Linda Sarsour and Her "Jesus Was Palestinian" Routine

Have you been following Linda Sarsour's "Jesus was a Palestinian" comedy routine?

See here and here for these examples:

Jesus was Palestinian of Nazareth and is described in the Quran as being brown copper skinned with wooly hair.

Palestinian is a nationality not a religion. Your point is not negated. Jews lived with Palestinians in peaceful co-existence before there was a state of Israel.

Why so upset by the truth. Jesus was born in Bethlehem aka بيت لحم in Arabic. Bethlehem is in Palestine. It’s currently militarily occupied by Israel and home to a predominately beautiful Palestinian Christian community. Yes, the birthplace of Jesus is under military occupation.

And

Bethlehem is in PALESTINE. The erasure is repulsive.

Well, GraphicZionism responds:

^

Ilhan's Ill-wind

It may be that the new Congresswoman from Minnesota is becoming a problem.

We've all seen this:

and this

She is now claiming to be not only the first hijab-wearing Muslim elected to Congress but the first Congresswoman who has begun fabricating history and erasing Jews from it on her election victory evening.

How?

By declaring

“I stand here before you tonight, as your congresswoman-elect, with many firsts behind my name...The first woman of color to represent our state in Congress...The first woman to wear a hijab...The first refugee ever elected to Congress [here at 4:33]”

"The first refugee ever elected to Congress”?

Really?  The first?

As Sefi Kogan pointed out, Jews and others preceded her:

Shouldn't Tom Lantos, who was born in Budapest, enslaved in Nazi-occupied Hungary, and, penniless and with much of his family murdered, made his way to the US on a scholarship after the war, count? Or Rudy Boschwitz, who was born in Berlin and fled Nazi Germany with his family in 1933? Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who will retire from Congress at the end of this year, is a refugee from Cuba [and whose maternal grandparents were Sephardic Jews]. Joseph Cao is a refugee from Vietnam.

Perhaps she was ill-informed? Or an aide wrote that and she was ignorant?

Or she is engaged in creating a new narrative.  Perhaps a bit like another newly-elected politician, NY's State Senator Julia Salazar.

I hope this making up facts, or not knowing them, does not continue or there'll be an ill-wind, and not only a cold one, blowing in from Minnesota.

^

Anti-Semitism Of Things, Of Men and Of Identity

As Margaret McGlynn writes in her The Royal Prerogative and the Learning of the Inns of Court on page 222 in a chapter on 'the Fallacies of Realpolitik':

I've mentioned that categorization previously.  The text of the two chapters published in his The Jewish War front is here.  The definitions again:

There are two distinct forces at work within the general phenomenon called Antisemitism:  the one is a subjective repulsion, strong enough and permanent enough to become anything from a hobby to a religion; the other is an objective state of things which tends to ostracize the Jew almost independently of whether his neighbours like or dislike him. We shall call the first category "the Antisemitism of Men' and the second "the Antisemitism of Things'.

He railed against Germany:

There and not elsewhere was the discovery made, and the principle proclaimed, that the objection to the Jew is not religious but racial, and he must therefore be persecuted even if baptized. There and not elsewhere was antisemitism sublimated to the rank of a scientific philosophy.

and also postulated that there are facts and objective truths which lead others to adopt anti-Semitic posturing for:

in some countries the decisive factor is not the antisemitism of men but the antisemitism of things...[we need] realize that the fundamental curse of Jewish existence in the central zone of distress is due to something infinitely deeper than policies or ideologies or propagandas, whether anti or pro...

He further explains that

there are certain inevitable aspects in the normal social evolution of Eastern Europe (the words "inevitable" and "normal" should be emphasized) which are inherently, objectively, and organically fatal to the Jews' existence. 

...human anti-semitism is an active enmity, a constant urge to harm the hated race, to humiliate them, to see them squirming and writhing beneath one's feet...even at its strongest only a leading minority manifest it in its greedily acute stage; the majority just follow suit and mildly enjoy the fun. Being thus of a somewhat elastic nature, the "Antisemitism of Men" can sometimes be fought with a measure of success;

I wish to add a third category:

The Anti-Semitism of Identity 

It is one rooted in jealousy, in a feeling a self-cognizant deficiency, an overwhelming emotion that one can never match the challenge of confronting a rival, a counterpart, a competitor.

