Naomi Wolf’s Embrace of Hamas Spells the Fall of a Feminist Icon

[shira]

Boteach's political views are rightwing conservative, but he nails it on this one. I'm posting this because IMHO Wolf's warped, hypocritical views are typical throughout the anti-zionist movement.

=================================================

...The first red flag is that despite Naomi being a world-renowned feminist, she at times seems to betray her own beliefs. In 2008 she wrote an article lauding the dress code for women in the Muslim world. She starts by describing “a woman swathed in black to her ankles, wearing a headscarf or a full chador walks down a European or North American street, surrounded by other women in halter tops, miniskirts and short shorts.” She continues that while traveling in Morocco, Jordan and Egypt, she came to the conclusion that, “The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I traveled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women’s appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression but in a strong sense of public versus private.” Now I am all for extolling the virtues of women who choose to dress modestly but only when it is the product of choice and not coercion. But in many countries, such as Iran, women face prosecution for dressing immodestly and in countries like Afghanistan they face violent reprisals. Naomi also omits mention of the approximately 100 million Muslim women who have experienced some form of female genital mutilation. Feminist author Phyllis Chesler, who herself lived in Afghanistan as a virtual slave in her marriage, responded to Naomi’s palliating and glaring omissions. She wrote, “Most Muslim girls and women are not given a choice about wearing the chador, burqa, abaya, niqab, jilbab, or hijab (headscarf), and those who resist are beaten, threatened with death, arrested, caned or lashed, jailed, or honor-murdered by their own families.” Chesler asked if Naomi was so “thoroughly unfamiliar with the news coming out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan on these very subjects.” Naomi adds a small caveat at the end of her whitewash that says choice is important when it comes to dressing modesty. But this does nothing to correct the damage caused by her failure to call out and condemn the oppressive Middle Eastern cultural norms that many women endure on a daily basis.

Naomi has no issue in falsely condemning Israel for genocidal mass murder while simultaneously acting as an apologist for the suffering of far too many women at the hands of radical Islamists. While she has the strongest distrust of every statement stemming from Israeli leaders, Naomi seems only too ready to believe almost anything coming from the mouth of Hamas terror leader Khaled Meshaal. With regards to the interview that Meshaal gave to Charlie Rose, she wrote on July 29, “Reposting. This interview seems reasonable. But in the U.S. it is being spun as ‘Hamas leaders says he will never coexist with Israel.’ That is not exactly what he said…he said the occupation must end then Palestine can decide as a sovereign nation what its relationship to Israel shall be. Which is, as I understand it, how the law of nations works?…” Naomi manages to somehow miss the dozens of recent videos in which Hamas leaders, including Meshaal, call for the total annihilation of Israel and the genocide of all its Jews. In regard to another Meshaal interview she writes, “Elias Eskander says that this interview shows Hamas asking for ‘67 borders not to wipe out Israel….Take that Fox news!” She writes this even while the official Hamas charter continues to call for the murder of every Jew in every country on the face of the earth. Naomi repeatedly questions what solid evidence exists that the tunnels leading into Israel were actually meant to be used to murder and kidnap civilians. I assume she thinks they were perhaps built as a kind of Cony Island Tunnel of Love. She ignores the thousand of rockets fired into Israel by Hamas, whose only intention is the mass murder of her own people. Her dedication to defending Hamas seems something of an irrational addiction. In one post she defends Hamas by condemning people who “repeat the uncritical allegations of the IDF that Hamas is “hiding” among civilians. Where else the f– are they supposed to go NOT to ‘hide”? Gaza is all civilian! There is no battlefield!” This astonishing comment demonstrates not only a total ignorance of Gaza topography but justifies Hamas using schools for weapons caches and infirmaries and hospitals to fire rockets. It would also deny Israel the right to defend itself so long as Hamas terrorists reside among civilians.

But not content to demonize Israel, Naomi is so enmeshed with conspiracy theories that she even questions whether ISIS is a true dander. Last Saturday she posted, “And I am very sorry to report that Obama has put together a coalition of nine money-grubbing War Inc oligarchs, sorry, allied nations, to hunt ISIS creating pretext for all kinds of metanational heavy breathing mayhem.” One can only assume that by “creating pretext” she is referring to the thousands of innocent Arabs that ISIS has shot in the heads and crucified. It seems that if Arabs murder other Arabs Naomi has no real objection, just as long as they are not Palestinian terrorists killed by Israel. While Christians, Muslims, Yazidis, and Americans are beheaded by ISIS, Naomi chooses to leisurely ponder and philosophize the merits of her skepticism on how bad ISIS truly is. Perhaps she should talk to one of the thousands of young Arab girls who have been sold into sexual slavery by ISIS to determine if this constitutes the kind of evil to which a renowned feminist ought to object.

[font color = "red"]An analysis of Naomi’s views demonstrate an irreconcilable contradiction between her feminist, humanitarian side and the radical left wing propaganda she has so thoroughly embraced. Naomi’s decision to side with the latter has not only contributed to her trivializing genocide. Sadly, it has utterly undermined her credentials as a champion of women the world so sorely needs.

[/font]

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/09/08/naomi-wolf%E2%80%99s-embrace-of-hamas-spells-the-fall-of-a-feminist-icon/

[DanTex]

1. When did "embrace of Hamas" become synonymous with "not sufficiently Islamophobic"?

Not a surprise that this article is written by a right-winger. Seems to be a pattern in this forum.

As usual, there's no actual quote of Naomi Wolf saying anything remotely similar to "I support Hamas". In case anyone wants to here from Naomi Wolf herself rather than some right-winger criticizing her, here's an interview of her discussing similar accusations made by other Islamophobes against her:

NYO: In the real world, there’s no country in history that hasn’t done things that are shameful, immoral and unconscionable. Does Israel have some sort of special requirement because of the high esteem in which you hold Jewish values?

Naomi Wolf: No. Obviously, no country should be judged any differently from any other country. I focus on universal human rights. I have seen genocide in Rwanda, I went to Sierra Leone and wrote about genocide, I interviewed girls who were kidnapped as sex slaves. I watched people rescue girls from warlords. I wrote about America’s abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and I wrote about Muslim clitorectomy. I’m completely consistent – everywhere there’s a violation of human rights I try to point it out. I asked my readers, “Why does Hamas fire on civilians?” I don’t understand it, even from the pro-Palestinain side. I am a supporter of Israel. I am a very loyal Jew and a supporter of Israel, in asking us to think about what are Jewish values.

http://observer.com/2014/08/the-observer-interviews-naomi-wolf-on-the-war-in-israel-and-gaza/

[shira]

3. Let's start with the first point Wolf made. Veiling of women isn't repression....

You agree with Wolf?

