Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Tatchell on Hamas?

Given that on past occaisions you have claimed that:
  • Homophobic reggae artist Sizzla is "one of our greatest contemporary prophets"
  • It is impossible for a heterosexual man to contract HIV through sexual contact
  • Any heterosexual man who claims to have contracted HIV through sexual contact is, in fact, secretly bisexual
  • Alienated labour is literally, actually Satan
  • That since Satan exists in the form of alienated labour, God (being Satan's polar opposite) must exist
I think you should consider whether you have any grounds for making judgements on other people's sanity.

Blimey, you are a keen student of me.
 
Tatchell is not at all bonkers, unless it is bonkers to be a tireless, brave, principled and consistent campaigner for (what he believes are) human rights.
 
Tatchell is not at all bonkers, unless it is bonkers to be a tireless, brave, principled and consistent campaigner for (what he believes are) human rights.

I think he's both. I met him once, and he's definitely a strange one.
 
...

Note that the abuses of which he speaks have only ever been alleged to be carried out against people for supporting Fatah. Some will have been for belonging to the wrong clan, I'll wager.

  • If I were a gay Palestinian, I'd be worried about Hamas oppressing me.
  • I'd probably be a bit more worried about Fatah oppressing me - given the remnants of Stalinist-Puritanism in that organisation
  • I'd be very worried indeed about my boyfriend's uncles killing me - whether they were Fatah or Hamas or indeed PFLP, Christian or Moslem or nominally secular. It's tough being gay there.
this is too simplistic .. the ultra conservative group in gaza called "swords of islamic righteousness" which is implicated in a bomb attack on UN school that had a mixed sports day, attacks on prostitutes and womens centres and shops selling alcohol, is regarded as a Hamas front .. though Hamas deny this

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=7681859
 
Quite right. Without the state of Israel and its security apparatus, Hamas would not exist. They are a creation of the Israeli state.
the nazi mufti of jerusalem surely preceded the State of Israel as did Kassam another islamic reactionary .. so why does all islamic reaction in palestine have to be seen ONLY as a reaction to zionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izz_ad-Din_al-Qassam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni

p.s. it is clear though that it's scale IS related to Zionism
 
me said:
  • If I were a gay Palestinian, I'd be worried about Hamas oppressing me.
  • I'd probably be a bit more worried about Fatah oppressing me - given the remnants of Stalinist-Puritanism in that organisation
  • I'd be very worried indeed about my boyfriend's uncles killing me - whether they were Fatah or Hamas or indeed PFLP, Christian or Moslem or nominally secular. It's tough being gay there.
this is too simplistic .. the ultra conservative group in gaza called "swords of islamic righteousness" which is implicated in a bomb attack on UN school that had a mixed sports day, attacks on prostitutes and womens centres and shops selling alcohol, is regarded as a Hamas front .. though Hamas deny this

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=7681859

It's not at all simplistic - just researched and accurate. I know you don't like that.

So there's still no actual critique of Hamas.

Just, from Tatchell, echoing the obsessives here and on Harry's Place, "people call them Islamicist so they're bad".

Tatchell wasn't inveighing against "Sufal Hak Islamia", whoever they fuck they are (worth checking whether they're Shin Bet - whose past form includes funding Hamas, fool).

The state of Israel certainly wasn't bombing the fuck out of Gaza to get rid of "Sufal Hak Islamia".

Tatchell's little rant serves to justify that bombing, among those who read it in the loose-thinking way it was written.

My point above is that Hamas don't need to attack gay people. Clans will do it for them - whatever their political affiliation. That might be why no-one's come forward with any evidence that Hamas - or, for that matter, "Sufal Hak Islamia" - actually has.
 
the nazi mufti of jerusalem surely preceded the State of Israel as did Kassam another islamic reactionary .. so why does all islamic reaction in palestine have to be seen ONLY as a reaction to zionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izz_ad-Din_al-Qassam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni

p.s. it is clear though that it's scale IS related to Zionism

All the same, Hamas were initially welcomed by Israel as an alternative to Fatah (it's all about dividing the 'enemy'...it' an old tactic that the British once used to great effect). Remember, Israel viewed Fatah in the same way that Hamas are seen now. It really doesn't matter which faction takes control; they will all be the same in the eyes of Israel...unless that faction happens to be favourable in the eyes of the US and Israel.

This man fits the bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salam_Fayyad
 
It's not at all simplistic - just researched and accurate. I know you don't like that.

So there's still no actual critique of Hamas.

Just, from Tatchell, echoing the obsessives here and on Harry's Place, "people call them Islamicist so they're bad".

Tatchell wasn't inveighing against "Sufal Hak Islamia", whoever they fuck they are (worth checking whether they're Shin Bet - whose past form includes funding Hamas, fool).

The state of Israel certainly wasn't bombing the fuck out of Gaza to get rid of "Sufal Hak Islamia".

Tatchell's little rant serves to justify that bombing, among those who read it in the loose-thinking way it was written.

My point above is that Hamas don't need to attack gay people. Clans will do it for them - whatever their political affiliation. That might be why no-one's come forward with any evidence that Hamas - or, for that matter, "Sufal Hak Islamia" - actually has.


scuse me but could you be a bit less personally offensive please? thank you

my point was narrowly aimed ( i was making NO comment on Tatch ) at your suggestion that as a gay man in gaza you would be more afraid of Fatah than Hamas .. sorry but that is just ridiculous .. you say clans will do that work .. well yes, in a conservative society, but who, hamas or fatah does more to encourage or discourage honour killings and attacks on women?

ask any womens org and they will say how Fatah controlled areas are FAR FAR more progressive than Hamas areas .. and it seems the same re lgbt

you then suggest this SOIR is shin bet .. maybe .. then maybe shin bet run iran too?
 
All the same, Hamas were initially welcomed by Israel as an alternative to Fatah (it's all about dividing the 'enemy'...it' an old tactic that the British once used to great effect). Remember, Israel viewed Fatah in the same way that Hamas are seen now. It really doesn't matter which faction takes control; they will all be the same in the eyes of Israel...unless that faction happens to be favourable in the eyes of the US and Israel.

This man fits the bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salam_Fayyad
^^^ don't disagree at all nino with this
 
me said:
scuse me but could you be a bit less personally offensive please? thank you

Translation: I've borrowed a rightwinger's tactic for distracting attention from the argument, and from my foolishness.


you then suggest this SOIR is shin bet

I said it was worth investigating.

Very different, at least to anyone who cares about reporting more than about slack-minded demonisation of the victims of the state of Israel.
 
I'm no huge Tatchell fan, he's a bandwagon jumper with a bee in his bonnet from being outed in the 80's - but he's spot on here.

The spectacle of protesters carrying signs saying "We Are All Hamas" was the most embarrassing thing I've seen since the class war graffiti on the Cenotaph that read "Why Glorify War?"
 
..The spectacle of protesters carrying signs saying "We Are All Hamas" was the most embarrassing thing I've seen since the class war graffiti on the Cenotaph that read "Why Glorify War?"
Protestors against a war embarrassed you as much as an anti-war protest? I see the supposed connection I just don't understand the sentiment.

Embarrased for who?
 
slack-minded demonisation of the victims of the state of Israel.
this idea that those who oppose israel can NOT be 'demons' themselves is simply intelectual ridiculous

i have finally got around to readiing Tatchell article .. really maybe you should to

1) first he simply reports Amnesty .. do you have a problem with that????

" In a media briefing, Amnesty International added:

There is incontrovertible evidence that Hamas security forces and armed militias have been responsible for grave human rights abuses and that the victims of such abuses and many others are being intimidated and discouraged from testifying about their ordeal. The Hamas de-facto administration has displayed a flagrant disregard for the most fundamental human rights norms, not only allowing such abuses to be perpetrated, but actually facilitating and encouraging the abuses by justifying them and by granting absolute impunity to the perpetrators.

A dossier (pdf) by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights independently corroborates Amnesty's allegations:

The human rights violations perpetrated ... have included killings of fugitives, prisoners and detainees, injuries caused by severe physical violence, torture and misuse of weapons, the imposition of house arrest, and other restrictions that have been imposed on civil society organisations."

2) then he states he does not think Hamas are e.g. like the ANC

" ..Hamas is offering nothing akin to the political and ethical stature of the ANC's Freedom Charter. In fact, Hamas's charter is a charter for discrimination and religious tyranny – the exact opposite of what the ANC stood for."

3) then he says we should negotiate with Hamas

"Despite my many criticisms of Hamas, I also believe that Israel and the west should negotiate with them, just as the British negotiated with the Irish Republican Army, the US negotiated with North Korea and Pakistanis are now negotiating with the Taliban. The ideology that Hamas represents has a sizable, if shrinking, minority following among Palestinians. You cannot defeat an ideology by military means; especially not an ideology that is fuelled by the fundamental injustice of Israel's dispossession of the Palestinian people from their land. Even with the opponents of freedom, talk, talk is better than war, war."

and 4) he attacks israel

"Nevertheless, none of Hamas's crimes excuse Israel's disproportionate, reckless and indiscriminate attacks on Gaza. The Israeli armed forces wantonly targeted civilian areas and caused thousands of civilian casualties, including the deaths of over 400 children. Under international law, such as the Geneva conventions, Israel's actions are war crimes and its political and military leaders should be taken to The Hague and put on trial."

What an apologist for zionism!, what a demoniser! let us stone him now! lol
 
Protestors against a war embarrassed you as much as an anti-war protest? I see the supposed connection I just don't understand the sentiment.

Embarrased for who?
Anti-war protest doesn't conventionally involve carrying placards supporting one side in that war.
 
i have finally got around to readiing Tatchell article .. really maybe you should to

1) first he simply reports Amnesty .. do you have a problem with that????

.....(rant)
I did...I made the thread. :)

Did you check the original post....which directly quotes him?
Another favourite left and liberal justification of Hamas is that it is less corrupt than its Palestinian rivals in Fatah and that it organises social programmes for the poor. You could say the same about the Nazis....
I don't recall Amnesty saying that. Did you see that? Looks like Tatchell to me.

Do you agree with the nazi analogy?

Do you think it's fair?
 
i have finally got around to readiing Tatchell article .. really maybe you should to

I did.

Had you read and understood my posts, it would have been clear that I did, because my criticisms of his article were clearly based on having read it.

And it is still a fatuous demonisation of the victims of the state of Israel - based on nothing at all.

Hamas is still not wonderful: but attacks on it based on no evidence at all, merely on an ideological presupposition, still amount to o more than a defence of the actions of the state of Israel. Up to which it appears Tatchell was put by the hasbara-merchants at Harry's place.
 
I did.

Had you read and understood my posts, it would have been clear that I did, because my criticisms of his article were clearly based on having read it.

And it is still a fatuous demonisation of the victims of the state of Israel - based on nothing at all.

Hamas is still not wonderful: but attacks on it based on no evidence at all, merely on an ideological presupposition, still amount to o more than a defence of the actions of the state of Israel. Up to which it appears Tatchell was put by the hasbara-merchants at Harry's place.
I'm far from enamoured of Amnesty International, but would you care to explain why they'd lie about Hamas' attacks on gay Palestinians?
 
Back
Top Bottom