shocking images of the week!

[Spion]

Why can you not bring yourself to condemn that image though?

It appears to be a caricature of Ariel Sharon, a well known killer of thousands. Would you want me to denounce an ugly caricature of Hitler as anti-German or anti-christian?

I will, however, condemn Treelover's incessant quest to demonise those who protest against the ACTUAL KILLING of hundreds of children by Israel in recent weeks.

Are you also wanting condemnation of the Independent cartoon of Sharon?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You utter cock - and I could add right wing and racist to that.

In a week where the death toll in Gaza has reached 1,100 the most shocking image for you is someone protesting against it.

Your morality is ugly

I'd have to say, in treelover's defence, that if you were unfamiliar with the caricatures of fat Ari that were going around in the early 2000s, you might surmise (if you didn't bother to look deeper than the surface) that the representation in the picture was a representation of the blood libel, rather than of fat Ari chowing down on a wee'un a la Dave Brown's cartoon.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What's wrong? You never seen a politician kissing babies before ???

 

[treelover]

@T
I could probably keep going for quite some time, but I stopped caring by 2006.

Ridiculous, I am just very consistent , i picked up on the degradation of elements of the left a while ago, 'We are all hezbollah' ring a bell.. How long did that take you to compile all that or have you had them on file?

Sure you are not Ern?

 

[mauvais]

Fairly sure I'm not Ern, but I'll check. I just did a search for any posts by you with the word demo.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Has anyone else ever heard of this? I Googled for "blood sucking jew eating babies" and I didn't get any results. Maybe it's just me.

Well, treelover (as is sadly all too usual) has got it slightly wrong. You need to google "blood libel", where you'll find that the claim wasn't generally that we ate babies (Jews are not, after all, all anarchists! ), but that we slit their throats and used their blood, mixed with Matzo meal, to make matzos.

 

[gsv]

It appears to be a caricature of Ariel Sharon, a well known killer of thousands.

Bollocks, it's a calssic blood libel.
You protest too much.

GS(v)

 

[Idris2002]

Splintered Sunrise has some useful things to say about the Belfast protest against the destruction of Gaza:

http://splinteredsunrise.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/again-on-unionism-and-israel/#comments

 

[tangentlama]

Oh, I agree, the *intention* wasn't anti-semitic. It's just that the *execution* was clumsy and ignorant, and would have pressed all the wrong buttons as far as people who actually know about the history of anti-semitic imagery are concerned.

I am well aware of the history of anti-semitic imagery, as you are also.

If the image was of a classical nature, and not of Ariel Sharon (and therefore drawing attention to Likud-derived policies which persist in today's Kadimah-led govt) then I would have agreed that the image was anti-semitic.

But the image is not of a shtreimel-wearing, ringletted, bearded, hooknosed, brownskinned, snake-tailed Jew bent on world domination. It was a political image of Ariel Sharon and is well known visual commentary on the effect of Likud/Kadimah policies.

Only someone who supports to shut down discourse on this and frighten non-Jews from speaking out would post such a thing. As such, the making of this thread was building to be used as a political tool to quieten the rage that has been invoked since the Operation Solid Lead began. And still I don't see any silver coming from this operation, other than almost universal condemnation and crying out for political and civilian, rather than militarial solutions.

You see how treelover tries to pretend that we are a minority of zealots for speaking out, but seems entirely unaware that the majority of North American Jews have spoken out against the atrocities in Gaza.

 

[tangentlama]

Bollocks, it's a calssic blood libel.
You protest too much.

GS(v)

It's a well known image of Ariel Sharon.

You're over reacting.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't give a fuck what you think my 'agenda' is, Tangent, it won't wash: obviously you are stalking me, doing an Ern and collating what i have posted, scanning the site for signs of islamaphobia, etc,

I know right from wrong,

You don't even know arse from elbow, that much becomes increasingly obvious.

 

[_angel_]

I am well aware of the history of anti-semitic imagery, as you are also.

If the image was of a classical nature, and not of Ariel Sharon (and therefore drawing attention to Likud-derived policies which persist in today's Kadimah-led govt) then I would have agreed that the image was anti-semitic.