Women should be free to wear what they want, but they aren't. Why?

[DanTex]

9. Umm, no, let's start with the title of the OP: "Naomi Wolf's embrace of Hamas".

Utterly absurd, and nothing in the OP remotely suggests that.

I think anyone should dress however they want. I'm sure Naomi Wolf agrees. Or maybe you can point me to where she claims women should be forced to dress a certain way agains their will. The OP certainly hasn't.

[shira]

13. Fine. Naomi Wolf goes out of her way to defend Hamas war crimes...

In one post she defends Hamas by condemning people who “repeat the uncritical allegations of the IDF that Hamas is “hiding” among civilians. Where else the f– are they supposed to go NOT to ‘hide”? Gaza is all civilian! There is no battlefield!”

That's defending war crimes.

And she was quoted stating veiled women in burkas is NOT a form of repression.

[DanTex]

17. She's responding to the common excuse given for Israeli war crimes. I'm sure you've heard it before.

That would be the "uncritical allegations of the IDF", which I'm sure you accept uncritically.

In the article above she was quoted saying that Muslim women she talked to didn't view wearing veils in the same way as the West did. Again, if you can quote her saying women should be forced to dress that way against her will, I'd be interested.

[shira]

22. And that "excuse" is a fact that Hamas defenders deny or defend.

Progessives have no business defending Hamas fascists and their war crimes.

And now you're just making excuses for Wolf's claim that burkas aren't repressive. She went out of her way to deny it.

Not.Very.Progressive.

Not.Liberal.

[DanTex]

26. Progressive's shouldn't defend any war crimes, be they Israeli or Hamas.

Speaking of progressive, you're the one who linked to a right-wing Islamophobe.

As far as Muslim clothing, I'm still waiting for the quote where she claims women should be forced to dress a certain way against their will. Evidently your right-wing friend couldn't find one. I doubt you'll do any better.

[shira]

30. But Wolf does, and that's the point.

Who's a right-wing Islamophobe, Boteach? He repeatedly writes about his Muslim brothers and sisters. Islamophobes do not do that.

Burkas are repressive, agreed?

[DanTex]

38. Again, she's responding to an excuse that Israel makes for war crimes.

She's not defending war crimes, she's holding Israel accountable for them. It's the opposite.

Oh, and keep defending that Islamophobe Boteach. I think that's great. Don't hide your allegiances.

Forcing women to dress in a certain way is repressive.

[shira]

41. She's not defending war crimes? What Hamas is doing....

...when they set-up military operations within a civilian population (in hospitals, schools, homes, mosques) or when they fire from those locations is a war crime. It shouldn't be defended, but it is.

She's not defending war crimes, she's holding Israel accountable for them. It's the opposite.

When Wolf argues Hamas has no other choice but to use Gazans as a human shield, THAT is defending war crimes.

Oh, and keep defending that Islamophobe Boteach. I think that's great. Don't hide your allegiances.

Nothing to defend. I haven't seen anything demonstrating Boteach is an Islamophobe. If the evidence is there, I have no problem condemning someone for their bigotry.

Forcing women to dress in a certain way is repressive.

And Wolf denied that. She defended misogynists who force women to wear burkas.

“The West interprets veiling as repression of women and suppression of their sexuality. But when I traveled in Muslim countries and was invited to join a discussion in women-only settings within Muslim homes, I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women’s appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression but in a strong sense of public versus private.”

[DanTex]

55. She's talking about the excuse that Israel makes for its war crimes: "they're all human shields".

If you have a quote of her approving of intentionally setting up military operations in hospitals in order to use them as human shields, I'd be interested. But given your track record, I'm not holding my breath...


Regarding the burqas, you'll note that the words "misogynists" "force" and "burqas" don't appear anywhere in that quote. This is another instance of you, like the right-wing Islamophobe from the OP, putting words into her mouth. In fact, in this case, you are even worse than him. He at least admits that "Naomi adds a small caveat at the end of her whitewash that says choice is important when it comes to dressing modesty." Of course, only a right-wing nut would think that the difference of dressing a certain way by choice or being forced is a "small caveat", but unlike you, he at least recognizes that there actually is a difference.

[shira]

58. LOL @ your ridiculous attempts to defend the indefensible. We're done. n/t

[DanTex]

60. OK. And I'll LOL at the fact that you fall flat when you can't put words in other people's mouths.

It's easy to defend your beliefs when you simply make things up.

[shira]

65. Okay, so riddle me this one: Here's an Indian camera crew....

Is that evidence of Hamas war crimes in your view? Is that human shielding? Are you able to condemn such war crimes?

[DanTex]

68. I believe that Hamas commits war crime. I also believe that Israel commits war crimes.

I condemn Hamas for their war crimes. I also condemn Israel for theirs.

We're a long way from "Naomi Wolf embraces Hamas".

[shira]

69. Okay, but I asked you about this specifically. This video shows human shielding....

Hamas embedding its weaponry and firing from within a dense civilian population.

I wanted to see if you could acknowledge THIS particular crime and condemn it.

Thanks.

[Aerows]

74. Okay, and that is damn right.

We are a long way from Naomi Wolff defending war crimes, so I think that settles this farcical debate that she endorses, is an apologist or in any way a war-mongering defender of war crimes.

I'm glad somehow we managed to get through to you through this long thread of horrendous accusations against a woman that has done nothing more than state facts.

[shira]

79. Read my comment from the OP. It's not as much about Naomi Wolf as it is....

....about Israel's most hostile critics, antizionists, who defend Hamas war crimes by denying they exist - or like in Wolf's case - defending them by making excuses.

You guys prove my point and demonstrate you are incapable of acknowledging Hamas war crimes caught on video. You can neither acknowledge them or condemn them. By taking Wolf's position, you're defending Hamas. What else can they do....

The question is WHY you do it.

[Aerows]

80. It's about slander.

I won't let it stand. Case closed. You proved OUR point that the article is, to put it politely, full of erroneous conclusion.

I'm pretty civil, so I will refrain from calling it a load of horse feces attempting to broad-brush a woman who has committed her life to defending other women and highlighting the effects of sexism on society as a "war crime defender".

Oh wait, I just did. Taking this truck load of garbage to a liberal website then defending it is asking to have a weak, nefarious argument decimated.

I guess I'm guilty of war crimes now because I took part in the annihilation of your feeble assertions.

[shira]

82. Wolf defended Hamas fascists committing clear war crimes...

She argued:

Where else the f– are they supposed to go NOT to ‘hide”? Gaza is all civilian! There is no battlefield!”

You saw a video for yourself of these war crimes. I asked you whether Hamas really had no choice but to do what they did. You did not answer.

It's because you couldn't. Wolf's position cannot be defended reasonably.

[Aerows]

83. FAILURE. n/t

[shira]

84. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge & condemn Hamas war crimes? n/t

[Aerows]

85. Probably less difficult

than for you to admit that the article that you posted is so incredibly slanderous towards a decent and formidable advocate for woman's rights that it is lower than whale shit.

If admissions are your goal here.

[DanTex]

86. In my opinion, that video shows a war crime.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances, which I can't think of what they would be. Moreover, if the rockets being launched are targeted at civilians, then that is also a war crime, regardless of where they are launched from.

I guess I need to repeat yet again that I am not a supporter of Hamas, and I'm not at all surprised to come across individual instances of war crimes committed by them.

Again, we've strayed very far from the OP you posted by a right-winger slandering Naomi Wolf for not being sufficiently Islamophobic and apologetic for Israeli military aggression against civilians.

[shira]

101. THANK YOU for acknowledging Hamas war crimes.

I didn't expect that out of you or anyone else here.

As you can see from other responders here, they are allergic to acknowledging Hamas war crimes and condemning them.

=========

As to Naomi Wolf, she very clearly defended Hamas' use of civilians as human shields. Here's what she argued:

In one post she defends Hamas by condemning people who “repeat the uncritical allegations of the IDF that Hamas is “hiding” among civilians. Where else the f– are they supposed to go NOT to ‘hide”? Gaza is all civilian! There is no battlefield!” This astonishing comment demonstrates not only a total ignorance of Gaza topography but justifies Hamas using schools for weapons caches and infirmaries and hospitals to fire rockets. It would also deny Israel the right to defend itself so long as Hamas terrorists reside among civilians.

Wolf defended Hamas war crimes.

As you could see in that one video example, Hamas had other alternatives. They weren't forced to put those rockets in-between apartment/hotel complexes.

Why is it so difficult for folks here to be big fans of Wolf WHILE condemning some of what she brings to the table?

[intaglio]

90. By following Israeli propaganda you, personally, are justifying war crimes

So the missiles are set up on disposable launchers in a vacant lot. A fact of which the IDF are well aware.

The missiles are fired remotely. A fact of which the IDF are well aware

A return of fire to this general area will have no effect upon Hamas terrorists. A fact of which the IDF are well aware

If the Israelis return fire committing a war crime and justify it by shouting like an 8 year old "that the other kid did it first". A war crime does not justify another war crime.

[King_David]

95. Nope, thats not true at all,

Back to the drawing board and try again.

[Aerows]

96. Do you think this article is a fair assessment of Naomi Wolf's positions

It is painted as though she is some sort of sympathizer of anti-Semitism, terrorist acts and support for terrorist acts perpetrated by Hamas.

I'm not asking you to denounce either the article author or any Naomi Wolf fan. I'm just stating plainly that an attempt to characterize her as an anti-Semite Hamas embracing individual is ... well, the description would include the letter F and the end would go something like Up.

I think the OP and the article author are way off base.

[shira]

105. Do u think it was fair of Wolf to accuse Israel of genocide....

...while at the same time excusing and defending Hamas' war crimes committed against the Gazan civilian population?

[chervilant]

110. Radical left wing propaganda

should have been a big clue about this author's agenda:

An analysis of Naomi’s views demonstrate an irreconcilable contradiction between her feminist, humanitarian side and the radical left wing propaganda she has so thoroughly embraced.

(Reading the back and forth herein above makes me wonder if the person who posted this OP is blinded by a similar agenda...)

[intaglio]

99. Would you say it is OK to murder the relatives of a murderer?

After all you could argue they allowed him/her to achieve his crimes?

Or do you think that due process should play some part and that the agencies acting against the criminal should limit their response to avoid collateral damage?

From the way you and Shira post you prefer the style of punishment like the Biblical "... unto the 7th generation,"

[King_David]

109. No that's also not true

I don't believe in the bible . Any more insults ?

[intaglio]

115. Erm, It isn't an insult

It is using a common abridgement of quotes from Genesis (unto the 3rd and 4th generations) and Deuteronomy (unto the 10th Generation) to highlight a primitive and uncivilised view of right action. If I recall correctly those two books are part of the Tanakh.

What next you'll condemn me for quoting Shakespeare because you don't believe he wrote the plays?

[King_David]

116. Quote from wherever you want,

I see no authority in the bible, means nothing to me.
But carry on.

[intaglio]

117. So you deny the very great heritage of literature and quotation

that comes via the Tanakh through the Pentacheuch into the Syriac and Coptic and Roman Bibles into English by one of the most wonderful efforts at translation ever - the King James Version. FFS I'm an atheist and I know how important the fabrications in these holy books is to modern society

By denying the Tanakh you deny the Jewish heritage and culture that provided the impetus for the formation of Israel itself.

Of course you do not deny the Tanakh. Your user name betrays that for there is no physical evidence of a King David only the fabulous preliterary traditions recorded in that book.

[King_David]

118. Jewish ethnic heritage and culture

Doesn't come from the bible for the majority of Jews .

This is a good learning point for you if you gonna be an expert on IP ( not you in particular but half the people posting here , all 8/16 posting in this group)

[intaglio]

119. So you deny the Tanakh and its importance to Judaism and Israel

Right. You are aware that this depicts you as ignorant. You presume that the belief of many Jews that their homeland was Israel hence stimulating the Zionist movement from the mid-19th Century had no basis in the legends and tales of the Tanakh?

If what you believe is true why not support the French plan to ship Jewish refugees to Madagascar or Indo-China so they could have a homeland there?

[King_David]

120. "that this depicts you as ignorant."

Ha ha

As for the rest of your post maybe try the religious group.

