Side view for more comparison:
Top right: clearest case IMO. nose clearly bears no resemblance to his actual nose, whereas large hooked noses are the most common physical anti-semitic stereotype.
Top left: huge lips is another classic Nazi stereotype. Big ears arguably also, but he does have pretty big ears. The drooping eyes are a more subtle stereotype, but given that his actual eyes are narrow, not drooping, that’s pretty suspicious IMO. Contrast top-right, which caricatures his real eyes.
Bottom left: fucking cursed, but I can’t see anything anti-semitic
Bottom right: unhinged, but again not anti-semitic that I can see. There have been some depictions of jews as snakes, hence having forked tongues, but they’re not super common that I can see so it’s a bit of a stretch.
for the bottom right: the tongue is not forked on the actual ghost, they added that intentionally
OK but saying a politician is a snake or devil of some kind isn’t unusual, so unless we can find some anti-semitic trope it’s based on, I don’t see it.
Ironically, the most common example I know if is Farage as depicted by Martin Rowson!
Removed by mod
The four cartoon pics straight up look like they were drawn by A. Wyatt Mann.
Edit: THREE cartoons and a PHOTO MANIPULATION, thank you for correcting fuckin pedant, feels like I’m back on Reddit thanks
Given that the bottom left is not even a cartoon but a photomanipulation I don’t think you’ve looked at them carefully enough that anyone should take your word for it.
You’re right looking at pictures requires an extensive investigative study it can’t be just done at a glance.
No, extensive is not necessary, obviously. But it looks like a glance is not sufficient.
If you disagree you can say what’s wrong with the others. It’s a lot more productive than just talking vaguely.
I was saying they all look racist but you come in hostile so how bout you productively fuck off. Sorry my shitpost comment I made while I was on a walk about how some images are racist and look like a racist guy’s comics didn’t meet your exhaustive observational standards. I sure will sit down and REALLY study a post’s images and my comment before make any more posting lest I offend your delicate sensibilities more.
Or most likely I’ll glance at your poop brown tag you’ve earned now and extensively think “lul that guy’s a full on dingus from reddit”
I was saying they all look racist
But are still not saying how.
Or most likely
Oh no, however will I cope? The approval of people who add nothing to discussions was all that was keeping me going :'(
Do you even know who A. Wyatt Man is? It’s an internet comment not a fucking research paper. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, stay ignorant, I’m not here to hold the hand of some fired up toxic asshole. If someone asked half-respectfully, I could elaborate.
deleted by creator
Other images make the nose appear more hooked
But surely anyone’s nose will appear more hooked when widely grinning like that because it’ll slightly raise the points where your nose attaches to your face.
True
And if you have a lick of sense and any kind of historical awareness, this fact won’t make you exactly reproduce overt Nazi caricatures.
It’s alarming to me how many people here have no fucking clue how clear-cut antisemitic the top right one is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Merchant
Yeah, someone pointed it out to me. I kind of see it now
What the actual fuck. Nevermind the antisemitism for a second, why are they even bashing politicians based on appearance in the first place? British media is unhinged.
It’s a standard thing they do to anybody vaguely left wing.
If your election promise isn’t to go visit all the billionaire media owners and personally suck them off, you’re not going anywhere in the UK.
Yeah if you published something like that in Sweden you’d get pitchforks shoved up your ass.
I’m amazed their officers haven’t been fire bombed yet. If their hacker journalists had an ounce of talent they would be humiliated working there.
It’s called caricature, and it’s been a central part of British political cartoons since the 18th Century. Politicians have been known to buy the originals to hang on their walls.
There have also been caricatures of Jews that were clearly antisemitic in intent, like some of the ones of Polansky.
Especially the top right one depicted here is just extremely blatantly antisemitic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Merchant
We also have political caricatures. They look like this.
Meanwhile Orange Man:
Politicians are horrible twats. No idea what the ratio is, or how it could be proven, but I would imagine that the amount of “good” politicians is a very very low number. I mean politicians that actually have the best interests of the public at heart, or in mind, when they’re making decisions. The idea of voting for people to make decisions for me is nuts. Any outrage about a caricature is crazy.
If you don’t know what the conversation is about you don’t have to contribute. It’s not a requirement you know.
I have my criticisms of the greens but not with him in particular
I am fully aware of what the conversation is about.
Let me break it down for you.
Caricatures are drawn of a politician.
Somebody claims that because said politician is Jewish and has a big nose in the caricatures that they are antisemitic.
Likens the caricatures to pro-Palestine marches when they are, and should be, independent of one another.
I would suggest that Keir Starmers connections to Israel, and influence by the Jewish people close to him, may lay closer to the reason that his government have cracked down so hard on the Pro-Palestine movements.
They are a total contradiction in themselves, which has been proven time and time again. Which is something I get is being attempted with this/these examples.
But they are not like for like. Nowhere in the cartoons is the politician calling for death to Palestinians or even pro-Israel (so cannot be accused of being antisemitic) under Starmers laws.
But equally if the politician was calling for that, he likely wouldn’t be accused of it either under Starmers Britain.
Starmers Britain is one where the “only” antisemitic people can be those that will use satire, humour or criticism of the Jewish people, but not necessarily Semite people. That includes calling out Genocide or just publicly supporting aid for the people being slaughtered.
One example is in this video - A Jewish community crowd around a news crew, telling a Semite journalist that he should “go home” and that he is not welcome on their streets, calling him a Donkey and a Dog. Nothing happened to any of them.
The law is very lob sided on this ‘law’ under Starmer. His version of antisemitism that he “will not tolerate in any form” is only really in favour of some Semite people, but definitely not all, and not only does he tolerate it, he often ignores it, in many of its forms.
It seems Jewish people cannot be antisemitic, but other Semite people can be.
@mirshafie @insubstantialpageant they really don’t want the Greens to have any influence at all!
Well yeah they’re trying to implement policies which will ensure to continue existence of the species beyond the next generation. What an awful prospect.
Just always been like that, spitting image was an institution.
Photo of the guy for comparison
With teeth like that how could he be anything but British?
In fairness though Laurence Fishburne is American and I can’t think of any other famous examples
I mean…
They’re not playing with nothing, but they really leaned into drawing his features in an especially antisemitic way
Because when they talk about “anti-semitism” they are actually talking about anti-ZIONISM. Since they are a vassal state of USrael.
Slimer is not Jewish tho for one thing ectocooler was NOT kosher and also when he was eating books in the library those were vellum manuscripts which as you know can only be eaten by Jewish ghosts under certain very specific
Damn this is 100% antisemititic coded.
All of them are owned by a Jewish Zionist family by the way.
The Telegraph isn’t.
Edit: also, I couldn’t find any accounts of Murdoch being Jewish?
I was talking about the Maxwells
They have nothing to do with any of these newspapers. I’m not even sure they have anything to do with the Mirror anymore.
OP is SO STUPID! NONE of these Cartoons showed someone PROTECTING Children from Bombs or PUSHING away Dogs that are RAPING Children! THOSE would be Anti Semetic!
-The BBC and Keir Starmer!
Surprised they haven’t drawn him with a rat’s tail at this point.
Honestly, I’m failing to see the antisemitism. They’re exaggerating his facial features, which is standard practice in editorial cartoons. Unless I’m missing something?
He’s jewish and the feature they’re exaggerating is the nose. There are the type of people that have been crying foul over an italian newspaper printing an image of an iof soldier unedited, saying it’s antisemitic
I don’t know the story about the Italian newspaper and the IDF soldier, so I can’t judge that.
But I do have to be fair and say the nose is one of the many features they exaggerate (and the nose is very often a feature exaggerated in editorial cartoons, whether the person is Jewish or not). They also exaggerate the ears, his smile, and the gap in his teeth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_nose
It’s a well known antisemitic stereotype.
Exaggerated noses are a trope in caricatures regardless of ethnicity. But more importantly, the guy actually does have a bigger than average nose and big ears. What are the caricaturists supposed to do, not exaggerate his features? That’s the point of caricatures.
