Not the Bell end after all

So much for Steve Bell getting cancelled by the Guardian. 

Steve Bell 'stunned' at reports he has been 'sacked': 'The whole thing has been a bit disturbing

"Dear Dominic

Thanks for your email. I would have appreciated a chat before you went to press because your story is not true. I would be delighted to talk sometime, over a pint of Harveys or whatever, but I would dearly love to know who confirmed it, if anyone did. I know there has been a twitter spat, and my own small contribution seems to have made things worse for me, but surely it is a necessity to at least talk to the subject of a story before publishing it. My contract as it stands is coming to an end next year, but since I have always been on an annual freelance contract, and this has always been a process of negotiation. 

You can imagine that this has been a very difficult time for me. I don’t know how the story that I’d been sacked got about, and nobody has bothered to approach me to confirm or deny it, but it highlights the problem with social media. I certainly didn’t put it out. My tweet was an attempt to counter the disgusting and damaging story that I have been sacked for alleged antisemitism, racism and misogyny. I’m now pretty certain that the Guardian didn’t either. I’m a bit stunned myself, but I’m hoping for the best. I had an approach from the Guardian Press office in response to all the nonsense on twitter, so they’re obviously in the dark too. Since I have for a long time been one of the Guardian’s most well-paid and prolific freelancers, and have been in negotiations with Kath Viner for some time about reducing my overall workload (I currently do seven cartoons a week), my contract as it stands will come to an end at the end of next April. Sadly this probably spells the end for the ‘If…’ strip after 39 and a half years, which I enjoy doing immensely, but is a hell of a lot of work for an old codger like me, particularly in full colour. I do hope to continue after next April doing large editorial cartoons.

What I am absolutely certain of is that, firstly, any changes to my contract are a result of budget cuts, and the full story of what this means for all Guardian staff and freelancers is only just becoming clear. Secondly, no one at the paper that I know of has ever suggested that I am being got rid of for reasons of alleged or supposed misogyny, racism or some other misdemeanour.

I must admit that the whole thing has been a bit disturbing, but I hope to be cartooning for a while yet. 

All the best 

Steve Bell

(emphasis mine)

Don’t you feel happy that the racist, antisemitic, misogynist old codger will continue to be generously remunerated for his imaginative beautifully drawn witty original satirical cartoons?

The Bell Tolls

NEW: More change at The Guardian. Steve Bell (@BellBelltoons), cartoonist since 1981 and recently accused of racism over his caricature of Priti Patel as a bull, is leaving. Contract won't be renewed next year. Decision unrelated to wider job cuts. The Guardian has no comment.

— Chris Williams (@cg_williams) July 17, 2020

Steve Bell

We need to talk about Steve Bell. It seems he’s out of favour with the Graun. Maybe that newspaper is belatedly trying to shed its antisemitic image alongside the Labour Party. However - if you remember CifWatch you’ll agree that’s a bit of a non-starter.

 Anyway, the cartoon that broke the camel’s back wasn’t one of his most offensive. Personally, I found the ‘strip-cartoon’ format slightly reminiscent of early Mad Magazine or similarly subversive under the counter strip-cartoony publications. They used to take a theme and ridicule it and stretch it to breaking point in a cultish but oddly appealing way.   However, most of Bell’s one-off efforts for the Guardian were neither amusing nor wittily drawn, but malicious, often antisemitic, repetitive and predictable. “Good riddance” seemed to be quite a popular reaction.

Hope and Chutzpa

I feel the urge to revisit some recent topics.

Sayeeda Warsi is one of the BBC’s privileged Muslim spokespersons whose visceral hatred of Israel is always allowed to stand unchallenged. Since I posted my earlier comments several further reviews of her book The Enemy Within have materialised.

Jenni Russell, for instance, in the Sunday Times (£) has written a rather respectful review, but one gets a vague impression that she’s written it through gritted teeth.  If that’s not purely a figment of my imagination, one might well ask, why? Why submit a review that seems to be holding something back? I know. That sort of speculation is  above my pay grade.

