Foreign Policy In Focus

The Sunday Times of London's controversial Netanyahu cartoon highlighted the difficulty many experience differentiating between a political comment and a religious insult.

Britain’s The Sunday Times featured a controversial cartoon this past Sunday depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu building a bloody brick wall on the bodies of trapped, screaming Palestinians with the caption: “Israel elections. Will cementing the peace continue?”

The cartoon—drawn by veteran cartoonist Gerald Scarfe, who often utilizes blood in his work—has garnered the attention of Israeli officials and international Jewish groups who have declared the cartoon “sickening,” “anti-Semitic,” and “grotesque.”  

Israel’s ambassador to Britain, Daniel Taub, demanded an apology from the newspaper, stating that “We’re not going to let this stand as it is…We genuinely think that a red line has been crossed and the obligation on the newspaper is to correct that.” Other Israeli officials have also spoken out against the cartoon, such as Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, who wrote, “For me and for other Israelis, this cartoon was reminiscent of the vicious journalism during one of the darkest periods in human history,” and that he was “shocked that such cartoons can be published in such a respectable newspaper in the Great Britain of today.”

Much of the outrage has been in response to the fact that Scarfe’s cartoon was printed on Britain’s Holocaust Memorial Day, which coincides with the International Holocaust Remembrance Day marking the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp in 1945. Scarfe himself has stated he was unaware of the timing and publicly apologized in a statement on his website:

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.

Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul whose company owns the Sunday Times, also publicly tweeted an apology, labeling the cartoon “grotesque” and “offensive,” adding that it “has never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times.”

Some members of the Jewish community have come to Scarfe’s defense, however, such as Anshel Pfeffer from Haaretz, who listed four reasons why the cartoon “isn’t anti-Semitic in any way: ”first, that it is not directed at Jews; second, that it does not use Holocaust imagery; third, there was no discrimination; and lastly, that “this is not what a blood libel looks like.”

Simon Kelner of The Independent also came to Scarfe’s defense, replying to Murdoch’s tweet:

Of course it's grotesque. Has he never seen a Scarfe cartoon before? But offensive? I can't find any impulse, emotionally or intellectually, that causes me to be offended. Does this make me a bad Jew? Maybe it does, but I do think the world would be a better place if people were able to tell the difference between a political comment and a religious insult.

Yet for all the controversy one cannot help but wonder whose decision it actually was to print Scarfe’s cartoon on such a date, especially since it would seem that such a cartoon would have been much more timely—and a lot less offensive—had it been featured the Sunday before Israel’s elections. 

Leslie Garvey is an intern at Foreign Policy in Focus.

This has certainly been a disastrous week for Rupert Murdoch. In conjunction with mounting scandal over intrusive tabloid operations, Murdoch’s News Corporation has not only faced a severe beating from the British press, but has also just abandoned an ambitious television takeover. Today, Murdoch’s News Corporation revealed that it will withdraw a $12 billion bid to take over remaining shares of Britain’s main satellite television broadcaster, British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB).  

This development is the latest upheaval to follow News Corp.’s phone hacking fiasco. The latter erupted 10 days ago when reports emerged that the company’s The News of the World tabloid once ordered the hacking of a murdered 13-year-old’s voice mail account in 2002. Since this exposé emerged, nearly every day has brought fresh disclosures and rumors regarding News Corp.’s operations. The continuing scandal, as this latest satellite bid withdrawal demonstrates, has effectively convulsed Murdoch’s British newspaper empire, which has heretofore maintained a snug and remarkably influential relationship with politicians and police across the country.

Recently, allegations against Murdoch’s newspapers have included claims of journalists hacking the family phones of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and soliciting information from police officers by means of bribes. It would seem that Murdoch’s ‘anything goes’ approach to newsroom culture is crumbling before his very eyes. On July 7^th, his son James unexpectedly responded to public pressure, announcing that The News of the World would cease publication following its July 11^th edition. The following day, Andy Coulson, former communications director to Prime Minister David Cameron, was arrested on suspicion of corruption allegations tied to his role as editor of The News of the World. The publication’s previous editor, Rebekah Brook, who quickly rose to the head of Murdoch’s newspaper empire in Britain, is now also fending off demands for her own arrest.

Revealing of the impact of these scandals, Chase Carey, News Corp’s Deputy Chairman, has stated that the proposed BSkyB acquisition would be “…too difficult to progress in this climate.” Although this apparent retreat was undoubtedly intended to subdue further outcry against News Corp., Carey’s announcement was swiftly followed by calls for greater scrutiny over BSkyB’s ownership makeup. Labour politicians and Liberal Democrats of the government coalition have concurred that authorities should investigate the option of challenging the Murdoch family’s current 39 per cent stake in BSkyB. Prime Minister David Cameron has accordingly sought to distance himself from Murdoch, reversing his previous support for the BSkyB bid and claiming that News Corp. executives should “…stop the business of mergers and get on with cleaning the stables. 

Today, Cameron took an even firmer stance against Murdoch’s towering influence on British media sources, announcing the launch of a judicial inquiry into unethical media practices, including phone hacking. Crucially, Cameron has stated that the inquiry will examine why initial police investigations of The News of the World’s operations, which began in 2006, failed to expose the full extent of the scandal. Lord Justice Brian Leveson is set to head this inquiry, which further aims to finalize a report on future regulations of the British press.

According to Nick Clegg, deputy prime minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats, the inquiry represents “…a once-in-a-generation chance to clean up the murky underworld and the corrupted relationship between the police, politics, and the press.” If effective, the inquiry has the potential to change Britain’s media landscape, altering not only regulations on the press, but also guidelines on media ownership. Considering the lack of media plurality within the U.K., largely resulting from Murdoch’s steady acquisition of British newspapers, this inquiry certainly represents a much needed step towards a less monopolized and corrupted media landscape. To his credit, Cameron has acknowledged that “the people involved [in The News of The World scandal]…must have no future role in the running of a media company in our country.”

According to a report by The Financial Times, several changes regarding how journalists interact with politicians will take effect immediately. The government will require all ministers, special advisors, and permanent secretaries to publish the details of their meetings with media executives, and editors. On Tuesday, a parliamentary committee further announced that Murdoch, his son James, and Rebekah Brooks would be called to testify under oath concerning phone hacking and corruption allegations. With ownership of four leading British newspapers, Murdoch’s News Corp. previously stood as a media force to be reckoned with, a corporation that politicians both feared and courted. Now, with a judicial inquiry on the table, the mogul’s empire seems set to crumble. One can only hope this will bring greater transparency to Britain’s media landscape.