BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Keffiyeh? I hardly know her!

  
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
Disco is My Class War
00:33 / 13.12.06
I don't think I've ever read more dribbling, incoherent idiocy than the translation above, and I very much doubt that it would be imrpoved with a more careful translation.

Like caldogot says, pieces of cloth are pieces of cloth. Words mean different things in different contexts. Go read Barthes, toksik.
 
 
Char Aina
01:04 / 13.12.06
well, that was dismissive.
i shall endevour to read some barthes when i get the chance.


as for the translation, i feel i shouldnt have posted it.
it was done via a free translation service, most of which seem to exist only to sell you a good version of their services.
the original blog was of more use.
i sought to give more information with which to assess the original translation, but it seems i have instead provided an alternative, and a weak one at that.

i'd recommend reading the original post instead, if you havent already.


also, perhaps your assertion that a flag is just a piece of cloth would benefit from some expansion?
i understand you are saying that if i read barthes it will help, but assuming i wont get to that for a while, could you help me understand?

how do you discount the very real connotations a simple piece of cloth has when shaped and coloured in a particular way? what makes you suggest that here is nothing more to a flag than simple cloth when so much evidence points to the contrary?
 
 
Jati no Rei
08:57 / 16.12.06
It seems one main goal the author of the flyer had was to conflate the wearing of an intifada scarf with neo-nazis, who probably have an even worse reputation in Germany than in the US, which is saying somethng. It seems their main point was to make kids who are disgusted by neo-nazis refuse to wear a keffiyeh. This does lead to the question: Why?

The language was odd, though. At first I thought it was written by a neo-nazi, who was trying to warm-up people who hated the way Palestinians were being treated, and thus might be antisemitic. It wasn't until the end that they came to their point about not wearearing the scarf unless you want to be associated with neo-nazis. This may just be a function of the culture/language barrier, which, as the later translations proove, can be important.

On the topic of keffiyeh being "just a piece of cloth" or not, I feel it is worth pointing out that yes, the cloth is just cloth. The people who wear them, or see them, however, intertwine with them certain meanings, as has been said. And not just such scarves, but shirts, hats and the way you wear them can all mean different things to different people. As caldogot said, hir scarf is a reminder of a Palestinian friend. As the flyer said, the same scarf can be taken to mean something else entirely. This is the problem with assigning much meaning in what someone is wearing, unless it is reinforced by their actions.
 
 
Char Aina
15:58 / 16.12.06
i would still appreciate a bit of expansion on the 'just a piece of cloth' point, perhaps drawing distinct differences between that argument and the 'ni**er is just a word' argument.

clearly there are differences, but i would appreciate someone who has read the right books helping me to understand those differencs as best i can.
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
04:51 / 02.01.07
If you read Hancot's blog for more then thirty seconds it's clear that he's a right-Zionist. (I use the term to differentiate him from the likes of Peace Now! who are also Zionists by some definations). He supports the building of the 'security fence' for example. So I'm afraid I don't accept him as a legitimate source. It's not an ad hominem attack if the person making the arguments genuinely is the problem with them.

Calgodot, if you want to argue the point on the fascist movement and their views on Israel I'm quite happy to, with special reference to stated policy of the fascists themselves. Stick it in a more appropriate thread though.
 
 
neutral
20:54 / 05.01.07
oh my god! jade goody,my idol is wearing one on celebraity big brother at this very moment, so is jade a nazi or not? you decide?
 
 
neutral
20:57 / 05.01.07
i love jade, she cant be no nazi
 
 
penitentvandal
16:15 / 13.03.07
Fortunately I have some pills to take now so I can be calm when the subject of Jade Goody and racism comes up...

As to the 'just a cloth' argument, hmmm, can't buy it myself. In an ideal world, yes, this would be true, but let's face it, it isn't. If I go in the Newcastle stand at St James' Park and wear a Sunderland scarf, I will definitely get some severe verbal aggro and possibly a beating, too, and no amount of telling people it's 'just cloth' or that I'm only wearing it 'because it's cold' will help my case. If I go to certain parts of the US and set fire to a US flag, I will be in a similar position. If I wave a Union Flag at the last night of the proms it means one thing; if I wave it on a BNP march it means a different thing.

