SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights and Contact

    Henric C. Jensen
    All images and Artwork are
    © 2006-2018 Henric C. Jensen
    Mail

  • April 2008
    S M T W T F S
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930  
  • Categories

  • Meta

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

Archive for April 20th, 2008

The International Solidarity Movement: Champions of Peace?

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 20, 2008


bilin5

[Note: Much has been written about the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), and much of it has been dismissed as merely rumors. The following report shows the true nature of the ISM in its own words and in well-documented incidents. I want to express gratitude to the Jewish Action Task Force for having provided many of the references used in this report. Their site contains cached versions of some of these references, and should be consulted if any of the links become broken.]

The International Solidarity Movement (ISM), founded in the spring of 2001, prides itself on being a nonviolent movement for peace. At least this is the image its members present to the world, and they have been extremely successful. News media routinely portray them as “peace activists,” and even one member of the Canadian parliament has nominated the ISM for the Nobel Peace Prize. (1)

The liberal Protestant Church has also embraced the ISM, often inviting its members to speak and offering financial support. One group of missionaries working in the West Bank encourages enlistment in the ISM:

How does your faith prompt you to act? How is God calling you to respond through action? Perhaps you have the courage and faith to go into areas of violence and oppression and send a message of peace and justice as part of a Christian Peacemaker Team or with the International Solidarity Movement. (2)

The ISM is often called “peacemaker.” But do they deserve this designation? The best way to understand what the ISM is all about is to read its own words. And the best place to start is the ISM’s own web site.

A Pro-Palestinian Movement

First, the ISM makes a pretense of being neutral, claiming it is not even “pro-Palestinian”: (3)

Over the course of the past year and a half, the Israeli military and government has used various tactics in efforts to delegitimize our message. Some of you in the media have repeated or suggested the accusations yourselves: that we are “young and naive,” that we are “trouble-makers,” that we are “pro-Palestinian.” As I’ve noted above, the ISM is diverse in age and make up. We’re Palestinian-led, but not pro-Palestinian. We’re not pro or against any group. (4)

This pretense is immediately transparent. It will be seen from the quotations to follow that the ISM is indeed pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel. The disingenuousness of the ISM’s claim to neutrality is just a small part of its overall strategy to present a peace-loving image to the media while actually working to enable those who do commit violent acts.

It is true that members of the ISM do not themselves engage in violence. But in word and in deed they support those who do. In fact, they make no secret of their sympathy for the use of violence, even though it is a tactic they personally do not choose. They state that violence is legitimate for those who choose to use it:

The International Solidarity Movement is a Palestinian-led movement of Palestinian and International activists working to raise awareness of the struggle for Palestinian freedom and an end to Israeli occupation. We utilize nonviolent, direct-action methods of resistance to confront and challenge illegal Israeli occupation forces and policies.

As enshrined in international law and UN resolutions, we recognize the Palestinian right to resist Israeli violence and occupation via legitimate armed struggle. However, we believe that nonviolence can be a powerful weapon in fighting oppression and we are committed to the principles of nonviolent resistance. (5)

This is about as “pro-Palestinian” a statement as one could hope for. It also specifies nonviolence as just one option in the struggle against Israel, with violence being another, equally valid option. (6)

Advocates for Violence

If violence is indeed considered legitimate, then why don’t ISM members choose it for themselves? The answer is based not on morality but on strategy. In a revealing essay that appeared in the Palestine Chronicle for January 29, 2002, Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro, two of the ISM’s founders and senior leaders, write:

Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms, as they are an occupied people upon whom force and violence is being used. The Geneva Conventions accept that armed resistance is legitimate for an occupied people, and there is no doubt that this right cannot be denied. But that does not mean that this right must be utilized. Regardless of what is a right and what is not, the elements that will make any change in the situation are strategy and tactics. To date, the use of violence as part of the resistance has not evinced a strategy. Not in operations against the military or settlers; not in operations inside the Green Line. The choice of using nonviolence would not be effective either if it was not organized strategically. (5)

This is about as “pro-Palestinian” a statement as one could hope for. It also specifies nonviolence as just one option in the struggle against Israel, with violence being another, equally valid option. (6)

Advocates for Violence

If violence is indeed considered legitimate, then why don’t ISM members choose it for themselves? The answer is based not on morality but on strategy. In a revealing essay that appeared in the Palestine Chronicle for January 29, 2002, Huwaida Arraf and Adam Shapiro, two of the ISM’s founders and senior leaders, write:

