How do you explain the Scarfe cartoon mystery at the Sunday Times?

On the day it was published the Sunday Times was robustly defending the cartoon depicting the right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu building a wall with blood-red mortar and denying it was anti-Semitic.

On Tuesday, acting editor Martin Ivens was issuing profound apologies and accepting the cartoon had “crossed a line” and had been “a terrible mistake.”

How do you account for such an instant change of heart; such a Kelvin MacKenzie reverse ferret? Actually it is very easy to explain. Indeed there can only be one explanation and it’s all down to the Sunday Times owner Rupert Murdoch and his tweets.

Murdoch, who is an admirer of the right of centre social views of Netanyahu, denounced Scarfe’s work as “grotesque” and “offensive” and called in his tweet for a major apology.

It was hardly surprising then that Ivens, who has ambitions one day to be editor of the Sunday Times rather than merely acting-editor, – how can we put it politely – changed his mind.

It is obvious, of course, that Murdoch was absolutely right that the cartoon was both grotesque and offensive, as indeed is most of Scarfe’s work and that of the best cartoonists throughout history.

Sir David Low, the legendary Evening Standard cartoonist, declared that it was his vocation to be the permanent opposition, making life uncomfortable for those in power and as a result was on Hitler’s death list if Britain had ever been invaded.

Further back there were the totally grotesque and absolutely offensive caricatures of George III and George IV by the likes of Gillray and Cruikshank.

George IV, while prince Regent, was mercilessly portrayed as everything from a drunk and a gambler to a glutton and womaniser in a way that probably would be totally unacceptable to modern sensibilities.

Where does that leave us with the Scarfe cartoon titled “Israeli Elections” and captioned “Will Cementing Peace Continue?”

One of the allegations is that it was insensitive to carry such a cartoon on Holocaust Memorial Day – set by the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

What happened in such places cannot be remembered enough – indeed I took my children there because of a belief it is something that everyone should see and ponder.

But Scarfe says he wasn’t aware it was Holocaust Memorial Day and his purpose was to comment on the Israeli elections in the next issue of the Sunday Times following the event.

Cartoons comment on news. Though the timing undoubtedly added to the sense of outrage caused, is it really being argued that the Sunday Times, even if it had been aware of the sensitivity of the date, should have held off a week before publishing its “offensive” cartoon about Israeli politics?

The main complaint against the cartoon is the use of blood in the mortar of the wall, which presumably represents the separation security barriers on the West Bank dividing communities. It could, more symbolically, represent the controversial settlements policy, which has been widely criticised in the West.

Both would surely be legitimate political targets for a properly offensive cartoonist.

But how come the blood? Some Jewish groups saw it as reminiscent of the medieval “blood libel”, an anti-semitic nonsense that had the Jews stealing human blood for use in religious ceremonies – a lie still perpetuated in anti-semitic propaganda in the Arab world.

The problem is that Gerald Scarfe commonly uses blood as a dramatic device in his images and recently portrayed Syrian President Assad drinking the blood of his people. Linking this with “the blood libel” seems like over-interpretation.

Apart from defending the freedom of cartoonists everywhere to be offensive in making their points, there is the difficulty of seeing criticism of the actions and policies of the Israeli government being automatically likened to anti-semitism in a knee-jerk, internet-fuelled reaction.

We are not talking about anything on the scale of reaction to publication of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons in Denmark in 2005. The cartoons caused outrage throughout the Muslim world and up to 200 people may have died in the ensuing riots.

There is still an issue with some members of the Jewish community conflating political criticism with anti-semitism. Yet, some Jewish commentators have been more sophisticated. Anshel Pfeffer, columnist of the Israeli paper Ha’aretz, wrote about “the usual suspects” calling for Scarfe’s head.

The columnist told the Guardian that in every case he knew the battle against racism and xenophobia went hand-in-hand with freedom of the press.

Rachel Lasserson, editor of the Jewish Quarterly in London was even more forthright in expressing her worries about real anti-semitism in Hungary and Italy. She believes the Jewish community needs to be able to distinguish between general anti-semitism and a discussion about the settlements and the West Bank barrier.

Even acting editors of the Sunday Times should be able to make such a distinction and defend his grotesque, offensive and distinguished cartoonist – instead of caving in to Rupert Murdoch, Jewish lobbying groups, or both.

There was another, much smaller surprise this week, when the most famous Sunday Times editor of all time Sir Harold Evans repeated his view that there was nothing to fear about an element of statutory underpinning of an independent press regulator.

Giving the annual Hugh Cudlipp lecture in London, Sir Harold attacked some sections of the newspaper industry for cynicism and arrogance in their response to the Leveson package of recommendations, which included enshrining press freedom in legislation.

“To portray his careful construct for statutory underpinning as state control is a gross distortion,” said Sir Harold.

He is absolutely right it is a gross distortion but that still does not mean it is not a step too far.

Would Hugh Cudlipp have signed up for such a deal?

Would any American newspaper agree to such a thing even if it was not completely illegal under the first amendment to the constitution?

Gerald Scarfe should draw a cartoon about the issue and if it ends up dripping with blood…so be it.