The key point is, you can't separate the cloth from the context it appears in. A neo-Nazi wearing a keffiyeh might well be wearing it to show his hatred of Jews. A Hamas member wearing one would be doing it to show his group allegiance to an anti-Israeli organisation (arguably not the same as antisemitism though, admittedly, I am perhaps really stretching things a bit for Hamas here). Bobby Gillespie wearing one is probably just trying to say that he's 'revolutionary' in some vaguely wank way that doesn't include not shovelling coke up his nose. You may wear one because it's a gift from your friend, which is fair enough.

The only thing is, sometimes you can't control the context. A jewish person, seeing you in a keffiyeh, might take offence. The onus there is probably on you to impress on hir that you don't mean it to offend hir, and to discuss it from there. Saying 'it's just cloth' is dismissive, and suggests as well that their offence is entirely their problem, which I'm not sure is the case.
 
 
Scarlett_156
20:02 / 13.03.07
One time some friends of mine and I were in a night club. My female friend had just bought a new jacket, which she had been wearing all day long at the office. She liked the jacket but was having a hard time with the shoulder pads. She decided to remove them. (We were all a bit toasted by this point.) She put the shoulder pads on the table.

As we were listening to the music (a blues solo act, so it was easy to carry on a conversation while the music was going on), my male friend picked up the shoulder pads and started horsing around with them. First he put one over his face like it was a ventilator mask, and got a mild laugh. Then he put it on his head and said drunkenly, "And now it's a jaunty beret!" Since the music was not loud, nearly everyone in the room could hear him.

It was at this point that a large man rose and came over to our table. Shaking his fist, he proceeded to denounce my friend for making fun of people who wear berets. (He was wearing a beret.) He accused us of disrespecting people who have "fought in the defense of freedom" and declared that the beret was a "badge of honor". He was quite intoxicated, and frankly all of us at the table were a bit frightened (except for my friend Jimmy who had a really hard time controlling his giggles).

No fight ensued but it was only because my beret-mocking friend was sufficiently scared to stammer out an apology. The large drunk man staggered off and my girl friend's shoulder pads lay on the table-- after that none of us dared to touch them.

What does this have to do with the upstart European/British/American upstart wearing a Palestinian scarf?

As another poster stated above: A piece of cloth is a piece of cloth. If one ascribes symbolic importance to a piece of cloth, one risks making the same mistake that our misguided parents made in telling us we were going to burn in hell for wearing bellbottoms back in the 1960s.
 
 
penitentvandal
20:49 / 13.03.07
Why did you wear bell bottoms, then? Why didn't you wear drainpipes?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:19 / 13.03.07
And we STILL haven't learned how Barthes fits into all this, Disco not having appeared in this thread since chucking that in as a throwaway line and fucking off.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:21 / 13.03.07
Sorry, that sounded a bit rude. There's more Barthes than I have time, and it would be nice to know which bits toksik should have read, because I think I should probably read the same bits to get my head around all this.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
04:03 / 14.03.07
why do you guys feel that way?

i don't really understand why hats come into it, it's scarves that we're talking about, right? bloody scarves ...

but, scarves or hats, or trousers, maybe it's something we could talk about a bit more?

before we jump into any conclusions?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
04:08 / 14.03.07
before we give our lives over entirely to evil.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:42 / 14.03.07
I don't know if I have any credibility left as a moderator, but could I ask anyway for people to try and relate posts in this thread vaguely, somehow to a basic grasp of the Israel/Palestine situation?
 
 
charrellz
18:51 / 14.03.07
I think the conversation has shifted away from discussion of the Israel/Palestine situation, and towards a discussion of the political and social clothin associations. If the conversation continues this direction, should it maybe get moved over to Headshop of AFD?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
16:39 / 15.03.07
I simply think it's ridiculous to claim that the scarf, even in Palestine itself, has more to do with hating Jews than it has to do with sympathy for Palestinians. I don't hear this guy saying you shouldn't wear a cowboy hat, and that is a much stronger symbol of violence against native Americans (isn't it?).

The pamphlet looks like sneaky pro-Israel propaganda if you ask me, with the usual "Ah, but if you argue against anything Israel does, you're an anti-semite!" schtick, something I'm wary of, what with an ex-IDF border guard sleeping on my floor for the next week or so.

I have to say, while I think there's a lot of right-wing mythology doing the rounds - about minorities abusing their status to avoid criticism, or to get better stuff, all of which is clearly bollocks - the calculated accusation of anti-semitism to shut down debates around Israel/Palestine is actually a fairly common occurrence - people, not neccesarily Jews, will play this card who are quite happy to hear Islamophobia and knee-jerk pro-USA sentiment go unchallenged.