Here’s a passage:

“She identifies the anger over Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses, in 1988, as the first time that British Muslims became politicised as a community. Furious Muslims felt the state was failing them by refusing to prosecute Rushdie for blasphemy. The government, horrified by the bounty placed on Rushdie’s head by Iran, felt bound to defend one of liberal Britain’s fundamental rights, to speak and publish freely. Mutual incomprehension “set Muslims on a journey of simmering resentment and a narrative of grievance”. After 9/11 and the war on terror, Muslims came to be seen as a problem, with their religion, not their Britishness, as their defining identity.”

To me that seems almost conspicuously non-committal. Has Ms Russell caught the BBC’s value-judgment-o-phobia?

Another article on the Baroness cheered me up far more. It’s by Col. Richard Kemp. Surprisingly the BBC still consults him on military matters from time to time, which is surprising. One would think his commitment to defending the IDF would have discredited him altogether in the eyes of the BBC.

Here are a couple of passages:

“The chutzpah of Sayeeda Warsi. I mean that in the Yiddish sense of despicable insolence, but likening the Israel Defence Force to the Islamic State is much worse, it is dangerously irresponsible. Warsi excuses IS and Muslims who leave Britain to murder and rape for them yet condemns the IDF and British Jews who serve in their honourable ranks. 

Coming from the most prominent Muslim parliamentarian, this will make Islamic jihadists sniff blood. It will encourage UK Muslims to join terror groups and embolden IS. Repeating the lie that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza validates Hamas’s human shield strategy and encourages further violence and killing. She has blood on her hands.
Her arguments are absurd. She obviously doesn’t care about the so-called loophole she demands is closed: allowing British citizens to join a foreign army. If she did, she would apply the same in reverse, condemning the thousands of Gurkhas and Commonwealth soldiers in the ranks of the British forces today. 

[…]The IDF are the diametric opposite of this (IS) evil. They are the army of our close allies, at the forefront of the war on terror. Israeli intelligence has saved many British lives on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, here at home and abroad.
Israeli drone, counter-IED and battlefield medical technology have made our forces more effective and kept British soldiers alive and fighting. 

Israel’s staunch military backing to Egypt and Jordan has held IS at bay and prevented an even worse immigration flow into Europe. 

Will our young people who join the IDF cut off their victims’ heads, burn them in cages, bury them up to their necks and leave them to die, line them up and shoot them in the back of the head, systematically destroy their cultural heritage, rape their women and children, torture their prisoners, beat and abuse their elders, as IS do? 

I won’t even answer that. The IDF complies with the Geneva Conventions and with Jewish morality handed down across the centuries. In their efforts to avoid civilian casualties in battle, they are admired and emulated by armies throughout the world. 

I have seen many young British IDF soldiers in action. I hugely admire their dedication, humanity, professionalism, courage and fighting spirit. 

I abhor and reject the contemptible accusations of Sayeeda Warsi. Unlike these brave Jewish men and women, she has never put herself in harm’s way for her country, has no understanding of the depredations of our bestial IS enemies or the righteousness of our friends and allies of the IDF.

*************

The other piece I want to quickly revisit concerns our old friend Ken Livingstone and his wretched hearing.

On Harry’s Place Sarah AB draws our attention to a pathetic Steve Bell ‘cartoon’ that the Guardian deems worth publishing. In my opinion it has nil merit. It’s really badly drawn and its message contains neither wit nor humour. Any discernible satire, should anyone wish to discern some, misses whatever target was in Steve Bell’s head and lands - bullseye fashion - upon seriously unfunny antisemitism.

Tomorrow. The verdict.

************

I see Owen Jones has put his social media flounce behind him and has returned to Twitter. Having been  vilified by the Corbynistas for not being sufficiently antisemitic, (at least not enough to boycott the Jewish Labour Movement) he used the first Henry Smith Memorial Lecture  to try out  a spot of damage limitation by keeping a toe in both camps. 

Firstly condemning antisemitism - why, some of his best friends are Jews -  then denouncing Benjamin Netanyahu: “riddled with bigotry”,  and the current Israeli government: “hard-right, bigoted, violating international law and making peace impossible.” 

