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, First 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.

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.