No Thank You
Sarah Baxter makes some pointed comments.
The peace movement lost a foe in Reagan but has gone on to find new friends in today’s Stop the War movement. Women pushing their children in buggies bearing the familiar symbol of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament marched last weekend alongside banners proclaiming “We are all Hezbollah now” and Muslim extremists chanting “Oh Jew, the army of Muhammad will return.” For Linda Grant, the novelist, who says that “feminism” is the one “ism” she has not given up on, it was a shocking sight: “What you’re seeing is an alliance of what used to be the far left with various Muslim groups and that poses real problems. Saturday’s march was not a peace march in the way that the Ban the Bomb marches were. Seeing young and old white women holding Hezbollah placards showed that it’s a very different anti-war movement to Greenham. Part of it feels the wrong side is winning.”
Baxter feels the same way:
As a supporter of the peace movement in the 1980s, I could never have imagined that many of the same crowd I hung out with then would today be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with militantly anti-feminist Islamic fundamentalist groups, whose views on women make western patriarchy look like a Greenham peace picnic. Nor would I have predicted that today’s feminists would be so indulgent towards Iran, a theocratic nation where it is an act of resistance to show an inch or two of female hair beneath the veil and whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is not joking about his murderous intentions towards Israel and the Jews.
No, nor would I. This is not the revolution I signed up for.
But where is the parallel, equally vital debate about how to combat Islamic fundamentalism? And why don’t more peace-loving feminists regard it as a threat? Kira Cochrane, 29, is the new editor of The Guardian women’s page, the bible of the Greenham years, where so many women writers made their names by staking out positions on the peace movement. She has noticed that today’s feminists are inclined to keep quiet about the march of radical Islam. “There’s a great fear of tackling the subject because of cultural relativism. People are scared of being called racist,” Cochrane observes.
Racist or cultural imperialist or colonialist or Eurocentric or hegemonic or microfascist or postpositivist or Orientalist or universalist or naïvely pro-Enlightenment or many more items – the vocabulary of guilt-tripping is quite extensive, and quite effective.
I prefer to take Islamic fundamentalists at their word when they spout insults about Jews being the descendants of “pigs and apes” and launch their chillingly apocalyptic tirades. Why? Because they not only talk centuries-old nonsense about the place of women in society, but they also purposely oppress the female sex whenever they are given the chance. As regards their treatment of women, there is no discernible difference between their acts and their words…The Middle East is engaged in a titanic struggle between modernity and theocracy. Whatever one’s views about the Iraq war or the conflict in Lebanon, it deserves more than slogans about “We are all Hezbollah now” and fury against Bush and Blair.
They may be Hezbollah now, but I ain’t.
I’ve just read the article.
But then, the communists all said that WWII was a capitalists’ struggle, and we should have nothing to do with it – right up until June 22nd 1941 ……
This time around, the Nazis place is literally occupied by the islamists, and that of the Soviet Union, by the USA – a really unpleasant crew are in chrge, but they are not (yet) as nasty as the islamists.
Delightful prospect, isn’t it?
‘People are scared of being called racist.’
Look into your heart. Are you a racist?
No? Sure?
Then have some guts.
Great link OB, for me it nails so much of what has been glossed over recently.
It’s a good piece, isn’t it. She seems to have seen the same march that Jerry did.
The problem, Ophelia, is that I am “not Israeli” either. I’m of the pox on both their houses school, but one ongoing theme I’ve read here lately is a lot of apologetics for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. That disturbs me, particularly given the dominance of religious fervor on the Israeli side,as well (Shas, anyone? The settlers? The Stern gang?).
Do I think Hezbollah is a good thing, would I march holding such signs? Of course not. But, one cannot assume that Hezbollah has sprung up out of nowhere, either. There are reasons it is popular.
“But, one cannot assume that Hezbollah has sprung up out of nowhere, either. There are reasons it is popular.”
Charles Lindbergh would have agreed.
David-we have already debated this elsewhere and we’ll have to agree to disagree. And, as this is Ophelia’s blog, you don’t need to tell me to “go away” like you did earlier.
The Charles Linbergh reference is extremely offensive, to be blunt. Being skeptical of Israeli policy does not equal being a Nazi-sympathizer.
You continue to promote the idea that Israel is virtuous, acting only necessaarily in total self-defense while being faced by the raving Arab hordes.
As Arabs are also “semitic” peoples, who is REALLY advocating the most anti-semitic position here?
Apologetics for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon? Here, Brian? I don’t recall posting any of those. Sharp criticism of some of the criticisms of Israel, I recall posting, but no plain apologetics.
I pretty much agree with you about “the pox on both their houses” thing, Brian, but there is one huge difference. There aren’t millions of fanatical Jews with a medieval mindset who want to set up theocracies where there are now democracies. Additionally, while it’s true that Israel is nuclear-armed, and Iran is just beginning the attempt to achieve that goal, I think we can agree that the Zionists have no wish for a nuclear apocalypse, but that the Islamists controlling Iran right now just might.
A bit OT, but some comments from a female British journalist who converted to Islam:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/world/europe/17converts.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The point is that we should take at face value, political groups’ public utterances. We should suppose that those who make those statements mean them. This does not mean that we do not suspect political groups of hidden agendas. But hidden agendas are likely to be less attractive than public utterances.And if the public statements are repellent, what about the rest of the agenda. So I think we have to assume that Islamists really would kill every Jew if they could, want to wipe Israel off the map, treat women as second class citizens and kill all gays and lesbians. And this is why ultra leftists support the Islamists? Even worse, the ultra leftists are atheists. So they are allying with people whom they think believe superstitious nonsense and hold a whole series of social beliefs which should be antithetical to the Left. What is this about? The SWP supporting the Party of God?