Let us reiterate, we accept that Palestinians have a right to resist with arms, as they are an occupied people upon whom force and violence is being used. The Geneva Conventions accept that armed resistance is legitimate for an occupied people, and there is no doubt that this right cannot be denied. But that does not mean that this right must be utilized. Regardless of what is a right and what is not, the elements that will make any change in the situation are strategy and tactics. To date, the use of violence as part of the resistance has not evinced a strategy. Not in operations against the military or settlers; not in operations inside the Green Line. The choice of using nonviolence would not be effective either if it was not organized strategically. (5)

In other words, the Palestinians have an undeniable right to use violence, and since Arraf and Shapiro make no qualifications on that use, it can only be assumed that the Palestinians have a right to use violence just as they are doing right now, in the form of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. But the use of this right is not always wise, and so it need not necessarily be exercised. To be effective, the use of violence must follow an organized strategy. The same is true of the use of nonviolence. They are both options to which the Palestinians have a legitimate right, but they are only feasible if they follow an organized strategy.

Lest there be any doubt that this is what the authors mean, and that they do in fact advocate the use of violence if strategically planned, they write further in the same article:

The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics – both nonviolent and violent. But most importantly it must develop a strategy involving both aspects. No other successful nonviolent movement was able to achieve what it did without a concurrent violent movement – in India militants attacked British outposts and interests while Gandhi conducted his campaign, while the Black Panther Movement and its earlier incarnations existed side-by-side with the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.

What Arraf and Shapiro fail to mention, of course, is that neither Gandhi nor Martin Luther King endorsed the use of violence but were appalled by it, while the ISM clearly approves of “violent movements” acting “side-by-side” with its own nonviolent approach. The ISM sees itself not as a substitute for but as an adjunct to the use of violence against Israelis. It therefore cynically exploits the legacies of those who stood exclusively for nonviolence and passive resistance. The ISM clearly believes in violence – it actually says so – but chooses nonviolent opposition as an additional tactic.

In a message she posted to an ISM mailing list, Arraf went as far as to quote with approval an essay praising suicide bombers as shahids or martyrs. (7)

Other leaders of the ISM have also expressed their support for violence, even though it is not the tactic they personally prefer to use. Ghassan Andoni, another founder of the ISM, said in an interview by Bitterlemons.org that Palestinians have the right to use violence if they choose:

Bitterlemons: Does that mean that you do not think that armed resistance is valid?

Andoni: No, we state clearly that Palestinians have the full right to resist the occupation with means that they think are suitable. We as the Palestinian Solidarity Movement have decided, however, that our tool for resisting the occupation is non-violence. (8)

Saif Abu Keshek is a co-ordinator for the ISM in Nablus. In an interview on the ISM-London web site he says the same thing: that Palestinians are morally justified in using violence if they choose.

So there is strong support for the armed resistance? [Keshek:] Surely there is support for the armed resistance. It is one of the rights of the Palestinians to fight back against the occupation. The ISM supports non violent direct action, not armed struggle… [Keshek:] Yes, but also we recognise the right of the Palestinians to choose their way of resistance. To join our way of resistance or to choose armed struggle. (9) 

From all of these statements by people central to the ISM it is clear that the ISM wants to have it both ways: to claim the moral high ground of nonviolence while keeping the tactical advantage of violence. For Palestinians, “violent resistance” usually takes the form of terrorism, that is, targeted attacks against civilians. Even the ISM, in its support of the right to use violence, makes no distinction between terrorism and other forms of violence. We have heard ISM leaders in their own words: “Palestinians have the full right to resist the occupation with means that they think are suitable”; “We recognize the right of the Palestinians to choose their way of resistance” – with no restrictions. Such statements by ISM members are far from unique.

