adopt the general consensus on the topic. Thus it seems that Manicheism (the tendancy to view events in black and white) and gregariousness are the two sources of information in war.

If these information distortions are put in place, investigation is no longer necessary to discover who is responsible as it can only be the villains. Journalists can thus be contented with their predisposed judgements.

The distortion of the truth in this way has the potential to be criminal. In the case of Syria the opposition are aware of this and so can perpetrate the worst atrocities as they will automatically be blamed on their opponents.

Information has become a weapon of war and as such is manipulated by people who have the resources and can play on the naivety and idealism of young journalists. The irony is that most of these reporters when taken one by one would undoubtedly be opposed to the supremacy of the US, Guantanamo etc.

Panorama. Euro 2012: Stadiums of Hate

 

After watching Panaroma's documentary “Euro 2012: Stadiums of Hate” and after having lived in Poland for a while, I thought the show was extremely sensationalist and patronising. But it wasn't just me who thought it was sensationalist. The Ukrainian ambassador in the UK and the Polish press have accused the show of being “biased and unfair” after they showed terrible scenes of anti-Semitic and racist acts in Ukrainian and Polish stadiums.

“It included footage of Polish fans chanting anti-Semitic slogans and giving Nazi salutes, and showed a group of Asian supporters being beaten and punched at an end-of-season league match in Ukraine.”

If one just watches the show and does not know the reality of these countries,

then one would happily keep away from Polish or Ukrainian stadiums. As shown in the documentary, even former England defender Sol Campbell asked fans to watch the football on TV as otherwise : "… you could end up coming back in a coffin." Sol Campbell was right in feeling so terrified with the footage as these acts are simply inadmissible. All violent acts of racism and anti-Semitism should be banned and punished.

There is no doubt that racism and anti-Semitism still exist in Poland and Ukraine, but I think it is quite specific and isolated. It mainly happens in the national league and it is promoted by extreme right groups. Hence we are talking about isolated facts that do not represent the general situation of both countries. I don't think acts of racism are particular to certain countries as they happen everywhere else in Europe. One of the guests to the show, Jonathan Ornstein, the executive director of the Jewish community centre in Krakow, was particularly angry with the BBC and the way they manipulated his comments:

“Panorama had "exploited me as a source" and claimed it had "used me and others to manipulate the serious subject of anti-Semitism for its own sensationalist agenda".

Actually what he said was that although there are still some acts of racism and anti-Semitism in the country, Poland is more and more a tolerant country and that one cannot define a whole society based on the actions of a few hooligans. Anti-Semitism is a very sensitive subject in Poland and after reading the Polish press, I personally think that Panorama made a very sensational and selective use of the information. I think they were looking for sensationalism and they found it. In the end they showed us what they wanted us to see.

Media Awards feature in The Middle East magazine

The Middle East magazine published a leading article on April's International Media Awards in the June 2012 Issue. The artcile includes an interview with President of the International Council for Press and Broadcasting, Dalia Salaam Rishani.

Ofcom: between freedom of opinion and blasphemy.

DM Digital, an English TV channel that broadcasts mainly to the Middle Eastern and Asian public, seems to have breached the code of Ofcom by airing controversial statements over blasphemy law. One of the guests to the show affirmed that it was acceptable to kill someone for blasphemy. Now the channel might face a serious fine or even be closed. Ofcom has accused the TV channel of being the “first UK broadcaster to break the broadcasting code for airing material likely to encourage or incite the commission of a crime or lead to disorder". In this program an Islamic scholar gave a lecture on theology and talked about the assassination of Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab, who was killed by his own bodyguard, Malik Mumtaz Qadri, for criticising Pakistan’s blasphemy law. Someone in the audience made a complaint about some of the comments aired in the show. Ofcom then commissioned two English translations to check for accuracy and it seems that the presenter said: "If someone takes a step in the love of the Prophet, then this is not terrorism." Although the channel denies the accusations and believes that the scholar was only discussing blasphemy law in Pakistan and wasn’t “personally advocating any violence"; this is difficult to believe when such a statement is not only endorsed by the presenter, but also calls for the punishment of all those who disrespect the Prophet or Islam.

There are two debates here: The first regarding blasphemy law and the second regarding freedom of speech and press. Since the early 80s new clauses regarding religious offences have been added to the Pakistan Penal Code. Perhaps the most controversial dates from 1986; and states that blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad or Islam should be punished with death or life imprisonment. Personally, I find blasphemy law very extreme, vague and obscure; and a law that can be easily abused. Look at what happened to Salmaan Taseer, for instance.  

On the other hand, many might wonder if closing a TV Channel for its content is not also an action against freedom of speech and press. We could argue that everyone should be entitled to express their own opinion and that the media should have the freedom to publish anything they want. However, I think that this should also come with some degree of responsibility. The problem is when you publish statements supporting or encouraging the murder of people for whatever reason. To start with, no one should be murdered, as simple as that. No one should be murdered for their opinions, ideas or actions; and this is not just a simple Western liberal idea that can only be applied in the West. No. I think this should apply everywhere else in the world. If someone goes to a TV show and declares in front of thousands of people that those who disrespect the prophet should face death, how can anyone say that this would not encourage any violence? How can statements defending murder not encourage more murder? Violence can only generate more violence and statements like this should not be accepted and even less made public on a TV channel. I wonder why this guest had the freedom to express his opinion over blasphemy on TV and why when someone tries to give a different opinion about the law, they get murdered. I find it quite hypocritical, vague and obscure.