On a different point, I pointed OB to that silly article in last week’s Guardian G2 but I didn’t get at hat tip. I’d settle for a gold star or “well Done” sticker.
Best wishes
According to the article Matt links to, Yvonne ‘stark raving mad’ Ridley likes being judged by her IQ. She must be a glutton for punishment.
Which silly article, Jeffrey? I sort of remember, but only sort of – the detail is gone. Sorry about lack of trick hat! I don’t always do that. Sometimes I do, but not always – just by way of keeping things uncluttered. Anyway you do get a gold star, definitely.
How much money do you get from British MI5 each month to keep this trashy website going?
Mary, you are so provocative! Please elucidate. What do MI5 stand to gain here?
MI5? Hell, I thought this was a Mossad operation.
Doug, Don. NSA you dummies !
But it is the CIA paycheck that really keeps Ophelia in the style to which she has become accustomed. The rest of us are just useful idiots, Mary. Unlike Gorgeous George, Op rarely bothers to thank us for “giving me your blood”. Life’s soooo unfair!
Cease comms. RAG status = R
Isn’t the force of the article undermined by using Melanie Phillips as an example? Check out her article on evolution if you want a clue where her reputation comes from, or her interesting approach to epidemiology. Why would a whispering campaign be needed?
Ken. Yes, there was no need to cite her.
Brian, Please calm down and don’t be so sensitive.
I was simply saying that if you changed the names, it sounds like something Lindbergh could have said:
“Do I think the Nazi is a good thing, would I march holding such signs? Of course not. But, one cannot assume that the Nazi has sprung up out of nowhere, either. There are reasons it is popular.”
As to my opinions about the Middle East, you have no idea what they are so don’t go around fantasizing.
Damn MI5, they are so late with that check. It’s been almost four years already, and no sign of anything. I’ll have to phone again.
OB,
Reptillian overlords pay better, plus you get to use the company sauna.
Ken,
Damn, you made me look up MP again and now I’m all irritated. For those interested, Mels thoughts on evolution (It’s only a theory!) are here;
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000756.html
I particularly love;
‘Scientists like Dawkins say such questions are unanswerable and therefore should not be asked.’
Not Dawkins himself, that might have involved finding a quotation, but unnamed scientists who are a bit like Dawkins.
And the terrible prospect that,
‘If we did go down this road, we would have to say that Christian schools shouldn’t teach that God created the world, the resurrection of Christ, or anything that does not conform to the laws of empirical scientific discovery.’
Yes – it is no accident that I refrained from quoting the MP part of that article.
Phrases of the formula ‘Scientists like Dawkins’ are really a great ploy, because they give the impression to the incautious and hasty that the named person is actually included in the description, but the author retains deniability. ‘No no, I never said Dawkins, I said scientists like Dawkins.’ Phooey.
MP: “secularism now arrogantly presents itself as if it were a religion. It is this overweening and ugly illiberalism …”
Is she nuts?
Where’d Mary Jones go? It looked like she was going to be fun.
Matt – that’s a depressing read. I knew about Ridley – self obsessed chancer and idiot who got herself captured after wandering into Afghanistan post-9/11 solely in pursuit of a headline for the Expresss. Wouldn’t be surprised if she’s not doing it all for a book deal, and next year joins that bunch of rich fool’s from the other lot who M@donna’s now in with. She really is no-brain chattering middle-class England incarnate.
Doug. ‘Mary Jones’ had been placed under house arrest. No further information is available at this time. (A War Office Representative.)
B@llocks. I actually wrote “fool’s” instead of fools.
“As Arabs are also “semitic” peoples, who is REALLY advocating the most anti-semitic position here?” (Brian Miller)
Apologies for going back to one of the earlier posts, I’ve only just seen it. Can we please understand once and for all that the idea of a ‘semite’ is a heap of rubbish. The idea of a ‘semite’ and ‘antisemitism’ were invented by a 19th century German racist and proto-fascist called Wilhelm Marr. He was trying to construct a pseudo-scientific justification for Jew-hatred at a time when the Christian theological one no longer held up. He made the mistake, common at the time, of equating language (there is a ‘semitic’ language group) with race.
Can we please get this clear – there is no such thing as a semite. ‘Antisemitism’ is a term invented by the racists and it means Jew-hatred. It always has. End of story.
Thanks Harry – I don’t think I knew that. Useful.
Yes, Harry is correct. “Antisemitism” has nothing to do with disliking Arabs.
The whole “How can they be antisemitic? They are Arabs.” is used only as a diversionary tactic (and of course a false one, at that) to confuse discussions so that whatever issue is at hand cannot be seen.
Well…I learned something today, too. I had always had a broader definition of anti-semitism to focus on hatred of the semitic peoples found primarily in the Middle East and North Africa. My definition was obviously based on the irony of one group of semitic language speaking people (Arabs) hating another group (Hebrews). I never intended to deny that there is hatred of jews, just commenting on the irony of intra-language and cultural group hatreds.
The narcissism of small differences. That’s one of Freud’s coinages (or rather a translation of one of Freud’s coinages) that I still find suggestive.
The West Does Not Have the Balls to Take on Iran or other Islamic Fascists, FNC video, 8/22/6 http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/MW082206.php
Iran Will Use Nukes When It Gets Them, FNC video, 8/22/6
http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/MR082206.php
Iran Attacks and Seizes Romanian Oil Rig, FNC video, 8/22/6
http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/MR082206.php
Free Patriotic Corner Banners: http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/cb/
Hmm that’s interesting TFO – I’ll file that next to the “Single Plane Theory” about 9/11.