It is now clear that the ISM is not a pure nonviolent movement but sees itself working together with violent, even terrorist factions of the Palestinian fight against Israel. Nonviolence that accepts violence enables violence. Nonviolent obstruction of Israeli efforts to resist terrorism enables terrorism to continue. For example, members of the ISM, including Rachel Corrie, have tried “nonviolently” to obstruct the movement of Israeli bulldozers whose job it was to expose and destroy tunnels used for illegally smuggling weapons. This is “nonviolence” in name only. These “nonviolent peace activists” were helping to ensure that arms get into the hands of terrorists. If your work helps make violence possible, you are participating in violence. There is little difference between distracting your target while others ready their weapons and wielding the weapon yourself. The type of nonviolence that the ISM espouses supports and aids terrorist violence. (10)

Connections to Terrorist Groups

The ISM has indeed worked together with terrorist groups. An ISM press release dated July 2, 2003 announced a demonstration to block construction of Israel’s security fence (which ISM calls an “apartheid wall”), and invited participants to “Join the ISM, the Palestinian National and Islamic Forces and the Apartheid Wall Defense Committee” in these efforts to disrupt the fence’s construction. (11)

Who are these “National and Islamic Forces”? A virulently anti-Israel statement this group issued on February 10, 2001 contains the names of its members, which include the terrorist organizations Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and several others. (12)

There is some evidence that ISM cooperation with terrorist activity goes beyond signing joint statements and giving verbal support. While not engaging in violence directly, ISM members have come to the aid of others who have.

In the spring of 2002 about 40 senior terrorists wanted by Israel took refuge in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where IDF soldiers had them under siege. About a dozen ISM members snuck past Israeli troops and entered the church to give support to the terrorists. (13) The ISM published on its own web site an account by the British Guardian containing a proud proclamation that these ISM members were to act as “human shields.” (14)

At about the same time, other ISM members were acting as human shields in the Palestinian presidential compound in Ramallah. They were present not only to support Yasser Arafat but to protect the “Ze’evi Five,” terrorists wanted by Israel for the murder of Rehav’am Ze’evi, Israeli Minister of Tourism, on September 18, 2001. (15)

In the spring of 2003 Israeli troops were searching for Shadi Sukiya, a senior member of the Islamic Jihad in Jenin who had been involved in planning suicide bombings and shooting attacks against Jewish communities. They found him hiding in the offices of the International Solidarity Movement.

At first Susan Barclay, the ISM Coordinator, refused the Israeli soldiers permission to search the offices. But the soldiers forced their way in and arrested both Sukiya and Barclay. A handgun was also found. (16)(17)

An ISM spokesperson claimed that Barclay had no way of knowing who Sukiya really was. Nevertheless, this is no excuse for obstructing a legitimate search for a wanted terrorist. And how plausible is the ISM’s proclamation of Barclay’s innocence? Barclay herself told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that “she knowingly worked with representatives from Hamas and Islamic Jihad – terrorist groups that sponsor suicide bombings and exist, according to their charters, to demolish the Jewish state entirely.” (18)  

Conclusion

While pretending to stand for nonviolence, in both what it says and what it does the ISM aids and abets violent Palestinian extremist movements. The words of the Jewish Action Task Force capture the essence of the ISM:

The ISM is a terrorist protection organization. The goal of the ISM is not to plant bombs and murder civilians. The ISM aims to protect the terrorists who plant bombs and murder civilians. The ISM hopes to keep the IDF out of Palestinian neighborhoods so that terrorists will be free to manufacture explosives, train suicide bombers, smuggle weapons, arm snipers, and fire rockets at residential neighborhoods without interference from the IDF. The ISM calls itself non-violent, and many supporters of the organization in the U.S. may actually believe that this is a non-violent movement following the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. The leadership, however, is using the rhetoric of non-violence in a calculated effort to mask the true nature of the ISM, which is organized for the protection of terrorists. (19)

This report has presented the International Solidarity Movement in its own words and actions. I have already documented the ISM’s cynical exploitation of the death of Rachel Corrie, and need not repeat that here. The ISM is not, as it pretends to be, a neutral, peacemaking organization. What it does stand for is abundantly clear. Let us not be fooled.

Source: Peace with Realism

 

Notes:
ISM Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize,” Canadian Dimension, May 2, 2003.
What You Can do.”
International Solidarity Movement, “Statement on Bombings.”
International Solidarity Movement, “About ISM.”
Why Nonviolent Resistance is Important for the Palestinian Intifada: A Response to Ramzy Baroud,” Palestine Chronicle, January 29, 2002.
Is ‘Occupation’ an Excuse for Terrorism?” elsewhere on this web site.
ISM Reports: A Bone from Rafah / Ethnic cleansing,” Palsolidarity Mailing List, March 27, 2003.
Resisting the Tool of Control: An Interview with Ghassan Andoni,” October 7, 2002.
Interview with Saif Abu Keshek,” International Solidarity Movement – London,February 23, 2003.
ISM: July 3 Action to Stop the Wall,” New Zealand Scoop, July 2, 2003.
Statement Issued by the National and Islamic Forces,” Jerusalem Media & Communication Center, February 10, 2001.
Israelis Blame Arafat for Bethlehem Church Fire,” CNN.com, May 3, 2002.
From Bristol to Bethlehem,” The British Guardian, May 16, 2002.
Operation Devastation“, May 2002.
Senior Islamic Jihad Terrorist Arrested While Hiding in the Offices of the International Solidarity Movement in Jenin,” March 27, 2003.
Tension Rises Between Activists, Army After Third Recent Casualty,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 13, 2003.
Activist’s Death Focuses Spotlight on Mideast Struggle,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 20, 2003.
International Solidarity: A Terrorist Protection Movement,” no date.


