Your say – the Wilcox cartoon

Reader Alan Slade writes:

In the January 12 Sydney Morning Herald editorial “apology” for publishing the disgraceful antisemitic Cathy Wilcox cartoon, insulting to lawyers, business and sports people as well as Labor politicians supporting the calling of a royal commission into antisemitism in Australia, the editorial writer wrote “Although the Herald saw the need for a royal commission, not all our readers, and indeed not all Australians, agreed with that approach. And those views, too, found a place in our pages.” What the editor omitted was the ratio of for and against letters selected for publication, which was very heavily weighted against those calling for a royal commission.

 

The editorial went on, “For decades, the Herald’s cartoonists have held up a mirror to reflect hypocrisy in public life….. Wilcox’s intention was to scrutinise the almost immediate politicisation following the horrific attack at Bondi.” Can someone – anyone – please explain how this cartoon scrutinises “the almost immediate politicisation”:

The editorial “apology” continues “Her depiction of Benjamin Netanyahu, for example, is premised on his condemnation of Albanese in the hours after the attack, declaring the prime minister’s recognition of Palestine “pours fuel on the antisemitic fire”.

If her intent at “depiction of Benjamin Netanyahu”, is premised on his condemnation of Albanese in the hours after the attack, declaring the prime minister’s recognition of Palestine “pours fuel on the antisemitic fire” why did it take her months to depict her “premise”? It was back in August 2025 that Israel’s prime minister accused Albanese of having betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia’s Jewish community.

The editorial then branches off into free speech with “The seeds of that debate have been sown in the past week, with the withdrawal of a host of eminent writers from Adelaide Writers Week following the festival’s removal of controversial Palestinian writer Randa Abdel Fattah from the program. The withdrawals were not necessarily an endorsement of her views and statements, but an act in support of free speech.” Since when are statements “If you are a Zionist, you have no claim or right to cultural safety. It is the duty of those who oppose racism to ensure that every space Zionists enter is culturally unsafe for them.” and “May 2025 be the end of Israel … May we see the abolishment of the death cult of Zionism” acceptable as free speech when 80% of Jewish Australians as well as a significant number of non-Jewish Australians identify as Zionists, defined as “supporters of the independent Jewish state of Israel”?

The editorial concludes “Wilcox and other cartoonists must be allowed to continue to draw the world as they see it. There are many commentators and members of the Jewish community, for example, who do not support the policies of Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu. They, too, must not be silenced.” Is the editorial writer serious? Even in Israel there are “many commentators and members of the Jewish community, for example, who do not support the policies of Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu” as evidenced by the weekly demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of participants.

The apology was reminiscent of any Sir Humphrey would have penned for his minister. It took up an entire newspaper column and can be summarised thus: “We are sorry if what we did offended you, but we believe we have the right to keep doing it.”

Alan Slade

Vaucluse, Sydney

Have something to say?  Write to [email protected]