But the image is not of a shtreimel-wearing, ringletted, bearded, hooknosed, brownskinned, snake-tailed Jew bent on world domination. It was a political image of Ariel Sharon and is well known visual commentary on the effect of Likud/Kadimah policies.

Only someone who supports to shut down discourse on this and frighten non-Jews from speaking out would post such a thing. As such, the making of this thread was building to be used as a political tool to quieten the rage that has been invoked since the Operation Solid Lead began. And still I don't see any silver coming from this operation, other than almost universal condemnation and crying out for political and civilian, rather than militarial solutions.

You see how treelover tries to pretend that we are a minority of zealots for speaking out, but seems entirely unaware that the majority of North American Jews have spoken out against the atrocities in Gaza.

There's some right smearing going on here, TL has said he's as against what's happening in gaza as everyone else is?

Why the need for you and others to smear him as 'racist' and 'right wing' for pointing out some unpleasant anti semetic images/ stereotypes, though, I don't know.

I'd have felt unhappy marching where that image was on display....

 

[Idris2002]

I am well aware of the history of anti-semitic imagery, as you are also.

If the image was of a classical nature, and not of Ariel Sharon (and therefore drawing attention to Likud-derived policies which persist in today's Kadimah-led govt) then I would have agreed that the image was anti-semitic.

But the image is not of a shtreimel-wearing, ringletted, bearded, hooknosed, brownskinned, snake-tailed Jew bent on world domination. It was a political image of Ariel Sharon and is well known visual commentary on the effect of Likud/Kadimah policies.

Only someone who supports to shut down discourse on this and frighten non-Jews from speaking out would post such a thing. As such, the making of this thread was building to be used as a political tool to quieten the rage that has been invoked since the Operation Solid Lead began. And still I don't see any silver coming from this operation, other than almost universal condemnation and crying out for political and civilian, rather than militarial solutions.

You see how treelover tries to pretend that we are a minority of zealots for speaking out, but seems entirely unaware that the majority of North American Jews have spoken out against the atrocities in Gaza.

Not necessarily; it might also be posted by someone who thinks that clumsy and ignorant imagery is precisely what is not needed to advance discourse and debate on this issue, precisely because such clumsy and ignorant imagery is a free gift to both zionists and anti-semites.

I don't think we're on the verge of a new Kristallnacht, or that demanding that Israel stop slicing Palestinian childrens' heads off with hot shrapnel will lead to such an event. I don't think complacency on the issue of anti-semitism will be any help either.

 

[tangentlama]

I'd have felt unhappy marching where that image was on display....

..because you secretly idolise the undead Ariel Sharon?

 

[_angel_]

..because you secretly idolise the undead Ariel Sharon?

See what I mean about smearing?

 

[gsv]

..because you secretly idolise the undead Ariel Sharon?

Not funny, TL. Deeply unpleasant.

GS(v)

 

[mauvais]

If I post something ambiguous that you feel unhappy about on here, will you fuck off forever?

 

[tangentlama]

Not necessarily; it might also be posted by someone who thinks that clumsy and ignorant imagery is precisely what is not needed to advance discourse and debate on this issue, precisely because such clumsy and ignorant imagery is a free gift to both zionists and anti-semites.

I don't think we're on the verge of a new Kristallnacht, or that demanding that Israel stop slicing Palestinian childrens' heads off with hot shrapnel will lead to such an event. I don't think complacency on the issue of anti-semitism will be any help either.

Well, I can only agree with you here.

But I don't think we should call a visual political statement 'antisemitism' as well you know. I'm sure everyone who is familiar with the politics of Israel-Palestinine knows instantly who that Spitting-Image puppet is a charicature of.

 

[tangentlama]

Not funny, TL. Deeply unpleasant.

GS(v)

I despise Sharon. I find him deeply unpleasant. He's not dead yet and he's not alive (although his policies live on).

His policies do not save the lives of Jews - they place us in perpetual danger, both inside and outside of Israel.

 

[gsv]

But I don't think we should call a visual political statement 'antisemitism' as well you know. I'm sure everyone who is familiar with the politics of Israel-Palestinine knows instantly who that Spitting-Image puppet is a charicature of.

