53 Comments

1. Mary Madigan:

Politics can be so high-school. Basically, the “Women Living Under Muslim Laws” are saying “OMG! We want to hang out with Women in Black and all the other cool peacecreeps, and they’ll NEVER talk to us if they think we hang out with Daniel Pipes and Melanie Phillips!”

If you want to sink to their level, you could dish the dirt on WLUML so no one will let them play their reindeer games. But if you want to act like an adult, you could write an article that shows the world what a bunch of self-centered brats they are.

Which you did.

Jun 10, 2009 - 10:33 am 2. Yehudit:

I would write a sentence in the list with your links, telling people their link isn’t there because they did not want to be linked, but add their URL as text, not as a link. Kind of snarky but what the hey. Is there any point in trying to please these people?

Jun 10, 2009 - 10:35 am 3. Nisse C.:

Yes, the Realm of the Pathetic.
I agree with Yehudit, e.g. “telling people their link isn’t there because they did not want to be linked, but add the URL as text…”

I am one of those people who want to be informed. The women’s movement(s), peace and all that, with their PC and multi-cultural relativity are a pain in the popo. It’s my duty to send out info to people, as I see it. I am grateful for what you are doing.

Jun 10, 2009 - 11:25 am 4. andrew upton:

Phyllis,
Please continue to provide the link; let those small-minded folks attempt to censor what their readers see. Your insights address the very concerns they profess to represent; if they want to compromise the rights of women to insure the survival of prejudicial and/or ignorant viewpoints regarding Israel, let them try to make that point on their sites. Love your columns. Keep at em. Thank you.

Jun 10, 2009 - 11:30 am 5. BettyJean:

Phyllis, What do you want to do? If it is legal to remain linked and they are a source you value – remain linked! On the other hand if they are going to hurt your cause inh retaliation perhaps that source is not as valuable afterall.

Help me write a piece regarding what I’ve been preaching for two years;entitled The majority must be united in order to get anything done!

Jun 10, 2009 - 11:32 am 6. Jeff Heller:

Hi Dr. Chesler,

From what you presented in your post on the WLUML, I would continue to list their website. We need to view all the information available in order to make informed decisions. We must ask the question: What does the WLUML have to hide?

Dr. Jeff Heller

Jun 10, 2009 - 11:41 am 7. Lorna Salzman:

You are completely correct in stating that the persecution of women under Muslim law has nothing to do with American or Israeli foreign policy. Unfortunately the extreme left and Political Correctness now require a Loyalty Oath of support for all of their positions regardless of their irrelevance to the issue at hand. I encountered this recently after a discussion about American energy policy at a superb multiracial conference in NYC: the person I had met at lunch there went to my web site and discovered my criticisms of Islamic violence and oppression of women, and wrote me a very nasty note accusing me of being a racist neo-con. This is par for the course. You are within your rights to continue to link WLUML or better still provide their URL in text. Personally I would like to see them exposed as being deceptive: they purport to be for an important worthy cause but would readily alienate potential supporters because they have not sworn loyalty to unrelated political positions and issues that WLUML are not even involved in. The public needs to know the motives and ideologies of all groups. And of course the notion of guilt by association WLUML holds – that if you are listed as an information source alongside others of different political persuasions – smacks to me of incipient neo-fascism in which other people’s opinions are automatically suspect just because they attended the same cocktail party as a Politically Incorrect adversary. WLUML’s use of the term “fascist” to describe Israel also smacks of a double standard. What do they call Islamic states that authorize and legitimize inequality, female mutilation and “honor”killlings”? How about barbaric patriarchal authoritarian theocracies?

Jun 10, 2009 - 11:49 am 8. George Jochnowitz:

A Dialog

Jihadists: Kill the Jews.
The Left: We understand you. You want freedom of movement without checkpoints.
Jihadists: Kill the Jews.
The Left. Of course. You want an end to settlements.
Jihadists: Kill the Jews.
The Left: How poetic your language is! You want an independent state.
Jihadists: Kill the Jews.

Jun 10, 2009 - 12:09 pm 9. Mary Jackson:

This is a tricky one. There is a lot of useful material on that site, which I’ve dipped into now and again. But Kilroy’s email is ridiculous. Leaving aside her wrong-headed stance on Israel, does linking a site mean you have to agree with everything on it? More to the point, does the fact that a site links yours mean that you agree with everything on it?