The hatred there grows is nourished by realization that one's identity is not as one supposed, imagined or believed in. One assumes he is a Palestinian when his identity was as a Southern Syrian into the 1920s. One assumes there was no Jewish Temple on Mount Moriah but always a mosque built by Abraham Ibrahim.  One assumes Muhammed flew on a winged creature, tethered it to a wall (which was not the Western Wall of Herod's Second Temple) and stepped on the a rock (which was not the Foundation Stone of Aravna's threshing floor upon which the Altar was built) all in Jerusalem when he really never was in Jerusalem.  "Palestinian Arabs" are either Canaanits, Jebusites or, in the words of Saeb Erekat, Natufians.

The frustration growing out of the realization that these lies, myths and calumnies they have propogated for decades are simply not truly altering the ability of Zionism to continue and build up and strengthen the Jewish state in the historic Jewish homeland they resort to a new tactic of "protecting free speech" as, for example, expressed in a letter to the Guardian in October protesting what the signees termed Professor Moshe Machover's insistence that anti-Zionism and support for Palestinian rights are not antisemitic which read in part

“Misusing the term antisemitism for pro-Israel political purposes deprives it of its charge and its critical role in naming those who hate Jews because they are Jews. Real antisemitism is obscured by this self-serving redefinition of the term.”

They see themselves as  combating attempts to "suppress solidarity with Palestine by conflating criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Jewish bigotry".

Another formulation of this redefinition so as to permit themselves to hate Jews for being Jews while not being tainted with a charge of anti-Semitism is here describing the remarks of a professor at UMass, Sut Jhally, who said he

believes that the...discussion [over Palestine] is often halted through accusations of anti-Semitism and racism toward those who are critical of Israeli policy, specifically right-wing Israeli policy...[this is] a very, very effective silencing mechanism

and

it silences those accused for the fear of being deemed a racist or anti-Semite...[it] manipulates the oppressive, violent and fearful history of Jewish people and distracts from what the state of Israel, not Jews, what the state of Israel is doing to the Palestinians.

At the notorious New School panel, a discussion of a new book from Jewish Voice for Peace 'On Antisemitism: Solidarity and the Struggle for Justice' co-sponsored by the New School Creative Publishing & Critical Journalism program with moderator Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now!, Leo Ferguson, Lina Morales, Linda Sarsour and Rebecca Vilkomerson, and which elicited an official institution response, there was this:

Panelist Lina Morales, a member of the Jews of Color and Mizrahi/Sephardi Caucus of JFREJ, called Zionism “a mistake” that “has led us down a dangerous and horrible road,” while Rebecca Vilkomerson, executive director of the pro-BDS Jewish Voice for Peace, described the Israeli treatment of Palestinians as “apartheid.”

Lying and misrepresenting is a basis of anti-Semitism since the object is to create a false picture so that someone can more comfortably and confidently hate Jews. As an audience member noted, the panel avoided the 

ideological purity tests on the left...the idea that if you’re Jewish you have to affirmatively prove your anti-Zionist bona fides before you’re let into any leftist space regardless of the causes

Denying to Jews the right to promote a nationalism, Zionism, one that is based on a 3000-year history, culture, religion and literature, that had received international legal support in 1919, 1920, 1920 and 1947 and that is evident by archaeological findings and external non-Jewish sources is an anti-Semitism of identity denial while promoting another identity paradigm that is unequal in all spheres to Zionism.

Attempting, and too often violently, to supplant one identity over another, as the Arab Palestine movement seeks to do, and which is underscored deeply by unadulterated anti-Semitism, with support from anti-Semites as in the case of the British Labour Party and anti-Zionists, is an evil and those espousing that track know full well what they are doing.

This is the new face of the oldest hatred.

^

Hillel At Princeton: On the Roof?

Most of us have heard, or should have, of the adventures of Hillel the Elder on a roof on a snowy night.  As recorded in Yoma 35b

Hillel the Elder every day he used to work and earn one tropaic, half of which he would give to the watchman at the house of study; the other half he used on food for himself and the members of his household. One day he was unable to earn anything, so the watchman at the house of study did not let him in. He then climbed [to the roof] and hung on, sitting over the opening of the skylight, so that he could hear the words of the living God from the mouths of Shemaiah and Avtalion. It is said that the was a Sabbath eve in the winter solstice, and snow came down on him from heaven. When the dawn rose, Shemaiah said to Avtalion, "Brother Avtalion, every day this house is bright with light, but today it is dark. Is the day cloudy?" When they looked up, they saw the figure of a man in the skylight. They climbed to the roof and found Hillel, covered with three cubits of snow. They removed the snow from him, bathed and anointed him, and, as they seated him in front of an open fire, they said, "This man deserves to have the Sabbath profaned on his behalf."...

Hillel of Princeton seems to be stuck up on a roof (cross-posted at TOI).

The bare facts about the Hotovely-Princeton Hillel Affair are known.

Protests from a dovish Jewish campus group, the Alliance of Jewish Progressives (AJP) caused the Hillel of Princeton University to cancel a scheduled talk by Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely that was to take place this past Monday evening at the last moment. Chabad picked up the talk.  By the way, they did this maneuver in a parallel fashion recently.  And while she stiff-armed J Street's hosting of an exhibition of Breaking the Silence, she blmaed her refusal on "timing":

The CJL did not oppose J Street bringing the organization to speak on campus, wrote Rabbi Roth in an email to the Prince.
“However, given the sensitivities related to the timing of the event overlapping with Yom HaZakiron, the day commemorating Israeli soldiers killed in battle and in terrorist attacks, and Yom Ha’atzmaut, the celebration of Israel’s Independence Day, we did not want to host the program in the building,” she wrote.

The protest went public in a letter published in the campus daily. Afterwards, AJP claimed they were only upset that proper procedures for inviting guests to events of the Center for Jewish Living were not followed through on,but were quite forthright that

We firmly reject the CJL’s choice to host a racist speaker like Hotovely while it continues to quiet progressive voices.

I see now that Rachel Frommer has a great quote:

Mikaela Gerwin, co-president of AJP who attended Hotovely's talk, maintained that the deputy foreign minister has said "hateful things" about Palestinians and non-Orthodox Jewish religious sects, but that her group may have misstepped in claiming racism.
"That’s a complicated word," she said.
Gerwin added that nothing Hotovely said at Princeton struck her as racist, but that it was a generally uninteresting speech that lacked nuance.

And Frommer adds:

the AJP is being disingenuous in now framing its complaint as being with Hillel's event policies, the student said.

"AJP didn’t once mention the IAC until after the event took place. The name of the protest was ‘stop hate,'" said the student. "This wasn't about having a debate about ideas, and it wasn't about process. This was about stopping Hotovely coming at all."

While Deputy Minister Michael Oren demanded a boycott, I tweeted him

No, more should come until the Hillel staff there is removed

At the campus newspaper article I commented that its content is what someone has called an "Reality inversion alert" -

You write:
“Hotovely’s alarming vision for the future of the region is coupled with a complete rejection of Palestinian history and connection to key sites such as the Haram al-Sharif [Temple Mount]."But it is the Muslims, from the Mufti to Arafat to Abbas who reject any Jewish claim to or identity with Mount Moriah, the First and Second Temples, the attempt to build a Third Temple in 363 CE or anything Jewish about Jerusalem. Have the signees ever studied anything about Jewish history...Do they possess knowledge or slogans? Outlook or out-of-touch? This is all so embarrassing for we Jews who, of whatever political stripe, at least actually know something of what we speak and write.

I added that

throwing around a charge of "racism" really gets one no where when, on the record, the most racist element in the conflict are Arabs who wish to deny a ethnic national community any political, civil and human rights the international community recognized and guaranteed consistently since 1917

A late-burner was the AJP post-event claim that they were misunderstood:

MK Hotovely clearly misunderstands the intricacies of the Princeton Jewish community and the aims of our protest. Our Hillel’s response to the concerns of progressive Jewish students does not constitute a “liberal dictatorship.” Rather, the events of the past two days show the CJL’s commitment to more equitable standards of inclusivity and diversity.

But they weren't. They clearly sought to shut her down,

“We firmly reject the CJL’s choice to host a racist speaker like Hotovely..."

and succeeded, while claiming all they wanted was for the rules for inviting speakers, the "Israel policy", by applied equally. P.S. Their activity at Chabad was titled:

Stand Against Chabad-Sponsored Hatred

and characterized as one that "deserves intense pushback".

Be that as it may, what raised eyebrows even more was AJP's claim that a Jewish Agency shaliah was somehow involved. They published

On the evening of Nov. 5, in an email to students and members of the community who planned to attend an address by Tzipi Hotovely, a member of Israel’s Knesset, Rabbi Julie Roth, the executive director of the Center for Jewish Life, and the CJL Israel Fellow, Lior Sharir, announced they would be postponing Hotovely’s visit to the CJL pending further review by the Israel Advisory Committee.

Yigal Palmor left a comment at my Facebook post, writing:

We've checked and I can confirm that any suggestion that the Shaliach was behind the cancellation is *untrue*. Hillel have published an apology and it clearly shows this had nothing to do with the shaliach...the Shaliach had nothing to do with the cancellation.

I should trust him as he is, after all, Director of Public Affairs and Communications at The Jewish Agency for Israel. I did ask him if he would call out AJP as liars. I am still waiting.

What is even more intriguing than an Israeli-funded shaliah quashing a government minister's right to free speech is the role of Rabbi Roth. Could she not have simply picked up a phone and within 5-10 minutes received a confirmation that Ms. Hotovely's right to appear at Hillel is approved? Did she really think Hotovely is a racist and her arrival should be stymied by rules?

UPDATE: from Daniel Kurtzer -

The decision to postpone/cancel the visit was wrong, plain and simple. Rabbi Julie Roth, the Center for Jewish Life’s director, regretted that decision almost immediately, as she told me on Monday morning after the fact.

Rabbi Roth is active in the New Israel Fund. She's #163 on this petition and #1868 on this one. She has full free speech. Even progressive free speech. And she has unique insight into other radical groups as her husband is Rabbi Justus Baird who has written:

The Torah was received in the diaspora. Most of Jewish history was lived out in the diaspora. Diaspora Judaism deserves a foundational, equal place in the self-identity of the Jewish people, right alongside the Jewish state.

That is, I should stress, a legitimate opinion. It is also radical and skewed, but that's my opinion. The Diaspora, I think, does not deserve, in Judaism, equality to Israel.

He's with Rabbis Without Borders. They, at least, hold to the principle that a Rabbi should "strive[s] to be aware of the partial truth in a view with which we deeply disagree". He is on the Rabbis & Cantors Board of J Street. He identifies with T'ruah and he and his wife have donated a sum of between $1,00-$2,499 to the group.

T'ruah promotes positions - and I don't know if one would term them mainstream, radical, progressive or extreme - that include that they

advocate for an end to the military occupation of the West Bank and an end to the continued expansion of the settlements that extend this occupation, that infringe on the human rights of Palestinians, and that compromise the safety and security of Israelis...We urge all members of the North American Jewish community to engage in debate and disagreement for the sake of greater truth, justice, and peace.

That sounds to me a little like...Tzipi Hotovely and her predicament which someone termed an example of moral panic by left-wingers.

And at T'ruah they

are concerned about efforts to shut out a growing segment of our community based on their support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Despite our disagreements with this movement, we believe that the Jewish community is strengthened by vigorous debate on issues that are vital to the well-being of Israel and the worldwide Jewish community.

That sounds very much like support for AJP.

He was a supporter of Linda Sarsour as published at TOI:

“Anyone who has worked closely with Linda knows that she has a deep love for and appreciation for Judaism and Jews,” he said. “Linda and I don’t agree on everything about Israel, Palestine or about other issues, and that is OK with me. I fully support CUNY giving a pubic platform to Linda Sarsour, and I think its graduates have a lot to learn from her voice.”

Hillel has apologized. But I still cannot figure out Rabbi Roth's role in all this. Was she too busy? 

Why didn't she convene the committee to obtain approval prior to the protest? Why couldn't she do that in a quick round of phone calls after the AJP protest? She is signed on the 'apology' that notes Hotovely's appearance cancellation was done

because it had not been reviewed by the Center for Jewish Life’s Israel Advisory Committee, which is designed to review and facilitate a broad range of Israel programming throughout the year...This was not a good enough reason to postpone the event... we should have engaged a broader range of students in this program from the beginning...

I am sorry but that sounds very weak and less plausible each time I read it. Was there any doubt in Roth's mind that Hotovely should be a welcome guest? Or does she think providing her a platform, perhaps, should be debated? Did she really think she was a racist and that AJP had the power over her to stop the event? Does she agree with her husband that the Diaspora is at a level of offsetting Israel?

Why hasn't AJP been called out on suggesting Sharir was not involved? Did they lie or what? Why haven't we heard of an investigation or a review of what occurred? Will Rabbi Roth be censured or found innocent of any possible wrongdoing?

Until Next Year in Jerusalem?

(with thanks to AB)

_____________

Now this about Rabbi Roth and Nonie Darwish and this quote

Grinberg told the Tory that he felt “a lot of pressure from Rabbi Roth to cancel.”

She has a record. 


P.S.  And yes, there are others who argue in favor of shutting down Hotovely.

___________

I am mentioned by Caroline Glick and in the Hebrew version, too.
^

I Tweet Linda Sarsour

Here is Linda Sarsour's tweet from last night:

Sending love to my Jewish siblings. I know watching Charlottesville & the anti-semitism on display was horrifying. We r in this together.

And my counter-tweet:

And Palestinian anti-Semitism and that of American Imams?

On the anti-Semitism from official Palestinian Authority sources. 

Not to mention the father of "Palestinian nationalism", the Mufti.

On my Imam reference.

^

'Jihad' is Jihad. It's Intersectional

Big story in the US:

Linda Sarsour, an organizer of the Women’s March, drew criticism over a speech she gave at the Islamic Society of North America convention over the weekend after some misunderstood her use of the word "jihad."

In her speech, Sarsour talked about protecting the Muslim community and the need for Muslims to defend themselves against the Trump administration, which many view as overtly hostile to Muslims and other minority groups.

Some interpreted her used of the “jihad,” which means “to struggle”, as a call for violence. The word has many uses in the Islamic faith, but has been used by terrorists such as ISIS and often is translated as “holy war.”

During her speech, Sarsour told a story about a man who asked the Muslim prophet “What is the best form of jihad or struggle?” The answer from the prophet, according to Sarsour was: “A word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler or leader, that is the best form of jihad.”

Well, be careful America.  It's an intersectional thing:

Rabin Says Arafat's 'Jihad' Remark Set Back Peace EffortBy CLYDE HABERMAN,Published: May 20, 1994

JERICHO, West Bank, May 19— Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel said today that Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, had harmed the Middle East peace talks with a speech in which he seemed to call for a holy war to liberate Jerusalem for Muslims.

Mr. Rabin waved off Mr. Arafat's explanation that he was not calling for violence when he talked recently of a "jihad" for Jerusalem -- an Arabic word often interpreted as holy war -- but rather was speaking in a religious sense and urging a crusade for peace.

Through a spokesman, the Israeli leader said the Palestinian had provided "a far-fetched explanation of an unnecessary misstep, one that badly affects, and will badly affect in the future, the peace process with the Palestinians."

While there was no sign of a crisis in negotiations between Israel and Mr. Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, Israeli officials were nonetheless rattled by the "jihad" dispute, for it reaffirmed their worst fears that the P.L.O. leader is not someone they can trust. And if that is the case, they acknowledge, they leave themselves vulnerable to opposition questions about why they are talking with him in the first place.

In case you forgot, it set back the peace process (as if there ever was one from Arafat's angle).

America, meet Yasir Arafat, er, Linda Sarsour.



^

Has Linda Sarsour Protested This Oppression of Women?

Linda Sarsour was interviewed in The Nation.

I'll be concise (as many are commenting) and to the point about her moral failure and political duplicity when it comes to Israel and Zionism.  And her hypocrisy.

Four excerpts of her in italics and my comments:

1.

When you talk about feminism you’re talking about the rights of all women and their families to live in dignity, peace, and security. It’s about giving women access to health care and other basic rights. And Israel is a country that continues to occupy territories in Palestine, has people under siege at checkpoints—we have women who have babies on checkpoints because they’re not able to get to hospitals [in time]. 

Checkpoints exist because Arab terrorism exists.  Remove the latter and no former.  Ghandi led a non-violent protest movement but ever since 1920, at least, the organized anti-Zionist Arab movement has been only violent and primarily directed to kill Jews and prevent any form of Jewish national identity.

No system is 100% successful - both in preventing suicide-intent female bombers who seek to kill and maim innocent children, women and men in their terror attacks and in assuring that innocent Arabs are not caught up in unfortunate situations that are not intended.

2.

[women in Palestine] are oppressed in many ways, including lack of access to health care and poverty. These are women who have to figure out ways to feed their children. They have limits on their travel. These are all things that women around the world want and many of us have the privilege of having access to in the United States. Women in Palestine are women that require other women around the rest of the world to stand with them. There are some [Palestinian] women who are denied access to scholarships. There have been Fulbright scholars banned from leaving the country to pursue higher education. There are just so many levels of oppression that all Palestinian people experience, but in particular, women.

And she ignores the internal societal problems women face that has no connection to the "occupation" as reported here in 2013:

Twenty-seven women are thought to have been killed last year in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by family members claiming reasons of  “honor” — more than double the 13 cases documented in 2012. The age-old rationale can serve as a cover for domestic abuse, inheritance disputes, rape, incest or the desire to punish female independence

and in their recent report, even Amnesty made a 

"brief comment on “violence against women... particularly within Palestinian communities in Israel.”

and this month we read the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) documentation that:

On the Palestinian internal level, women's suffering continues due to the ongoing state of gender-based discrimination and increased as well due to the poverty high rates and domestic violence. PCHR documented the killing of 6 women in security chaos incidents; two of whom were killed on grounds of the so-called “family honor”.

The situation of oppression is worse, however:

Palestinian women's rights groups are demanding the revocation of an article of Palestinian Authority law that they say allows criminals to get away with murder. According to Article 99 of Penal Law No. 16 of 1960, the family of a murder victim is permitted to "waive its personal right" to justice and forgive the crime. In such cases, the length and severity of punishment is significantly reduced.
 However, given that the vast majority of violence against Palestinian women is domestic, the family of the murder victim is often the family of the murderer as well. Thus, the Palestinian Director of the Women's Courts Project in the TAM organization Victoria Shukri explained, "In 95% of the murders of women in Palestine, the [victim's] personal right is waived."

and

Palestinian Media Watch reported on upsurges in Palestinian "honor killings" in 2012 and 2014. According to the official PA daily, 53% of Palestinian women have suffered from violence. In 45.9% of the cases, the violence was perpetrated by the victim's father, while in 25.5% of the cases it was perpetrated by her brother.  [Official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 28, 2014]. 

3.

You’ve probably seen that any visible Palestinian-American woman who is at the forefront of any social-justice movement is an immediate target of the right wing and right-wing Zionists. They will go to any extreme to criminalize us and to engage in alternative facts, to sew together a narrative that does not exist. 

Well, criminals should be treated as criminals.  But here's a response from someone who makes a good point:

You yourself said in your now famous Women’s March speech, “When we fight for justice, we fight for it for all people”. Apparently, you meant for all people except for Jews who believe that they also deserve a state that protects them. Your statement that a woman cannot truly be a feminist if she is a Zionist excludes people and makes them feel unwelcome and unwanted in your version of feminism. It also shows your true colors and your true hate, your true discrimination and your true exclusiveness. I hope the world opens up their eyes and sees this and stops shining its spotlight on you as a feminist to follow and to emulate.

4.

You can’t be a feminist in the United States and stand up for the rights of the American woman and then say that you don’t want to stand up for the rights of Palestinian women in Palestine. It’s all connected. 

Yes, it is all connected but isn't it amazing how many feminists, okay, let's be clear, Jewish American feminists support Arab women in Israel and in the territories?  Doesn't that tell you something about the value and quality of Jewish/Zionist feminism?