Comment:

In some time 2005-2006 a poster came into Human Rights Network with posts about “Peaceful Protesters in Bilin” – Ket and I were elated. Finally!
The Palestinians were getting it! We were very happy. This we had been waiting for…

The poster swore that the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) were comparable to Gandhi and MLK. Great. So when IDF opened fire on “protesters” we denounced, condemned and agreed with Israel’s detractors that it was really horrible.

What we did not know was that the poster, and all her friends in the Pro-Palestinian Camp were lying through their teeth about what really was happening. The IDF had been responding to gun fire aimed at them from within the ISM Rally. What ISM hoped for was that they then could say “its militants using the gathering to discredit ISM” – all the while those militants were part of ISM. We fell for it (in fact the entire world fell for it) – of course ISM was a modern Peaceful Civil Rights Movement…

Right now I feel that whatever I have ever conceded – despite the fact that I have not heard any Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims or Xians in this group or elsewhere make any concessions, no apologies, nothing that indicates that they think the Palestinians militants are wrong – I have made into a void of mockery, a chasm of indifference and “let the Jews crawl, grovel and humiliate themselves”.

I am sorry, a “thank you Dov” isn’t going to do it – I want more, I want condemnations of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian Terror Organization, and their constant attacks on Israeli border towns from the Arabs and Muslims in this Group.
Dov

Posted in International Solidarity Movement, Israel/Palestine, Peace | Leave a Comment »

Anglo-European Standards rule our World 3

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 20, 2008


Anglo-American Flag

“…you are obviously very intelligent and well educated and so if you side-step my point or expand the realm of an example into areas it wasn’t meant to encompass, I’m going to assume it’s deliberate. Fair enough?”

You are obviously intelligent as well… so what about remembering that there are several different ways of understanding your words and my take on them is one of them.

If I am pointing out that there’s a variant interpretation of your words, or taking your point and running with it in a direction you did not foresee, it’s because that’s what I see through your words or your points. Not some “now I am going to distort the meaning of D’s points here, and side-step and expand on his example…” Nothing deliberate, nothing sinister, nothing malignant. Just my understanding of what you have written.

I understand your first post to mean “OIC is not to be blamed for anything, because everything is USA’s and especially Bush’s government’s fault and we can’t point fingers at OIC before we are perfect ourselves, besides as OIC is a bunch of religious fanatics living in tents 800 years ago, it’s understandable and excusable what they are doing. We (USA, UK, Australia) on the other hand are NOT such barbarians but civilized and exemplary bringers of peace, freedom, democracy etc. etc. so it’s shocking that these Beacons, Saviors, Liberators have fallen and become monsters…”

Arguing for the sake of argument I take to mean launching into an offensive position and getting personal, which is what you have done. You are basically attacking me without any friendly discussion, which I consider to be a damn shame. Your “hot air” opening is your words not mine, nor was it my meaning.

Now, you seem to think I have taken an offensive position and getting personal, which is not what I am doing. I am discussing YOUR WORDS, not your persona.

You have one take, I have another take. The only thing I have to go on in this discussion, D, is your words. In my world, if you say that you do not want to “argue for the sake of argument”, you are saying that you somehow see what I have said as “an argument for the sake of argument”, i.e that I am arguing only to argue, not that I really have anything to say.

“We all know that arguing for the sake of arguing is a pointless waste of time”. It seems that I am not alone in understanding “Arguing for the sake of argument” to mean “so much hot air”.

IF you had wanted to point out that you think I am getting personal, then there would have been far better ways of communicating this. You could for instance have just said, “I think you are getting personal…” You didn’t. Don’t assume that your understanding is the only one possible.