My instinct would be to leave the link in, on the grounds that Kilroy is not the only contributor to the site, and other writers may well not share her views, or see Israel as an important issue. The most important thing, surely, is that the plight of women living under Muslim law gets known about. Obama sure as hell doesn’t know about it.

And if Kilroy doesn’t like it, that’s too bad. If she cared that much about the plight of Muslim women, she would be able to get above her petty – and ignorant – politics.

Jun 10, 2009 - 12:16 pm 10. Jannette:

Dear Phyllis,

I completely agree with the previous writer, particularly on “I would like to see them exposed as being deceptive: they purport to be for an important worthy cause but. . .”. The question is not whether you should link to them, but do you want to be associated in any way with one more muslim-politics-driven group whose values are the opposite of the real human rights concerns of people like yourself? I know I wouldn’t.

Jun 10, 2009 - 12:16 pm 11. AF:

Phyllis,

why don’t you write an article entitled ‘Women Living Under Israeli Laws’ ?
It would make for a great comparison with ‘Women Living Under Islamic Laws’!
Also, ‘Women Living Under American Laws’.

There would be no comparison, really.

Jun 10, 2009 - 12:30 pm 12. AF:

Can’t someone write something about why so many secular feminists are attracted to Islamism ?

My theory is that they’re the kinds of women that are drawn to ‘bad boys’ and rogues. They reject western men as confused wimps.
The secular feminist penchant for Islamism has a lot to do with revenge against western men. It’s closely related to the fact that MOST western converts to Islam are young women.

What I don’t see happening these days is western women being seriously interested in how we need to forge a viable ethic and social policies for good relations between women and men for the sake of future generations. This is probably why the word ‘feminism’ is now so hated in the west.

What western culture has been losing with regard to its view of men and women is that human capabilities are developed properly by attending to our weaknesses first – this is a Jewish and Christian ethic. Only from there can we develop suitable expressions of capability and power. The Islamic ethic is different – it privileges power. Surely this is why there is such a macho element to Islam, which of course many Muslims reject, hence why they aren’t all fundamentalists.

Jun 10, 2009 - 12:36 pm 13. Shoshana Rubin:

Keep it, Phyllis, today more than yesterday, especially if it bothers the fake human rights advocates since they’ve chosen to be on the side of men who hate women, men who mutilate women, men who own women.

Their ultimate goal is to get rid of the Jewish State or the state of Jews while pretending to be pro-women and pro-peace. You have lifted their veil of phoniness and upset the haters and I applaud you!

Jun 10, 2009 - 12:38 pm 14. andrew nitzberg:

My job (lawyer) is all about examining and interpreting documents.

When I review this correspondance it jumps out at me that the ‘tone’ or ‘attitude’ is suspect. Please notice the smugness and moral rectitude it projects.

These feelings of superiority represent the armor, shield, and sword to defend against actual facts and the issues facing real people. It is again Spenser’s Redcrosse Knight facing the Purple Harlot of Rome embodied in ‘The Israeli’.

The issues count more than the people. Moral purity outstrips all. It’s Charles Schultz’s Linus saying, “I love mankind. It’s people I can’t stand”.

Modern Christianity, Judaism, and all religions except Islam with which I am familiar recognize that sometimes circumstances triumph over ideology. And so the Jew may eat a cheeseburger if he is starving. The Catholic may gain the benefits of extreme unction without a priest if none is available.

But the ‘Liberal-Progressive’ cannot tolerate proximity to the impure Jew no matter how many lives are saved.

I don’t know what the best response is; but ‘it’s sad’ is clearly neither appropriate nor adequate.

Jun 10, 2009 - 12:46 pm 15. Greenconsciousness:

what is their value? What is on their website that you cannot get anywhere else? Glad to know they support Hamas. I am removing them from my blogroll. I did the same to RAWA when I learned they did not support the invasion and removal of the Taliban. Some groups just want to use the hot topic of women’s oppression to raise money and they will not disclose where the money goes. Some groups do not put the equality of women above the welfare of their faction and so will support misogynists and lie about them rather than actually supporting women’s rights.

It is time to understand your own politics and to join with those who are on a parallel track. Discovering who those people are is important. So if you are going to keep WLUM, then warn the innocents who will use your links under the assumption they are contacting women who put women’s rights first.

