Manchurian Candidate, Simply Overwhelmed, or Asleep at the Wheel?

According to Frank Gaffney, President Obama has allegedly slighted British Prime Minister Gordon Brown—and yet, in truth, Obama seems to be following in Britain’s very European pro-Arab and pro-Islamist footsteps.

According to the office of Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, Obama’s first call to a foreign head of (a non-existent) state was to him. The White House did not deny that this was so. Obama’s first interview in the foreign media was with Al-Arabiya. According to Daniel Pipes, (who is far from “shocked” by Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s various changes of mind vis a vis Israel), Clinton has insisted, (some say: “suggested”), that Israel speed up the release of funds for Gaza.

The Obama administration is also on record as committed to funding terrorist groups–Hamas–in Gaza, (all good intentions aside, that is what happens to the money that the international community pours into Gaza), and proudly on record as willing to conduct European-style “diplomacy” with states which sponsor terrorism both against Israel and against the West. Yes, I know, the hope is that evil ideologues may hesitate to bomb the countries of leaders who are making eye contact with them, who are employing reason, charm—maybe even music– in an effort to soothe the savage beast.

But Britain has still been at this longer and so far, is more Islamified and pro-Sharia than America. Indeed, Britain is about to hold a conference on March 25th, at the University of London’s School of Economics, in which known terrorists will be speaking about “political Islam.” Senior British civil servants and police officers will pony up at hefty fee (nearly two thousand pounds) to attend the event which is meant to “improve” their “understanding of radicalism.”

However, all is not lost. Heroes are increasingly standing up, heroes who are resisting the Islamification of the West, who are not rolling over and playing dead.

For example, there are Rachel Ehrenfeld, Philippe Karsenty, Geert Wilders: Heroes all, about whom I have previously written.

The indefatigable Ehrenfeld has been fighting for the rights of American authors to tell the truth—yes, even about Islam, without being sued into silence as has happened to many an author in London, which is known as the “libel tourist” capital of the world.

Karsenty stood up to the biggest blood libel of the Intifada of 2000, that concerning the alleged Israeli murder of Mohammed al-Dura in the arms of his father; after many years of a lonely struggle, Karsenty prevailed against France’s Channel Two in Paris.

Geert Wilders is now the most popular politician in Holland for his bold, sane exposure of Islamist violence, both in Holland and in the world today. As we know, he was also, and shamefully, recently deported from the UK because he came to show his film Fitna at the request of a member of the House of Lords. The film was seen as “hate speech” or as a film which would “incite hatred.”

Now, Douglas Murray, Director of the Center for Social Cohesion, joins their fabled ranks. The same country that deported a sitting member of the Dutch Parliament received, with open arms, Binyam Mohammed, lately of the Guantanamo Bay facilities. Britain has hosted many a sheik and mullah who, in their sermons and teachings, have incited enormous hatred and violence against Jews, Israel, and America and right on into the streets of Great Britain.

Now, the UK has invited Dr. Ibrahim Moussawi who is to speak at the London School of Economics. (Douglas Murray himself was recently disinvited by that London School of Appeasement; Murray was going to moderate a debate about Islam and Liberalism.) Dr Moussawi is a spokesman for the Lebanese-based militant group Hizbollah, whose military arm has been banned in Britain as a terrorist organization. Moussawi is no stranger to hate speech or to inciting hatred. He has allegedly called Jews “a lesion on the forehead of history” and said of Israel: “Pain is the only language that the enemy understands.”

Mr. Murray said that the Home Office would be “beyond hypocrisy” if it allowed Dr Ibrahim Moussawi into Britain just weeks after barring Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician, because of his alleged anti-Muslim views. Murray has written to Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, (who arrnaged for Wilders’ deportation), and informed her that he will have lawyers “seek an arrest warrant for Dr. Moussawi if he is allowed into the country.”

Mr Murray said: “This is the deepest hypocrisy, in fact, it is worse than hypocrisy on behalf of the British government… Britain is still a place where terrorists and terrorist supporters can come to incite and recruit.”

I hope that President Obama’s administration does not launch a drive to grant a visa to Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and very much his intellectual heir, who is nicely perched at…where else? Oxford University.

15 Comments

Andy Ram, an Israeli tennis player, has just published a sober and heartbreaking piece about what the Israeli tennis team has just faced in competition in Sweden.

Athletes and anti-Semitism: Who can ever forget the Munich Olympics under Hitler? And the fact that, in the Nazi era, Jewish-Austrian and Jewish-German athletes had to have their own swimming and fencing clubs, since they were not allowed to compete with “Aryans.”

We all remember the trauma of the 1972 Palestinian massacre of Israeli athletes at the Olympics in Munich. I certainly do. The mishandling of the situation–especially by the German police was enraging, unbelievable.