It's a nasty tactic, because the holocaust, which is what this all comes back to in the end, is such a horrible, and indeed horribly recent, memory for lots of Europeans, and I could forgive someone for trying to steer clear of anything that appeared to come from remotely the same direction.

Yet, two things must be remembered: first, in Western countries we are as a culture much, much more aware of the holocaust than of the years of suffering the various Arab peoples had to put up with, and still do have to put up with, as part of our empires. Likewise, I was never taught at school about the violence of the Indian partition, or the fact that 95% of South America's population was wiped out by the Spanish conquest. Now, if you're unaware of how the Palestinians have suffered, but very much aware of the terrible things that happened to the European Jews, your judgement will be dangerously clouded.

Secondly, it utterly takes the piss to use the horror of the holocaust in such a factional, selfish, power hungry way as certain people do. It's making capital out of death.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
21:25 / 15.03.07
On the first page toksik asks for evidence of extreme-left-wingers wearing keffiyins while endorsing suicide bombings etc. NSFW %which we know has never, ever happened% NSFW (contains a little nudity, anti-semitism and links to far worse stuff photographed at protests in the Bay Area- check out the 'Hall of Shame' section of the main site for the real lunatics.)
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:37 / 16.03.07
I'll have to look into it a bit more, but I'm not sure I like a site which uses "A serious case of Wishful Thinking." as a caption for a photo of a guy with a placard saying "Islam Is Not The Enemy".
 
 
Scarlett_156
06:53 / 16.03.07
If Islam has declared itself to be your enemy (because you are ideologically an "infidel", right?) then why delude yourself that it could somehow still like you or be made to like you after all your more militant and well-informed supporters have been killed off?

Anyway: Islam and a scarf have little or nothing to do with each other. Don't kid yourself. Whatever may or may not happen to us after we die, dying in a barrage of poisonous shrapnel is definitely not the way you want to go out, and that has nothing to do with what you happen to be wearing at the time-- I would say "just ask the last 1,500 Muslim pilgrims who have died within the last few months if it matters", but you can't ask them because THEY'RE ALREADY DEAD.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:17 / 16.03.07
If Islam has declared itself to be your enemy (because you are ideologically an "infidel", right?) then why delude yourself that it could somehow still like you or be made to like you after all your more militant and well-informed supporters have been killed off?

I actually lost my piece of paper from Islam notifying me that I was an enemy. I'm kind of mortified about that.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:04 / 16.03.07
Or, since we are trying something new, here:

Scarlett, it seems clear that you have neither any understanding of nor any interest in the issues around the kheffiyeh which have so far occupied much of this thread. If you have no interest in discussing a topic, it is generally considered bad form to post to a thread telling people that the topic is not worth discussing, especially if you have not read the thread or any of the surrounding material.

Further, we are fairly sensitive around here about racial and religious hatred. As such, a statement such as:

If Islam has declared itself to be your enemy (because you are ideologically an "infidel", right?) then why delude yourself that it could somehow still like you or be made to like you after all your more militant and well-informed supporters have been killed off?

Is, even if it manages to be on-topic, not going to be well-received, because it is, not to put too fine a point on it, bloody stupid. Reasons why it is bloody stupid include but are not limited to:

1) It presupposes that there is a monolithic entity called "Islam", which makes proclamations. No such entity exists.
2) That not being a muslim and being an enemy are identical in the proclamations of the aforementioned non-existent central coordinating committee for Islam.

This is all very Fox News, but it's not very useful. If you have an informed, or even a vaguely interested, point to make, please feel free to make it. However, your right to post does not supersede the right of others not to have to read ill-informed rubbish. If it is within your power to contribute some sort of value to a broader discussion about conflicts between different religious, national and ideological groupings, then there are some threads already in existence that would be interesting, or a new thread could be created. However, wandering the board descending on whatever is at the top of the forum and embarking on a context-free rant having read the title and the most recent post is not going to add value to Barbelith or to your experience of it, beyond a certain degree of self-validation through typing.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
11:03 / 16.03.07
I'll have to look into it a bit more, but I'm not sure I like a site which uses "A serious case of Wishful Thinking." as a caption for a photo of a guy with a placard saying "Islam Is Not The Enemy".

