Michelle Malkin » The keffiyeh kerfuffle

The keffiyeh kerfuffle

By Michelle Malkin • May 28, 2008 09:38 AM

My syndicated column today examines the keffiyeh kerfuffle with Dunkin’ Donuts and Rachael Ray that I noted on the blog last week. As you’ll recall, I linked to an item by LGF’s Charles Johnson about the scarf she wore in a recent Dunkin’ ad. Keffiyeh chic has been covered on this site and at Hot Air extensively (see here, here, and here). Anti-American fashion designers abroad and at home have mainstreamed and adapted the scarves as generic pro-Palestinian jihad or anti-war statements. Yet many folks out there remain completely oblivious to the apparel’s violent symbolism and anti-Israel overtones. Left-wing bloggers responded with complete scorn, deliberate mischaracterizations of the debate, and then outrage when Dunkin’ Donuts commendably showed sensitivity to the concerns and pulled the ad. The Boston Globe accused me of “yowling.” If you actually read my post and the column below, you’ll see no such thing.

It’s interesting how much ire the Left shows when we civilly raise pointed questions about the power of insidious symbols. These are the same folks who have nothing to say when zealots on their side of the ideological aisle go about tearing down crosses and throwing tantrums over the symbols they abhor.

Update: Pam Geller e-mails that she first reported on the story May 18.

Update: Reader Erik e-mails, “Hey, I know, we could all walk around wearing T-Shirts with the Crusaders Cross on them and pretend we didn’t know what it means.”

Update: Charles Johnson continues to receive hate mail from the see-no-evil monkeys.

Update: Reader Stu e-mails, “What you talk about here is not so different from the wearing of ‘Che Guevara’ T-shirts by people who have no clue (or choose to ignore, or even to embrace for the sake of “radical chic”) what a murdering thug Guevara was.” Very much so.

Related flashback: Cameron Diaz and her Mao bag.

***

Rachael Ray, Dunkin’ Donuts, and the keffiyeh kerfuffle
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

I’ve been a fan of Dunkin Donuts for years. Their Munchkins are heaven. Their coffee is better and cheaper than Starbucks. And the company’s management has taken a brave and lonely stand in support of immigration enforcement–refusing to hire illegal aliens and blowing the whistle on applicants with bogus Social Security numbers.

So it was with some dismay that I learned last week that Dunkin Donuts’ spokeswoman Rachael Ray, the ubiquitous TV hostess, posed for one of the company’s ads in what appeared to be a black-and-white keffiyeh.

The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.

Three years ago, pop singer Ricky Martin donned a traditional red-checked keffiyeh with the phrase “Jerusalem is ours” inscribed in Arabic. Apologizing for his obliviousness, Martin said: “I had no idea that the kaffiyeh scarf presented to me contained language referring to Jerusalem, and I apologize to anyone who might think I was endorsing its message.” Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Spain’s Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, and Hollywood darlings Colin Farrell, Sienna Miller, and Kirsten Dunst, and rapper Kanye West have all been photographed in endless variations on the distinctive hate couture. So has Meghan McCain, daughter of the GOP presidential candidate, who really ought to know better given that her dad positions himself as the candidate best equipped to “confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.”

The scarves are staples at anti-Israel rallies in San Francisco and Berkeley. Balenciaga made them chic on the runway. British retailer Top Shop sold them stamped with skull prints. Urban Outfitters turned the keffiyehs into a youth trend a few years ago and marketed them as “anti-war scarves.” Which brings us to Rachael Ray.

Ray hawked Urban Outfitters scarves on her website before appearing in the Dunkin Donuts ad. If she (or whichever stylist is dressing her) wasn’t aware of the jihad scarf controversy before she posed for the Dunkin campaign, she should have been. Urban Outfitters initially pulled the keffiyeh merchandise and apologized when Jewish customers protested, but reintroduced them with different names and colors in several global markets. This is the same company that marketed a bigotry-laced “Everyone loves a Jewish girl t-shirt” stamped with dollar signs and shopping bags. Most recently, the company halted sales of a violence-promoting t-shirt last week depicting a young Palestinian boy in a keffiyeh carrying an AK-47 assault rifle, over the word “Victimized.” The t-shirt also featured the Palestinian flag, a map of the Palestinian territories and a small white dove.

“Please understand that we do not buy items to provoke controversy or to intentionally offend,” a company spokesman pleaded. Their actions, however, speak louder than their assuaging words.

Dunkin Donuts won’t identify where Ray’s scarf was purchased, but issued this statement after blogger Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs and I, along with many other bloggers and consumers, called attention to it:

“Thank you for expressing your concern about the Dunkin’ Donuts advertisement with Rachael Ray. In the ad that you reference, Rachael is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design that was purchased at a U.S. retail store. It was selected by the stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we will no longer use the commercial.”