Jun 10, 2009 - 1:07 pm 16. David Thomson:

I take for granted that the typical self-described feminist activist is poorly educated and the degrees behind their name are phonier than a three-dollar bill. There are few exceptions to this general rule. I have only recently realized that the lowering of academic standards to allegedly help dark skinned minorities—are inevitably soon thereafter expanded to include majority whites. It is not unfair to assert that most feminists are idiots. And I am not even slightly exaggerating. These women have gotten away with their nonsense by intimidation. They are very similar to spoiled children who get a free ride in life. And yes, they seem to be overall dumber than their left-wing male counterparts.

Men are still required by our politically correct culture to get out and actually do something with their lives. Few people, however, are willing to confront the stereotypical screaming shrew. They just look the other way and essentially mind their own business. This results in the crazy feminists never being taken to task for their inappropriate behavior. These women just get worse and worse.

Jun 10, 2009 - 1:41 pm 17. Yehudit:

Jochnowitz, that’s great! Shame it doesn’t fit into twitter 140 characters.

Jun 10, 2009 - 1:50 pm 18. R.T.Klass:

Keep the link. It is always useful to have as much information as possible, and to know what everyone is saying, even those who disagree or even oppose you. In the 1980s, as director of the Afghanistan Information Center at Freedom House when the Afghans, with American aid, were struggling against the invading Soviet army, I had to plow through heaps of propaganda from Moscow and from Khomeini’s theocratic Iran — first, to find out what they were doing and saying; and second, because useful scraps of information turned up from time to time.
And also — if they are determined to oppose you, it is wise to stay informed.

RE Greenconsciousness’s disillusionment with RAWA (Revolutionary Afghan Women’s Association): I know RAWA well, and was disillusioned decades ago. In fact, I knew its founder/leader (later assassinated) under a couple of her aliases. I initially fell for her stories and arranged for her visit to the U.S. in 1982, but quickly larned the truth about her — and RAWA. When I saw her again at the Oslo hearings on human rights violations in 1983, she avoided me, and also her fellow Afghans — everyone who knew what she and RAWA really were. (When asked an unwanted quesion, she would let out a shriek and faint.)
I had discovered that RAWA was the women’s wing of the Afghan Maoist party,Shola-i-Jawid, with ties to North Korea; it opposed Soviet communism in Afghanistan because it wanted North Korean-style Maoism. RAWA’s claimed “humanitarian” activities among Afghan refugees were, acccording to witnesses I consider reliable, a cover for politicking; nin any case, it has never gotten much support from Afghan woman, and has remained small. It focusses on getting support — and money — abroad.
Since the 1990s, RAWA has apparently switched primarily to promoting itself as a women’s rights organization, winning support in Europe and the U.S. — though not in Afghanistan. RAWA has received medals and money in France, and Jay Leno’s wife and her friends in Hollywood raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for them. However, when national elections put Pres. Karzi’s government in office in Kabul a few years ago, RAWA exploded in fury because cabinet posts went to non-RAWA women. And so on etc. So that’s what RAWA is.

Jun 10, 2009 - 2:44 pm 19. Meryl Yourish:

Link them. Your website, your choice. It doesn’t matter what they think.

There is a way that they can deflect referrers from your site if they want to be jerks about it.

You could always put them into tinyurl and see what comes up and link them that way. Your web person will know what I’m talking about.

Stick to your guns, Phyllis. Put an explanatory note about their particular bias if you must, but link them.

Jun 10, 2009 - 2:47 pm 20. MiamaMan:

I also vote for continuing the link with the WLUML website.

I believe Kilroy is an Scottish surname. They tend to be stubborn. May be this person is a relative of the famous “Kilroy was here”.

12. AF: [Can’t someone write something about why so many secular feminists are attracted to Islamism?]…[My theory is that they’re the kinds of women that are drawn to ‘bad boys’ and rogues.]

I think you are right, it is also called Masochism, an ancient primeval feeling pertaining to the human race. Vide that great film directed by Luis Buñuel named “Belle de Jour”. Their Anima is also depressed.

Jun 10, 2009 - 3:20 pm 21. Lorna Salzman:

Dear Women Living Under Muslim Law (WLUML):

I was stunned and horrified at your request to Phyllis Chesler to remove your organization from the links on her web site. Below are my remarks, posted to her site. regarding this issue.

