Smearing Zack Polanski
The medium is mostly the written word. But the political cartoon has its own history. The Times is leading from the front as we now have a few days left before local elections in England and the Greens, and Zack Polanski in particular, must be smeared. The level of cognitive dissonance is staggering that this is the headline on the front of a newspaper that features an antisemitic cartoon about the Jewish leader of a British political party:
The cartoon by Peter Brookes (below) looks like something from Der Stürmer. The intention is very clear, to weaponise antisemitism against the Left, here depicting the Green leader attacking the police.
Of course, the problem with this tactic is that Polanksi is Jewish. But that doesn’t matter in a world where you can promote Nigel Farage, a known antisemite, as a progressive character. In a post-truth world, it doesn’t need to make sense. As Mukhtar put it: “They are now publishing an antisemitic caricature of the only Jewish party leader while accusing him of antisemitism.”
Peter Brookes has a history of far-right cartoons for the Times, going back to Jeremy Corbyn’s time as Labour leader.
But if we go further back we can see this by Peter Brookes from The Times on May 3, 2024:
Peddling violent imagery was considered fair-game because it was about a Scottish political party, and smearing a Jewish political leader is considered fair-game because it’s the Green Party. Cartoons are meant to be provocative, shocking even, but the degree of hypocrisy at play here is shocking. The Guardian sacked Steve Bell after a media-led outcry over his caricature of Benjamin Netanyahu (left), but so far have been silent about the image produced by Brookes (right):
The media in Britain is a disgrace.
Thanks for this; now posted at Blue Sky.
Indeed, BBC Israel in Scotland this morning the Zionist kuensberg continual pressure verbage on Zack Polanski to agree to banning Palestine action marches .
Zack refused to be directed by her verbage.
Quite right to.
Yet what was obvious Zack was the only one who
Came out on the side of Palestine Lebanon and to the genocides being committed.
Neither kuensberg or the other unionists mentioned the genocides.
Kenneth – many within the Jewish community highlight that it is wrong for Jewish people in Britain to be targeted because of actions of Israeli government. I completely agree with this sentiment. Banning marches opposed to Israeli genocidal aggression in Palestine on the grounds that they threaten the Jewish community in UK would in reality be making a link between the actions of Israeli government and Jewish community in UK. It should be remembered that Jewish people march on these rallies too.
The likely outcome of any ban on Pro Palestine marches would therefore be to increase hostility and the risk of violence towards the Jewish community as opposed to reducing the hostility and risk.
There are certain high profile Jewish groups within UK who align themselves closely to Israel. The most effective way to reduce risk to their own community would be for these groups to call out and oppose the actions of the extreme right wing Israeli government especially when they break international law rather than supporting them. This would also help the other Jewish groups working within and across communities to help reduce antisemitism.
Do you dislike Rastafarians for beiong zionists or is it just Jews?
Billy – I don’t particularly dislike anyone. I really dislike genocide and I abhor any state that perpetrates genocide. I also don’t think any states or organisations, regardless of ethnic or religious background, should be actively supporting states which are undertaking genocide.
Nb: most scholars and experts in genocide consider that Israel’s action Gaza meet several of the criteria against which a genocide is measured.
I hope this is clear enough for you.
Succintly put. Keep thinking of ‘2 and 2 make 5’ and how Orwell had such a grasp of media manipulation.
“The media in Brtain has ALWAYS been a disgrace.”
This is a repeat of the Corbyn saga. It is also a distraction from the actions (& lack thereof) of LINO (= tory continuity party).
But the point is – distraction, get everybopdy talking about anything apart from the state of the country, the state of the economy and the total failure of politics.