Here’s a taster from a report in “Jewish News”:

“But Mr Jones — who has not yet visited Israel — did not pull his punches when it came to condemning the current Israeli government. Describing himself as a passionate supporter of Palestinian self-determination, he described Mr Netanyahu’s government as “hard-right, bigoted, violating international law and making peace impossible.”

Owen’s Twitter thingy gave me a nasty shock, too. Owen is appearing at the Hall for Cornwall next week.. His performance is titled: “The Politics of Hope”.

I’m well aware that there is a strong Corbynista contingent in west Cornwall, as well as a mini branch of the PSC.  (H/T David Collier)The Corbynistas in the audience, if they could afford the £13 per ticket, could easily turn into a nasty little baying mob. 

It’s a great shame that so many social justice warriors believe their racist campaign is morally righteous. For disseminating misinformation and bias, I hold the BBC responsible.

**************

One of the least offensive stories of the day is the undercover apostrophe doctor. Many viewers must be baffled. The greengrocers amongst us, at any rate. 

The BBC really ought to set out the proper rules for apostrophes so that the people who aren’t quite sure could get educated. (Oh, they do!) I have to say that the intrusive ‘greengrocer’s apostrophe’ undermines many an otherwise fine bit of prose.

Conforming to type

Just to underline David Keighley’s observations about the BBC’s anti-Ukip formula as per Craig’s post below, James Naughtie provided a classic example for our delectation at the back end of this morning’s Today programme.

The interviewees were: 

Lisa Markwell is Editor of the Independent on Sunday.

 She was previously executive editor of The Independent, i and The Independent on Sunday and has edited the features pages, and both the Saturday and Sunday supplements. She writes comment pieces for the papers and restaurant reviews for the New Review. Lisa has worked across a variety of newspapers and magazines and can now tick off every publication cycle from daily to quarterly. She is an enthusiastic foodie, mother of two teenagers and drives an electric car. She is writing a book about adoption.

Victoria Newton is Editor of the Sun on Sunday. 

The Cambridge-educated journalist began her career at the Daily Express and moved to the Sun as a showbiz reporter. She was also the paper's Los Angeles correspondent and went on to become showbiz editor at the Daily Mail before returning to the Sun two years ago as the editor of long-running showbiz section Bizarre, later becoming head of features.

Steve Bell is a Political Cartoonist who draws for The Guardian among others. You knew that.

They weren’t interviewees exactly, but chums having a cosy gossip. James Naughtie had as much, if not more to say than any of his guests, and at several points he became quite excited and emotional. You’d have to hear it to get the full effect, but I transcribed some of it for fun.

First, Guardtoonist Steve ‘I draw David Cameron with a condom on his head’ Bell said “The tories the tories the tories.”  But let’s cut straight to the chase:

JN

“Victoria Newton, Sun on Sunday, did you think David Cameron benefited from that set-up?

VN

I think he came out unscathed, which was what he intended to do..

JN

Who was ‘scathed,’ then?

VN

I think they all did pretty well. Sturgeon was clearly the winner. Farage was totally bizarre with that totally uncalled for message on HIV but he probably appealed to those core voters of his constituency, which he needed to do because the Ukip support has been waning...

JN

Well there was a report today in one of the papers saying that they had a big discussion before the debate about what to do and there was a division of opinion about whether he should use that line but it was a very deliberate line to appeal to the core vote, knowing that it would offend a lot of other people but he’s not interested in the people who wouldn’t vote for Ukip anyway.

VN

That’s right he was trying to pull back some of those natural tory voters that had gone Ukip but were veering back towards the tories, with a strong message.

JN

Well let’s pursue that Lisa Markwell with you from the Independent on Sunday. Do you think that Ukip has peaked, and is in a state of......awkwardness at this point in the campaign?

LM

I think that’s quite possible and I think we’ll see over the next few weeks that Ukip and Green will probably fall away. I mean what was interesting about the debate and has been interesting about the rise of Farage is this sort of cult of personality, so

JN

Which he’s very good at..