Your web site and your mission say nothing about Israel and Palestine. If in fact you have staked out a pro Palestine anti Israel position, it is incumbent on you to state this clearly on your own site so people can see where you stand. As it is, there is no way of determining your private political positions or perhaps your real motives.

You do a huge disservice to the issue of women’s rights under Islam. There will be many people like me who will have second thoughts and suspicions about your organization, wondering whether your personal ideologies and beliefs on a completely UNRELATED issue are going to take precedence.

Phyllis Chesler needs no defense, but in case you didn’t know, she has been for decades an outstanding champion of freedom of expression, civil liberties,democracy, peace, civil rights, human rights, and above all of women’s rights, long before and to a far greater extent than most feminist groups anywhere in the world.

Because of her commitment, which precedes yours by decades, she has stepped on the toes of those who put their own political biases and ideologies ahead of the issue at hand. She is to be commended for this. You should be grateful that she has put your organization as a link on her own web site. She has nothing to apologize for. But you do: for believing in guilt by association, much like Sen. Joe McCarthy did in his witch hunt for communists in the US State Dept.in the 1950s.

Were all organizations to react as you did, there would be no web links at all. Perhaps you are demanding loyalty oaths of all those who would post your URL, to make sure that none of them are Politically Incorrect, and that they agree with you on ALL the issues extant in the world today?

Sincerely,
Lorna Salzman

Jun 10, 2009 - 4:46 pm 22. Norman Simms:

Do not bow to their pressure.
Do the right thing.
Thank you for your strength, courage, and deep insight.

Norman

Jun 10, 2009 - 10:20 pm 23. Sophie:

If an organisation or individual requests that you cease linking to their site, then you must respect their request. It is as simple as that. You do not need to agree with their stance.

Jun 11, 2009 - 3:42 am 24. Abed:

To begin with, the organisation WLUML has every right to associate with whom they want to, and to avoid those they want to avoid. More practically, you must accept that Zionism is not a particularly popular view amongst people in the Arab Middle East; if they were to be associated with yourself and other Zionists, then the case could more easily be made that WLUML are stooges of the West/Zionism/you name it. That is not even the case now, and yet even so these accusations are being made now. Who would want to make their work more difficult for them?

Jun 11, 2009 - 4:01 am 25. Lauren:

Cut the connection. They are not honest about their mission. They are like community organizers that say they are just there to feed the community but are only using the food to lure the community members into their cult.

Jun 11, 2009 - 4:09 am 26. An impartial observer:

I’m not really qualified to comment on the validity or otherwise of any stance you may take in regard to Kilroy’s email.

But I am overwhelmed by the cynicism of your article and particularly of the chorus of vengeful and prejudiced responses to it. Please spare us your pretence to impartiality “Gentle reader: what shall I do?” etc: if you cannot see in all of this why Kilroy might not want to be linked to your website I would say that still further reinforces her request.

Which was after all just that – a request. You could have kept this in the private sphere where Kilroy initiated it and just replied saying “no” if you’d liked. You can only have decided to take it public in an attempt to smear her cause. Which is pretty pathetic.

Jun 11, 2009 - 4:23 am 27. Mary Madigan:

You could have kept this in the private sphere where Kilroy initiated it and just replied saying “no” if you’d liked. You can only have decided to take it public in an attempt to smear her cause. Which is pretty pathetic.

“impartial observer” – Kilroy’s letter revealed that she is a clique-obsessed social climber who feels free to be rude to those outside of her favored group. She did not address Phyllis, Daniel Pipes, Melanie Phillips or the bloggers at Internet Haganah as friends or as people deserving respect.

If you knew that the leader of a nonprofit special interest group was being irresponsible and rude, and if you knew that they were acting in a way that would eventually discredit the organization, would you withhold that information from the general public?

Jun 11, 2009 - 6:53 am 28. DontBeAStee:

You know there is a difference between a Religious Cultural Orthodox Jew and a Racist Zionist Nationalist?

Get a clue please…

Jun 11, 2009 - 7:44 am 29. MiamaMan:

25. An impartial observer:

1) The first impression after reading your post, is that you are definitely not impartial. Take off the mask.

2) Your statement: [But I am overwhelmed by the cynicism of your article and particularly of the chorus of vengeful and prejudiced responses to it.]

I am one of those you mentioned. You seem to have tremendous self-righteousness. You must know something we don’t, please share it, so as to illuminate us.

23. Abed:

1) Your statement: [More practically, you must accept that Zionism is not a particularly popular view amongst people in the Arab Middle East]

Of course not, Israel is a glaring example of Muslim’s failures. How they dare (Israelis) to be so prosperous, so productive, so valiant, so intelligent.

Let us not beat around the bushes. What I have seen of Dr. Chesler’s work is an attempt to help women under Islamic rule, who are second class citizens, abused, beaten, forced to accept genital mutilation, and the list goes on. Forget cynicism, links to the Internet, and concentrate, please for once, on the abuses.

Jun 11, 2009 - 7:56 am 30. Sue:

List the URL, but not as a link, with an explanation of the request (and possibly link to this article). One might reasonably argue that internet courtesy calls for respecting their wishes, as it’s considered good form not to link to people who don’t want to be associated with you, but that courtesy does not extend to silence on news or opinion.

Besides, anyone heading to that site should be forewarned about their philosophy and connections, before they read their stuff.

Jun 11, 2009 - 8:13 am 31. Madashell:

I’m just wondering how it is you can be strongly “Against Sharia” and not find women’s rights to be a huge priority–if not your Number One priority. Just saying.

Jun 11, 2009 - 10:18 am 32. Pajamas Media » Women’s Rights Activists Put Israel-Bashing Before Their Cause.:

[...] Read the rest of the story here. [...]

Jun 11, 2009 - 10:48 am 33. janine Kilroy:

If they wish not to be connected with your website, their wishes should be respected.

Jun 11, 2009 - 10:50 am 34. POPO:

Israeli practices in the OPT exhibit the same three “pillars” of apartheid:

The first pillar “derives from Israeli laws and policies that establish Jewish identity for purposes of law and afford a preferential legal status and material benefits to Jews over non-Jews.”

The second pillar is reflected in “Israel’s ‘grand’ policy to fragment the OPT [and] ensure that Palestinians remain confined to the reserves designated for them while Israeli Jews are prohibited from entering those reserves but enjoy freedom of movement throughout the rest of the Palestinian territory. This policy is evidenced by Israel’s extensive appropriation of Palestinian land, which continues to shrink the territorial space available to Palestinians; the hermetic closure and isolation of the Gaza Strip from the rest of the OPT; the deliberate severing of East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank; and the appropriation and construction policies serving to carve up the West Bank into an intricate and well-serviced network of connected settlements for Jewish-Israelis and an archipelago of besieged and non-contiguous enclaves for Palestinians.”

The third pillar is “Israel’s invocation of ’security’ to validate sweeping restrictions on Palestinian freedom of opinion, expression, assembly, association and movement [to] mask a true underlying intent to suppress dissent to its system of domination and thereby maintain control over Palestinians as a group.”

Jun 11, 2009 - 2:06 pm 35. Pippa:

“Please could you remove the link to Women Living under Muslim Laws from your list of Recommended Websites”

“No.”

Well that would be my answer Dr Phyllis. Keep up the good work., Pippa x

Jun 11, 2009 - 2:12 pm 36. nanna:

How can you criticize the sharia laws and pre-islamic tribal culture (huh?) if you do not speak Arabic?
Was it you who referred to India as an “Arab” country?

Jun 11, 2009 - 2:14 pm 37. Krasnaya Zvezda:

Link to them in a frame that says, “Warning: while there is some valuable information here, much of what’s on this web site is politically correct nonsense.

Jun 11, 2009 - 2:32 pm 38. Judith:

Don’t link unless you support their agenda of promoting the lies of the Palestinian Arabs who also subjgate women w/ their support for the misogynist Hamas thugs & Jihadists, Any information they provide is hence a priori suspect given the nature of their anti-israel/anti-West agenda.

Jun 11, 2009 - 4:16 pm 39. Self-hating Boomer:

Judging from some of the nubes on this thread, you stirred up quite a hornet’s nest. The question is, why? This is quite curious. I would never have expected this kind of reaction. Even if you’re not liked, the intensity of this reaction is astonishing.

There’s more to this than meets the eye.

Jun 11, 2009 - 5:19 pm 40. L:

I just stumbled upon your article, and I want to thank you sincerely for making these points. I’ve been so disappointed with the way that the real goals of feminism have been subordinated to other political agendas, and with the fact that Israel is constantly blamed for, well, just about everything. I’m so glad to see well-written, honest articles like yours.

Jun 11, 2009 - 5:51 pm 41. David P:

In matters such as these religious obligations, gender roles & traditions trump any sort of social movement that could circumvent the standards & practices of divinity.

Jun 11, 2009 - 6:37 pm 42. An impartial observer:

I am impartial in so far as I have no professional, cultural or gender based preconception of the debates alluded to in this article. As such I decided not to pass judgment on these discourses.

I am not impartial in the sense that I am lucky to have someone as passionate, dedicated and fair as Elly as a friend. As such I am able to see her for what she is: a young, gifted campaigner starting out at the beginning of her career. Phyllis, how dare you publicly savage such a flower. You too were once young and raw, aspiring to a career and opinionated. You have turned into one of those judgmental ogres you used to pity. Elly is not your enemy – apathy is. How can you criticise so unfairly another who has resolved to spend her life fighting for understanding and the rights of others?

I am a firm believer that everyone has the right:

to deserve respect (Mary Madigan, rather than being piqued by a perception of Kilroy’s tone entrenched in your own prejudices, why don’t you alter the savageness of yours? And while you’re at it, climb down from your high horse, claiming to be the general public’s arbitor on matters purely of opinion).

to their opinion (notice Kilroy didn’t slander the opinions of this blog in public).

to fight their own cause in the way they wish to fight it (you may disagree with Kilroy not wanting to be linked on your website, and I must admit in my ignorance I am ambivalent myself – but if that’s what she wants, then that’s her decision).

not to be attacked for no good reason in public (I notice that all of this invective has no purpose within your causes other than self-confirmation of your dearly held prejudices, so why do you waste your breath? MiammaMan, please don’t call me self-righteous after what you and others have written on this blog).

Jun 12, 2009 - 2:06 am 43. Blackwater:

Now the right has become the biggest advocates for human rights reforms. Especially in islamic majority countries with womens rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, democracy, etc. No wonder the liberals hate neo-cons so much. They successfully hijacked the human rights debate. Now you’re much more likley to get a right winger to do something about Darfur than a bleeding heart liberal leftist. Now the left has started to actively DEFEND human rights abuses as a “difference in culture that we should respect”… Wow.

Jun 12, 2009 - 2:26 am 44. Jeffrey Imm:

Our organization, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.), is also deeply concerned about the universal human rights challenge of women being oppressed by Islamic supremacist law.

It is our experience that individuals concerned about universal human rights for women have multiple areas of concern as our universal human rights require a commitment to such inalienable rights universally. Therefore, in the case of our organization, we also have a commitment to those areas of human rights challenged by racial supremacism, Nazism, Communism, and other supremacist ideologies. In our case, we do not have a single-faceted commitment to human rights.

My experience in viewing Phyllis Chesler in her writing and her long years of activism is, while her focus has been primarily on women’s rights, that she too has a commitment to such universal human rights — which therefore requires her to also speak out on other issues of human rights that concern her.

In my opinion, such diversity and passion in human rights amidst a world that is largely indifferent should be welcome by all of us – whether we agree on every issue or not. Certainly there will be foreign policy issues, tactical issues, and arguments where groups and individuals who are committed to human rights will disagree. As we celebrate our diversity as human beings, we should anticipate such diversity on such policy issues, tactical issues, and arguments. We will always have differences, but these differences should not take away from our shared love of humanity and shared support for universal human rights.

I believe that where we should be focused is on our consensus – the one meaningful consensus – on our commitment to universal human rights.

In the case of Phyllis Chesler, she has distinguished herself in such commitment to universal human rights again and again over the years.

In March 2009, Phyllis Chesler co-authored with NOW’s Marcia Pappas:
– “A Universal Doctrine of Women’s Rights”
http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/03/24/a-universal-doctrine-of-womens-rights/

Surely this type of vision and commitment to universal women’s rights – for all women around the world – should be precisely what all organizations committed to universal human rights should be focused on.

Jun 12, 2009 - 6:03 am 45. Jeffrey Imm:

I recognize that those struggling to promote universal human rights to a largely indifferent world face the constant challenge of political influences, policy influences, and influences of those focused exclusively on individual tactics rather than the ideas and truths of human rights. Human rights leaders like Phyllis Chesler, who has demonstrated her vision and commitment on the truths of universal human rights for women, is someone that we should respect and honor. I am not “defending” Phyllis Chesler, as I believe she needs no “defense.” I am simply stating my perspective on the critical need to work together and respect those who are willing to lead in the essential struggle for human rights.

In what is truly a lonely struggle for human rights, we need all of us who are committed first and foremost to the truths of universal human rights — and especially in the women’s rights movement in such universal human rights for all women. We truly need each other in our common cause of human rights.

Jun 12, 2009 - 6:05 am 46. MiamaMan:

42. An impartial observer:

My dear Impartial Observer:

1)Your Statement: [I’m not really qualified to comment on the validity or otherwise of any stance you may take in regard to Kilroy’s email.]

OK, if you say so.

2)Your Statement: [But I am overwhelmed by the cynicism of your article and particularly of the chorus of vengeful and prejudiced responses to it']

Wait, are we on the same page here? Are you qualified or not to judge others?

3) Your Statement: [I am impartial in so far as I have no professional, cultural or gender based preconception of the debates alluded to in this article. As such I decided not to pass judgment on these discourses.]

Please provide phone number, address, country, continent, etc. I need to meet you right away. I can’t miss this opportunity.

4) Your Statement: [MiammaMan, please don’t call me self-righteous after what you and others have written on this blog)]

You wrote one “m” too many. May I, please, from now on, call you stupid?

Thanks in advance, and God’s Speed!

Jun 12, 2009 - 3:13 pm 47. Elly Akbar!:

My favourite is : ‘but still using their medical devices’. Do they give them for free like they do when they send their bombs on children?

Jun 12, 2009 - 5:26 pm 48. Oscar the Grump:

Popo
In response to your three pillars, your point of view is myopic. Arab Israelis are accorded the same rights as Jewish Israelis. If you are referencing the “Palestinians” as not having rights, you should be explicit. They are not a part of Israeli society therefore not afforded Israeli rights. Do we give illegal aliens the same rights as citizens in our country? As for the taking of Jerusalem, the Jewish sector was within the confines of East Jerusalem. It was attacked and over run during the 1948 fighting. Finally the chopping up of the West Bank is a result or the new settlements. These new settlements are there to reclaim the land that was originally Judea. The coastal land where Israel is located was the land of the Philistines. You would have the Jewish people able to see their homeland; but, not live on it. Why don’t you be so generous with your own property? Give it all to the Arab cause you blatantly defend. Please let us know how you feel when you have given up everything you’ve lived for.

Jun 12, 2009 - 10:06 pm 49. joeblough:

Why the hand wringing?

You really give the creatures of your feminist past far too much credit and consideration.

That is the problem with good people. They are always so befuddled when confronted with evil, and so hesitant to make the obvious choices. It is so difficult for them to believe in the reality of true evil — having so little in common with it.

Relax!

You can link to anything you like. You can say whatever you want.

You are good. And you are free.

Revel in it.

And ignore the rancid idiots.

You’ve gone way past any place their nasty feeble minds can reach.

Jun 13, 2009 - 8:00 pm 50. Jerry:

Phyllis,

Now that Elly has sent you her email address, you might wish to consider engaging her in an ongoing set of communications. Since I believe that “existence” or “life” is the main thrust of Jewish and thus Israeli actions, she may come to share some of your values. Tell her of your experiences, as you do with us. Challenge her thinking, as you do with us. Drop the link or not, but don’t drop the contact. It is rare that such people even bother to communicate with people outside their limited horizons.

Jun 14, 2009 - 5:31 am 51. Cindy:

Phyllis,

I have proudly linked to Internet-Haganah.com and Sofir.org for many years now (truthusa.com/911.html, truthusa.com/911news.html, truthusa.com/september12.html, and on various threads on freerepublic.com).

I will continue to do so as long Internet-Haganah.com and Sofir.org are on the internet.

Fyi.
Cindy

Jun 25, 2009 - 11:44 pm 52. Aaron Weisburd:

Seven years ago I had a project in need of a name, and I chose the name Internet Haganah. One reason for doing so was to give people the opportunity to publicly expose their own ignorance. In that regard, the name continues to work better than I could ever have imagined it would. This reaction to your linking to my site is a case in point.

NEXT!

Jun 27, 2009 - 7:57 am 53. Nachum:

I also support you, if you choose to link to their website. You don’t need their permission. Keep up the good work.

Jun 28, 2009 - 6:57 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: