Sarah Schulman: Anti-Israel Pinkwasher Whitewashes Hamas

Hamas persecution of gays however is not a queer issue

Sarah Schulman is a mediocre writer and dishonest activist whose biggest bid for attention, after her old attempts at getting gay activists to march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, was declaring that gay rights in Israel were part of a conspiracy to “pinkwash” the evil Zionist entity.

Sarah Schulman, a gay rights activist, had to make the confusing argument that gay rights activists should support anti-gay Islamists over Israel. And Schulman was predictably incoherent in trying to make that case. While Sarah Schulman accused pro-Israel advocates of pinkwashing Israel, Schulman was the one actually pinkwashing Hamas.

Still it hardly gets any better than the moment when Sohrab Ahmari, an Iranian-American, challenged Schulman on Hamas, and Schulman responded with high-grade pinkwashing.

“What is we and who is they?” asked one audience member during the question-and-answer segment. “For me, we are all the people in the world who believe that by virtue of being born every human being deserves equal rights [and] self-determination,” Schulman responded. “That’s my we, that’s my team . . . They are people who are invested in systems of supremacy, whether it’s gender supremacy, religious or racial supremacy. Isn’t it amazing that that is controversial?”

I couldn’t help but raise my hand. “So is Hamas part of the ‘they?’” I asked.

Schulman answered: “Hamas—you know, every time I give one of these talks one guy asks about Hamas.” Then a flurry of protests: “I have never supported any political party! I don’t even support the Democratic Party!”

But of course I didn’t ask Schulman if she supports Hamas. “What I meant is: Is Hamas engaged in ‘systems of supremacy?’ Does Hamas fit into your definition of ‘they,’ of people who are implicated in ‘systems of supremacy?’ ”

The answer to this one should be easy and it’s revealing that instead of answering the question, Sarah Schulman broke into a flood of Pinkwashing. And her response should be in a step-by-step guide for leftists who want to avoid dealing with the Islamist question.

“It depends?” Schulman responded, her tone seesawing between the declarative and interrogative modes. “You know, sometimes—I don’t know enough about Hamas to give you a complete, intelligent analysis of Hamas.”

Step 1. Insist that not enough research has been done to give some ridiculously “complete analysis.”

Sarah Schulman, who claims to know everything she needs to know about Israel, apparently hasn’t learned enough about its main enemy to have an opinion on it. That raises the question of how Sarah Schulman can then claim to know everything she needs to know about Israel if she doesn’t even know whom it is fighting.

But there are people who get into all kinds of movements because they have particular needs. And I don’t—let me say it this way: All over the world there is conflict between religion and politics. In the United States we are unable to separate religion and politics, and that’s true in Israel, it’s true in the Arab world, it’s true all over the world.

Step 2. Moral equivalence.

Equate Islamist terrorist groups to presidents going to church. It’s the same thing. “We’re just as bad” is the stock leftist response to any such questions.

But while Sarah Schulman has no problem rejecting Israeli and American intersections between religion and politics, she has trouble doing the same for Islamic terrorists.

Do I think that there should be religious governments? No, because I’m not in favor of that. I’m not a religious person, and I see it as a negative force in the world. But if people elect, democratically elect a religious government, that’s their government. That would be my answer.”

Step 3. I don’t support Hamas, but I don’t oppose it either, because I support the principle of being people able to choose their own medieval theocracy that then stops holding elections and locks up gay men and threatens them with the death penalty.

Leftists used to give variations of the same answer for Iran, so this goes back a while. The obvious problem here is that if the United States elected a theocracy that wanted to lock her up, Schulman wouldn’t hide behind the principle of democracy in order not to denounce it.

Israel does have an elected government and Sarah Schulman has no problem denouncing it. But Hamas winning an election a long while back somehow makes it invulnerable to criticism.

This isn’t even Pinkwashing, this is Ballotwashing.

Sohrab Ahmari finishes off Schulman and her audience in a single paragraph.

Here was the BDS movement in a nutshell. In a room filled with progressive activists, an American academic with unimpeachable progressive credentials claimed she didn’t know enough about Hamas to criticize its views on matters of gender and sexual orientation.

She had heard somewhere that Hamas was “democratically elected”—apparently Schulman had missed the news about how, the last time Hamas seized power in Gaza, it was via defenestration—and that sufficed to render the group above judgment.