LM

Which he’s very good at and of course people are so jaded, and the other leaders don’t help themselves by all turning up yesterday wearing navy blue jumpers over pale blue sweaters so, you know, it’s the same old thing, so Farage has offered something different but as he revealed on last Thursday night in his shock and awful theory as they’re calling it that, you know he’s just someone, it’s not just a personality but it’s not a personality that many people are willing to embrace.

JN

I thought, just watching it, that Nick Clegg looked almost released by the burdens of government; now if you look at all the things that have been said about him in the last five years, I mean there is nothing now that can be said about him that will cause him any trouble because it’s all been said already - he almost seemed to be a man that felt free!

LM

Yes I agree with that completely and in fact over this week, looking at his photo opportunities, you know hug the hedgehog, and so on, he has looked like a man who is, you know some people are saying...

JN

More that he’s enjoyed government...

LM

..his farewell tour but it may not be completely, he may come back out of retirement but he’s um, he did look, I mean he’s always been a good orator and i think in debates he’s showed that again, although I thought what was quite disappointing is that I’m afraid we’re going to move on to the rise and rise of women because Victoria and I are here as well, but the women did very well, but Leanne Wood was the first person to get a blow on Farage, but Nick Clegg made a slightly similar point later on and everybody applauded it was like, you know, come on guys.

I’ll leave it there. Steve Bell alleged that the press is “so pro-Tory” - we learned that Ed was “a bit more prime-ministerial” - and various other bits of consensual  chit-chat, much of which came from Naughtie.

They really don’t like Farage, do they?

Update

Rod Liddle has been having a go at radio 4‘s PM for its Farage-bashing agenda too.

No other leader was subjected to similar scrutiny and even if the supercilious bint’s figures were correct, the points Farage made still pertained. (In other words, for example, while Farage said the vast majority of people obtaining new HIV treatment in the UK were health tourists, the supercilious bint pointed out this was only 54 per cent. And that some of those had every right to treatment etc, and might come from rich countries like the USA. Where of course they would have to pay for treatment, or have the requisite insurance, she failed to add.)

Try taking those casual, throwaway statements, which littered the Today programme (transcribed above) that were completely devoid of statistical or any other kind of scrutiny,  and comparing them with the haranguing Mishal Husain gave Nigel Farage the other day. 

If some of the allegations above were subjected to the abrasive Husain scrutiny it might go something like this:

“Sturgeon was clearly the winner”? Sez who. “That totally uncalled-for message on HIV.”  Are you saying that the NHS, which according to you is already struggling, must provide unlimited, unconditional  free healthcare to all “human beings” that happen to be ill? Are you saying that mentioning this dilemma is taboo, let alone debating it?

  

“Ukip support has been waning.” Define waning. Figures please, with a cap on.

“People are so jaded.” More jaded than they were when?  Are you saying that there’s some significance in navy blue-jumpers over pale blue sweaters? Define please and be more specific.  

The airy fairy flim-flam we heard from Naughtie and the ladies wouldn’t stand up to the Mishal Husain treatment, but then, it was never going to be put to the test, was it?   

Drawing conclusions

I’m amazed and appalled that while Vince Cable was on the topic of not tolerating the intolerant he didn’t mention the exodus from France of French Jews primarily prompted, according to pundits from all sides of the political spectrum, by the influence of the French Muslim community.

I’m also amazed and appalled by the apparent inability on the part of commenters who unanimously condemn Islamic terrorism to make a connection between this incident and the continual Islam-inspired terrorism Israel faces every minute of every single day. 

Of course many people have pointed out the universality of Charlie Hebdo’s targets, which happen to be, in particular, Jews. (H/T EoZ)

As well as pointing out that the Jews don’t retaliate to antisemitic cartoons by shooting cartoonists and journalists who've been enjoying their ‘hard-fought’ freedom of expression, there’s still the small elephant in the room in the shape of cartoonists like Steve Bell and Martin Rowson who specialise in antisemitic cartoonery, and the fact that they’re being wheeled in to the BBC studios opine about the righteousness of their freedom of expression. 

It’s just a shame that most of the time they’re expressing their own ignorance and prejudice and pandering to ignorance and prejudice of others with  the subtlety of a sledge-hammer.  Satire is all well and good, but actual incitement to racial hatred, not. It’s not even legal.

The BBC’s de facto compliance with the blasphemy law concerning representation of ‘the prophet’ might have been its ill-conceived way of showing respect to Muslims, but where’s the counterpart deference to other religions? It’s just another symptom of the Islamization of the BBC.

There is an interesting thread on Elder of Ziyon with some particularly impressive comments:

“A friend of mine posted this brilliant comment on Facebook: "This attack only underscores the need for France to immediately engage in negotiations with French Muslims that will result in the creation of  two states for two peoples, living side by side in peace and security, with Paris as a shared capital... 

“A commenter on JPost said that this terror attack was retaliation for the French occupying "Paristine", and having taken the land from the "Paristinians".

 “Can just see it now - "From the Seine to the Seas Paristine will be free."

Paristine. That nails it. Anyway, Steve Bell is an inarticulate oaf - but one might excuse that, being that his tool of trade is the pen, not the spoken word. However in my opinion his penmanship is as plodding and laboured as his politics are clumsy and unoriginal. 

He has none of the wit, fluency of line and ability to evoke humour, even from tragedy, that a true cartoonist like e.g., Matt of the Telegraph has in spades. Or  Peter Brookes. His Wallace IS Ed Miliband and his Gromit IS Ed Balls. How he has managed to epitomise Balls’s expression in the form of a plasticine dog is pretty damn clever. 

Peter Brookes. Clever cartooning.

 (I must admit that Steve Bell and Martin Rowson’s antisemitism has influenced my judgment a tad.)

The ongoing terrorist attack in the form of hostage taking is now located in a Kosher grocery.

This morning even Justin Webb was taken aback after listening to Sima Kotecha’s vox pop foray into deepest High Wycombe, location of the UK’s largest  Muslim community. An ‘ordinary’ peaceful Muslim businessman declared that although he abhorred the Paris killings, the fact is, he loves the prophet Mohammed PBUH more than he loves his mum, dad and kids. 

“What, he loves the prophet more than his kids?” asked Justin incredulously. That just about says it all. Well, at least it says to me - two things. One, Justin doesn’t grasp the nature of Islam, and two, religious Muslims don’t grasp the nature of nature.

Bad Drawings

27th January.

Harry’s Place notes the antisemitic Gerald Scarfe cartoon which, for some unknown reason, the Sunday Times has decided to publish on Holocaust Memorial Day. The cartoon wasn’t topical. It wasn’t original. It wasn’t witty. It wasn’t even very well drawn.

If it was anything at all, it was an attention-grabbing, going-through-the-motions thing on the part of Scarfe and the Sunday Times. 

When I hear the likes of cartoonists Martin Rowson and Steve Bell being feted on the BBC, as they frequently are, I marvel at the gullibility of their admirers, who mistake stiff, laboured, overworked, elaborately detailed drawings for wonderful draftsmanship, and lazy unoriginal, cruel ideas for insightful, politically astute commentary. 

Most of their ‘anti-authoritarian’ ideas are blunt, not cutting edge. Antisemitic, not critical of Israel’s policies.

It’s ten past eight on Tuesday 29th January. 

I’m listening to the Today programme and we’ve been promised an item about *that* Gerald Scarfe cartoon. So Rupert Murdoch has said sorry, and Scarfe has expressed regret that it was published on Holocaust Memorial Day, (but he has prepared 364 antisemitic cartoons for the rest of the year?)

Oh, the item is on. They’ve got Steve Bell on the air, and he has accused Stephen Pollard of throwing meaningless terms like “blood libel’ about, while he himself uses the libelously inappropriate term ‘ethnic cleansing’ to characterise Israel’s creation.

