The Guardian has let go of one of its—indeed, one of the nation’s—best-known cartoonists in what appears to be an attempt to avoid the ‘antisemitic’ label. This has prompted fears that the “British tradition of satire” is “at stake.”
Steve Bell has produced cartoons for the paper for more than 40 years. In proper British cartoonist form, these have often been fairly shocking and sometimes controversial—this is his style, for which The Guardian surely paid him all this time.
But last Monday, it appeared to have been decided that the ‘risk’ had become too great. After submitting a cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu operating on his own body, where an outline of the Gaza strip could be seen alongside the caption “Residents of Gaza, get out now,” Bell said he received what he described as a “cryptic” and “mysterious” phone call from his paper pointing to an “antisemitic trope.”
Reports say The Guardian’s pictures desk was fearful that some would interpret the image as a reference to Shylock, a fictional Jewish moneylender who demands a “pound of flesh” in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice.
Bell insists that the cartoon was, in fact, a nod to cartoonist David Levine’s 1960s work depicting then-U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson with a scar in the shape of Vietnam.
It is worth noting that Bell’s cartoon featured the text: “After David Levine.”
Indeed, Free Speech Union General Secretary Toby Young highlighted that the Shakespeare inference doesn’t even work. He told The European Conservative:
Steve Bell says it was a reference to a famous cartoon of LBJ pointing to a Vietnam-shaped scar on his stomach, and Bell made that explicit by writing “After David Levine” on the cartoon. I think we should accept that explanation. To claim it was a reference to Shylock doesn’t make sense because Shylock at no point tries to remove, or threatens to remove, a pound of flesh from his own body. It’s a forfeit he wants his debtor to pay. In addition, the flesh Netanyahu is about to remove in the cartoon weighs considerably more than a pound.
More important than that, though, is the free speech implication of this saga. The Guardian said last week that it would not publish any more of Bell’s work before his contract expires in April, adding that “we thank him and wish him all the best.”
But Young thinks the paper has “got this one wrong.” He said:
Steve Bell should be given the benefit of the doubt. Freedom of expression is one of the values that is under attack by the enemies of Western liberal democracy, and in our zeal to defend ourselves, we must not sacrifice it.
Many on the Right have celebrated Bell’s removal, with The Daily Mail even opting to collect all of Bell’s “past controversies” in one handy guide.
Writing in The Spectator, Fraser Nelson set himself aside from this glee, noting that “Bell’s politics are different to mine,” but “at stake here is the British tradition of satire.” He added that “there is nothing to savour here. A long and distinguished career has ended in this way because a flagship newspaper was unable to defend his style in the new age of digital censorship. It’s a depressing sign of our times.”
Others have highlighted that The Guardian has been scared about publishing on this topic since cartoonist Martin Rowsen was embroiled in a row over “antisemitism.” Bell said it has become “impossible to draw this subject for The Guardian now without being falsely accused of using ‘antisemitic tropes.’” What some appear to be missing is that this isn’t about Left and Right at all, but about free speech.