Absolute nonsense. The cartoon of Netanyahu was criticised because of a perceived “pound of flesh” trope. Now whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant, it was the trope that was anti-semitic. There is nothing anti-semitic in the cartoon of Polanski. It is satire of his ill-judged and opportunistic retweet of some leftist crank criticising the actions of the police (the leftists very predictably blinded by their ideological hatred of authority “knee-jerked” their reactions all over X, more concerned about the welfare of a Jew hating criminal than the actual Jewish victims themselves). But my feeling is you know that and this is yet another “outrage’ moment from the Left combined with selective facts… As for Polanski he is an opportunistic charlatan who is finally coming under some serious scrutiny. At best Zack Polanski (real name Dave Paulden – but that hasn’t got that showbiz ring has it?) is a naive attention seeking idiot, a former failed actor, turned quack hypnotherapist (who said he could enlarge women’s breasts by the power of thought!), and then turned opportunistic politician (briefly failing with the Lib Dems) who saw his chance for his long sought after fame as a populist mouthpiece for the newly radicalised Green Party (which is riding the wave of the Far Left and Muslim activist hatred of Israel). However, at worst he is a knowing and dangerous narcissist, a snake oil salesmen manipulating idealist and gullible idiots for his own chaotic ends and would do nothing but bring harm to the UK. thank goodness he is guaranteed to fail.
From wikipedia:
His [Zack Polanski’s] Jewish ancestors had moved to the UK from Poland to escape the occupation by Nazi Germany, but originated from Latvia which they fled to escape pogroms (initially to Ukraine, then to Poland) in the early twentieth century.
The family adopted the surname of Paulden hoping to evade antisemitism. His parents divorced when he was 11.
At age 18, he changed his name, restoring his familial name of Polanski, later saying it was important for him to take pride in his identity. He also changed his first name, selecting Zack in homage to the Jewish character of the same name from the novel Goodnight Mister Tom, and to differentiate himself from his stepfather, also named David, whom Polanski states that he didn’t get on with.
But my feeling is you know that, and this is yet another “outrage’ moment from the Right combined with selective facts…
Also, Polanski told the Sun reporter seeking a sensational, soar-away breast-enlargement headline, that he could, at best, help her to feel happy about her existing breast size using hypnotherapy. He specifically told her hypnotherapy would not make her boobs bigger. But then, why let facts get in the way of a far-right smear campaign eh?
Not everything is a “right wing smear campaign”…. Please remove your tin foil hat!
I’m certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt about his name. The story seems convincing enough (though there is no doubt that “Zack Polanski” is a much better showbiz name that Dave Paulden!). You are correct that I did know that, but it was more of a “wind up” than “outrage moment”. But all my other points stand (I note you have no rebuttal to the main point, either).
And it turns out that now there are question marks over his CV (Polanski has acknowledged he was wrong to say he had been a spokesman for the British Red Cross while campaigning in 2022) and whether he has paid his council tax! (which the Green Party has admitted he may have failed to pay) … or is this all another “right wing smear”, I wonder?! As for your defence of the indefensible about his breast enlargement quackery, I’m not at all convinced. In fact, you are incorrect:
Zack Polanski DID claim, as a hypnotherapist in 2013, that hypnotherapy could enlarge women’s breasts (or at least produce measurable changes in bust size), and he offered such a session to a Sun reporter.
In the 2013 Sun article, Polanski conducted a hypnotherapy session with an undercover reporter aimed at increasing her breast size. He is quoted supporting the approach, describing it as a safe, cheaper alternative to surgery. The reporter claimed measurable results (e.g., her bust measurement increased).
And… Six days after the article (18 June 2013), in a BBC Radio Humberside interview, Polanski stood by the claims rather than apologising. He referenced “anecdotal evidence” of breast size growth from his work, called the Sun session a “successful project,” noted increases in bust measurements (e.g., four inches, tighter fit in the same cup size), and stated he believed it “can happen in theory” and that “the evidence is growing.”
This is a giant red flag (with a hammer & sickle!) that he is a manipulative conman. And it should be to all. But apparently not to ideologically captured and tribalistic Green supporters.
He really is more suited to running a whacky cult with his charismatic snake oil everyman toothless charm and his cuddly group-think “radical compassion” bullsh*t. It’s utterly embarassing.