Bye

[intaglio]

121. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion

It has everything to do with the motivation behind the Return. It has everything to do with Jewish identity and the way the Jewish state justifies its actions to the outside world. It has everything to do with the bigotry with which the Jewish peoples were and are treated. It bears upon the blindness exhibited by those who see the only fault as being the in Palestinians camp for daring to claim both human and land rights in Israel.

You are utterly ignorant of the history and culture of Israel as both a secular and Jewish state. You pontificate about justification and blame with no knowledge of the background.

Why should any person pay any attention to your arguments when they lack any foundations?

[King_David]

128. One thing you have is fantastic insight into yourself .

That is an excellent self description .

Not many people can do that.

Shcaich

[intaglio]

135. So no answers only more ignorance.

and nonsense.

Go and read a few history books and stop pretending to have any insights into matters in Israel and Palestine.

[King_David]

137. Terrific self insight

[King_David]

140. So let me get this right...

Your educating me on Diaspara Jewish culture ?

Is that right ?

I grew up immersed in that culture , how about you ?

[intaglio]

142. Well obviously I'll have to educate you - It is spelt DIASPORA

and like most shallow thinker you believe that the Diaspora was always forced. Actually it was a continuous process from at least the time of the Maccabees; this is why the Greek, Macedonian, Pontic, Crimean and Egyptian Jewish communities were formed so early. Incidentally the largest civic population of Israelites in the ancient world at the time of the 6 CE revolt in Galilee was probably in Alexandria.

[King_David]

143. I was brought up in this culture ,

You ?

[intaglio]

144. Unlike you I have done some reading and followed the history

You cannot absorb knowledge by diffusion.

Being "brought up" in a culture is not a sufficient way to learn about it. In the past this lead to the preposterously inflated views like those that the English or the French or the Germans or the Japanese or the Chinese have held about themselves. The history of the Jewish peoples is massively important to European culture not least because of religion, banking and the diffusion of knowledge; because of that I set out to learn.

I suggest you do the same

[King_David]

146. So you read a book about Golah Jewish

Culture and now you can teach those of us brought up and immersed in this culture about our culture ?

Bye bye , this is enough of this odd conversation for me, maybe try the Jewish Group and see what they have to say there.

[intaglio]

148. I have read many books on many subjects

whereas you could not inform yourself about the spelling of the term for dispersion of the Jewish peoples across the world.

You are aware that genetically the Ashkenazi Jews are not full Jews? That their mitochondrial DNA derives from 3 Slavic women probably Kazakh?

You are aware that many Sefardim, following the Spanish oppression, returned to Palestine and lived there?

You are aware that many Palestinians have Jewish ancestry because many of the Jews living in Palestine at the time of the Muslim conquest converted to Islam?

That the term Mizrahim refers to Jews who have kept their faith but remained in the Middle and Near East?

You are aware that the Kazakhs of the Crimea and Georgia were converted to Judaism but most converted to Islam?

You are aware that the Ethiop Jews (although governed by the Sefardi Chief Rabbi) follow yet another tradition, Haymanot?

You are aware that Rabbinic Judaism is not the Judaism of the time of the 2nd Temple?

You are aware that the Romans did not expel all Jews from Palestine after 70 CE?

You are aware that the Romans did not expel all Jews from Palestine after the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 CE?

Your ignorance is boundless and, given your political preferences, inexcusable.

[King_David]

149. Not sure who your "arguing" with

Or even what your saying here since I didn't bring up any of that ancient history or bible stuff .

Try the religion group maybe .

Ignorance ? About YOUR argument here and about what YOU are trying to say ?
YES I am. LOL.

Not quite sure who or what your argument is all about , seems like a religion thing , not quite sure as it makes no sense to me whatsoever .



(My " political preferences" are those of the Democratic Party of the USA. . )

[intaglio]

150. My argument is with you and your tortured attempts to belittle anyone opposed to you

You claim to have insights about the current position in the Middle East yet you deny the relevance of religion to this and totally uninformed as to the history of the area. You are utterly ignorant of the motives and misapprehensions that drove the formation of the State of Israel. You seem to regard the Jewish peoples in Israel as having a racial and cultural unity when they do not.

What do you have to offer to this conversation apart from misinformation and prejuduce?

[King_David]

151. You are 100% correct

I have absolutely no idea what your argument is all about , I am completely ignorant about what your arguing with me about and I'm 100% clueless in what your arguing about.

I do however think people in the religious forum may find it both relevant and interesting .

Cheers !

[shira]

102. You realize the IDF never fired upon that particular location, right?

I'd like to see you first acknowledge and then condemn this blatant war crime by Hamas before we continue.

Are you capable of doing that?

[intaglio]

106. I did not say it did at that time

But Israel does justify its war crimes by saying that missiles are fired from a particular location.

[shira]

108. Are you capable of acknowledging Hamas war crimes & condemning them?

Surprise me by acknowledging this is a clear violation of IHL and proof of Hamas' cynical use of Gazans as human shields. Let's see a full-throated condemnation of this war crime.

Go for it!

[intaglio]

112. Try reading for comprehension

Israel uses the war crimes of Hamas to justify the war crimes it commits.

Similarly Hamas uses the war crimes that Israel commits to justify its criminal acts

I condemn both Israel and Hamas, just as I would condemn vengeful fools who would slaughter the family members of a murderer extending it into a feud where hundreds die. People, organisations and states that conduct this sort of criminal activities are culpable for their won actions. Those who defend the criminals, on whatever side they might be, are moral imbeciles.

Now I have made clear my condemnation let us see your condemnation of the actions of the Israeli state from the time of the Nakba onwards.

[shira]

122. Okay, but I asked you about the video. It shows human shielding....

I want you to comment on that war crime in particular. There are many DU'ers here denying Hamas uses civilians as human shields. When they don't deny it, they make excuses for it, defending Hamas.

Like you, I condemn senseless killing and war crimes everywhere, but I want specificity in this case.

I only ask because I've noticed Israel's most hostile critics are INCAPABLE of acknowledging Hamas' human shielding war crimes.

[intaglio]

124. Only in the most general sense, it shows missiles being prepared and fired from waste ground

It is from a time when the IDF were approaching Gaza city. In actual practise it is as much a "human shield" as the IRA hiding out amongst the innocent Catholic population or the North Vietnamese having the audacity to have air defenses in populated areas.

Now would you care to condemn ISRAEL. I too asked for you to be specific.