It’s refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists. Too many of them bend over backwards in the direction of anti-American political correctness. Naturally, liberal commentators on the Internet are now up in arms over Dunkin Donut’s decision to yank the ad and mock anyone who expresses concern over the keffiyeh’s symbolism.

It’s just a scarf, the clueless keffiyeh-wearers scoff. Would they say the same of fashion designers who marketed modified Klan-style hoods in Burberry plaid as the next big thing? Fashion statements may seem insignificant, but when they lead to the mainstreaming of violence—unintentionally or not–they matter. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. In post-9/11 America, vigilance must never go out of style.

Posted in: Dunkin Donuts

Regular View

comments (197)

trackbacks (100)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#335769

On May 29th, 2008 at 10:32 am, SHoward said:

How ’bout tying the scarves together into suspenders to hold up the pants of those guys with knee-level crotches?

He he he…

Good idea, and here’s how we can solve the question about whether or not the keffiyeh has meaning:

If the rage boys get all cranked up when we do it, the thing isn’t just a scarf.

Oh, wait, they do get cranked about almost anything, I guess…..never mind.
#335938

On May 29th, 2008 at 12:30 pm, CleanGuy said:

Chest thumping Michelle! The AOL article is so left.

http://news.aol.com/entertainment/television/tv-news-story/ar/_a/rachael-rays-terrorist-ad-yanked/20080528145709990001?icid=aimDBDL1_link2-a
#336034

On May 29th, 2008 at 1:20 pm, TheOtherSide said:

Professor Bainbridge gets it right:

…think of this bit practically every time I have an encounter with the paranoid rantings of Michelle Malkin. Examples include seeing capitulation to terrorists by the UN because they used Legos in a poster. Then she sees the Reconquista because the Texas Rangers wore “Los Rangers” jerseys on Cinco de Mayo a few years ago.

Now she is seeing terrorist capitulation because Rachel Ray wore a black and white scarf in a Dukin’ Donuts ad. No, seriously. Malkin doesn’t see a black and white scarf, she sees “hate couture” and “jihadi chic.”
#336040

On May 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm, grumbles said:

Fashion statements may seem insignificant, but when they lead to the mainstreaming of violence — unintentionally or not — they matter. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. In post-9/11 America, vigilance must never go out of style.

hmmmm……..nice scarf
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/359545898_01442f19a0_m.jpg
#336079

On May 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm, KaosKlerik said:

On May 29th, 2008 at 12:30 pm, CleanGuy said:
Chest thumping Michelle! The AOL article is so left.

I love the vote options.

1) COMPLETELY Deserved
or
2) COMPLETELY Ridiculous

I have my own poll.

Those choices were designed to get the most votes for the answer the poll writer wanted instead of a true read on public opinion.

1) Absolutely, 100% poll pushing and the writer should be shot.
or
2) Not even a single shred of any poll pushing whatsoever, infact the writer must have spent hours making sure the true public opinion would be captured.
#336151

On May 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm, TheOtherSide said:

On May 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm, KaosKlerik said:

Those choices were designed to get the most votes for the answer the poll writer wanted instead of a true read on public opinion.

Or maybe the majority of the public doesn’t fall for the fearmongering rhetoric or the Michelle Malkin’s of the world.
#336194

On May 29th, 2008 at 2:47 pm, KaosKlerik said:

On May 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm, TheOtherSide said:

On May 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm, KaosKlerik said:

Those choices were designed to get the most votes for the answer the poll writer wanted instead of a true read on public opinion.

Or maybe the majority of the public doesn’t fall for the fearmongering rhetoric or[sic] the Michelle Malkin’s[sic] of the world

And I thought your side hated ABSOLUTES… The answers were worded so that you had to choose between either there is nothing whatsoever to it or it’s the work of the Belgian Illuminati working for the Gnomes of Zurich with Professor Plum as an intermediary.

Since you miss my point, how about this poll?

Michelle is…

1) ALWAYS correct in everything she says.
2) ALWAYS wrong in everything she says.

Still don’t get it?

Completely(adjective) – having all necessary parts, elements, or steps.

Finally, if 92% say there was COMPLETELY nothing to it, why did 13% say they were right to pull the ad? Could it be they actually thought there might be SOMETHING to it?

I think I know what your BS response is, but I want to see if you think we’re stupid enough to believe it.
#336235

On May 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm, TheOtherSide said:

Kaos,

The absolutes apply to both answers! Most likely a number of responders didn’t feel “completely” either way but chose to respond according to which direction they leaned. Now if the question was “Completely Deserved” vs. “Not Completely Deserved” then your argument would hold water.