The ears and teeth are probably fair game but his nose is normal and unremarkable. The nose in the first three is 100% hook nosed merchant jewish stereotype. The slimer one doesn’t seem nearly as bad as the others.
His nose is quite distinctive. In front-facing photos (e.g. [1] [2]) the tip is the lowest part of his nose with the nostrils being above the tip. It’s reasonable to draw this as a hook nose in a caricature.
Where the caricatures, particularly the one in the top right, go wrong is in drawing his nose with a prominent bridge (like this real nose), which he doesn’t really seem to have.
Look at how wide Polanski’s nose is between his eyes, where it transitions into the brow. Now look how narrow his nose is between the eyes in the cartoons, and how there is a dent at his brow that just isn’t there IRL.
The cartoons aren’t exaggerating Polanski’s features, they are drawing an antisemitic “Jew nose”.
Didn’t think I’d go down a nose hole today.
I feel like noses are just fun to look at?
I mean compare it with (CW for antisemitic cartoon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Merchant
Good point, the nose is different
Exaggerated noses are a theme
Those are just exaggerations of existing features. That last one for example, Farage does look exactly like that. The big noses thing is limited to the characters that aren’t supposed to be caricatures of anyone.
Hasn’t an exaggerated nose not always been indicative of a liar? There’s even an emoji 🤥
They aren’t exaggerating. They’re modifying to fit the “cunning greedy” antisemitic trope face. Big nose is fine, they made his hooked. Tooth gap is fine, they made him look like he’s been holding out on the dentist to chew gold. Long, flat side-pointy grin is fine. They made him look like a nervous Grinch contemplating the suffering of others with glee.
The difference is so stark one wonders if you were saying this in good faith, in contrast to the presented dirtbag devil’s advocate (there’s no reason regardless to give them a benefit of the doubt nor defend them given what their position and the points they’re making, even if the art style were borderline).
Top right is the clearest example, it gives him a massive hooked nose. His nose is mostly straight. In contrast, every single Nazi poster depicted jews with, you guessed it, massive hooked noses.
They’re out in force on this one. Scream antisemitism enough, and no form of satire, humor, criticism or anything else will be allowed if the person is Jewish. At least that is their hope. It’s half working, but I think it has peaked. At least that is my hope. Hopefully it starts its reverse trajectory now.
Not even you believe your bullshit but ok
jaja… Look around you.
The fucking article is about a caricature of a man, and it’s being called anti-Semitic.
That should tell you more than anyone needs to know. “Pick your battles” comes to mind.
Man I don’t know how a racist charicture of a jew could possibly be antisemitic 🙄🙄
First… The Jewish people aren’t a race. Second, who said it was anti-Semitic and why? The cartoonist?
Lmaoooooooooooo
DAABOR.
Political characatures (sp) are common, but if you’ve looked at the specifically antisemitic ones from history you would see these borrow heavily and obviously from those old racist comics.
The rich are afraid of chad Polanski
Bloody hell!
A reminder that israel is a project planned and launched largely by british christians to scapegoat jews for western exploitation and militarism against muslim states in the middle east. The west will pretend to support judaism only so long as the appearance can be abused as a means of domination.
For my fellow americans in the room, consider how the timing of the rise of evangelicalism - A christian doomsday sect obsessed with jewish control of palestine - As a state religion here in all but name only, coincides roughly with the US taking up the baton from the british as top paypig for israel, coincides roughly with our current acceptance of european-descended jews into white privilege.
I lack reference. I see caricatures. How do they differ to be specifically antisemitic? Is there a specific detail that makes them that?
Yes, it’s extremely obvious and disgusting, especially the top two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Merchant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watto
Hmmmmmmm
The one on the top left doesn’t even look like him.
![[1]](https://fournews-assets-prod-s3-ew1-nmprod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/2026/05/CNLM0xym_image-1920x1080.png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://res.cloudinary.com/dyw8mv3b0/image/upload/q_85,w_1200,h_1200,c_limit/v1/news/2025_11/Zack_Polanski_svxudy.jpg){kind=link}