[shira]

126. So that video does NOT show human shielding by Hamas...?

That's not a war crime you can condemn, is that right?

[intaglio]

133. I - did - not - say - that

I said it was in a general sense hence, yes, I condemn it. But as I pointed out there are circumstances which make it far less egregious and I gave examples.

Now, how next will you dodge condemning Israel?

[shira]

136. Not strong acknowledgement or condemnation there....

Here's where I'm coming from...

There are WAY too many people out there and far too many bullshit articles DENYING Hamas uses the civilian population as human shields. I'm just testing to see whether you're from that camp, also reluctant to call Hamas out because it's more important to bash Israel, trying to get others to believe Israel targets civilians out of malice......NOT because Hamas makes it near impossible for Israel to defend their civilians.

[intaglio]

138. So I gather from this that condemnation is not enough only "strong" condemnation

Essentially you will do all in your power to avoid specifically condemning Israel either strongly or weakly

This is not argument, this is blind worship of a criminal state bolstered by talking points taken from the propaganda groups on Reddit. In essence you are no different from the vile historians who deny the Holocaust, you are just on a different side of the fence.

[shira]

139. I don't have a problem calling things as I see them, but you do....

This is a clear-cut case of Hamas using civilians as a human shield, you can't acknowledge it as that and you certainly won't condemn it strongly for the war crime that it most certainly is, DESPITE claiming you support Palestinian civilians. Sorry, but when you can't be bothered by what Hamas does, you get called on your "support" for Palestinians.

If you have examples of Israeli war crimes, I have no problem condemning them. Israel has screwed up before, but they're a vibrant democracy and they have mechanisms for accountability. If you have an example from this summer of a clear-cut Israeli war crime, then bring it.

[intaglio]

141. I have condemned you have not - simple

You will defend the vile Israeli state beyond reason for you are unable to see the gross flaws in that.

Let us begin with something everybody agrees was a war crime; Sabra and Shatila. The toothless Kahan commission found that it was a war crime instigated by Sharon and Eitan through the use of Lebanese Phalangist militias. Despite Kahan's findings the Israeli Prime Minister did nothing to these criminals until a popular demonstrations forced Sharon to resign his post as Defence Minister; note he was not forced out of public life, nor was he committed for prosecution at the Hague - instead he was made Minister without Portfolio and retained his position on the Cabinet.

Sabra and Shatila were war crimes enable by the direct connivance of these evil men who acted as part of the Israeli Government - surely you can condemn them?

What of the Hannibal directive? This is the attempt to murder Israeli troops captured by Hamas terrorists by carpet bombardment of the area where they were captured or are believed to be held no matter who else might be in the area. Are you not willing to condemn this war crime? and please do not try to weasel out of this by saying "These troops were kidnapped," these humans were are custody and alive until the IDF slaughtered them.

What of the use of flechette shells against majority civilian areas, shells that literally reduce those nearby to mincemeat? Under the Hague conventions such weapons are forbidden for use in majority civilian areas. Such use is a war crime.

What of deliberate bombardment of majority civilian areas without allowing time for non-combatants to evacuate fully? This is a war crime.

What of the deliberate shooting of medical workers attempting to aid the injured? Such activity is a war crime.

How about withholding the import of humanitarian supplies so condemning the innocent to die? Such blockade is a war crime.

What of deliberate destruction of sanitary and humanitarian infrastructure? This too is a war crime

All of this could be condemned weakly or strongly by anyone with a conscience - so what is your position?

[shira]

145. You defended Hamas war crimes, stating they're not such a big deal...

...only in a general sense and no worse than others. Now you're so proud of yourself for being balanced in your criticism of both sides.



So knowing I'm dealing with someone who defends war crimes against the Palestinian people when perpetrated by non-Israeli actors, you get your answer:

=======

And your 1st example of an Israeli war crime is from over 30 years ago in which Christian Phalangists were the direct perpetrators? The same Phalangists who have NEVER been held accountable by any Israel bashers EVER?

Seriously?

What happened to all the war crimes allegedly committed THIS summer in Gaza by Israel? Surely you have one example. Come on...

I once supplied a link to the Kahan findings here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=32612

Of course I condemn what happened there and the judgment was warranted, but there's nothing from the Kahan Report demonstrating that Sharon or anyone else knew of an imminent massacre, or helped perpetrate it. If that had happened, it would have been a clear-cut war crime, like Srebrenica (in which Dutch UN troops to this day have never been held to account). Not that any Israel bashers give a crap about it, and THAT example is magnitudes more egregious than Israel's role in Lebanon. I'm betting you're a big fan of the UN due to its hostility against Israel. So much to be proud of there....

[intaglio]

147. I still condemned - unlike you

The Kahan findings were fine
[font size="4"]BUT THEY WERE NOT ENFORCED[/font]
The Commission was utterly toothless.

Do you condemn the Israeli government's inaction on these findings?

Or are you just a mindless pawn?

[shira]

153. Kahan recommended Sharon be dismissed as Defense Minister

Sharon and M.Begin refused to abide but after public outcry he finally resigned. I agree with the verdict and recommendation. Begin was wrong. I condemn the GOI's inaction due to the Supreme Court's decision. Actually, any decision by the Supreme Court that the GOI fails to abide by should be condemned.

2 things:

1. There were no war crimes attributed to Israel here. I thought that's what we were debating/condemning. So...?

2. I don't recall ever seeing any of Israel's hostile critics working on keeping the Phalangists accountable for the massacre they perpetrated. Since this episode obviously means a lot to you, what do you say about that? Are you not embarassed by those most hostile to Israel who couldn't care less about Phalange responsibility?

[intaglio]

154. He recommended Sharon be dismissed from Government

He never was he remained in the Cabinet as Minister without Portfolio. He was not even dismissed as Defence Minister until after embarrassing public protests.

Now these Lebanese events were a war crimes in exactly the same way as the occupying power in Lithuania and the Ukraine allowing and enabling those militias to slaughter Jews was a war crime. Additionally Sharon engaged in a policy of coving up these war crimes Lebanon both encouraging and allowing those camps to be bulldozed.

I will not ask again if you will condemn Israel because it is utterly apparent that you are either acting deliberately as a propagandist or you are so utterly blind to the manifest faults of the Israeli Regime that it amounts to a cognitive deficit.

[shira]

155. And I condemned Sharon and Begin for not following the Supreme Court...

What else do you want from me?