13%! Wow…i don’t care if it is 8% or 13%…that is still quite a small minority of those that buy into this BS.
#336287

On May 29th, 2008 at 4:15 pm, KaosKlerik said:

On May 29th, 2008 at 3:03 pm, TheOtherSide said:
Kaos,

The absolutes apply to both answers! Most likely a number of responders didn’t feel “completely” either way but chose to respond according to which direction they leaned. Now if the question was “Completely Deserved” vs. “Not Completely Deserved” then your argument would hold water.

So is Michelle “Always Correct” or “Always Wrong”?

A person might say that Michelle has a valid point (albeit weak) but is forced to vote that she is COMPLETELY ridiculous. If you can’t see the bias of such constraints then you’re kool-aid soaked as I can recognize bias when it comes from my side.

If you are going to offer the polar opposite end positions then you need at least one “see both sides” option.

How about this a poll?

Code Pink, in protest of the Iraq War, wants to kick the US Marine recruiters out of the city of Berkley.
They are…
1) Completely Justified
2) Completely Ridiculous

How about this poll?

Green* is…
1) 100% Blue
2) 100% Yellow

[*For those in Rio Linda, Green is made by combining equal parts of Blue and Yellow.]
#336290

On May 29th, 2008 at 4:21 pm, TheOtherSide said:

May 29th, 2008 at 4:15 pm, KaosKlerik said:

So is Michelle “Always Correct” or “Always Wrong”?

Given only those 2 choices I would pick “Always Wrong”.

Same question to you?
#336308

On May 29th, 2008 at 4:41 pm, herself said:

IMAO what Rachael Ray was wearing in the advertisement was not a keffiyah. It was a scarf with a rather different kind of geometric pattern.

If it was a keffiyah I guess I have to toss a half dozen such scarves I have tucked away in a drawer from back in at least the 50s and possibly as old as the 20s. Some are silk. Some are knitted. Some are light cotton cloth. All have repeated designs no more threatening than what Rachel Ray wore. (They were my mother-in-law’s scarves rescued from the pack-rat piles of junk she had.)

Just as a point of reference I would never voluntarily get close to a man wearing a scarf with a pattern like Arafat or others typically wear over his head. I figure those scarves are best used for target practice.

{^_^} <- refuses to be stunted by politically correct thoughts and actions by either the left’s definitions or the rights definitions.
#336312

On May 29th, 2008 at 4:45 pm, dwneylonsr said:

You might want to read a little history
#336349

On May 29th, 2008 at 5:11 pm, m2inor said:

You really never can tell what is real and what is not.

From today’s Oregonian newspaper, we learn that the background is a stock photo of Oregon’s capital building in Salem.

Link
#336354

On May 29th, 2008 at 5:14 pm, Archon said:

Wow, I leave for a few months, and when I come home, this place has all sorts of new faces….

Rachel Ray touts herself as a smart, sensible woman. If that’s the case, then she should have known the connotations of wearing a shemagh.

And for those who would compare the “stylish” wearing of a shemagh with our SOF personnel wearing them: grow up. I own several shemaghs. I wear them to keep dust and dirt out of my mouth and nose. Certain foriegn deserts can get very cold at night, and they keep the wearer warm. They also soak up sweat and act to cool the wearer down in 120 degree heat. It’s called utility….oh yeah, and it helps the wearer )when appropriately dressed) to not stand out like a sore thumb in the middle of a kadhaa.

None of those reason have to do with fashion. Our soldiers in Vietnam used towels. Soldiers in WWII used a pair of socks. It’s utility.

And for the record, Rachel Ray makes me want to punch kittens….there, I said it.
#336377

On May 29th, 2008 at 5:40 pm, SHoward said:

And for the record, Rachel Ray makes me want to punch kittens….there, I said it.

Come on man, tell us how you really feel….
#336594

On May 29th, 2008 at 10:09 pm, aironlater said:

Alright, so i pretty much made my point known in the previous keffiyeh-paranoia-post, but i’d like to know what you guys and gals think of this.
#336603

On May 29th, 2008 at 10:45 pm, Lanzman said:

Rachel Ray wears a scarf that looks vaguely like a keffiyeh and it leads to this? Guys, calm down. Sheesh. This is the kind of nonsense the reality-impaired on the Left get into. We make fun of them for it. Get a grip.
#336614

On May 29th, 2008 at 11:08 pm, SHoward said:

Interesting pic, aironlater, but, um, what’s your point? That Michelle is sitting on a keffiyeh? (or whatever that thing is)

If the keffiyeh were a symbol to the bad guys, methinks Michelle might be insulting them there, not honoring them.
#336693

On May 30th, 2008 at 1:40 am, Christian Soldier said:

Hey Michelle-Greta from FOX needs to read your entire take on the “scarf”.