Now, Israeli tennis player, Shaar Peer, was not allowed to play tennis in Abu Dhabi. Although Venus Williams denounced this, she still played there.

Today, another kind of situation faces the Israeli tennis team in Sweden. Andy Ram writes about it in YNet News today, below. He begins this way:

“In almost every respect, the events of the past week in Sweden are a sad moment for Tennis, for sports in general, and certainly for Israel. Never in my career as an athlete have I encountered such hatred and such blend of sports and politics.

Up until the last moment, the protestors attempted to prompt the cancelation of the David Cup match between Israel and Sweden. After we already landed here, their leader met with Swedish team captain Mats Wilander and asked him to call off the contest. “

Ram goes on to describe how the Israeli team had to be sequestered in their hotel, guarded there, enroute, and at the stadium by many police officers and anti-terrorist squads. Sadly, the stadium was empty since people feared riots or worse. He concludes:

“The feelings within the Israel team are very grim. All the innocence that prompted us to play tennis has disappeared, and this match, which was supposed to be a beautiful moment of sports, has become completely worthless. Nothing here is reminiscent of the Davis Cup; what we have is a war atmosphere, tension, and the feeling that something very bad may happen at any moment.”

This is exactly how it feels when one tries to speak the truth about Israel and America on the American campus. It is a similarly politicized war-zone, with ugly threats and menace which requires police protection. Certainly not the atmosphere in which to compete in sports or to deliver a lecture.

World: Are you watching? Can you see what is happening?

World: What are your plans? If we do not resist radical evil ultimately, we collaborate with it.

You may read Andy Ram’s article HERE

6 Comments

Last night I delivered a lecture about anti-Semitism in Doylestown, Pennsylvania at Temple Judea. Drs. Abigail, (nee Rosenthal), and her husband, Jerry Martin, personally drove down to New York City to fetch me, my walker, my cane, and my two briefcases, back to Pennsylvania. Our conversation was so serious, so passionate, so witty, that the long drive in rush hour traffic passed quickly and pleasantly.

Abigail was afraid that people might not come or that I might be met with some hostility given the tendency among so many Jews to deny what might be terrifying them. She was pleased to be wrong. Amazingly, the place was packed and mainly with very friendly, very supportive Jews, some of whom were Holocaust or Soviet survivors. Many local-area Christians also came to “stand with the Jews” in their hour of need.

Abigail introduced me. Blessed lady: She called me a “hero of the resistance” because, during the long course of my career, whenever I met “evil” I found a way to “resist” it. She described me as “one of those who refused to deny or evade the fact of the return of anti-Semitism, but instead gave early warning.”

I immediately said that I wished my parents were still alive to hear her kind and eloquent words.

From our conversation in the car, it was clear that Abigail, too, has lost friends and allies over her own truth-telling and for her support of Israel, America, and of free and independent thought. The three of us agreed: Today, the virtues that were once associated with liberalism, (we were once all liberals), have migrated to what is now denigrated as “reactionary conservatism” by the very liberals who have themselves become fascist-totalitarians who oppose and mock all thought, every fact, that does not support their politically correct analysis and conclusions. Unfortunately, ironically, many such liberals occupy the top posts in the West.

I had written a new speech for the occasion which will appear two weeks hence in The Jewish Press. I do not want to steal my own thunder but suffice it to say I delivered a politically incorrect truth-telling speech which drew thunderous applause. I posed a long series of questions beginning with:

“Who would ever have believed that the Jews would be in such danger again? That we might be facing a second Holocaust? That Israel and Zionism, the national liberation movement of God’s chosen and persecuted people, would become such dirty words in the world, despised by western intellectuals and Islamist mobs alike?”

I talked about how much easier it is today to research anti-Semitism as compared to when I first began to do so in 2001-2002. Today, I get at least fifty pieces of email a day which describe the bombing or defacing of a synagogue, cemetary, or Jewish Center anywhere, everywhere around the world; which report on the alarming increases in verbal, physical, economic, legal, and propaganda-driven assaults on Jews on university campuses, in marches and rallies, and, of course, at the United Nations.

The annual “Israel Apartheid Week” is currently showing in at least one hundred American cities on campus. I am using the word “showing” advisedly since so much of student politics is a form of street theatre. Three days ago, at the University of Toronto, Jewish students were physically attacked by Palestinian “security guards” and threatened–yes, even with “beheadings.” No, I am not talking about York University, which is also in Toronto, where Jewish students were chased and trapped in the Hillel office and had to be led out by the Toronto police to safety.

Pages: 1 2 | 18 Comments

I stopped marching or rallying a long time ago. Chalk it up to older age and common sense. Sadly, I have not celebrated International Womans’ Day for years now because I can no longer march with people who use womens’ rights to argue for “anti-racism” i.e. who carry signs and chant anti-American and anti-Israel slogans. You know who I mean: The anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, anti-globalism crowd. In their view, Islamic/Islamist values deserve to exist globally; the values of the Western Enlightenment had better keep atoning for its many alleged sins and crimes.