The next point: I could sum it up as “since the Bush administration, things have not gotten worse. There has been no global shift to the right. It is as it always has been.” Have I got it right? I introduced “corporate” because I believe that corporations and their lawyers are largely responsible.

No, you haven’t got it right. I got that you think that “corporations and their lawyers are largely responsible” for what you see as a shift to the right. I disagree with this, hence my point about the CCC being as old as human civilization and perhaps actually a intrinsic part of human civilization and it not being a trend that just popped up with the Bush Administration. Your perspective is short, my perspective is longer (without any value on either) -I am viewing into the past for the reason you seem to the present. I think your making corporate lawyers responsible and me claiming that it’s older than that, is like viewing an ice-berg – beneath the surface (corporate lawyers) is a lump of ice (human civilization) 100 times bigger than the tip sticking up over the water.

While I agree that this shift to the right has been ongoing for many years as a gradual process and only in this century is it coming home to roost in my town whereby the rights we believed we had are being flushed down the toilet. Still, the audacity of our leaders to no longer heed the electorate with comments like “So?” is a marked difference and so appears as a trend.

Note that I am not arguing with your assertion about the state of things, I am just extending the perspective – reading the present in the light of the past, as any good historian would tell you to do.

Or, are you saying that there has been no change at all? I certainly understand this point given world history. I can imagine some guy in Africa who has watched civil war and genocide ravaging his homeland for the last 30 odd years and not noticed any recent difference. I certainly makes for a good topic of conversation but it just wasn’t the topic I raised.

No, I am not saying that there has been no change at all – I see the change, however I don’t think it’s really as marked as you do. I see the same imperialistic, corporate, capitalist and conservative attitudes operate in today’s US and the World as operated in the Roman Empire, The Babylonian Empire, Egyptian Empire or the Ottoman Empire. To me the Bush Admin is just the latest addition to Imperialistic Regimes ravaging the World. I also see where the Bush Administration’s attitude comes from – from an Anglo-American adaptation of the Anglo-European mind-set. 30 years ago, the US would not have managed to make military allies out half of Europe and Australia to go chase down insignificant illegal combatants all over the globe or launch an invasion on a country on the mere suspicion that they might have certain military capacities. The US made an attack on the US into a Global Issue, partly through interesting little lies, partly through coercion and partly through blatant bullying and threats. This [9/11] could have happened under whatever American President you want – pick one – anyone – however, only now could the USONA have succeeded in getting World support for their cause. Why? Because only the Bush Administration would have used all means necessary to get that support, including the immoral ones. Now do you see that rather than disagreeing with you on the basic point of your assertions about the US, I actually agree – I am just extending the perspective on where it comes from.

The only thing I disagree with you about is the Worldwide scale and importance of it. To me it’s just another Country on my Human Rights Black-list, nothing else.

The Declaration of Independence wasn’t irrelevant but how it came to be, while fascinating, was not a negation of what I said even though you presented it as such.

But it [my analysis of the role of the DoI] is a negation. It is also very much relevant, because it [the DoI] is the very foundation of the idea as the US as “the holder of the torch of liberty and the defender of democracy”.

I used the Declaration of Independence to explain where the idea of “the holder of the torch of liberty and the defender of democracy” comes from – if you look at your first post, you will see that you do not question if the USONA is “the holder of the torch of liberty and the defender of democracy” – i.e you represent as if you actually agree that it is – I disagreed with the idea that the USONA would be “the holder of the torch of liberty and the defender of democracy”, and then referred to the history of the Declaration of Independence to put the actions of the US into a historical perspective.

I’m well aware of the hypocrisy of the USA – its history is a series of wars and atrocities that revolve around land acquisition. However, my point was quite simple: the USA, regardless of where they got it launched on a grand experiment to put the ideas and philosophies of the time into law to try to create a non-classed-based democracy that would lead the way for humanity. I did not say they had succeeded.

You didn’t say that they hadn’t succeeded either. In fact the point was represented in a way that could very well be understood as if you thought that they HAD succeeded, and now the Bush Administration is tearing it all down, which was the foundation for my assertion that “U.S.O.N.A. isn’t “the holder of the torch of liberty and the defender of democracy” either, and if I know my history correctly, it never was.”

However, since they have taken up the baton, taking every opportunity to tell the world how they are the “home of the brave, land of the free, and the bringers of democracy” I chose to ignore their obvious failures and allow them to claim just intentions. In so doing I am justified in demanding that they live up to their boasts.

