I thought i had. My definition of terrorist is personal to me. Whatever Maggie says is irrelevant.

It seemed to be you asking me to hide that fact. Thats why its we,
we can also take into account what has been said before.

No I addressed the point in a much longer part of the same post, the vast majority of my post addressed the OP, on its merits, at face value. A small part of it mentioned the bias from which said poster took their standpoint.

You may possibly have a point, if it didnt mean that you would need to ignore the majority of the same quote. I addressed the OP on the basis of his bias, and of the way i expected the thread to go. I also addressed, in the vast majority of the post, the OP on face value, on its own merits.

I didnt say anyone particularly was anti-semitic, i didnt say the OP was, I didnt say that the OP had no merit because of anti-semitism, i didnt address the argument in the context of anybody commenting being anti-semitic. I said that the thread would go on to become a mud-slinging excercise, mentioned the OP's support of terrorists, and made the same point that Kosh did, that people will defend anti-semitic statements by hiding behind a pretence of a criticism of Israel. I didnt say everyone would do that and i didnt even say they would be wrong to do it, just that it would be boring.

I also said Which you have largely ignored whilst banging on about how i havent addressed the OP's argument.

The artist himself has come out and said that the timing of the printing was wrong, and that some of the connotations taken by some Jews weren’t intended and has apologised.

It is ridiculous to see people defending something even the artist admits was wrong.with connotations which were unintended.

Whoah there, the artist did not admit that the cartoon was wrong.
He regretted that it had been published on Holocaust day and connotations made by others.

It always seems to me that Israel are immune from any criticism regarding their policies on Palestine

Im not sure what kind of artist would argue that a piece or work which communicated something they didn’t mean to communicate, at a time they didn’t wish to communicate it, was right.

The artist may stand by his views, and may stand by what they intended to communicate, but that clearly didn’t happen.

He didn't mean to imply that Netanyahu was a murderer? He didn't mean to make reference to illegal building in the West Bank or to the phrase 'cementing peace'?

Yet this is a thread, about anti-semitism, which has at times, descended into anti-israel mud-slinging, which no-one has argued against at all. We are 6 pages in, and im yet to see anyone defend Israel or even say anything positive about it.

They have a nice climate?

I didn't particularly mean just from people on internet message boards

In the article the OP linked to, it says the artist apologised only for the timing of the publication, not for the cartoon itself.

I have no doubt he did. However the piece also had other connotations which were unintended, and was printed at a time, unwittingly, that some would find offensive, some needlessly provocative, some just wrong and at a time the artist didn’t want it printed.

Nobody is arguing against Gerald Scarfes right to express his opinion on any isreali politician, some will disagree with his opinion, others agree. But even the artist is in agreement that there was a better time, place and way of him doing so.

What do you mean "clearly didn't happen"?
Most people seeing it would have understood what it meant.
I did, didn't you?

What 'other connotations' do you refer to? I can't think of any, other than those I have mentioned.



Not from what I've seen. The artist apologised for the timing, not the 'place' or 'way' he expressed his criticism. Unless you know differently, do you?

I didn’t think there was only one way to look at art, or only one thing we were supposed to take from it.

I saw it as a criticism of one person, but I can see how it could be interpreted as a criticism of a state and its peoples and some imagery can carry other connotations.

But im not the arbiter of how people see and interpret art, so its pretty irrelevant what I took from it.

What I meant was ‘clearly didn’t happen’ is that people saw something within that imagery that the artist didn’t intend.

And that is fine, what you or I take from it isn’t relevant to what someone else takes from it. We know you have read the OP’s links so you will be well aware of what other people saw in it.
his full statement, [iFirst 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.[/i

This clearly clarifies that there were connotations that the artist didnt intend (some saw, with some of the imagery involved as a wider criticism than that which the artist intended). I have made an assumption i admit, but it is one which is only reflective of the clear logic that an artist who wanted to express one thing, and ended up communicating another would agree there was a better way of saying what they actually meant to say, and also that any right thinking person would be sorry if they offended someone by expressing a belief they didnt hold through clumsy imagery or words. I cant think of situation where someone who has gone to the effort of clarifying their communication wouldnt be sorry for any offence caused by a misunderstanding.

Ah - sorry. When you said Jewish voices I naturally assumed that you were referring to the wider community rather than just Israelis. So it turns out that the voices raised in support of Zionism as a core element of their faith on R4 were in fact restricted to Israeli citizens largely speaking on the Today programme?

Um, no. He does not apologise at all for the content of the cartoon - he merely points out that some have misunderstood it. All he apologises for is the timing. The quote is very clear and unambiguous.

Indeed so ... I did say "Israeli voices", if you check back.

Wow. That's an amazing leap, even for you.

As Kosh says, he very clearly and unambiguously apologises for the timing, and nothing else. Your erroneous assumptions do nothing to alter that fact.

And he clarifies that people have misunderstood him.

I think the technical term for someone who wouldnt be sorry for unintentionally, deeply offending someone with a statement they neither meant, nor believed is 'a c@nt'.

I dont believe Gerald Scarfe to be 'a c@nt' but maybe he is, and maybe he doesnt care who he hurts, even with statements he doesnt believe in. Maybe I did assume he was a better person than he really is.

What nonsense.

He apologises for the timing of publication and clarifies the meaning of his cartoon. Not that he should have needed to do so, since it is quite obvious to anyone who isn't [ilooking[/i to be offended that Netanyahu (and not all Jews) was the target. That aside, having clarified his position, he had nothing to apologise for. Your desire for him to have done so - even thought his statement is quite clear - is a little baffling.

I dont need him to have done so I frankly care as little for him as i do you. As i said, i would assume anyone who unintentionally offends someone would apologise for it. I would think less of someone who wouldnt. Just as I would think less of someone thinking that only their interpretation was acceptable.

You did indeed. Not sure what happened there - I'm going to blame a senior moment and walk away whistling nonchalantly to myself.

Another example of people (Jewish people, in this instance) conflating Jews, the Israeli state and the Israeli people. It would certainly be crass to suggest that Jews or the Israeli people are perpetrators of a similar crime (to the holocaust) against the Palestinians, but the Israeli state are fair game for such an accusation.

Or a person who thinks that making stuff up and then trying to argue that it's true is acceptable, perhaps?