However, this March 7-8th, two International Womans’ Day rallies promise to be different. I wish I could “dance at two weddings.” One rally will take place in Washington D.C., the other in London. Neither march is owned by any political party or by any existing ideology. Both are daring to focus on the enormous and profound oppression of Muslim women, both in Muslim countries and in the West.

The Washington, D.C. rally has just come to my enthusiastic attention. A group which calls itself Responsible for Equality And Liberty, (R.E.A.L.), will be holding a rally at 1pm on March 8th, to Save Women Now. The rally will take place in front of the Capitol Reflecting Pool which is alongside Maryland Avenue SW, which connects to Third Street SW.

The group is asking people to “show your solidarity in calling for our representatives and international world bodies to recognize and act against the ideology of Islamic supremacism that is threatening women today.” The group plans to “address the global challenge of women oppressed and killed in the name of Islamic supremacism. They call for “national and international action against Islamic supremacism” to Save Women Now, and to defy those who believe that mutilation, oppression, and murder of women is an Islamic supremacist “right.”

There is also a petition which you may sign: “Save Women Now” which demands that U.S. government and United Nations representatives recognize the ideology of Islamic supremacism as a source of oppression and violence to women in America and around the world.

For more information you may email Jeffrey Imm at realorg@earthlink.net

Maryam Namazie, in London, has called for a rally in Trafalgar Square in the late afternoon of March 7th, to be followed by a public meeting in Conway Hall. Namazie describes the rally as an “anti-racist London rally against Sharia and religious-based laws in Britain and elsewhere and in defense of citizenship and universal rights.” She has also launched a petition drive which now has nearly 10,000 signatures. (I love her clever “anti-racist” language. If you say its “anti-racist,” no matter what it is, you might actually buy some time in which people can listen to a real womans’ rights agenda). Namazie writes:

“For more background on One Law for All, the nature of Sharia councils and tribunals and on whether it is Islamophobic to oppose Sharia law, see the latest interview with Maryam Namazie and Bahram Soroush on Fariborz Pooya’s Secular TV. You can also see what a Sharia judge really means for people and women in particular by watching a recent BBC TV Big Questions programme in which she participated.

Namazie and her group may be contacted at: onelawforall@gmail.com

6 Comments

Last night I posted the first part of a dialogue between myself and my esteemed colleague, Dorchen Leithold, who is a dedicated and brilliant lawyer and feminist activist. Unsurprisingly, tragically, we disagree about Islam and the nature of its relationship to domestic violence and honor killings, including the recent horrific beheading of Aasiya Z. Hassan in Buffalo.

From Dorchen’s point of view, she has seen “racism” in action against Muslims in America, and among her Muslim victims of domestic violence. She might view what happens when a Muslim approaches the criminal justice system as similar to what happens when an African American does so. I agree that this is a real concern. However, focusing only, or even mainly on this injustice, may also blind feminists to the fact that the majority of Muslim and/or African-American domestic violence victims are women who have been beaten, sometimes killed, by intimate partners who are often also Muslim or African-American men.

I write about how Islamic gender apartheid has penetrated the West in The Death of Feminism. At issue, is the relationship between multi-cultural relativism and universal human rights, including womens’ rights. Secular feminists either lump all religions together as either dangerous or inconsequential or they theoretically view all religions as equally capable of doing good or evil on earth. In doing so, they fail to contemplate the ways in which Islam is different from other religions in the West. They genuinely, really, actually, amazingly, unbelievably, do not want to understand the ways in which Islam is different. (Pretty paradoxical for such good multi-cultural relativists).

Last evening, another feminist joined this debate: Artemis March, in the pages of The New Agenda in a piece titled: “The New Feminism: Breaking the Multicultural Relativism Taboo.” In her wonderful article, March discusses the ways in which such multi-cultural relativism is harmful to women, Muslim women especially. She writes:

“Despite commonalities among all forms of male violence against women, we ought not simply disappear honor killings into the general Violence Against Women (VAW) category by dismissing the importance of making distinctions that derive from their cultural or religious context… If we lump honor killings in with all VAW, we beg the question of the exportation of Sharia Law to non-Muslim countries… Not only are honor killings migrating to many parts of the world, but so also are demands for a dual legal system that accepts and glorifies rather than punishes the perpetrators. As we observe this process in Europe, we can be sure that these demands for a double standard in our laws are coming to a neighborhood near you. ”

Mary Jackson, at the New English Review, is another feminist who has also been criticizing politically correct feminists for their failure to truly understand the nature of Islamic gender apartheid. Read her excellent work HERE and HERE.

And now: For the conclusion of my dialogue with Dorchen.

________________________________________
From: Phyllis Chesler
Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:39 AM
To: ‘Dorchen Leidholdt’

Hi dear.

Am a little more rested now but am on other deadlines today.

First: May I now write about the case that you handled which emanated from Pakistan and which involved helpful men, and which used the Qu’ran in a helpful way? Please recall that I DID write about this case in The Death Of Feminism but only in part, and in a disguised way at your request. I was not allowed to include it in my study because you would not tell me the country of origin. I DO recommend seeking or being open to just such interventions and have written as much in my study. This Pakistani story does set a good example and I will be happy to say so again, this time with more details. May I do so? If you say no, it will be no.

Second: We may only seemingly disagree right now because your priority may be working to save battered women and mine right now concerns working to save western civilization. I see the two goals as joined. You may not. We may both be “right.” The Muslim Chechen leader has just had seven women murdered for “immorality” and threatens to kill others for the same reason. Is he Muslim? Is what he is doing based on the Qu’ran? Must we, can we, draw any conclusions from acts such as these which are taking place ALL over the Islamic world and which have also penetrated the West?

Pages: 1 2 | 9 Comments

Part One.

It has been my privilege to know and to work with Dorchen Leithold who is a fearless, tireless, driven, and heroic champion of womens’ rights. I remember Dorchen back in the days when we were both anti-pornography activists. She then became an anti-trafficking activist which she still is. We have participated in many important demonstrations, conferences, and memorial services over the last forty-plus years. Dorchen went on to become a lawyer. She is now the director of legal services for battered women in New York City (Sanctuary for Families) and has, Sojourner Truth style, literally rescued and saved the lives of many a woman.

We now have a genuine disagreement about whether or not Islam plays a role in domestic violence and honor killings, including in the recent horrific beheading of Aasiya Z. Hassan in Buffalo. Dorchen thinks not, I think there is a profound relationship that we deny at our own peril and to the detriment of Muslim girls and women.

With Dorchen’s permission, I am now publishing our recent correspondence. This is how people, including feminists, might consider sounding when they disagree with someone. Instead of cutting each other off, or writing each other off, here is one example of how a civilized disagreement might sound.

Our exchange is rather long. Dorchen said I could publish it as long as I did not change or edit anything she wrote. I have now added some material of my own in order to frame this dialogue and to respond to her last letter. I will run this in two parts. Stay tuned tomorrow for our second and final exchange.

On February 14, 2009, I published my first piece about the Buffalo beheading. On February 16, 2009, Middle East Quarterly (MEQ) published my study “Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?” Thereafter, between February 17th and February 27th, I published an additional five articles on the subject. Dorchen is on my mailing list and so she received every article. Late on the evening of February 28th, Dorchen, in a carefully composed letter, responded to me at length. She is a very busy women and the fact that she sat down and did this speaks volumes.

Dorchen has been nothing if not kind and respectful towards me and yet–I could not help but note that she only wrote to me after I had praised New York State NOW President, Marcia Pappas, for her dissident stand on the Buffalo beheading and had challenged National NOW President Kim Gandy’s party line position on the subject. Perhaps Dorchen kept hoping that I would stop writing on this subject or perhaps that I’d change my point of view. When that did not happen, she clearly felt obliged to write. Obviously, I feared that Dorchen had been asked, even urged, to write on behalf of others. I asked her about this. She said she was speaking for herself. Ultimately, it does not matter. What matters is the exchange of these ideas and how we are modeling a civilized way of communicating.

In my MEQ study, I recommend that we work with those mullahs, Islamic organizations, and individuals who are genuinely pro-woman, anti-domestic violence, and anti-honor killings–but that we must differentiate between such Muslims and those who will say the “right” thing on these subjects, (usually after an honor killing has taken place), but who have no intention of doing any of the hard and serious work against violence against Muslim women.

From her first letter, dated February 28, 2009, it is not clear whether Dorchen read my study or is aware that I mention one of her own cases in it. Without quoting her name, I wrote: “A number of feminist lawyers who work with battered women have credited pro-women sheikhs with helping them enormously. Sheikhs (mullahs, imams), should publicly identify, condemn, and shame honor killers. Those who resist doing so should be challenged.”
________________________________________

From: Dorchen Leidholdt
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:39 PM
To: Phyllis Chesler

Dear Phyllis,

I cannot in good conscience not respond to the article that appeared on your blog, “The Left and a Woman’s Severed Head.” While I have had much respect for you and for the very important work you have produced over decades of writing, thinking, and activism, I believe that statements like this statement of yours–“Why the sudden respect for Islam, a religion which is, in reality, not a religion at all but is rather, a totalitarian political ideology which has undergone no evolution for 1400 years and which is dangerous to women and other living beings?” are misguided, divisive, and false.

Pages: 1 2 | 56 Comments