Acknowledging the obvious about Hamas would have demoralized the BDS faithful gathered at the LGBT Center that night, and what sort of religious movement would want to do that?

  • Steve

    What did Sarah mean…….."You know, sometimes—I don’t know enough about Hamas to give you a complete, intelligent analysis of Hamas.”. We gets up in front of an audience and she doesn't know about hamas? How come you know so much about Israel but you know nothing about hamas? And you only "heard" somewhere that hamas was democratically elected?
    Sarah do you also support hamas when they lock up and maybe even stone gays? Sarah maybe you should read up on politics and religion before speaking. The Middle East is full of religious parties so I assume you must have serious problems aligning yourself with an arab country.
    Sarah I really hope you didnt get paid for your lecture.

    • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

      Sarah is partly clueless, but she is mendacious in the extreme. In fact, she is marching, in lockstep, with her "sister soldier", the front woman of the ISM's war against Israel, regardless of the gay issue, described below. Never mind their audacity and fecklessness. They (and their entire outfit) are dead serious and operate under the tentacles of the ISM. The same ISM which was founded by Shapiro & Arraf, over a decade ago, and they are VERY dangerous – http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/7934.

      None of these gigs – most paid, but some are done gratis – get done without the ISM's "kosher" stamp of approval – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/28/the-assorted-

      Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

      • laurence

        Adina, I think she is not partly clueless. She is what is called 'absolutely lost'. If you try to speak to her and her ilk, they cannot produce a single coherent thought on any matter. She represents , more than anything, a group of people who despaired of themselves, in purely personal terms, and seek gratification in what appears as meaningful struggle, only on the 'wrong side'-that of jihad. You would ask-so , what not on the 'right' side-that of reason? The answer to this question is in the tradition of gay-bashing that conservatives are eager to maintain. Gays will not embrace conservatives agendas before they sense that they have 'the full right to live' in this crowd. Aligning with jihadis, on the other hand, allows them to live the 'Sheherezade tales', really: they know nothing of this world, and it has an enigmatic attraction for them. …and we see the result.

  • Moishe Pupick

    Su., 03/17/13

    This chowderhead is simply another useful idiot in the service of worldwide jihad. I wonder whether she thinks that her Islamo-fascistas would spare her if they ever came to power. Perhaps she should try
    to promote a gblt parada somewhere in Saudi Arabia or Iran. Yeah, that would be an exercise in tolerance and diversity. Sarah, get thee to a Mikvah.

    • BS77

      too much attention being paid to this mixed up lady….look, she is naive, and
      irrational. Obviously she has no idea what she is talking about. Pathetic.

  • Toni_Pereira

    A fantastic number of mental contortionism. It's a shame that intellectual dishonesty doesn't kill…

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "It's a shame that intellectual dishonesty doesn't kill…"

      In this case it just incites others to kill.

  • Mary Sue

    lemme guess…another Chomskyite?

    • Toni_Pereira

      Nope. she is part of a new breed that makes the Chomskies of this world look like rational human beings.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Nope. she is part of a new breed that makes the Chomskies of this world look like rational human beings."

        True, Chomsky is a much better liar. He knows how to tie his lies together in a coherent virtual world.

        • Toni_Pereira

          Right on!

        • beez

          I did see that Chomsky said one thing that was apparently intellectually honest. He said he didn't understand postmodernism. I was stunned to say the least.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I did see that Chomsky said one thing that was apparently intellectually honest. He said he didn't understand postmodernism. I was stunned to say the least."

            Funny. I'm sure he was using false humility. He thinks he does, that's for sure and was likely trying to mock someone or some group somewhere that contradicted his fantastic narratives.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "lemme guess…another Chomskyite?"

      She's the next generation. Probably inspired in part by Chomsky and his disciples.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        I didn't know that chomsky was gay too.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I didn't know that chomsky was gay too."

          I think he sees himself as beyond sex and beyond mortal man. But I don't really know what he does, if anything, for sex. He's way too hard left, he's the epitome of the delusional leftists, so it's impossible for him to take any anti-gay position.

  • Noam

    Chomsky might have been a bit brighter than her

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Chomsky might have been a bit brighter than her"

      His delusions were somewhat more coherent. Just don't try to reconcile his world with the facts of this world. Then he's worse.

  • Herb Benty

    Homosexuals cannot add the most important thing to their own country- children. When homosexuals die, thats it, kaput, it's like they never existed with no family tree. Self gratification is like that, whether it's the parks of San Francisco, Vancouver's Stanley Park or the beach parks of Tel Aviv. Perversion is out in the open instead of behind closed doors. There, I said it, and don't you dare call me homophobic, one of my best friends was queer and he died of aids in the late seventies. His death reminded me of GOD'S WORD in Romans, " men with men doing unseemly things and receiving in their bodies…payment". Homosexuality is one of the things that ruin a country.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Homosexuals cannot add the most important thing to their own country"

      That's why they want "equal rights" as "married couples" so they can stand in line and sue adoption agencies and other agencies that help them acquire children/slaves to manipulate.

      • Mary Sue

        I had to laugh my ass off at the complete chaos in an episode of Nanny 911 or The Nanny (I forget which), where the Nanny had to help a lesbian couple who had adopted at least 4 kids and the one lesbian "parent" wasn't that at all…they completely ignored the situation and the kids were so out of control it wasn't even funny.
        (Now to be fair, there's straight couples in a similar situation, but that was just…wow, a situation that didn't even NEED to exist! So much for "gay couples can raise kids just as good as straight couples"…yeah, and just as badly too, apparently!)

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "the Nanny had to help a lesbian couple who had adopted at least 4 kids and the one lesbian "parent" wasn't that at all…they completely ignored the situation and the kids were so out of control it wasn't even funny."

          Well, we can't judge can we?

          "(Now to be fair, there's straight couples in a similar situation,"

          But them we can judge and critique as much as we want, unless some day a Muslim consults the show, which I can't even imagine. If they do, even more lying and whitewashing will be necessary.

          "So much for "gay couples can raise kids just as good as straight couples"…yeah, and just as badly too, apparently!)"

          There is a great article on americanthinker.com by an adult who was raised through childhood by a "gay couple." I can't remember if it was "dad and dad" but I think it was "mom and mom." Either way, he was made to feel that he could not voice any discomfort with the situation and considers their decisions to be incredibly destructive and narcissistic even though he loves them still.

          Even if they are allowed in some cases to have custody, considering them "equal" to natural parents is pure insanity. Pretending we all have to ignore the obvious is even more insane. The left wants to control all of our non-PC thoughts.

    • Hank

      Herb, one of the other things that ruins a country is bigotry, and therefore you are ruining a country. When you also say …some of my best friends are…..I doubt that you have a best friend. Lets talk about your "late friend". Did you ever call him a queer? Are you aware that homosexual couples can adopt children?
      BTW I never see gays having sex in the open, even in San Francisco, Stanley Park or even Tel Aviv. In case you think I am gay, I am not.
      I also believe you are homophobic.

      • beez

        I also believe that Hank is a gay male, posing as straight, and using the old smear and bully tactic the left wingnuts are gettin' famous for: call your opponent a bigot, "rightwinger" homophobe blah blah blah Ho hum, Hank. We've seen your kind before. It's a pathetic and transparent trick you no doubt learned from your demi-God, Saul Alinsky.

      • joe

        No one can or should be forced to accept something that feels inherently wrong to themselves .
        This being a free country ,he has every right to say he doesn't like gays, but he did not say that.

        You are more of bigot than he is by judging and labeling people for something they didn't even say.

        Gay adoption is a separate issue from reproduction when it comes to population replacement . A town of 40 gay men will die off without outside contributions of children .

        I've seen gays having sex in a park at night as well as transvestite prostitutes working the street and having sex in alleys.

        Calling people homophobic is just silly.The vast majority aren't afraid of gays.They don't like their lifestyles .I don't like drug addicts ,that doesn't mean i have a phobia about them.

        • Indus Valley

          Well said joe….There is a big difference between not endorsing the act of homosexuality & hating the gays….Don't know how an adopted child reconciles with the fact that she/he has same-sex parents when he/she grows up…..In order to make such children comfortable, all kids have to under go these gender related education from childhood…Pathetic…

        • Brian

          Joe do you go to the parks at night to actually watch gays and transvestites having sex? Weird!

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "BTW I never see gays having sex in the open, even in San Francisco, Stanley Park or even Tel Aviv."

        Public displays of affection must then be explained to children and if you're caught explaining without a full endorsement of "the gay alternative" just watch out.

        It's a problem. It's not homophobic to want to shield children from abnormal sexual behavior.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Having sex in the open in San Francisco?
        http://www.zombietime.com/

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Skank,

        How do you square being Islamofascist-philic and being gay friendly?

    • Mary Sue

      that's why lesbian couples go to the sperm bank and get a turkey baster or get knocked up by one of their gay male friends.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Sarah Schulman, who claims to know everything she needs to know about Israel, apparently hasn’t learned enough about its main enemy to have an opinion on it. That raises the question of how Sarah Schulman can then claim to know everything she needs to know about Israel if she doesn’t even know whom it is fighting."

    That sums up the situation with every last leftist dupe on Israel. The rest are either hardcore communists or jihadis.

  • beez

    There's a Muslim-American woman by the name of Faiqa Kahn. Google her.You'll find her on Native Born. She's a blogger, a limousine liberal, and curiously, a high-profile supporter of same-sex marriage, despite the fact that she's a Sunni Muslim, and apparently active in her local mosque. It's interesting that if you visit her website, she doesn't exactly admit to being Muslim. You have to sort of read between the lines to find that, but in any case, I happen to know her, and she IS a Muslim. Anyway, if she or anyone can square being a practicing, believing Muslim with same sex marriage, I'll eat my hat. There's no way in hell she's told her local Muslim cleric or anyone else, outside her rather well to do family, that she's a SSM supporter. Leftists, the more you know about them, the less sense they make. Go figure.

  • Herb Benty

    Hank…. calling me a bigot or, your big point, HOMOPHOBIC, is almost funny. I disagree with the homosexual life is all and that is my right. You want to tar and feather those who think it is wrong- you are the bigot, right? Do you really think it is fair for children to be adopted by gays, starting out in life confused? Two words for you sonny, Sodom and Gomorrah….bye.

  • Peter

    How did we get away from the topic about Sarah Schulman? I thought we write in here to discuss the issues of Schulman and not about out thoughts about gays.

    • laurence

      precisely, Peter, and the fact that the discussion on this thred immediately deteriorated into gay-bashing tells volumes.
      It may even explain why Schulman is mysteriously attracted to jihadis.
      She has not met one really in her life, they all exist in the magical worlds of the 'Arabian Nights'. Whilst conservatives speak clearly in a languge that she and clearly project anti-gay prejudice. Some of the conservatives' agendas may (and do ) appeal to gays, because they (agendas) are lucid and intelligent. Anti-gay prejudice , however, kills any desire to judge these agendas on their merit.

  • Ar'nun

    "was declaring that gay rights in Israel were part of a conspiracy to “pinkwash” the evil Zionist entity."

    If Israel conspires to "Pinkwash" by granting civil rights to gay people, does that means Islamist groups and governments are really just Stone-washing gays? ;)

  • laurence

    Sarah Shulman' support of jihadis does not stem from her homosexuality directly. I doubt she had any meaningful relationship-beyond slogans-with any Muslims at all. The cultural gap is too wide for that. What expalins her position then? The love of the under-dog but, more than anything alse, the feeling that her left-wing friends support her lifestyle. It is about herself, not jihadis as such. Conservatives are turning their back to gays-and comments on this thread illustrate it this perfectly-so who are the gays going to support? People who have been shamed and blamed for ruination of the country on this thread are going to support the conservatives? si this how it works?

  • laurence

    and the claims making a link between children and homosexuality are less than thoughtful, in my view.
    Lesbians have children using spermbanks -they add to the population.
    Gays (increasingly) have them through surrogate motherhood, not adoption.
    So, this argument twists the reality, at best.

  • clara

    I think we should impale Schulman with neglect and silence. Her utter, total and admitted ignorance disqualifies her from the outset. Empty vases make the loudest noise. What is worse is that she probably as many gays do, has not come to terms with her homosexuality and is flailing around in the public arena to create a stir about about an argument that is so absurd (pinkwashing) that one really has to be demented to even conceive it. And she is doing it instead of drinking a bottle of poison. She' s a dog in the manger that somehow shook off its muzzle and the fact that so much attention is being paid to her speaks volumes about people who have nothing to do. People like her. Nothing to do except throw hissy fits before – alas – people with university degrees who are, alas, taking her seriously and sometimes paying her handsomely.