Ah, I didn't see that one. Although, leaving the photographer's editorializing aside, the site does show some seriously nasty or deluded people for whom wearing keffiyeh doesn't merely show a sympathy with Palestinians*, but their belief that Israel shouldn't exist, that violent attacks against Israeli and American civilians are not only permissible but desirable and that Al-Qaeda, Hamas et al. are our brothers in revolutionary struggle against Capitali$$$t AmeriKKKa.

*= What does this term mean in practice? Which Palestinians are being sympathized with? What about express(ing) a solidarity with the Palestinian struggle? What does that mean exactly?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
12:02 / 16.03.07
By the way, this thread has inspired an article I'm working on for my University's paper (and anywhere online that'll take it- suggestions would be appreciated) on the prevalence of intifada scarves on campus (about one in ten students are wearing them on any given day). Obviously that'll involve interviews with scarf-wearing folks, which could prove useful for this thread. I'll post the article here once I'm done.
 
 
Pingle!Pop
15:29 / 16.03.07
a sympathy with Palestinians*, but their belief that Israel shouldn't exist, that violent attacks against Israeli and American civilians are not only permissible but desirable and that Al-Qaeda, Hamas et al. are our brothers in revolutionary struggle against Capitali$$$t AmeriKKKa

I'll happily state my support for number 1 - that Israel shouldn't exist, as a state founded on Zionist principles is inherently a racist state.

Number 2 - that violent attacks against civilians are permissible or desirable - is rather nasty, but very far from uncommon amongst supporters of Israel. Indeed, a recent poll in America showed pretty staggering numbers of people prepared to say that targeting civilians is "sometimes" or "often" necessary or desirable.

Number 3 is a neat conflation; the fact that Al-Qaeda and Hamas share some goals in common does not make them remotely similar. Al-Qaeda shares some goals which happen to be in line with plenty of organisations, but this doesn't automatically mean they resemble these organisations. Which is to say, the fact that the two organisations have some things in common doesn't stop me from broadly supporting one, and not the other.
 
 
nighthawk
15:35 / 16.03.07
Which is to say, the fact that the two organisations have some things in common doesn't stop me from broadly supporting one, and not the other.

Why do you broadly support Hamas? And why do you not support Al Quaeda?
 
 
nighthawk
16:03 / 16.03.07
I mean, I don't want to derail the thread, but if we're extending discussion beyond the leaflet in the opening post, I'd like to hear what people think about Phex's questions here:

What does this term mean in practice? Which Palestinians are being sympathized with? What about express(ing) a solidarity with the Palestinian struggle? What does that mean exactly?

The key question, for me, being 'which Palestinians are being sympathized with', and why. This is my first thought when someone explains that an individual living in the West with no immediate connection to events in Palestine (i.e. family connections, etc.) choses to wear the keffiyeh out of support or solidarity with the Palestinians. They are not a homogenous group, regardless of how they might appear in the imagination of people in the West. When I've talked to people about this in the flesh, discussion has generally followed the outline of what I said back on page 1:

But if you're explicitly trying to make a 'statement', you might want to find out a bit about the politics and history of the region, so that you know who it is that you're expressing solidarity with and why you are doing it. Think about your own motives too, and what it is that's driving you to make a sartorial statement about events in that particular region of the world.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
19:54 / 16.03.07
Why do you broadly support Hamas? And why do you not support Al Quaeda?

I know this is threadrot, but I too would like an answer to that question, in PM to nighthawk and myself if you'd rather the Interwebs not know why you can call for a nation of 7 million people, the most progressive of any in the Middle East, to disappear* since it is 'inherently racist' but 'broadly support' an organization which Human Rights Watch wants held accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity, which has decided suicide bombings are a far more effective means of serving the interests of the Palestinian people than accepting the two-state solution**, whose head of security said that he rather enjoyed having Israel around because it means he doesn't have to go very far to kill Jews, whose charter cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an authentic text***.
Incidentally, you can read Hamas's charter here, to learn about the grave and wholly real threat posed by Rotary Clubs and Freemasons to the Palestinian people.

*=I have this crazy habit of asking people who argue against the state of Israel's existence to tell me where they expect the Jewish population of Israel (76% of the population) to go should the country be dissolved, so if you could include your recommendations then that'd be super.

**=See Article 13 of their charter.

***= Article 32, which also looks forward to when they can bring about the 'next round with the Jews'- not 'Zionists', not Israelis, but Jews, all of them.
 
 
diz
20:08 / 16.03.07
The key question, for me, being 'which Palestinians are being sympathized with', and why. This is my first thought when someone explains that an individual living in the West with no immediate connection to events in Palestine (i.e. family connections, etc.) choses to wear the keffiyeh out of support or solidarity with the Palestinians. They are not a homogenous group, regardless of how they might appear in the imagination of people in the West.

No, that's true, but in general there's broad and deep support among the Palestinian population for the continuation of the struggle against Israel, including armed struggle. It's not the sort of situation where the violence is carried out by a lunatic fringe whose views are not representative of the silent majority, who are sitting around praying to be delivered from the likes of Hamas. In general, it's safe to say that the positions of Hamas are not outside the mainstream of Palestinian political thought, and that they overlap a great deal with supporters of Fatah on key issues.

Israel continually tried to paint Arafat as some sort of extremist stirring up trouble among the otherwise docile Palestinian civilian population, whereas it would have been more accurate to say he was a lot more accomodating towards the Israelis than the average Palestinian was inclined to be, and the only reason he maintained the levels of support he did until his death despite his moderate views was because of the credibility he had earned previously with the PLO.

Long story short, if you say you're sympathetic with Hamas, you're basically saying you're sympathetic with the bulk of the Palestinian population for all intents and purposes.

As far as the issue of Hamas vs. al-Qaeda, tactics which may be more understandable in situations like the Palestinian situation are less understandable in other contexts. To oversimplify to some extent, the Palestinians have their backs up agains the wall, and have few if any other realistic options. That's not true for al-Qaeda.
 
 
nighthawk
20:48 / 16.03.07

No, that's true, but in general there's broad and deep support among the Palestinian population for the continuation of the struggle against Israel, including armed struggle.

Right, but Hamas are an organisation with a history in the region, and a particular leadership with particular aims who encourage and facilitate particular actions. They are not the same as 'the palestinian people'. Aufheben have an interesting take on the history of the region here. I'll try to find some other material later this weekend if I can. I'm not suggesting that most Palestinians are against the struggle against Israel, nor even that they are unsympathetic to Hamas (though people I know who've lived there tell me its far from straight-foward support). But does that mean solidarity with 'the Palestinian people' (all of them? some of them?) amounts to support for Hamas, a militantly nationalist and Islamic group?
 
 
penitentvandal
21:03 / 16.03.07
I actually lost my piece of paper from Islam notifying me that I was an enemy. I'm kind of mortified about that.

Y'know, I was reading a biography of Muhammad the other day (The Truth about Muhammad by Robert Spencer, which has the most unbelievably rabid Fox News cover but is actually pretty good), and this isn't a million miles from the truth - apparently when Muhammad was going to go to war with someone, he would send them a letter first. Which, if anything else, you know, misogyny, anti-semitism, subjugation of unbelievers etc, whatever you want to say - at least it shows you the man was polite.

Sadly, no-one tried what would have been my tactic, i.e writing back saying 'Dear Muhammad, I really would like to have a war now but my diary is full. Which of the following dates would suit? 1) Ramadan, 2) Eid, 3) Any Friday? Cheers, vv.' I did that last time Al Qaeda offered me out and I haven't heard back, so I know it works.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:16 / 17.03.07
the most progressive of any in the Middle East

Way-ull - in the sense that their attacks tend to be restricted to Muslims, certainly, which is a very Western view of what constitutes "progressive".

As we have seen in Iraq, using high-level bombing rather than personally-delivered bombing is progressive.

It is progressive, likewise, to to recognise the relative value of one's own military personnel and civilians.

Likewise, one can easily associate a progressive society by its desire to form relationships of mutual advantage with other progressive societies, such as the United States.

Of course, a fair and balanced press is a vital part of a progressive society. You might note that zombietime, the website the denial of the statement that Islam is not the enemy of which you did not see, Phex, and the editorialising of the photographer you feel should be left aside, was apparently keen to claim that this attack was a hoax.

Obviously, in a progressive society, accountability is key.

There are a lot of things about the way Israel handles its affairs - democracy (with Palestinians often allowed to vote in Palestinian Authority elections after pressure is applied by the US and as long as parties disapprovied of by the Israeli government are kept off the ballot), the legal recognition of women, armed forces that look comfortingly (if unsurprisingly) like our own - that makes it immediately more approachable and familiar to the West than its neighbour states. However, it might be wise a) not to be too selective in one's approach to sources, b) not to be quite so rude to Pingles while being selective in one's sources and c) to start a new thread about Israel and Palestine, which can then inform discussion of the wearing of the keffiyeh here.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:18 / 17.03.07
Worth noting that there have been several threads about Israel and Palestine before here - in some of them I'm sure the issue of what a nation state is, and therefore what is meant by "the state of Israel". One thing that a state is not is synonymous with a population: a good example of this is the fact that the Palestinians do not have a nation state that is recognised legally by the state of Israel or, for example, the United States of America, and yet a Palestinian population clearly exists. It's strange that apologists for the state of Israel always focus on the issue of the recognition of the state of Israel when the reality is that that issue is far more pressing for the Palestinians - mind you, the same is true of issues such as the killing of civilians, so I guess that's hardly surprising.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
14:42 / 18.03.07
Haus- I was rude to Pingles because ze 'broadly supports' an organization which is committed to wiping out or enslaving a race of people (see the line in their charter about getting to the 'next round' with the Jews after they're done in Israel), believes that all other religions should live 'under the shadow' of Islam (Article Thrity-one), claims that women have 'no lesser role than men in the war of liberation' (Articles 17-18) yet defines their duties as making babies and cleaning the house and believes that the Elders of Zion, Freemasons and Rotary clubs control the world. To broadly support a group with these views one would have to agree with some or all of them, be ignorant of them or automatically support any group whose military doesn't have uniforms that look comfortably like those of our own military. If, for example, somebody on this board professed a 'broad support' for the BNP, an organization in many ways more moral than Hamas (they haven't yet killed anybody for instance), would you expect a polite reaction? Of course not, but because of the past association of the Palestinian cause with the political Left (the KGB's funding of various groups etc.) and the ongoing association of Israel with the political Right (American aid, Evangelical Christianity's weird love affair with the Jews etc.) it is perfectly acceptable for people on this board and elsewhere to profess support for violent, racist, misogynistic and intolerant organizations providing they meet one single criteria: that the Fa$$cest AmeriKKKan Corpocracy doesn't like them.
Bringing the discussion back onto keffiyeh, the above is why I wouldn't wear one nor have much respect for somebody who chooses to. Privileging the Palestinian side of the current conflict over the other smacks of the kind of blinkered world view where international politics is as easy to understand as the Star Wars franchise: there's a rich and powerfully-armed empire fighting a rag-tag band of rebels; the first is absolutely evil, the second absolutely good. This is of course bullshit, and so is the reverse- there's not a country on Earth with a spotless track record, so expressing solidarity with any one nation (and Palestine is a nation), even through one's choice of clothes is always going to be problematic, and in the case of the Israel/Palestine conflict so much so that I can't see why any rational person would want to do so.

Flyboy- There have been a number of proposals for establishing a universally recognized Palestinian state from the Israel and US (the Camp David Summit for instance) and the leaders of Arab nations (the Beirut summit), amongst others. All have been rejected by Fatah or Hamas (see the Hamas charter, article thirteen, which dismisses any negotiation, including those which would involve the recognition of the Palestinian state by Israel and the U.S, as a 'waste of time' and says that 'there is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad').
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:47 / 18.03.07
So, help me out here:

there's not a country on Earth with a spotless track record, so expressing solidarity with any one nation (and Palestine is a nation)

So, you believe that it is absolutely impossible to express solidarity with any nation, and yet it is possible to make judgements about whether Hamas is more or less moral than the BNP? Is it only nations, rather than political organisations, which defy the making of such judgements of moral worth? If so, is this why you move from talking about Hamas (which can be criticised), but then talk about the nation of Israel, rather than any of the political entities within Israel, since the nation of Israel, being a nation, defies any moral judgements being applied, and conferring the status of a nation on Palestine, despite the absence of a military, control of its borders or the international community seeking to protect it from the armed forces of another nation, in the way that, for example, Patriot missile batteries were placed to protect Israel during Gulf War One, likewise exempts it from the possibility of it being justifiably supported (or, presumably, censured), because morally as spotted as all other nations, whereas Hamas can be mentioned and can be discussed from a moral perspective, because not a nation, but for whom the nation of Palestine is substituted between your first and second paragraphs?

I don't personally hold a brief for Hamas. I do, however, have a keen interest in how arguments are constructed. However, it appears that there is no will for a new thread on this, or using one of the existing threads.
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply