babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Well, I'll reiterate Michelle's challenge to Stockholm as well, so you can flag this too.
Stockholm's "analogy" made a whole bunch of stereotypical and privileged (false) presumptions, such as:
1. All Palestinians are Muslims.
2. The Khadrs have some identification with Muslims.
3. Afghans have something to do with Palestinians.
It comes from, and feeds, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and racism.
Personally, I don't think Stockholm meant all this, but in stretching for an analogy, he gave birth to this monstrosity.
So, Michelle could just as well have said: "So Stockholm, Afghans and Palestinians are somehow the same"? Or the way she said it. Both very proper.
He didn't say it. He free associated it. Advertising and propaganda 101. You don't need to say something directly to express its meaning. Indeed, one can then turn around and say "I didn't say that". Of course you didn't, That was intentional. Just as intentional as the fact that you meant to infer the association.
Stockybaba often does this. For example, We can talk about Hamas, and somehow represession of human rights in Saudi Arabia will suddenly enter into the conversation, as if that has anything to do with what is actually in the Hamas charter, which indeed explicitly distances itself from certain ideas that are applied by the Saudi regime.
These stereotypes are used to play on explicit Islamophobic sentiments of a very extreme nature, and without a doubt, the intention to play on ignorance, and the commonly held beliefs propogated by the extreme racist right, is very, very intentional.
The idea for example, that Al Queda, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, Hizbollah and Hamas all hold the same "Islamist" ideological stance, as expressed by the lowest common denominator of rights and can be associated with each other, as being representative of THE muslim world view, and inherent in Muslim theology, is an essential active mode of common place anti-Muslim prejudice.
Explanations from Unionist and Cueball are acknowledged and heard. Cueball, thank you for explaining this to me. Clearly I missed some dot connecting. Michelle, apologies. I was too quick to judge and rash in my judgement. Mods, apologies for wasting time with the flagging. Please accept this as a by-product of youthful exuberance. In another thread someone said something about well-meaning youth saying "jaw-droppingly stupid" things, or something to that effect....
This all started when someone else seemed to be trying to steroetype all supporters of Israel as being homophobic bigots. That's obviously absurd as wel. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Its no different from the sweeping generalizations people make about Zionism.
Perhaps the solution would be as follows: 1) that people who are supporters of Israel refrain from labelling anyone who criticises Israel as being anti-semitic and 2) that people who are supporters of Palestinians refrain from labelling anyone who criticizes Hamas as being Islamophobic.
Until both of those conditions are met this topic will continue to be as toxic as ever.
Who made any sweeping generalizations about Zionism that are not true?
On the other hand suggesting that Hamas articulates a position that no Jews or Gentiles should live in Palestine, ala the Saudi Arabian example, is in fact an outright lie.
In fact, no Palestinian organization with any amount of real support among Palestinians has ever argued for the explusion of persons just because they were Jews, or non Muslims. That is a lie as well. Not the PLO or Hamas. Ever.
Hamas claims to want to install an "Islamic state". I think its fair to look at other examples of "Islamic states" and see what that might mean. Judging from wehat it means in Saudi Arabia and Iran and Afghanistan - it ain't pretty.If you can show me examples of "Islamic states" that are wonderful liberal democracies where women have equal rights and where people are free to practice any religion they want - I'd love to hear about it and maybe I will then be less suspicious of what Hamas has in mind.
Similarly, if someone tells me that they want Canada to be a fascist state, I look at what fascism meant in Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy and Pinochet's Chile and I tend to think that fascism in Canada would eb something along those lines. If the leader of the Fascist Party of Canada said, we want to impose an explicitly fascist corporatist regime in Canada but don't worry it won't be EXACTLY like what Franco or Mussolini did - I don't think it would do much to assuage my fears and suspicions.
Exactly Stockholm. Your position is rank prejudice without any evidence whatsoever. Hamas say in its charter they want an Islamic state. You accept this at face value. When the same charter goes on to say that their image of an Islamic state includes Jews and Gentiles you reject that on pure prejudice alone. You have no basis for it at all. Indeed Egypt and Pakistan are also officially an "Islamic" states, but neither has any special prohibition against Jews and Gentiles living there.
But you assert the lowest common denominator as being representative of the whole: Stereotyping and Prejudice.
I certainly do not advocate for any kind of religious state as a model for civil society, however, I also do not advocate for lies, misrepresentation and slander. I am opposed to both.
I'm not sure why you're quoting the Hamas Charter now since I think in the past you claimed that the Charter was menaingless and that no one took it seriously after it was pointed out that the Hamas Charter explicitly says the following:
"The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)."
Are we supposed to believe the charter or not - or are we only supposed to believe the parts that are not embarrassing to Hamas and make it look bad?
I am quoting is as the source for your assertion that Hamas wants an Islamic state. It's true. That is what is says there. It also says, "Hamas is a humane movement" that respects the rights of non-Muslims to live in that state. Do you have another source for the assertion that Hamas wants and Islamic state other than the charter, or did you just get that out of your head?
Here are some juicy tidbits from the Hamas Charter where the discuss the status of women and casually mention that Freemasons and Rotary Clubs are zionist front organizations (in later passages they claim that the Lion's Club and Kiwanis are also part of the conspiracy)- enjoy...
"The Muslim women have a no lesser role than that of men in the war of liberation; they manufacture men and play a great role in guiding and educating the [new] generation. The enemies have understood that role, therefore they realize that if they can guide and educate [the Muslim women] in a way that would distance them from Islam, they would have won that war. Therefore, you can see them making consistent efforts [in that direction] by way of publicity and movies, curricula of education and culture, using as their intermediaries their craftsmen who are part of the various Zionist Organizations which take on all sorts of names and shapes such as: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, gangs of spies and the like. All of them are nests of saboteurs and sabotage. Those Zionist organizations control vast material resources, which enable them to fulfill their mission amidst societies, with a view of implementing Zionist goals and sowing the concepts that can be of use to the enemy. Those organizations operate [in a situation] where Islam is absent from the arena and alienated from its people. Thus, the Muslims must fulfill their duty in confronting the schemes of those saboteurs. When Islam will retake possession of [the means to] guide the life [of the Muslims], it will wipe out those organizations which are the enemy of humanity and Islam."
So what? That is what is says there. I don't support any of the charter, except the basic right of Palestinians to resist occupation.
My point is that you repeat the slander that Hamas argues for a Saudi Arabian style state with no other ethnicities. This is just slander. It doesn't say that. It says the exact opposite. But you will cherry pick the worst parts, and decontextualize them so you demonize the organization and its supporters.
I never said that they want a Saudi Arabian style state. I simply said that since Saudi Arabia is one of the only other examples of an Islamic state in the world - it gives a hint of what Hamas might have in mind.
Aand I'm particularly outraged by how they slander the Rotary Club and the Lion's Club. What bigotted hatred from these people. How dare they!!!
By the way in another amusing passage in the charter they claim that Zionists were responsible for the French and Russian revolutions....if only it were so!
Thanks for proving the point I made to Citzen_H earlier, that the advantage of slander by "free association". When it is proved that you have no basis for making the association, you can always say "I never said that".
Convenient.
Yeah, there is a lot of ignorance in the document, to be sure. But no where does it call for the expulsion of all Jews just because they are Jews. It says that the only way that Muslims, Jews and Gentiles can get along is under the management of a Muslim state. No Palestinian organization of any weight in Palestinian society has ever argued for the expulsion of Jews, just because they are Jews.
That is a myth.
"slander by free association" by jove, you've invented a whole new concept. Why don't you write a formal definition of it and send it to the Oxford English Dictionary and see if they include in their next edition!
I support free association as a rule - but apparently Hamas doesn't want people to join the Rotary Club or the Lion's Club!!
The oldest trick in the book. Put a picture of a happy baby next to a picture of baby formula. Put a picture Sheik Ahmed Yassin, nexy to a picture of Dachau. Same trick.
What evidence is there that supporters of Israel are particularly homophobic and misogynist?
Diversionary nonsense. Soon we'll be arguing about whether the CJC and Bernie Farber love or hate gays. This is about Libby Davies and the vicious attacks on her from various quarters - in this case, the CIC. Michelle's point was merely that there are many self-styled Israel supporters who are making misogynist and homophobic posts, and that is consonant with the CIC's "mouthy lesbian" slip-up.
The attacks against Libby are unfair.
The idea that supporters of Israel are particularly homophobic and misogynist also seems unfair.
Well, pointing out tweets like this is a valid thing, considering that one of the main lines of "hasbara" these days has been to prattle on endlessly about how "gay-friendly" Israel supposedly is, as if(even assuming it was the case)that justified the Occupation, Operation Cast Lead, AND the Siege of Gaza.
You'd think Palestinians were demanding self-determination because they were obsessed with persecuting gays, rather than simply wanting it for the same reason anyone else would: because EVERYONE wants self-determination.
I'm not sure that their is much validity in these tweets.
Are these tweets in an any way representative of Israeli supporters?
Actually the evidence, in Canada at least, is pretty damning in this regard.
Both of the major pro-Israel lobby organizations in Canada have had homophobic scandals tied directly to queer politicians or political groups expressing solidarity with Palestinians.
The first was the B'nai Brith homophobic panic when a Toronto Star blog printed a quip that one of its executives was gay. This was covered on babble in detail.
Now we have the Canada-Israel committee making homophobic slurs against Libby Davies.
(And we saw the homophobes come out of the woodwork on babble when the QuAIA issue became mainstream news.)
If this keeps up, a connection is going to be made in the public mind (pink-washing/hasbara notwithstanding): supporter of Israel = homophobe.
Correction - you mean the Canadian Jewish Congress.
My mistake. Though, if we add the CJC and the Toronto Star homphobic panic, that means all three mainstream pro-Israel lobby groups (CIC, CJC, and B'nai Brith) have a track record of homophobia.
On B'nai Brith and homophobia, from QuAiA:
The same link has more on homophobia in the CJC.
It would be great if Israel and Hamas and Fatah all had a bidding war whereby they all try to win over public opinion in the west by showing how gay positive they are. Hamas should get in the act and start "pinkwashing" the Gaza strip and hold a gay pride parade just to show the world how tolerant they are. It would be a great propaganda victory against Israel and would help stop Israel from being able to play the gay card.
Maybe Gaza City should bid to host World Pride 2011 and it would be a great way to showcase what a tolerant, gay-positive place a Hamas-ruled islamic republic of Palestine would be!!
Yep, and as soon as there is a way without having to land in Israel to get there by air I am sure it can be arranged.
My guess is that the people of Gaza might be a little too preoccupied with avoiding starving to death to put on an international festival of any sort.
There IS that.
edit: nevermind
And if I were a moderator I would surely end this thread by quoting this piece of boundless optimism:
Peace everyone!