Justified perhaps, but it is questionable if it’s wise, at least without some sort of indication that you are ignoring what you yourself seem to give such importance. It sort of becomes a contradiction within a contradiction, to make a big affair of the Human Rights Violations of the USONA, and then expect people to understand that you are actually choosing to ignore those violations only so you can hold them accountable.

Nevertheless, regardless of where we lay the blame, or what our historical perspectives may be, the fact remains that the UDHR are is under attack.

The point I tried to make already in my second post here was that if we do not expect that everyone respects the Freedom of Speech as put forward in UDHR article 19, we cannot expect anyone to respect it.

If we start making excuses for the OIC, because we think their anger is righteous and justified (which I do), condemning the USONA without any consideration to their historical, social and political reasons, is nothing but hypocritical and another of those Anglo-European attitudes that feeds the anger of OIC.

I put considerable effort into a reply that has disappeared after posting.

I am sorry Cyberspace ate your post. If it’s any consolation, I have my posts eaten by gremlins frequently, which is why I have gotten into the habit of writing all my posts in NotePad or EditPad and copy and paste – that way if gremlins get hungry, I have back-ups.

The crux of it was to outline how I have been maligned in this thread. One example, I recall was SOB’s statement:

Again, I am not assuming. It’s there in your own words. I am not saying that you INTEND it to be. I don’t think you do. It doesn’t change the fact that by saying:

“even if we disagree that a man who sees women as chattel may live in a nice home but his consciousness is 800 years old and still in a tent.”

in a context of Islam, and this thread is that, it becomes derogatory of and insulting to Islam, because you do not clarify what kind of Islam you are referring to.”

Obviously, I’m referring to ANYONE who sees women as chattel and later extend this to anyone who burns people for heresy. To say that I don’t clarify what kind of Islam I’m referring to is more than deliberately misleading, it’s dishonest. I do not propose that SOB sees my comments as insulting to Islam because he believes that all Muslims treat women as chattel because that would be equally underhanded.

The thing is, D that it isn’t obvious that you are referring to ANYONE – what you say in your first post, which I take to be a response to the article ABOUT the OIC’s attack on the UDHR, becomes a statement WITHIN the context of a discussion about Islam, and more specific an Islamic attack on the UDHR. There is no “ANYONE” here. I would also like to turn your attention to what you said in the post one day ago:

“Without moral credibility, how can our criticisms of the OIC be interpreted as anything but an attack on Islam and result in a world far worse than it is right now.”

You were fully aware that this thread was addressing the OIC, and you even admitted that any criticism of it would be interpreted as criticism of Islam. So your “I’m referring to ANYONE who sees women as chattel and later extend this to anyone who burns people for heresy.” falls flat as a defense or assertion that referring to the OIC as “people living in tents and 800 years in the past” is not an attack or insult of Islam.

Have you ever wondered why “our” women aren’t seen as chattel? My wife said that if she was your wife and thought that you saw her as having a nomadic, medieval woman’s mind set, she’d had YOUR hide, not mine…

It is not because of Islamic culture (as if there was one homogenous such), Islam, Arabic culture, Semitic culture, Nomadic culture or what ever, that there are men within those cultures who see the female part of their people as things to be owned… it’s because feminism hasn’t had a reason to exist in some parts of the world. In Europe men have spent most of their adult lives trading, hunting, exploring and warring, and left their women at home to take care of things. Not so in most parts of the world.

African women look down on Euro-USonian feminists trying to bring their words, values and attitudes to the “undeveloped” countries, because they HAVE words, values and attitudes that could be used, but the Euro-USonian feminists are so convinced of their own superiority that they don’t even THINK there MIGHT BE something DIFFERENT but just as valuable.

I am not thinking in short terms, nor am I thinking of the World as tiny, isolated pieces, but one big organism. Nations are like beings, “growing up” just as every human is individual and work on different characteristics of their personalities, have different priorities, and so on and so forth, Nations function similarly.

Saying that men who see women as things are living in tents 800 years ago is ignoring every other aspect of their lives. Besides WHO lived in tents 800 years ago? Not most Europeans, Africans, Asians nor Muslims… Nomads did. Nomads like the Sapmi people in the North of Scandinavia, some Native Americans, Bedouins… You are obviously not speaking of Native Americans nor Sapmis, Mongols or any other Nomads, so you must be referring to Bedouins… Or did I misunderstand you? *sardonic*

Posted in Human Rights, UDHR | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: