My headscarf is giving me a headache! What I mean, is that the issue of the Islamic headscarf is a tricky, thorny one with no hard-and-fast solution in sight precisely when one is required. Just yesterday, a dear friend challenged me on this very subject.

She said: “How can you favor the state forbidding women from doing something that they want to do for religious reasons?”

A fair enough question.

My immediate response: Women’s freedom may depend upon the separation of religion and state. What one does at home or in one’s mosque, church, temple, or synagogue is one thing. But, is it wise to subsidize diverse religious expressions in a taxpayer-supported public school? Especially in the West where the headscarf is as much a symbol of jihad and women’s subordination as it is an expression of a modest, religious choice?

In 2004, the headscarf was a burning issue in France when the country passed a law forbidding the wearing of “ostentatious” religious symbols. This meant that no one could wear a cross, a turban, or a yarmulke either but the law was truly aimed at hijab–the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women. Feminists argued both sides of this controvery.

In 2008, the headscarf is again a burning issue in Turkey where an increasingly religious population, including women, is demanding the right to veil in university. This is seen as a complete reversal of the enormous gains made by Attatturk in 1921.

It is also a pendulum swing from the various Arab and Muslim feminist movements of that era in which unveiling was a linch-pin issue. Egypt’s Huda Shaarawi must be turning in her grave. I wonder what she would say?

Yes, it is true: Religious families in the West rarely give their children “freedom of choice” when it comes to religious education and practices. Both girls and boys are indoctrinated from an early age. This is true for secular fundamentalist families as well. Western law does not intefere with this. On what basis could we do so where only Muslims are concerned? Or rather, like France, are we now willing to interfere in the private religious realm because of new, Islamist “clear and present dangers?”

Ideally of course, tolerating diverse ethnic and religious choices is a great Western virtue. The problem arises when those who themselves are intolerant wish to use such Western virtues in order to achieve separatist, hostile-parasitic enclaves. But, hasn’t some degree of separatism been true for every immigrant group–at least in America? Hasn’t the genius of America resided precisely in allowing each immigrant group to remain identified in separate ways while simultaneously becoming identified similarly as Americans?

My friend is a religious Jew and is therefore very sensitive to the dangers involved when Jewish religious expression is forbidden. Indeed, even today, the Jews of Europe have been advised by their rabbis to hide their yarmulkes and stars of David lest they be scorned or beaten on the streets–something which has, alas, been happening.

But, said I, with a heavy heart: We can’t really compare apples and oranges. Crosses and yarmulkes are not the same as hijab or niqab. With some exceptions, both Jews and Christians are not only or solely defined as members of their religious group. They also partake of the public, secular, modern culture. Also, there are only about 15 million Jews world-wide. There are 1.2 billion Muslims and counting. If every single Jew covered every inch of themselves with Jewish symbols it would be as a drop in the sea compared to every single Muslim doing so.

Of course, as a religious Jew, my friend is still concerned with the morality involved. From a Jewish point of view, what’s good for a Jew should be good for every other religious group since all humanity has been created in “God’s image.”

But, what about women’s rights? Where do we stand on a woman’s right not to wear a headscarf? Will we protect her (at least in the West) from being honor-murdered when she refuses to do so? However, what do we do when a woman claims that her right to freely practice her religion is being interfered with if we stop her from veiling? Does the state have the right to force her, against her will, to expose her hair to strange men?

Indeed, this is the subject of a 2007 federal lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of Jameela Medina. She is a Los Angeles PH.D student who was riding a commuter train without a proper ticket. For what should have been a minor matter, she was taken off the train, arrested, kept in jail for several hours where she was forced to remove her headscarf.Medina also claims that she was “intimidated” by a deputy sheriff who accused her of “being a terrorist” and who called Islam an “evil” religion.

No one should be so insulted in America. And, prisoners are actually allowed to wear headscarves in jail–a point which the ACLU is arguing.

Yes, I know that many educated Muslim women choose to wear hijab or niqab. But, I also know that many educated Muslim women who choose not to do so are threatened, pressured, shunned, and even killed for this reason, both in the West and in Muslim lands.

Yes, I also know that some feminists have claimed that historically, veiled women on the streets may have been less harassed by men in the East than unveiled women were at the same time in the West. Today, separate buses and railway cars for women-only have been launched in India and Mexico in response to the still ongoing harassment of women. (Insisting, in ugly or violent ways, that women sit at the back of the public bus used by ultra-religious Jewish populations in Jerusalem, is a slightly separate although equally awful reality and one that the Israeli Supreme Court will hear).

I also know that many Muslim women do not feel “coerced” into wearing a headscarf in the West as much as they feel called upon to register a permanent, visible, protest against promiscuity and the eroticization of women in the West. (Like nuns do).

In the 1960s and 1970s, I thought it was poetic justice for former “colonials” to sport their colorful customs all over London. Bangles, nose-rings, turbans, long flowing robes on both men and women–yes! But, by the 21st century, these exotic garments are ominously value-laden and less lovely. Now, they signify a serious cultural, military, political, and theological invasion of Britain and the West.

Quo Vadis my friends? What shall we do in America? Do we allow headscarves or do we ban them? What about female genital mutilation, daughter- and wife-beating, and secret polygamy? Finally, what about the indoctrination into hating Jews and other infidels which begins in childhood and is theologically driven in certain mosques and religious schools? Right here in the USA?

I propose that the next American President appoint a Prophet to the Cabinet. We have entered an era where prophetic views and values are sorely required.

Prophets, (Jeremiah, Isaiah, Cassandra), see what is happening but the people and their leaders don’t listen to them. Perhaps if prophets could once again assume official positions (with calling cards and press secretaries) their voices might be heard. Consigning prophets to the care and keeping of commercial or even academic publishing is a risk we can no longer afford to take.

Of course, I am not talking about False Prophets or lunatics but about the real deal. (I know, whom can we trust to recognize a true prophet, etc.)

But the handwriting-on-the-sky has been alarmingly visible for quite some time. In the 1970s, French novelist Jean Raspail published a Swiftian novel, The Camp of the Saints, in which he envisioned a flotilla of millions of immigrants traveling from the Ganges to France. An all-powerful, multi-culturally correct intelligentsia that has taught Europe that it must atone for its racist, colonial guilt welcomes the invasion. Europe (European culture as we have known it) is destroyed.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Egyptian-born scholar Bat Ye’or and Italy’s finest journalist Oriana Fallaci tried to warn us in both learned and passionate ways. They continued this work right into the twenty-first century. In the beginning, they were dismissed as “paranoid” and “racist”, viciously attacked, and even sued.

From the mid-1990s on, other voices chimed in: the eminent Daniel Pipes for one, and the equally eminent Ibn Warraq, for another. Post 9/11, both men have continued this work and have been joined by Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, and scores of others (Pim Fortyn, Theo Von Gogh, Bruce Bawer, Carol Gould, Melanie Phillips, Fiamma Nierenstein, myself).

So far, what we have said has made little difference. We, too, have often been dismissed and attacked as “racists” and “reactionaries” by other westerners.

Some of my prophet-friends say that the tide is turning, that both European governments and civilians now “get it.”

Welcome news–although rather late in the day.

In my view, the signs are still there for all to see. My email this morning tells me:

In Iran, Hossein Shariatmadari, managing editor of ‘Kayhan’ (Universe), one of Iran’s most influential newspapers, has “issued a strongly worded editorial inviting Muslims to topple moderate Islamic governments and attack US, European and Israeli interests.” In the editorial, entitled “The enemy’s shield”, Shariatmadari argues that in Shia or Sunni Islam “It is legal to strike those who protect the enemy.” ” The real enemies, says Shariatmadari are “The barbaric Zionists, the ferocious Americans and their European allies”.

Not to be outdone, Al-Qaeda has threatened to assasinate Gordon Brown and Tony Blair and to devastate Britain with a wave of suicide bombings unless all British troops are withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan and all Islamist prisoners are freed from British jails by the end of March. This threat appeared on a recognized jihadi website (al-ekhlass.net) but has now been taken down. It was also posted in English under “Al Qaeda in Britain” but has also been removed. Despite such threats, Britain continues to groan under the costs of subsidizing the precipitously rising birth rate among immigrants.

The upper house of the Afghan parliament supported a death sentence which was issued against a young Afghan journalist for blasphemy in northern Afghanistan. Pervez Kambaksh, 23, was convicted last week of downloading and distributing an article insulting Islam. (The article concerned women and Islam). He has denied the charge. These MKs are America’s and Europe’s allies.

Turkey’s governing political party agreed to lift the ban on Islamic headscarves for women attending university. (This group almost made it into the European Union–and the Turkish military may stage a coup over this).

In Jordan, a 17 year-old girl was strangled to death by her brother in a Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan in what was reported to be an honor killing. (But this must be due to the Israeli Occupation–oh wait a minute, Israel does not occupy Jordan).

The same Hamas that invaded neighboring Egypt’s sovereign space, has, since Israel withdrew from Gaza, bombarded the Israeli border town of Sderot with more than 4000 rocket and mortar attacks, killing and injuring many innocent civilians. (Much thanks to Jennifer Lazlo Mizrahi of The Israel Project for publishing a Time-Line of these rocket attacks).

And our trendy friends at al-Jazeera are trying to exert more control over the English-language outlet. The editor-in-chief, Ibrahim Hilal, was not pleased by how his mainly western journalists handled the infamous Mohammed-the-teddy-bear incident. According to one source, “Hilal sent an email banning the story from being run on al-Jazeera English because it would upset Muslims. It was only covered when there were riots in Sudan.”

Yes, there are signs of resistance afoot as well: The Danish Royal Library is planning to exhibit the Mohammed cartoons–but the British decision to label all acts of Islamist terrorism as “anti-Islamic” (which columnist Mark Steyn labels as “Orwellian”) is far more characteristic of our times.

UPDATE: The kidnapped woman is a God-fearing Baptist out of Texas with family ties in western Washington state. According to her father, George Mizell, Cyd graduated from the Fort Worth (Texas) Seminary in 1990 with a masters of divinity degree. She attended the Southwestern Baptist Church where they are now praying for her. A number of churches and church groups are also now praying for her.

Let me emphasize: Mizell has not been doing Christian missionary work in Afghanistan. Had she done so, she would have quickly lost the support of the local people. One can only hope that those who now hold her captive do not decide to falsely present her as a Christian missionary–something that would endanger her further.

According to an old “China (Afghan) hand” who prefers anonymity at this point:

“In terms of Afghan traditions of war (not feuds or revenges, etc., but real war), it is indeed somewhat unusual to seize a woman — that’s why women wear bright reds and yellows, so they can be identified in battle — and especially not a foreign woman. (Perhaps her chadri and her command of Pushto got her into trouble by mistake.) There are traditions about such matters. But the events of the last 30 years have shattered Afghan society — and also, a lot of the brigands operating around Kandahar are not Afghans. The villagers have been complaining of Uzbeks and Arabs who brutalize the villages. When, in the early 1980s, I first heard of a Russian woman being stabbed in the bazaar, I knew that the society was breaking down.”

My informant wonders if the silence about who has Mizell might be due to their having grabbed her by mistake. Maybe they are now trying to figure out how to return her.

Well, we shall see.

UPDATE: Today, between 500-600 women, many wearing burqas, demonstrated on behalf of the still kidnapped and missing Cyd Mizell in Kandahar. Their husbands gave them permission to do so; still, for women to publicly express their views and feelings constituted an unusual event in this Taliban-infested region. The women gathered in a Kandahar wedding hall. One woman was quoted as saying that the fate of “all Afghan women is at stake” because this kidnapping shows “how dangerous it still is for those who take an active role in rebuilding Afghanistan.”

UPDATE: The kidnapped American, Cyd Mizell, belongs to a church in Mechanisville, Virginia. She played the keyboard and sang at Sunday services. Her church, the Atlee Community Church, is planning a prayer service for her and may be contacted at (804) 730-3676.

As yet, no western feminist organization has issued a press release about this kidnapping. If I am wrong, please send it my way.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: The East is much wilder than the Wild West of yore and once again, an infidel “do-gooder,” 49 year-old Cyd Mizell, who taught English and embroidery to Afghan girls and women and helped them with “income-generating” projects , has been kidnapped in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Mizell worked for the Asian Rural Life Development Foundation. The fact that she wore a burqa and spoke Pashto did not keep her safe. The Afghan government is currently hunting for her and her 35 year-old driver, Hadi Mahdi, but as yet, no group has taken responsibility or issued any demands.

Kidnappings are a permanent way of life in this part of the world; they are undertaken for ransom and revenge, out of lust, when one is in need of a domestic or sexual slave, and as a form of communication with one’s enemies, be they intimate or foreign. In short, one violently takes what one covets or requires. There is no prohibition against doing so.

Once, long ago, I was held captive and kept in fairly posh purdah in Afghanistan. Whenever I would escape, my Afghan husband would beg me to keep my “adventurousness” in check lest it lead to my being kidnapped (yet again) and to his subsequent “shame and ruin.” Actually, he terrified me with tales about other wives who had been kidnapped and raped which, in one instance, led to a husband’s suicide.

Westerners and other infidels have, notoriously, been captured , albeit by strangers and not by husbands, in the Wild East before. Barbary Pirates attacked shiploads of Europeans and sold the male captives into slavery and the female captives into harems. The blonde French-Carribbean mother of a future Sultan was brought to Turkey in chains. Such kidnappings were so commonplace that both Mozart and Rossini featured the theme in their respective operas, Abduction from the Seraglio and An Italian in Algeria.

But people have forgotten all this. We are infinitely susceptible to the faux-photograpic moments created by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (who gave us the Mohammed al-Dura and Darkness-in-Gaza hoaxes) . And, we remain in a deep sleep –a veritable coma–in terms of this larger historical narrative.

Thus, for the record, let me remind us that Britain’s notorious convert to Islam, Yvonne Ridley, was once kidnapped and briefly held by the Taliban in Aghanistan. Even they released her rather quickly–but that brief experience led Ridley to convert and to publicly and aggressively become a champion for Islam, Jihad, and Palestine in the West. When I debated her on al-Hurrah, she wore a version of Lawrence-of-Arabia headggear which would have led to her arrest for male impersonation had she been living in Mecca, not London.
Press Here: Press here

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) relentlessly grinds on. They and fellow travelers have planned their annual Hate Israel follies and have called it “Israel Apartheid Week.” Rallies outside the Israeli Consulates and Embassies began on January 24th in Boston, January 25th in Philadelphia, Washington DC, San Francisco, and Seattle, on Shabbos, January 26th in New York City, Cleveland and Anaheim, and on January 29th, in Chicago.

The ISM has moved off campus and is now appearing in nine cities in six days in order to present their brand of Big Lie political theatre. Stand With Us has put out a call for pro-Israel signs and bodies to be there.

Meanwhile, the students at De Paul University have announced an Academic Freedom Conference for February 1st and 2nd. They write that people are still in a state of shock because Norman Finkelstein, the Holocaust-mocker, was denied tenure. They note that “prominent scholars ,” such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (of the University of Chicago and Harvard), have been “silenced.” By whom? Their publisher, Farrar, Strauss who gave them an $850,000.00 advance? By the media, bookstores, and their own universities where they continue to speak? They also cite the “controversial tenure decisions” of Nadia Abu El-Haj and Joseph Massad (of Columbia). El-Haj received tenure. What are these students protesting?

Oh, the thin-skinned shame of imposters, the righteous indignation when purveyors of the Big Lie are challenged.

Nevertheless, in the name of academic freedom, these students have invited the most prominent liars–alright, the most savage critics–of America and Israel: Professors Sara Roy, Bill Ayers, Robert Jensen, Mark Ellis, Juan Cole and Joel Kovel. They did not invite Rachel Ehrenfeld who is battling the Saudi “libel tourist” and billionnaire, Bin Mafouz, on behalf of our First Ammendment rights nor did they invite anyone who might have a positive view of America, Israel, and the West or an almost erotically negative view of let’s say, Sudan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Congo.

Only speakers who are obssesed with Israel’s allegedly essential evil are qualified to represent what now passes for courageous concern with “academic freedom.”

Meanwhile, the United Nations Council on Human Rights just passed a resolution demanding that Israel lift its week-long blockade of Gaza. (I wonder if they will condemn Hamas for blasting their way into another sovereign nation. Why do I bother to ask?) Needless to say, this august Council did not condemn Hamas for firing 200 Qassam rockets upon Israeli civilians who live in Sderot within that same week.

There is something wrong with how these propagandists think. It is almost as if their brains have been altered by poisoned prejudice.

But, in addition to these (and many more) non-stop and ongoing propaganda campaigns against Israel, we have the living civilians of Sderot who are, daily, being “collectively punished” by the Kassam rockets that Hamas rains down upon them from Gaza. (The phrase is Bradley Burston’s writing in Ha’aretz).

Which leads us to the subject of brain injuries. The new issue of “Science” magazine (Vol 319, no 5862, dated January 25th), describes the work of John Hopkins neurologist, Ibolja Cernak, who, with teams in Belgrade, China, and Sweden has documented a neurological basis to what was once called “shell shock.” She describes both “immediate” and “lasting” neurological consequences with attendant psychiatric symptomatology to those, (mainly soldiers) who have not themselves been physically injured but who have been in the vicinity of repeated “blasts.”

Dr. Cernak is careful not to conflate physical injuries with the measurable, neurological damage sustained by enduring (fearing, seeing, hearing) the repeated “blasts” alone. She calls this: “Traumatic Brain Injury” (TBI). Symptoms include: Dizziness, speech problems, unexplained weeping, irritability, attention deficit disorders, insomnia, depression–some or all of the symptoms of what has previously been called Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. This time, it has a neurological basis.

So, are the civilians of Sderot suffering from TBI? Whom can they turn to for redress and for compensation for their medical treatment and for their considerable pain and suffering?

Trust me: if we don’t answer this question for Sderot residents, we will eventually be asking it about ourselves.

In the beginning, only Israel had metal detectors and extra security at its airports and embassies. Now everyone does.

The world did not stop the 2000 Intifada against Israel (the Israel-constructed security wall did that)–but now that same Intifada has gone global; weekly, suicide terrorist attacks against Middle Eastern, Central Asian, and European capitals are both successfully launched and successfully thwarted.

The Qassam rocket blasts, unchecked, that are being endured by Israeli civilians may soon be inherited by civilians elsewhere–everywhere.

NEWSFLASH! Jody Williams Talks About The Spitzer Scandal. And She Says Things that No One Else Is Saying.

Spitzer Should Also Apologize to the Prostitutes and Donate Money to their Recovery and Rehabilitation

Governor Spitzer does not seem to “grasp the fact that he’s done much more in this recent scandal than betray the trust of his wife and the duty of his office. We are not talking an affair here - we’re talking about the services of a prostitute who, for all we know, could be under the age of 18 and possibly even a sexual trafficking victim. What –does- everyone think that if an escort service is based on US soil and charges a lot of money that they don’t use trafficking victims or women who are forced into engaging into prostitution? Give me a break. ”

I am talking with Jody Williams, who helps women escape from prostitution. Here are her comments on the Spitzer Affair.

I personally ran one of the highest paid escort services in Los Angeles in the 1980’s right alongside Alex, The Beverly Hills Madam. I was in fact dubbed the High Tech Madam because of using sophistated technology in my work before the internet was even invented. Since retiring I’ve devoted my life to helping prostitutes escape sex work. Why? Because I know that men like Spitzer who make the laws are making laws that favor johns’ and pimps and that do not favor the prostitutes.

Has anyone ever asked why our government will spend approximately $2000 per prostitute to have them arrested, prosecuted and incarcerated and then simply kicked back onto the streets after release from prison when for roughly $500 per prostitute they could offer them proven techniques and services of rehabiliation that would get them into new, legit, lives where they don’t have to turn tricks, be in porno or live out the rest of their days on SSI or welfare? Because if we started getting these women into becoming respectable members of society instead of revolving through the system as victims - then their tales about abuse and exploitation at the hands of men like Spitzer would not continue to be ignored.

Spitzer is apologizing to his wife and to the press - but where is his apology to the actual prostitute? Wait a minute - talk is cheap - where is his donation to a group that would help her get out of prostitution and into a new life ? We as a public don’t ask for that because we assume that this escort is over 18 and not a victim of some kind - but we don’t have proof of that. And who are we to believe? Spitzer who doesn’t want to go to jail and wants to save his marriage and career? Which is another fact everyone seems to be missing - men like Spitzer are the ones creating these laws that put women in jail for prostitution that are doing so simply to feed their kids, support a drug habit while no funding is available for rehab facilities for her to check into, or is being forced through a lack of education and support services to not have any other option or by an actual pimp/trafficker into doing this - while john legislation is being opposed that would put men in jail for engaging in the same act totally voluntarily I need to add.

Enough with the cheap apologies - I want to see men like this donate publically the same amount of money they spent on a good time to be donated into groups that help these women get rehabilitated. Groups that the government won’t fund (gee I wonder why). Maybe because guys like Spitzer and in charge of the money don’t seem to think these women are victims - much like I imagine if you poll a few rapists they might say the same about their victims as well. Ever heard a rapist who didn’t say his victim didn’t “enjoy it” or “ask for it” or “really wanted it”. Why isn’t the press catching on? These johns are saying the same things about their prostitutes to avoid responsibility for their actions. Prostitution isn’t sex anymore than rape is sex or child molesting is sex.

Jody Williams - Trafficking and Prostitution Services - Nevada www.tapsdirectory.org (775) 482-3285

ORIGINAL STORY
According to Las Vegas ex-prostitute Jody Williams, founder of Sex Workers Anonymous, we should compare the “promotion of prostitution with the way the tobacco companies market cigarettes. “They’re taking advantage of your ignorance of the industry,” she told the Pahrump Valley Times on September 7, 2007 at a press conference.

Williams said ex-prostitutes came to her organization suffering from a variety of physical and emotional disorders. “Women in prostitution suffer from the same combat stress that Vietnam and combat vets do, but they have fewer services than vets do,” she said.

The illegal pimps are replaced by “the legal pimps” in the brothels, Williams charged.

“The current law in Nevada which allows legal prostitution and talks about wanting them to use their earnings to generate tax dollars for the state of Nevada actually makes the state of Nevada a third pimp for these women,” Williams said.

I do not believe that any Presidential candidate has been seriously questioned about this issue–not in the recent Nevada primaries, and not elsewhere. They should be–because the issue is that of slavery. It is easy to decry historical examples of the human slave trade but we have an even bigger global slave trade currently underway: that of sexual slavery.

This is the saddest subject for me and one about which I know too much. I have been writing about this subject from the mid 1970s on and I continued to soldier on during the great feminist Sex Wars when feminist anti-prostitution abolitionists /anti-pornography activists were demonized as puritanical man-haters who were willing to endanger abortion rights, the First Ammendment, and woman’s sexual freedom . In turn, the anti-Censorship activists were also demonized as faux-feminists, heartless Stalinists, and First Ammendment fanatics.

Neither side took any prisoners. Both sides made important points. I made it a point not to demonize anyone and to try to keep working with everyone. Outsiders often under-estimate the ferocity of this struggle among American feminists. In the short run, the abolitionists lost, both in the universities and in feminist movement circles.

Now, thirty-three years later, most feminists on both sides of the aisle understand that sexual slavery (or “trafficking”) cannot be confused with sexual freedom. And many feminists work on legislation for the American government that is meant to enforce the laws against pimps and sometimes against Johns. Some of these feminists are also God-fearing conservatives; some are not. Some are abolitionist refugees from the great feminist Sex Wars or from the domestic violence shelter movement.

In the early 1990s, I read every study and every book about prostitution and about serial murder that I could find. Why? Because I was putting together a “dream-team” for Aileen Carol Wuornos, the so-called first woman serial killer in Florida. (This is the woman whom Charlize Theron brilliantly impersonated in the film Monster). Although Wuornos had wanted us to testify, her lawyer, a public defender named Trish Jenkins, never called my “dream team .” This omission became one of the grounds upon which her death sentence was appealed. Of course, after a decade on Death Row, the same state that had executed Ted Bundy executed Wuornos too. I wrote a book about her but I never published it. That’s a story for another day but suffice it to say: I told the story through her eyes. And yes, I corresponded with and met her and an incredibly sordid cast of Florida scavengers and pirates.

I learned how dangerous “the (prostituted) life” really is, how prostituted women become third- and fourth-class citizens, isolated, practically invisible, and how hard it is to ever return to “straight” life. Prostituted women turn to drugs and drink in order to endure the soul-scorching “work.” They do not become rich. Girls are also no longer as desirable or as marketable once they look older than twenty five. Twelve-year olds (or those who can pass for twelve) are in high demand.

Prostituted women are also the ones whom serial killers prey upon and whom college-age men and kinky Johns gang-rape, torture, rob, and kill. Despite all the myths and lies, there is nothing glamorous about this life. If this were truly desirable work, the daughters of millionnaires would swell the ranks–and this is not the case.

I do not favor legalizing prostitution. It is not a “victim-less” crime. The prostitutes are the victims. (Of course, I do not favor fining or jailing prostitutes; Johns, perhaps, but not prostitutes).

The real heroes are the prostituted women who have themselves miraculously escaped from slavery and who turn right around and help other girls and women to do so. Even the Biblical Moses was reared as a Prince of Egypt; liberators may require just such training in order to endure what a struggle for liberation entails. Slaves–? They turn on each other and on their liberators too. A slave-liberator? They are rare.

Jody Williams is one such incredible hero. How many of us would dare to return to Hell over and over again, risking everything? And, where is “north” for a sex slave on the run? Jody insisted on using her real name for this interview. She lives in Las Vegas. Once Jody began organizing, helping other prostitutes escape, and naming names, she endangered herself in terrifying ways. According to Williams, police and other state officials in Las Vegas personally profit from both legal and illegal prostitution.

Hence, her phone lines were cut as were her computer cable wires. Her electricity and water were mysteriously shut off–and were only restored with the intercesson of a sympathetic elected official. Her daughter was run down in broad daylight by a car and sustained many broken bones.

These things all happened within 24-60 hours after she participasted in a press conference about sex trafficking last fall in Las Vegas. Jody’s own health has been seriously compromised. Despite this, she soldiers on against extraordinary odds.

Here is part of an interview I conducted with her on the phone and via email. If you are moved by reading this and wish to make a donation to her work, please contact me at my Blogsite and I will put her in touch with you.

Phyllis: How old are you? What is your educational background?

Jody: I’m 47 years old now. I left high school at 15 and started community college at 16. I dropped out at 19 to be in the sex industry. I’m now a few classes away from my BA degree.

Phyllis: Where did you grow up? What is your family background?

Jody: I grew up in Los Angeles and left home because I could not cope with living with my mentally ill abusive mother any longer. I got a job as a cocktail waitress so I could continue on with college after my father ripped off my college money. It was there I met the people who indoctrinated me into the sex industry. This was in Tarzana, CA about 1980.

Phyllis: What do you tell people who insist that prostitution is a “choice?”

Jody: One could argue that when a man says he’ll kill your kids in the other bedroom if you scream for help while he rapes you and you decide to protect the children to cooperate–that this means you were not raped. For a long time when I thought about quitting, I knew it would mean I could potentially be hurt and/or killed or set up with the police if I did so. This may mean I “chose” not to take that kind of punishment by continuing–but I wouldn’t call that a choice. Choice means having “other options.” Sometimes you don’t have other options even when a gun isn’t pointed directly at your head.

Phyllis: How did you finally manage to escape from the sex industry?

Jody: I tried for years to find help to get out of the sex industry - but found I could not do it without help and I couldn’t find the help I needed. I did not abuse drugs and the only programs offered at that time were drug programs. I was lucky enough to meet a group of Veterans who were able to help me through the adjustment through the 12 steps of Narcotics Anonymous and through their understanding of PTSD.

Phyllis: What set you on your current path of helping other women who want to escape?

Jody: When I went back to some old friends to do “amends” I found everyone was either dead, dying or in prison and I was the only one left basically. I realized we needed to make help more available.

Phyllis: Why do women return to the sex industry after they’ve tried hard to leave it behind?

Jody: I don’t believe women “change their mind” to return. I think they sometimes second guess their decision out of fear that someone may come to harm if they don’t return. I think sometimes the drugs wear off and it’s the detox talking. Sometimes it’s depression setting in which makes you doubt everything. Sometimes it’s the brainwashing kicking in the pimps have programmed there to return the women like homing pigeons. So when a woman starts talking about “returning” I say we need to carefully examine where those feelings are coming from. It’s never been really them wanting to go back either.

Phyllis: What is happening for you right now, after the fallout from going public last fall?

Jody: After being hit by that car, my daughter has been confined to total bedrest. So my finances are non-existent right now. This gives me a choice - either stop my work helping these women or start reaching out to outside funding sources for help. Actually this is a blessing in disguise. If I were to have died - then my work would have ceased entirely.

I realized after being so sick like this that I need to set up a system that will go on after I die to help these women - so that’s what I’m working on now. I’ve had more difficulties with the police than I can tell you about. I had trouble with the police when I was in the business and now that I’m out of it trying to help women.

Phyllis: How do you financially manage to do rescue work?

Jody: I used to fund everything out of my paychecks - but the last couple of years I’ve been on SSI and can’t do that anyone. I’ve had to look into fund raising and it’s not something people want to donate to usually. I’m between a rock and a hard place with funding right now because of this problem.

Phyllis: Thank you so much for your time and for your amazing work.

The Grey Lady editors just slipped it right in there–the magazine spread was so big (eight pages,with eight huge color photos), and so unbelievable, that I actually missed it. I am talking about the Sunday New York Times magazine article about female genital mutilation in Indonesia.

Not until Dr. Andrew Bostom called it to my attention, did I stop, look, and let the headline sink in: “A Cutting Tradition.” I probably thought it was a rather long article about a recipe–not for a lifetime of agony, but for another way to cut and prepare a meal. Something Asian, maybe Fusion. The women’s faces were Asian faces.

But, the article is essentially a National Geographic-style photo essay subtitled: “Inside a female circumcision ceremony for young Muslim girls.” The photos are by Stephanie Sinclair, the brief text is by Sara Corbett.

What is a human rights atrocity with life-long and life-threatening consequences is here being presented as a “tradition,” often a harmless one, sometimes not, but always a well-intentioned one.

According to the article, there is “little blood involved”–well, how bad can that be? And, “antiseptic is used”– well, this is not dangerous at all, is it? Finally, afterwards, the child is given a “celebratory gift”–what, am I the kind of westerner who, Grinch-style, would deny the child her gift in order to make my twisted, “racist” argument? As the article states , the child clutching (or drinking) her gift “has now joined a quiet majority in Indonesia.”

These photographs were taken in 2006 on a day where 200 girls were genitally mutilated . In honor of the “prophet Mohammed’s birthday,” the Assalaam Foundation subsidized both the mutilation–and the “gift.” According to the Foundation’s chairman of social services, the cutting/mutilation will “stabilize her libido;” “make a woman look more beautiful in the eyes of her husband’; and “will balance her psychology.”

Ninety six percent of all Indonesian families have sliced their daughters’ clitorises right off.

No orgasms for you, you naughty, wicked hussy of a child.

In the article, an Italian physician who is also a World Health Organization official states: “To judge them (the female mutilators) “harsly is to isolate them. You cannot make change that way. These mothers believe they are doing something good for their children.”

The Indonesian “cutting” is presented as less severe, less “extreme” than African versions. Oh yeah? Then why does one photo show us a child in extraordinary pain. Yes, right there in the New York Times. The caption is: “A girl cries as she is circumcized. ” Well, its like being vaccinated, right? And there is a second photo of a highly anxious child just before the mutilation. This one is captioned: “A girl is soothed by an attendant before her circumcision.”

The photographer has captured a live human rights atrocity in progress and we are seeing it in color with our morning coffee and croissants. Or bagels. Or muffins. Whatever.

Who exactly are the barbarians here? Those who genitally mutilate their daughters or those who deem the atrocity as something of a soft core “tradition” to be “enjoyed” at Sunday brunch?

And why has no one commented upon the fact that it is only women who perform such mutilations? The psychological trauma of undergoing such a painful procedure, (albeit with very different consequences), among both male and female children and adolesecents, is unbelievable. How can a girl ever trust an older woman again? (Actually, she can’t).

I will let Dr. Bostom, who is a physician and the author of the forthcoming book, “The Legacy of Islamic AntiSemitism” (a daunting, compelling, and indispensable book), have the last words. He has written a passionate article titled “Clitoral Relativism-Female Genital Mutilation in ‘Tolerant” Islamic Indonesia. ” Quoting from the British Medical Journal on the subject, he reminds us that:

“Female genital mutilation, also misleadingly known as female circumcision, is usually performed on girls ranging in age from 1 week to puberty. Immediate physical complications include severe pain, shock, infection, bleeding, acute urinary infection, tetanus, and death. Long-term problems include chronic pain, difficulties with micturition [urination] and menstruation, pelvic infection leading to infertility, and prolonged and obstructed labor during childbirth. ”

He notes that FGM is illegal in the United States. He views the above article as “misleading.”

Read Dr. Bostom http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/01/20/clitoral-relativism%e2%80%94female-genital-mutilation-in-%e2%80%9ctolerant%e2%80%9d-islamic-indonesia/”>here.

They are clever these Iranian Islamists; subtle and sly. Deranged as no men have been before them. For example, just a few days ago, Iran’s Supreme Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei, claimed that the West “abuses women” and that Islamic Iran “honors them.” His proof? Islam forces women to “wear the hijab.” Veiled women are entirely invisible to your average man-on-the-street whom, it is assumed, would otherwise sexually harass or rape every woman they see.

He said it. I didn’t.

Khamenei is really a Second Wave American-born feminist in disguise. I kid you not. He agrees completely with the views of Ann Chamberlain . I reviewed her 2006 book, “A History of Women’s Seclusion in the Middle East. The Veil in the Looking Glass” for Middle East Quarterly. Chamberlain writes that Western women who seek to integrate previously male-only space are far more “conservative” and “patriarchal” than are veiled Muslim women who live in purdah.

Chamberlain sees women-only space as equivalent to anti-patriarchal protest or resistance movements. She claims that pagan-era slave women in the Middle East were forced to work naked and to be sexually available at any moment to all men. Thus, “covered” and secluded women were safer than slave women. Wealthy women were veiled and the veil was a statement about their power and hence, unavailability.

Is Khameini trance-channeling Ann Chamberlain? According to Terence P. Jeffrey in the CBN, “Khamenei told the Iranian students’ conference that in the Iranian vision of Islam, it was determined that poor women should be compelled to cover their entire bodies and faces in order to honor them and make their dress conform to the style adopted by aristocratic women. This policy, he said, logically followed from the conclusion that men have an “inborn desire for sexual violence.” In ancient Iran, aristocratic women used to wear hijab,” he said. “Women from lower classes did not bother. But when Islam came, it rejected such instances of discrimination. It said that all women must wear the hijab. In other words, it wanted to honor all women. This is what Islam says. Now, they [in the West] behave as if we are doing something wrong and they are doing the right thing! No, they are in the wrong. They must answer why they have been treating women like a commodity in order to gratify their own lust.”

He does not mention (or possibly even view) the practices of polygamy, temporary marriage, or stoning for alleging rape as “dishonoring” women. Instead, he focuses on the West’s use of naked women (that hair, those elbows!) to sell products and the West’s refusal to allow women to veil themselves in universities. He also insists that newly gathered statistics document that one-third of all men in the West batter women. A recent poll suggests that 12-16% of all women in Europe are battered at home. Does that figue soar when Third World countries are included?

I wonder what the statistics are in Iran: Closer to 90%? Maybe those abayas are not thick enough, dark enough, suffocating enough; maybe Iranian women have too many elbows? We’ve already seen Iran’s rulers insist that women not swim, swim separately, or wear full body-bags when they swim in public . We have seen special outfits for riding bicycles. What next? Little eye-brow veils? Or just smother the whole face and be done with it.

Listen Mister: When you leave this much to the imagination of male jerks, a fully veiled woman can be pretty enticing. Why not give the men curfews (as Golda Meir once famously suggested)? They seem to be the problem. Not the women.

Jeffrey’s article may be found at the following site. The above title is his. It could not be improved upon.

www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.aspPage=/Culture/archive/200801/CUL20080114a.html

PHYLLIS CHESLER’ S PREPARED REMARKS 1/15/08

(I will write up the press conference which took place at the American Jewish Congress later. )

You may also see the press conference on YouTube.

Recently, in the pages of the New York Times, Gloria Steinem wrote that we should not hold the only female Presidential candidate to a higher and different standard than we hold male politicians; when we do, Gloria explained, that’s sexism. From 1972 on, I have been explaining to Gloria and to other Ms. feminists that we should not hold the only Jewish state to a higher or different standard than we hold all other nations states; when we do, it is called racism or Jew-hatred or anti-Semitism.

Ms magazine, the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority, which took over Ms magazine, and far too many Western feminists have, for a long time, been more concerned with the alleged “occupation” of a country that does not exist (Palestine) than they have been concerned with the occupation of women’s bodies world-wide, especially in Islamic countries.

Before I came here today I quickly looked through some issues of Ms online from 2000-2007. The editorial bias is blatantly and consistently anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Apparemtly, Palestinians are the sacred victims who are pure and can do no wrong. Israelis are the Nazi-like aggressors and occupiers who can do nothing right.This is not the Ms I once knew so long ago. This is a Stalinized, post-colonial, anti-imperialist, multi-culturally relativist kind of Ms. This is a feminism that has been utterly Palestinianized.

This does not serve the cause of Palestinian women well–nor does it serve the cause of women anywhere. It is cowardly to desert the one democracy in the region and give a free pass to barbaric, totalitarian, and fascist regimes. This kind of feminism betrays the women and men in the Third World who need feminist support the most. I am not a cultural relativist. I believe in a feminism which is rational, universal, and meant for all people.

Israel is not perfect–what country is?–yet only Israel has been universally demonized. The United Nations specializes in this, it is the only thing they do well. They certainly don’t stop genocides in progress. Ms has learned its lessons well from the United Nations and from all the propaganda that has swirled through the western democracies for the last 40 years. For the UN to demonize Israel is ironic, since Israel is the country that absorbed its refugees (nearly 800,000 Jewish refugees who were forced to flee from Arab Muslim countries) at its own expense. The Palestinian (terrorists) have been living high on the world public dole for five or more generations. The civilians are impoverished and at the mercy of their tyrannical leaders.

From the start, feminism has been unfairly, even viciously attacked. I do not want to do that here today. World events have made feminism more important but, to my sorrow, most Western feminists, including Ms magazine feminists, prefer to blame America and Israel for the indigenous barbarism of Third World countries . They are also, pro forma, very proud of their cultural relativism. They say they don’t want to “judge” anyone else’s culture or country. Unless, of course, that country is Jewish Israel.

Feminists slander Israel when they describe her as an apartheid state–when in fact, Islam is really the largest practitioner of both gender and religious apartheid not only in Muslim countries but also in the West. Western feminists won’t say this. They would lose their funding, their cozy lives, their positions in universities and their cachet in the media; their friends too. Perhaps even their lives.

When I say this on campuses, I need police officers to protect my right to speak.

Many Western feminists have not supported the ex-Muslim dissident and feminist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Some feminists have attacked her as too anti-Muslim and as too soft on American imperialism and western colonialism. Feminists have not praised the ex-Muslim feminists, Nonie Darwish or Wafa Sultan, who are both speaking strong truth to power–but who are not blaming America and Israel for anything.

Ms magazine has managed to praise individual feminist activists and women leaders who live in truly terrible countries–countries in which women are genitally mutilated, secluded, routinely beaten , veiled, not allowed to drive, forced into polygamous marriages, forced to marry their first cousins, publicly gang-raped as official government policy, stoned to death, and honor-murdered if they protest any of the above.

For example, Western feminists (Ms Magazine and the Feminist Majority) have praised and worked with Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian lawyer and human rights activist. She won the Noble Prize–but she also lives in a country ruled by Islamo-fascists who have kidnapped and murdered both American and Israeli civilians and who hold their own people hostage.

And yet, three women leaders who identify with the West cannot even buy their way into the pages of a Ms magazine. Let me say one thing about one of these women: Dorit Beinish, the President of the Israeli Supreme Court. In the matter of the Women of the Wall, (I was a name-plaintiff in this legendary lawsuit), to her eternal credit, Judge Beinish judged that Jewish women had the right to pray in a group in the women’s section at the Western Wall.

Ms magazine should give her a parade, not banish her from their pages.

Ms magazine has the right not to run an ad in which three major Israeli women leaders are featured. But they further reveal their hand, and have shown their true politics.

Let me congratulate the American Jewish Congress for having the courage to stand up to the Ms Empire “for the love of Zion,” and for the love of truth. It is my honor to stand with them.

Ms was always hard to keep going. Gloria Steinem had to devote almost all her time to fundraising to keep it afloat. Editors had to threaten to sue for medical benefits and writers had to threaten lawsuits because they had not been paid. Despite appearances, it was always a shoe-string operation. But it had a good run. Over time, the magazine got smaller and less inflential–something which is typical of many magazines. Until now, Ms continued to enjoy considerable “girlish” acclaim and a nearly spotless reputation–at least among its followers, certainly not among its opponents. And, every major liberal Jewish organization viewed their aims as similar to that of Ms magazine’s.

The honeymoon lasted far too long and it is rather late in the day for the question of where feminism really stands on the question of Israel and Palestine to surface. Well, better late than never. This was bound to happen. It was only a question of when.

I was at the first meeting in Brenda Feigen Fasteau’s Tudor City apartment that led to the founding of Ms magazine in 1972. The magazine excerpted and praised many of my early books, including”Women and Madness,” “About Men” and “With Child. A Diary of Motherhood.” We share history–thus, I know where many of the bodies are buried and guys, wait your turn–before we get to you, there are lots of feminist corpses piled high here.

In the mid-1970s, I personally lobbied for Ms magazine signatures on Israel’s behalf in terms of the UN Zionism=Racism petitions. I usually failed but sometimes I succeeded. I led a delegation to Israel which included the late Jack Newfield and the late Ellen Willis–who returned to write more positive pieces about Israel and Judaism. Ellen also broke with Ms but trust me, that is another story.

Every feminist who has ever met Gloria Steinem is instinctively protective of her; they jockey to “protect” her and thereby gain entrance to her royal circle. Make no mistake: She wields real power. Many feminists believe that her recent op-ed piece in the New York Times directly contributed to Hillary’s win in New Hampshire. Gloria is and always has been a Democratic Party operative. Few feminists would dare to publicly disagree with her. They would risk their personal and professional standing.

I am talking about feminists who are the Presidents of state Supreme Courts, university presidents and professors, judges, state governors, Senators, Congressional representatives, state public officials and well-meaning, completely innocent civilians who view her as their inspiration and as a combination of Jackie Kennedy, Rosa Parks, the Virgin Mary, Mary Poppins, and perhaps Mary Tyler Moore.

Until this very moment, every single liberal Jewish organization, including the American Jewish Congress, would never, ever have disagreed with her. She is the media-appointed icon for women’s rights in America. (This is what once embittered more radical grassroots feminist groups). That–and the fact that, as Gloria herself explains, “I’m pretty–for a feminist, that is.”

She is also a bankable commodity for any organization and politician. People will still pay money to hear her speak or to dine with her.

Politics may have driven us apart but even I retain a warm affection for her. I would talk to her if she called me now–such is the nature of her personal power. Gloria is a “nice” woman. She really is. But her enforcers are not.

Robin Morgan, whom I personally introduced to Gloria and suggested that Gloria hire her as an editor in the mid-70s, has functioned as one of her enforcers. Morgan’s position on Israel and Judaism is beneath contempt. She has romanticized the United Nations Reliefs and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) and demonized Israel and Judaism for a very long time. Post 9/11, Morgan identified with the possible persecution of Muslim men, whom she feared would soon be racially profiled by America, and she identified as a Palestinian-like victim herself, since she lived in the West Village, or close to Ground Zero.

Rather than repeat myself, I suggest that you read what I’ve written about Ms’s history in terms of Israel, Judaism, Islam, and Palestine in my latest book “The Death of Feminism. What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom.” Read especially, pages 112-113; 115-117; 119-120, 128. I would also suggest that you read selected portions of my books “The New Anti-Semitism” and “Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman.”

You guessed it: Ms magazine did not excerpt or even review these books. (Just call me lucky!)

I have no idea how influential Gloria still is vis a vis the magazine. It matters not. It does not matter that her recent media venture with Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Lily Tomlin failed. What matters is that people pay attention to the political positions. The Feminist Majority took over Ms magazine. Elly Smeal is now in charge, as is Kathy Spillars.

Below, please find an abridged version of the AJC press release.

Here is a Call for Action that the AJCongress released today.

Ms. Blocks Ad on Israeli Women Leaders
Tell Ms. Magazine What You Think

Ms. Magazine has turned down an understated AJCongress advertisement (click here to see a “pop-up of the ad on your screen) that did nothing more controversial than call attention to the fact that women currently occupy three of the most significant positions of power in all three branches of the Israeli government — judicial, legislative and executive. The proposed ad included a text that merely said, “This is Israel,” under photographs of President of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinish, Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik.

Ms. Magazine officials told AJCongress that publishing the ad “will set off a firestorm” and that “there are very strong opinions” on the subject the subject presumably being whether or not one can say anything positive about Israel. Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal failed to respond to numerous calls by AJCongress President Richard S. Gordon over a period of two months.

Ms. Magazine editors are now saying that they rejected the ad on the grounds that two of the three women are from the same political party. This is the lamest of excuses: in a parliamentary system, it is always likely that the foreign minister and the speaker of the Knesset will be from the same party.

By the same token, if America elects a woman as president and Ms. pairs the new president in a photograph with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to underscore just how profound a change it is that women dominate the executive and (half of the) legislative branches of government, would that betray a partisan political bias or a legitimate feminist bias?

Now Ms. Editors and publishers need to hear from you. Register your compliant at their anti-Israel bias reflected in this decision to bar our ad by writing a letter, calling or emailing them. Tell them that their decision not to allow publication of an ad stating that Israel now has women at or near the top of all three branches of government, the judicial, the legislative and the executive, can only mean that Ms. has a distorted, anti-Israel bias.

Click Here To Take Action

Write or Call:

Ms. Magazine
433 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
T: (310) 556-2500
F: (310) 556-2509

Publisher, Eleanor Smeal
1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 801
Arlington, VA 22209
703-522-2214
703-522-2219 (fax)

The American Jewish Congress has issued the following press release. Stay tuned for further developments ion this story.

January 10, 2008 — Ms. Magazine has long been in the forefront of the fight for equal rights and equal opportunities for women. Apparently that is not the case if the women happen to be Israeli.

The magazine has turned down an AJCongress advertisement that did nothing more controversial than call attention to the fact that women currently occupy three of the most significant positions of power in Israeli public life. The proposed ad (The Ad Ms. Didn’t Want You To See) included a text that merely said, “This is Israel,” under photographs of President of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinish, VicePrime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik.

“What other conclusion can we reach,” asked Richard Gordon, President of AJCongress, “except that the publishers − and if the publishers are right, a significant number of Ms. Magazine readers − are so hostile to Israel that they do not even want to see an ad that says something positive about Israel?”

When Director of AJCongress’ Commission for Women’s Empowerment Harriet Kurlander tried to place the ad, she was told that publishing the ad “will set off a firestorm” and that “there are very strong opinions” on the subject − the subject presumably being whether or not one can say anything positive about Israel. Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal failed to respond to a signed-for certified letter with a copy of the ad as well as numerous calls by Mr. Gordon over a period of weeks.

Mr. Gordon noted that while Israel was apparently too hot to handle, Ms. Magazine did not extend that taboo to Arab and Moslem women. “What is even more amazing is that, while refusing to publish a simple ad praising three very notable women, women who embody the ideal that Ms. Magazine seemingly espouses, Ms. has run a cover article in the Fall 2003 issue on Queen Noor of Jordan, has featured a number of articles on Muslim women, and even ran an article in the Winter 2004 issue entitled, ‘Images of Palestine,’ which discussed the Ramallah Film Festival and gave sympathetic reviews to films concerning ‘the liberation of South Lebanon’ from Israel as well as numerous films which portrayed terrorism as legitimate ‘revolutionary’ activity against Israel and miscast Israel’s activities to counter terrorism as ‘oppressive.’”

AJCongress President Gordon concluded, “Ms. has the right to turn down our ad. But in exercising that right, it has spoken loudly about itself and its readership, and their lingering hostility to Israel.”

Mr. Gordon and Ms. Kurlander are available for further comment. Contact David Twersky at (212) 360-1586 or dtwersky@ajcongress.org.