She had a female on air who was allowed to “diss” you and your review of the keffiyeh. The female also took the name of our Lord Christ in vain.
#336725

On May 30th, 2008 at 6:05 am, PatFox said:

Well wadda ya know, even the bbc has noticed. Cue some puzzled brits googling Michelle Malkin.
#336756

On May 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am, aironlater said:

On May 29th, 2008 at 11:08 pm, SHoward said:
Interesting pic, aironlater, but, um, what’s your point? That Michelle is sitting on a keffiyeh? (or whatever that thing is)

If the keffiyeh were a symbol to the bad guys, methinks Michelle might be insulting them there, not honoring them.

My point – since you asked – is that even though many people here seem to realize that it is a SCARF and nothing more, there are still people here that seem to think that this is some sinister plot by an unseen clothing manufacturer to spread terrorist propoganda across the US through coffee advertisements.

The picture is just a simple example to show that Malkin is nothing more than a reactionary mental-case that would most likely think that anyone who wears a pair of pants is a terrorist sympathizer. After all, terrorists do wear pants.

The reason that the picture is a valid subject is that Malkin protrays herself a someone whom is keeping a watchful eye on the horizon to potential threats such as this. If that be the case, one would think that if Malkin were within the proximity of one of these potential national-security-risk pieces of cloth that she would be able to spot it with ease – especially since it is touching the part of her body where her brain apparently resides.
#336955

On May 30th, 2008 at 11:03 am, SHoward said:

Malkin is nothing more than a reactionary mental-case

especially since it is touching the part of her body where her brain apparently resides.

You know, you could have just told us up front in the other thread that you really thought very little of our hostess.

I wonder what you’d be saying if it was one of your leftist heros that pointed out RR’s scarf looked culturally suspicious…..
#337103

On May 30th, 2008 at 12:50 pm, aironlater said:

You know, you could have just told us up front in the other thread that you really thought very little of our hostess.

I wonder what you’d be saying if it was one of your leftist heros that pointed out RR’s scarf looked culturally suspicious…

Paranoia and idiocy know no political affiliation. It wouldn’t matter who was blathering on about this, my opinion would be the same.
#337631

On May 30th, 2008 at 11:18 pm, ELINVESTI8 said:

When I was an active duty Marine in Saudi Arabia during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm I wore one of those things on my head when I was driving back and forth from Al Juybail and Al Mishab. I drove a white Ford Crown Victoria and was going for the Saudi military look so I would not get shot at. In that instance I think it was ok to do. With these liberal scum-sucking Birkenstock wearing weenies they should be flogged and I mean flogged hard.
#337996

On May 31st, 2008 at 8:36 pm, greenfairie said:

Christian Soldier, I saw that on Greta. The bimbo was some celebrity lap dancer from The Star tabloid.
#338197

On June 1st, 2008 at 10:20 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

Aren’t there two ways to go with a lot of these things? Lincoln used the phrase “for the people” in his Gettysburg Address but put a red star next to it and it becomes a Mao slogan for communism. Judy Garland sings “Over the Rainbow” but put a stick on one and it becomes a banner for homosexuals. However, the swastika was indeed a very direct and the unmistakable symbol selected by and for the nazi third reich, (and an imposing selection I must say). But I fail to see this scarf as any direct form of symbolism at all when it is used by so many people in so many ways and it comes in so many design varieties.

So what happens if the terrorists suddenly all started wearing scarves with a tartan pattern? Do we let them get their way and steal it the way homosexuals stole the rainbow?

How about a keffiyeh style scarf but one with little interlinked images of Piglet? Rachel can wear it while eating a bacon, egg and cheese croissant, (my favorite!). It flips the whole thing 180 as cannot be done with a swastika or the Star of David or the Cross of Jesus, etc. If it’s something easy to flip/subvert then it probably wasn’t something to have been concerned about in the first place IMO. I’m still hoping for that “keffiyeh thong” BTW …
#339495

On June 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 am, BrownInfidel said:

Look at what this guy classified this particular blog post under (hint – The ‘R’ word, and see his response in of the comments):

http://uberdesi.com/blog/2008/06/02/dear-dunkin-donuts

Since my mother tongue isn’t english, I’d like to see someone post a response to his ‘campaign’.
#341230

On June 4th, 2008 at 8:05 pm, Kevin W. said:

Dunkin’ Donuts should be boycotted solely on the basis of using Rachael Ray as a spokeswoman. Even if she wasn’t wearing the keffiyeh, there’d still be a reason for outrage, as that annoying harpy is still getting publicity.