I blogged previously about your effort to raise funds for a desecrated Jewish cemetery in St. Louis. Excellent.  I thank you even from Shiloh.  But what about the Jewish cemetery in Jerusalem, ,more than 2500 years old, desecrated and vandalized by Arabs?  It started during the 19 years Jews were banned from Jerusalem under the Jordanian illegal occupation and continues.

Where was/is your voice on that?

Does your feminism sensitivity for injustice stop at that because you are Palestinian?

Are you hypocritical?

Can I discount your feminist credentials because all you are doing is manipulating and exploiting feminism to deny Zionism?

_______

More 'good' stuff.


And here's Mayim Bialik. 

And will Sarsour answer these questions:

where those feminists and John Kerry were when millions of Egyptian women needed their support when they marched against the Muslim Brotherhood, asking for America's help. Where were they when thousands of Syrian and Iraqi women were enslaved and raped by radical ISIS militants?

UPDATE

Sarsour responds to a FB comment by Sarah Tuttle-Singer and I picked out some of the conversation:

Avi Eisenman I'd be interested to hear Linda Sarsour directly respond to Sarah's question about condemning "violence and acts of terror that slay mothers inside their homes and little girls in their bedrooms "

Iris Richman Chiming in here, Linda Sarsour and I had a bit of a twitter discussion a couple of days ago. As a person who really wants us to be able to work together- and as a rabbi - I'd be happy to convene a meeting in NYC. The meeting is for those who want to work together and not for anyone who has prejudged. Linda, would you come?

Tiffany Loria My question as she affirms that you "...cannot be a supporter of Israel and not criticize and call for an end to the occupation...." ...so my question then Linda Sarsour....do you do the same and criticize the horrors that Hamas and the PA inflict

Noam Besdin Linda, on the off chance the trolls here haven't chased you away: I understand that you are particularly sensitive to Palestinian suffering, but do you see that when you say you are fighting for womens' rights all over the world (and more power to you ...

Linda Sarsour It's simple. It's because Israel receives the LARGEST US military aid package by far so our tax payer dollars pay for the oppression of Palestinians including Palestinian women. We help fund the occupation. It is our responsibility as Americans to demand that our government not aid the oppression of any groups. We do not fund Boko Haram who are a horrific group of people terrorizing women and communities, we do not fund Hamas, or Al Qaeda, etc.

Noah Ben Yes, please ignore the trolls. They're deplorable. Could you please just answer my very basic question however. There's a closed group of over 1500 people watching / waiting for a response.

David Seidenberg The truth about Linda Sarsour's interview in The Nation is that the Nation distorted her position to get more clicks. Here's what I wrote about it, before I saw Sarsour's confirming letter to Sarah Tuttle-Singer: "Sarsour and the left-right conspiracy: Did The Nation lie?"

"The actual question Sarsour asks, and answers in the negative, is this one: “Is there room in the movement for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it?” That’s a pretty important question....

"We are getting sucked into a trap. The funny thing is that the trap is not being laid by the right-wing but by people on the left...

"Here’s a final question to challenge anyone else who may think you can’t be a Zionist and a feminist. Do you think you can be an observant Muslim and a feminist? If radical leftists want to measure Islam in the same way that they measure Zionism, the answer has to be no. But if you recognize that what it means to be a real change agent for others is to also be a change agent for one’s own community and culture, then you will know that the answer has to be yes."

And I added this:

Sarah Tuttle-Singer Is this Linda Sarsour's comment? "...It's because Israel receives the LARGEST US military aid package by far so our tax payer dollars pay for the oppression of Palestinians including Palestinian women. We help fund the occupation. It is our responsibility as Americans to demand that our government not aid the oppression of any groups. We do not fund Boko Haram who are a horrific group of people terrorizing women and communities, we do not fund Hamas, or Al Qaeda, etc." Well, she's lying. (See here) and actually they were funding Hamas through tax-exempt societies and more (See) (and also)

All Sarsour knows is anti-Zionist lies and calumnies and she covers for terror groups. 

_________

And Annika Hernroth-Rothstein

^