Comments on: Women’s Rights Activists put Israel-bashing before their cause.

By: Nachum

Nachum — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:57:45 +0000

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

By: Aaron Weisburd

Aaron Weisburd — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:57:02 +0000

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!

By: Cindy

Cindy — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:44:42 +0000

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

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:31:50 +0000

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.

By: joeblough

joeblough — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 03:00:04 +0000

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.

By: Oscar the Grump

Oscar the Grump — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 05:06:24 +0000

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.

By: Elly Akbar!

Elly Akbar! — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:26:41 +0000

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?

By: MiamaMan

MiamaMan — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:13:26 +0000

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!

By: Jeffrey Imm

Jeffrey Imm — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:05:22 +0000

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.

By: Jeffrey Imm

Jeffrey Imm — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:03:38 +0000

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.