Useful web sites

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    « Muslim extremist site fakes UK media organization endorsement | Main | Slouching towards Bethlehem 2008 »



    You know, I saw that cartoon in the Telegraph and I couldn't understand why it would be seen as amusing or clever or insightful. The guy with the magen david didn't look much like Olmert to me so I thought it might also be Bush. This just puzzled me even more. I think it's just a poor cartoon, that's all. It must be difficult to come up with a good one every day.

    Miv Tucker

    I'm not sure I agree - while I don't fully subscribe to Adloyada's analysis, Garland is clearly suggesting that both countries are equally responsible for the situation between them, and that both represent an equal danger to international peace, which clearly flies in the face of all the facts.

    It is not Israel that calls for Iran to be wiped from the face of the Earth; it is not Israel that is hell-bent on developing a nuclear bomb to puruse that aim; it is not Israel that supports terrorism in all quarters and has declared war on the West; it is not Israel that is mired in barbarism and steeped in a cruel medieval theology; and it is not from Israel that a torrent of anti-Semitic filth pours daily forth.


    Imshin, though there are one or two UK cartoonists who might portray Bush wearing a Magen David T-shirt as if he were controlled by Israel, Garland is not one of them. He does, though, have a track record of portraying Israel and its prime ministers as criminal.

    I can't imagine even the most critical cartoonists of the UK's involvement in Iraq portraying a British prime minister as a knife criminal-- they usually go in for more scatological stuff.

    I agree that it's a poor cartoon.


    Maybe the reason I didn't recognize it as Olmert and found it puzzling is because even if one wrongly perceives Israel as a whole as a violent entity itching for a fight, based on a misunderstanding of Israel's policies and actions (which is pretty widespread in your part of the world), the image of Olmert in gang warfare just doesn't fit Olmert's persona at all.

    I think if a UK PM was under investigation for corruption like Olmert is (have you heard the latest?, the press would certainly be portraying him as a criminal, and quite rightly so.

    However, I don't think anyone has to worry of Olmert's alleged criminal tendencies (which are all the result of greed) making him gun happy. Quite the opposite, in fact. This guy has led the Israeli government to make one cowardly decision after another, while somehow managing to sell them all to the public as courageous.


    I agree. To portray Olmert as a knife criminal is ludicrous--he's really into saving his skin at all costs.

    Although we've had plenty of corruption scandals, the word is never used directly about our politicians. The word used is always "sleaze". That's usually portrayed as getting money stuffed into envelopes (as Olmert is supposed to have done).

    However, British cartoonists repeatedly portrayed Blair as a poodle or a dog fawning at the feet of Bush, portrayed as a chimpanzee. Now they portray Brown as a pathetic bird, some other unattractive animal or a Victorian employer.

    Maybe the ferocious UK libel laws make them reluctant to portray British politicians as criminals.


    Joy we are agreeing with you, were just not being as emtnoioal as you are. The Moslems are trying to force the Christians out the same way they forced out most of the Jews, they are then going to increase their global jihad against all non believers.


    this is evil, go an apologise , and stand well back.In this way, they *all* rienmd me of Nazi concentration camp gaurds not willing to take up any responsibility for their actions, and only looking after their own arses.Phew, I done, peace out.


    Can you elaborate on how Boris is the caintdade for travellers? He's announced that London public transport fees are to raise by 7% next year, and from what I've read he's raised fees above inflation every year since 2008. Maybe you mean he's the caintdade for people travelling by car, since he reduced the congestion charging zone, which Tfl estimated lost a355m a year in revenue. Presumably the a355m has to be recouped from somewhere

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    August 2015

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    9 10 11 12 13 14 15
    16 17 18 19 20 21 22
    23 24 25 26 27 28 29
    30 31          
    Blog powered by Typepad