Even if it's a caricature of Sharon (which I don't personally see), the image chosen is also an anti-semitic blood libel.
Being the one thing does not mean it's not the other.

GS(v)

 

[gsv]

His policies do not save the lives of Jews - they place us in perpetual danger, both inside and outside of Israel.

Well there's something we can agree on.

GS(v)

 

[_angel_]

Even if it's a caricature of Sharon (which I don't personally see), the image chosen is also an anti-semitic blood libel.
Being the one thing does not mean it's not the other.

GS(v)

There are fangs on it.

 

[Idris2002]

Well, I can only agree with you here.

But I don't think we should call a visual political statement 'antisemitism' as well you know. I'm sure everyone who is familiar with the politics of Israel-Palestinine knows instantly who that Spitting-Image puppet is a charicature of.

Do they really? Everyone? And everyone who's not a hip and trendy urbanite - will they be aware of the subtle distinction at work here?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thank you Idris,

The Protocols of Zion and Mein Kamf are on open sale in many ME countries...

What do "many ME countries" and what they allow to be sold have to do specifically with the plight of the Palestinians?
By the way, Mein Kampf is widely available in the UK, including from Amazon (as are "The Protocols..."). I own a copy of Mein Kampf myself, as do many Jews and non-Jews with an interest in the roots of Nazism and fascism.

...that cannot help the Palestinian cause, which i support and have done for many years in many ways.

The only time it "cannot help" is if ill-informed, feeble-minded dolts make assumptions.

Once there has been an open debate, (with such excellent contributions as from Idris) maybe not on general, on this growing situation, I will stop posting on it.

Is that "open debate" as in "open debate", or "open debate" as in "you all acknowledge that I'm right and you're wrong"?

 

[Spion]

Bollocks, it's a calssic blood libel.

Sorry, but I saw a caricature of Ariel Sharon and a representation of a dead baby, and we've seen enough *real* ones of those recently to know it what both of those refer to - the real killing in their hundreds of Palestinian children.

And - most importantly - I saw someone call this image of a protester 'the most shocking image of the week'. I stand by my statement that that represents a twisted morality - implicitly attacking the response to the REAL, ACTUAL killing of children instead of the act itself.

 

[claphamboy]

Well I recognised the image in the OP to be Ariel Sharon and therefore not generally anti-Semitic, but I can also understand how some could misinterpret it as such, if they lack the background knowledge behind the image, which is unfortunate.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Every time I think I've got out. . . they drag me back in.

Surely you've learned by now that you can never escape from Hell!!

 

[Spion]

Why the need for you and others to smear him as 'racist' and 'right wing' for pointing out some unpleasant anti semetic images/ stereotypes, though, I don't know.

Someone who chooses that image as the most shocking of the week when hundreds of people are being killed clearly has an agenda to smear opposition to Israel. It also demonstrates a twisted morality which allows him to be blind to real dead people, to effectively put their deaths, the snuffing out of their existence lower in his hierarchy of shockingness than someone protesting about it.

And how the hell is a caricature of Ariel Sharon not going to look Jewish?

 

[Spion]

Well I recognised the image in the OP to be Ariel Sharon and therefore not generally anti-Semitic, but I can also understand how some could misinterpret it as such, if they lack the background knowledge behind the image, which is unfortunate.

This

 

[ViolentPanda]

Even if it's a caricature of Sharon (which I don't personally see), the image chosen is also an anti-semitic blood libel.

Except that we were said to drain the blood of babies into chalices (because, as "everybody knows", even the poorest Jewish community always has a chalice of precious metal handy for nefarious purposes) rather than drinking it straight from the tap, so to speak.
The image is ambiguous. I look at it and immediately see a 3d pastiche of Dave Brown's Sharon caricature, you look at it and immediately see a reference to the blood libel.

Being the one thing does not mean it's not the other.

GS(v)

Of course not, but it also depends on context, as to how that image is represented. Treelover chose to represent it entirely as a reference to the blood libel, because Treelover often doesn't look beyond the immediate offence that such images cause.