Steve Bell is a loud-mouthed bully with supremely ill-informed opinions, which came across loud and clear. He verbally shoved both James Naughtie and Stephen Pollard aside, behaving like a bulldozer in one of his own unpleasant cartoons. 

Sadly too many people share his ignorance. Contradictory narratives surround the Israel/Palestine conflict, and to varying degrees the BBC has chosen to adopt and disseminate the Jew-hating, 'pro-Palestinian' version, which has played no mean part in bringing about a worrying 1930s echo to the state of affairs we can see now.

No matter how many times websites like BBCWatch and Harry’s Place put forth the case for Israel with much substance and eloquence, there are many many others who put forth their own favourite case against. 

Since neither side is particularly receptive to the views of the opposition, it seems it ultimately boils down to a matter of ‘whose side were you on in the first place?’ Having said that, the pro Israel side is by nature very much more open to debate than their opposite number. 

With some notable exceptions, Israel's supporters find it less difficult to listen and engage in debate. They are more likely to set out their argument with clarity, whereas the pro-Palestinians seem to get away with innuendo and snide remarks based on myths like the ones Steve Bell relies on, putting their opponents on the defensive.  

As a result Israel’s detractors always seem able to frame the debate. Over and over again it’s on their terms. For instance, must Israel contemplate living side by side with a state-full of  Palestinian citizens who refuse to renounce violence and won’t even recognise its neighbour’s right to exist? Therefore, as a precondition, Israel could reasonably demand that Abbas sorts this out before going any further.  

But Israel has not made any preconditions. Instead, the spurious issue of settlements has somehow been established as a precondition. A precondition, not for peace, but for the resumption of talks about peace. Oy!

When a debate does take place, people quote historians to bolster their case. For every pro-Israel historian there is a revisionist or an Arab historian who says the opposite. People cite websites, journalists, writers, television, radio, celebrities, their uncle and pub philosophers of all shapes and sizes, and cherry-pick bits and pieces which back up their argument.  We no longer need to use our brains. We just revert to type. After the argument, no matter what, we ‘snap to grid’.

A sort of anecdote.

While passing round the port in the correct direction, titled aristocrats I happen to be acquainted with recount long-ago adventures in the Middle East; hair-raising near-death scrapes involving armed and dangerous ‘Johnny Arabs.‘ They’re apt to chuckle, with nostalgia and a strange affection for people they portray as duplicitous, volatile, sneaky, untrustworthy, exotic foreigners. 

They know. They know what characteristics define people of a certain religion, yet they still take their word above Israel’s, because without any evidence or personal experience, gut feeling leads them to distrust the Jew-boy even more. 

And they’re really nice folks, who I like a lot. They’ve got wit, humour, generosity, manners, energy, and a genuine respect for the less privileged. Their political views seem to be an odd mixture of Conservative and left wing socialist.

So, what’s new? The antisemitism that pervades most  left-wing ‘progressive’ organisations and much of the media trundles on, gathering momentum like a hideous snowball and gaining acceptance the bigger it grows.

This interesting article on BBCWatch is about Kevin Connolly, who has tried to explain that the BBC’s off-beam predictions (that the elections would bring Israel further to the right) weren’t wrong after all, because Israel’s victorious ‘centrists’ are what we would consider ‘the right’. 

Connolly deduces this solely because of Mr. Lapid’s position on Jerusalem, which the BBC sees as the ‘right-wing’ position.  This is because the BBC believes that, should the ‘obstacles to peace‘ ever be overcome, East Jerusalem must be the capital of the new peace-loving Palestinian state, in accordance with the Palestinians’ demands. Even though they can clearly see the how lovable the antics of Johnny Arab actually are, with their very own eyes. 

“That Mr Lapid is labelled a centrist perhaps shows you where the centre of gravity of Israeli opinion on such matters lies these days.” Opines Connolly.

Oh! so un-self- aware! The centre of gravity? Where does he think the BBC’s centre of gravity is? The CENTRE? Puh-lease.

As for Steve Bell. I hope the majority of listeners will have grasped what a fool he is. But I somehow doubt it.