Kahan never ruled that war crimes were committed. Unlike your examples in Lithuania or Ukraine, there was no evidence Sharon and his men knew of any massacre occurring. That's according to Kahan.

I won't ask you again WHY folks like yourself couldn't care less whether the actual perpetrators (Phalange Christians) were ever held accountable. I can't find any record of Israel's most hostile critics EVER calling for justice against the Phalangists. You'll have to excuse me for not taking your "concern" for those killed at Sabra/Shatilla seriously. This historical event obviously means a lot to you but it's not because of those who were massacred. Your only interest in this is to bash Israel, not to see whether justice is ever carried out.

[Cartoonist]

89. Back at you

Progessives have no business defending Hamas fascists and their war crimes.
-
Replace Hamas with Israel, and delete fascists because you don't know what it means.

[shira]

107. You don't agree that Hamas are fascists? n/t

[Cartoonist]

111. No

Words have meanings. The word fascist is misused by ignorant people as a pejorative. Look it up and see if it applies to Hamas, then get back to me.

[shira]

113. Hamas meets all the criteria for being a fascist organization. n/t

[Cartoonist]

114. If you say so

You have a definition problem. Look up the word embrace then tell me that Naomi Wolf meets all the criteria.

[MFM008]

77. once again any criticism

of Israel, including its own war crimes, your a jew hating hamas supporter.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[samsingh]

93. i'm disgusted with naomi wolf

[Aerows]

25. Same old either/or argument.

"Either you are against "____" or you are for "_____". Same old tactics, over and over again.

"If you believe a woman should be allowed to wear a habib, then you are saying all women must wear habibs!!1!ONE!

It's a lame line of argument, but one that gets dragged out of the toilet every single time someone uses critical thinking skills and rational discourse to discuss a situation that is unfavorable to the person dragging it out.

[arcane1]

34. And it is a disease that infects too much of DU these days, regardless of the topic.

That's why I refrain from asking honest questions about NSA/Snowden or the situation in Ukraine, to use two recent examples.

This site is being over-run by people who want to shut down discussion instead of cultivating it

[Aerows]

37. You can't comment on a thread

with a legitimate question or a legitimate opinion without it becoming a "Well if you think A, you must be a believer in Z and every other letter in the alphabet."

It's sad, really.

[arcane1]

39. At this point, I'm an irrational lover and hater of pretty much everything. Sometimes both!

Good to see I'm not the only one who is growing tired of it.

But we must brace ourselves, because from now until the 2016 election we're going to see a TON of this nonsense. We need to call it out when we see it

[Aerows]

40. Right there with you, my friend!

[samsingh]

92. veiling of women is control over them and to make them nonpeople

[shira]

5. Wolf says she wrote about Muslim clitorectomy. Okay, where? n/t

[DanTex]

8. LOL. You think she's lying? And you trust the right-winger who says she didn't?

You think he's read all her books and articles over the years to make sure?

[shira]

11. I tried looking it up and couldn't find it. Shouldn't be THAT hard. n/t

[DanTex]

16. She's written 9 books. Have fun reading them. I'll take her word over the right-winger from the OP

[shira]

20. Yeah, nothing online. No quotes of her about that. Nothing.

She wrote about clitorectomies in the UK, but that's it.

Nothing about FGM throughout the mideast.

[DanTex]

27. Obviously, you and your right-wing buddy have searched the entire internet.

[shira]

42. It's telling when an outspoken feminist's condemnation of FGM....

...within Islamist societies is nowhere to be found on the internet.

It should be a no-brainer easy find.

[DanTex]

45. Keep walking backwards... you're a pretty long way from the OP.

[shira]

53. If u say so, but she hasn't said shit about FGM in Islamic societies...

There's no evidence of it anywhere.

[DanTex]

57. I say so and I'm right. And, yes, she has.

She brought it up it in the interview I linked to, and unless you think she's lying (a desperate stretch), she's also written about it.

[Alittleliberal]

94. How about you read her book

Vagina: A New Biography. There's a large portion in that book devoted to FGM. The ME and Islam are covered extensively.

[azurnoir]

18. I notice your change in terms from FGM to clitorectomy why is that

you seem to prefer a search under that term?

[shira]

21. Can't find either term. She railed about forced clitorectomies in the UK....

....but that's all I could find.

[azurnoir]

23. But you claimed nothing at all

I found some under FGM too on her facebook page

[shira]

28. Yeah, nothing at all about FGM or clitorectomies throughout the mideast. n/t

[azurnoir]

36. Oh so it must be in the ME I see is that a special type of FGM or what?

I do note that there is no concern about FGM where Africa is concerned , one of the worst offending areas on Earth, could that be because to bring Africa into it completely destroys the myth that FGM is part and parcel to Islam or is it something else or both perhaps?

[shira]

43. In Africa, it's mostly happening within Islamic societies. Nothing about that either....

...from Naomi Wolf.

Obviously, to condemn anything to do with Islamic extremism is racist, rightwing, and not politically correct.

[azurnoir]

46. apparently you've never known any Eritrean women who are Christian I take it ?

because it's rampant there and in fact that is where I first learned about FMG long ago, FMG is not an Islamic law or anything else for that matter

[azurnoir]

2. seeing as how you seem very concerned with feminist values you should post this in HoF n/t

[Scootaloo]

4. Because when I want to know about feminist liberals, I ask a misogynist right-winger.

[King_David]

6. Well supporting Hamas is a bit weird for a feminist,

Would be like a Gay Dude supporting Hamas. Or a Jew supporting David Duke.

[Scootaloo]

10. Good thing she hasn't done that, then.

But by all means. Take Boteach's word for it. That's sure to lead you to the truth.

[Aerows]

97. She has most assuredly not

and this attempt to take us all down completely-different-memory-lane is humorous at this point.

Except it isn't, because it isn't a joke.

shira is convinced. Other people, not so much.

[shira]

103. So since no one supports or stands for Hamas, how does one explain Wolf's defense....

...of Hamas war crimes?

In one post she defends Hamas by condemning people who “repeat the uncritical allegations of the IDF that Hamas is “hiding” among civilians. Where else the f– are they supposed to go NOT to ‘hide”? Gaza is all civilian! There is no battlefield!” This astonishing comment demonstrates not only a total ignorance of Gaza topography but justifies Hamas using schools for weapons caches and infirmaries and hospitals to fire rockets. It would also deny Israel the right to defend itself so long as Hamas terrorists reside among civilians.

You said you don't support or stand for Hamas and I believe you.

Why then can you not acknowledge or condemn their blatant use of civilians as human shields when you saw it for yourself on video?

[shira]

7. Since when is defending Hamas feminist, liberal, or progressive? n/t

[Scootaloo]

12. Boteach doesn't support his own thesis, Shira

But you should be used to that problem, since you bumped into it when you sourced Kenneth Meshoe. And Nahum Shahaf. and Caroline Glick...

[shira]

14. Boteach quoted Wolf defending Hamas war crimes like human shielding

When she and others like her aren't defending or minimizing these war crimes, they're denying them.

[Scootaloo]

15. If you use an exceptionally loose definition of "defense"

...But then I remember I'm talking to someone who thinks throwing a frag grenade into a crowd is an act of self-defense.

[shira]

19. So we agree Wolf is defending Hamas fascists....

As to your ad hominem attacks, I realize it's all you have when you cannot debate the facts, but do you really have to lie about your opponent, making up all kinds of shit? Are you hoping THAT's where the argument descends, so you won't have to defend arguments you are incapable of defending?

Then again, you just claimed recently that Israel equated William Schabas with ISIS. You made that one up out of thin air, but then I get to wondering whether you TRULY believe the crap you type out. I don't know whether you realize you're bullshitting or not.

[azurnoir]

24. almost as loosely as the term Human Shield is used

which has come to mean apparently any Palestinian who gets killed by IDF and can not be made to appear guilty of something by any other means

[shira]

44. Still denying Hamas human shielding, despite all the recent reports? n/t

[azurnoir]

47. Not despite but because of the reports which show no actual Human Shielding except in the

save in the IMO perverted political terms that are used to justify killing civilians, which leads us right back to my previous comment

[shira]

49. Here's 1 example on video, from an Indian crew reporting from Gaza....

No sense denying the obvious.

[azurnoir]

52. already saw it as it was used to attempt to justify knowingly bombing civilians

even though it is/was common knowledge Hamas operatives left the area before the bombs arrived

[shira]

56. That's evidence of human shielding, a war crime. You deny....

....that Hamas fascists deliberately fire rockets from dense civilian populations. In that case, from hotel/apartment complexes.

The evidence couldn't be more clear.

[azurnoir]

61. I'm denying nothing as you see IDF bombs despite this knowing

that the Hamas operatives who fired the rocket are gone and only civilians remain, unless you wish us to believe IDF thinks Hamas waits around for them to bomb? The only attempt at shielding going here is shielding IDF from any guilt or responsibility in the massive death toll on the civilian population in Gaza

[shira]

64. You are denying that the missile battery in-between the hotel buildings....

...in that video is a war crime committed by Hamas fascists.

Hamas can do that all they want, from within dense civilian populations, and you will NEVER condemn them for such war crimes.

Yes or No?

[azurnoir]

71. No I am not denying anything if there were indeed war crimes they were commited by both sides

as you see Hamas actions do not absolve Israel of responsibility for theirs

[shira]

73. LOL. I commend u for your consistency. n/t

[azurnoir]

75. Good as well you should as opposed to making false allegations about what I said

do you think people here do not read past the title lines to comments?

[Aerows]

29. If Naomi Wolff hasn't *expressly* stated

"I stand with Hamas", then I'm pretty sure she isn't standing with Hamas, since she pretty much says what is on her damn mind.

Warping what people say into some odd concoction of "Well, so and so didn't say *precisely* and *explicitly* (because it never came up in conversation) that they are against the destruction of the planet means that they probably support destruction of the planet" is ludicrous.

I haven't come out in support of Ebola, that doesn't mean I'm cheering it the hell on. Nor have you, actually. Are you cheering Ebola on? Should we shun you because you haven't spoken out against the people suffering from Ebola?

[shira]

31. Wolf defended Hamas war crimes like human shielding within civilian populations

That's pretty damned bad.

As you can see in this forum, many folks from DU either deny Hamas fascists use human shield tactics, or they defend the practice.

It's a war crime.

===============

Happens in these forums all the time. I posted an article about Hamas killing over 160 Palestinian CHILDREN who dug tunnels. Not one so-called "progressive" condemned it. They did their best to deflect from it, to blame Israel. They alerted on the post several times, hiding it, wanting it censored.

Explain that one since they're not "standing with Hamas".

[Aerows]

32. Where is your denunciation of the lack of international efforts

to stop Ebola?

You WANT Ebola to spread. Clearly you do, otherwise you would be denouncing the lack of efforts to stop it!



That's your line of argument, and it isn't a fruitful one. Provide evidence. Don't provide your conjecture of what you *think* someone else believes and claim that they believe it.

[shira]

33. If I defended people trying to spread the Ebola virus, you'd be onto something....

People here are defending Hamas war crimes. It's not that they aren't condemning Hamas.

[Aerows]

35. I'm waiting for evidence.

Proof that Naomi Wolff, as you cited in the OP and article, defends Hamas war crimes.

Provide an example. It should be rather easy, since you assert this notion.

[shira]

48. Here she is from facebook defending Hamas war crimes

https://www.facebook.com/naomi.wolf.author/posts/10152546000884476

Anyone is still trying to tell me this is not a genocide, not the targeting of civilians? Here is what I want to say given the hundreds of responses I have heard to my post: everyone involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to face the issues they are accountable for. I am not responsible first for Syria, Hamas etc. I am responsible first for my own 'tribe.' Others are responsible first for their "tribes".

So a main issue for me is what is happening to the Jewish soul in contorting ourselves on and on to try to defend the indefensible or else to change the subject, look away. It is ego-dystonic to us to face what Israel is doing in Gaza because "we aren't like that". But looking away is where evil thrives and where we join in and participate in evil.

The hundreds of emails I have gotten from those defending Israel tend to: change the subject (look at how bad Syria is...Boko Haram is...etc.) Or: repeat the uncritical allegations of the IDF that Hamas is "hiding" among civilians. Where else the f-- are they supposed to go NOT to 'hide"? Gaza is all civilian! There is no battlefield! And the responses also try to establish false equivalencies -- ie an Israeli father was killed by rockets.

Now try to really hear this: THOSE REFLEXES ARE THE PROBLEM. There may be merits logically/intellectually in each of these "positions" but faced with the systematic brutal murder of children, of families, the issue for me, the urgent, demanding, compelling, house-on-fire issue, is the collective HARDNESS OF HEART that these intellectual contortions reveal among us.

FIRST should be our empathic response -- this can't be done this way -- this suffering must cease. The fact that we go FIRST to tortured logic says to me that we are SCARED TO SEE AND FEEL THE TRUTH. And that is a corruption of our hearts and souls.

And the way I understand faith, that is a serious issue -- THAT is spiritual corruption; THAT is an urgent state of moral illness/decay -- that hardness of heart. THAT is what we as Jews have so often so reflexively sacrificed in contorting ourselves again and again to defend Israel and "not-see" what is in front of our eyes in terms of human suffering and injustice among those that Israel corrals/strips of rights/arrests without trial/bombs/degrades symbolically/deprives of basic human dignity. THAT is where I say -- it is not worth it. If this is what a "Jewish state" requires of us, it is not worth it TO US in my view.

Being the occupiers in this way has harmed us and degraded us internally in ways even more than we have harmed and degraded more externally those we are occupying/annihilating/targeting/oppressing. This is where we need to look at the injury we are doing to ourselves..our humanity..our kindness...our relationship to ourselves to others and to whatever decent God may be in any kind of relationship to us.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/jul/24/gaza-crisis-palestinian-death-toll-passes-700-live-updates

[Aerows]

50. Was that supposed to be evidence for

or indictment against your own argument. That part in the bold, particularly.

?

[shira]

51. "Where else....

"Where else the fuck are they supposed to go NOT to ‘hide”? Gaza is all civilian! There is no battlefield!”

Defense of war crimes.

[Aerows]

54. Uh, my question remains.

Was that an argument for or against your claims that Naomi Wolff defends war crimes.

[shira]

59. That's an argument for. She defends Hamas by excusing their strategy....

They only do what they do b/c they have no choice.

That's defending war crimes.

[Aerows]

62. If you say so.

I don't view it that way. I just view it as a person stating bald facts.

You can state a fact and not like that the fact exists, right? You don't have to agree with gravity to realize that if you fall out of a building you will hit the ground.

[shira]

63. Here's a video of Hamas firing missiles among apartment/hotel buildings...

Another DU'er above denies this is a war crime by Hamas. Naomi Wolf argues:

Where else the f– are they supposed to go NOT to ‘hide”? Gaza is all civilian! There is no battlefield!”

You're telling me Hamas has no other choice but to fire missiles from between apartment/hotel buildings?

Seriously?

[Aerows]

66. I think that approaching any argument

with the idea that one side is wrong and the other is right is a recipe for disaster in reaching a workable solution.

History has proven that principle.

[shira]

67. You don't see human shielding, a war crime in that video? n/t

[Aerows]

70. Let me ask you a question.

What do you see as a workable, productive future for Israel and Palestinians?

Answer that question honestly. How would *you* go about creating a productive peace?

[shira]

72. Why is it so difficult to admit what you're clearly seeing in that video?

To answer you, there needs to be 2 states. But it has to be genuinely peaceful 2 state solution. The only way that happens is if the Palestinians start working towards a liberal democracy. First thing they need is freedom of expression, dissent, assembly.

[Aerows]

76. You've arrived at the correct conclusion

that Naomi Wolff does not in fact endorse, defend or in any way support war crimes by anyone.

I appreciate that you finally came to that conclusion and I can step out of this thread.

[azurnoir]

78. Shira how are Palestinian civilians Human Shields if Israel bombs anyway knowing as I pointed out

that Hamas operatives are gone and only civilians remain?

[shira]

81. Those rockets in-between apartment/hotel buildings is not a war-crime.....

...in your opinion. Hamas is free to do that all they want and you won't object.

Nothing there in that video for you to condemn.

Says it all.

[azurnoir]

87. shira show us exactly where I said those words

what I said is that if there were war crimes they were committed by both sides the actions of one does not absolve the other

[shira]

104. "If" there were war crimes? That video doesn't show a war crime? n/t

[azurnoir]

123. when one has to paraphrase as supposed proof that could be indicative of

not really having proof to begin with -much like the edited video in the OP

[shira]

125. Huh? Simple question...

That video shows evidence of Hamas human shielding.

True or False?

[azurnoir]

127. simple question does Israel bomb regardless? why yes it does

as I've said the term human shield in these cases is nothing more than a political perversion of the actual meaning of the term to justify killing civilians

[shira]

129. Again, True or False? I'll gladly answer you once you answer me. n/t

[azurnoir]

131. don't wish to answer do you? I understand and you already got your answer

how are they human shields when they are bombed anyway, especially seeing as how IDF/Israel is aware Hamas operatives have left the area?

as I said if war crimes were committed they were committed by both sides

[shira]

132. You're still denying human shields.

When there are future articles here at DU claiming there's no proof or evidence of human shields, you'll join in.

Un.Real.

[azurnoir]

134. I'm pointing out how cynical the usage of the term is in the case of the Gaza conflict

[LeftishBrit]

88. For anyone interested, here's her response

http://naomiwolf.org/2014/08/an-open-letter-to-rabbi-shmuley-boteach/


Actually they are both over-the-top in this case. Wolf is not 'embracing Hamas'; and Israel is not committing genocide, unless one considers all war as genocide.

[Aerows]

91. The difference is that she is speaking in her OWN words

not somebody else putting words in her mouth like this "article" that probably fell off a dump truck opines.

[oberliner]

100. And here is the response to the response

http://observer.com/2014/08/wolf-attack-naomi-wolf-responds-to-shmuley-believes-that-jews-do-not-need-a-state/

Hopefully these fascinating exchanges will continue to be published.

[grossproffit]

152. It's nice to know that I'm not alone in being a bit crazy.

By all means, keep those exchanges coming. LOL

[Aerows]

98. Our Global community

and our smaller one on DU benefits when we say what is on our minds. It thrives when we get excellent information and debate ways to better improve our lives.

Please let us not get so invested at pointing fingers at each other that we fail to recognize that we thrive together.

That said, dragging filthy articles from right-wing sites is going to generate ugliness.

I could hope that we would refrain from ugly sources. I'm new in I/P, but I am willing to give my best to enable robust discussion.

If I've violated a rule, please let me know so that I don't do it again. I'm glad we can all talk on DU about whatever is on our minds.

[ann---]

130. I like her

views.