Just yesterday, Hillary Clinton insisted that Bill did not abuse any power when he allowed his intern, Monica Lewinsky, who was half his age, to sexually service him. Hillary’s words are beyond belief and beyond embarrassing.
As someone who has studied sexual violence against women for nearly 50 years, I am deeply troubled to see it used for partisan political gain. Doing so inflames anti-feminists, but more important it cheapens the momentum of the #MeToo movement and, I fear, will make it harder, not easier, for the next rape victim to successfully press charges.
My latest book, A Politically Incorrect Feminist, deals with this issue in depth and at length. In my day, most women in America were routinely sexually harassed as well as sexually assaulted. We were taught to blame ourselves. We also understood that if we complained we would not be believed or we’d be further shamed. We learned how to tolerate hostile workplaces, hostile public spaces, and hostile home environments. Many of us became tough survivors. Some, especially incest victims, fell through all the cracks.
All this was forgotten or, rather, this was knowledge that was systematically disappeared. By the mid-1980s, if not sooner, our best and most radical feminist work was no longer being taught in universities. The #MeToo movement had to reinvent the feminist wheel.
“The world’s worst humanitarian crisis,” said U.N. World Food Program Executive Director David Beasley, is in Yemen.
He is not exaggerating. More than 75% of the country needs humanitarian aid—a greater percentage than any other nation on Earth, according to the U.S. Department of State
Some 18 million Yemenis (out of a total population of 22 million) are hungry, homeless and increasingly hopeless.
Civil war has driven them from their homes, burned their schools and bombed their hospitals. In the markets, the shelves are empty as few trucks arrive from sea ports and rebel roadblocks menace the few deliverymen that dare to take the roads into the sun-scorched interior. As a result, mothers, some too hungry to nurse their children, have flooded into refugee centers, overwhelming
international aid workers. The men, those who have not been murdered or maimed by war, wait in the shade of U.N. tents for food and medicine that too often is not enough.
The Jewish community leadership has been pleading with the Labour Party to deal properly with antisemitism and become again the party of moral decency.
Surely no-one in the Jewish leadership believes this will happen? Even if the party adopts the full International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, does anyone really think its antisemitism will then go away?
The core problem goes way beyond Labour. It is that the new antisemitism, expressed through virulent anti-Israelism, is now the defining motif for “progressive” circles.
This attitude intrinsically repudiates the unique right of the Jews to self-determination in the land which was only ever the national kingdom of the Jews — a right which is not just the basis of Zionism but Judaism itself.
It is a campaign of demonisation and delegitimisation applied to no other people. It is based on systemic falsehoods and distortions, obsessional malice and deranged conspiracy theory. It blames Israel for crimes of which it is not only innocent but is the victim. It defames it as a unique agent of global harm. These are the characteristics of antisemitism through the ages.
You’ve perhaps heard about the Bedouin of Khan Al-Ahmar? The standard version of the tale presents these noble sons of the desert, members of the Jahalin tribe who for millennia have lived in their ancestral village in the West Bank, where they have been quietly raising their sheep, bothering no one, and nonetheless, are now about to be summarily kicked out, for no reason, by the quasi-fascist goose-stepping army of hegemonic Israelis. These Bedouin will have to fold their tents, take their sheep, move far away, and try to restart their lives, on whatever wretched piece of land the Israelis place them on. That, more or less, is what the “Palestinians” would like you to believe.
Many people have been up in arms about the “uprooting” (a word which presumes they had set down roots) of these Bedouin. British Prime Minister Theresa May has called the planned demolition of the Bedouin village of Khan Al-Ahmar in the West Bank by the Israeli authorities “a major blow for the prospects of a two state solution with Jerusalem as a shared capital with the Palestinians.” The Prime Minister also said: “I once again call on the Israeli government not to go ahead with the demolition of the village, including its school, and displacing its residents.” So the fate of fewer than 30 families, 180 people in all, would be “a major blow” for the “prospects of a two-state solution”?
The E.U. chimed in, deploring Israel’s plan to move the Bedouin encampment, and warning that by demolishing Khan al-Ahmar, Israel would undermine the “prospects for peace,” as well as the possibility of achieving a two-state solution.
Jewish Democrats have long taken pride in the high number of American Jews serving as Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives and Senate.
Given that the Jewish community in the United States constitutes less than two percent of the general population, the fact that nearly two dozen American Jews serve in the House and Senate is a legitimate source of pride, regardless of party.
For the past fifity years, Democratic Jewish lawmakers like Representatives Tom Lantos, Howard Berman, Steven Solarz, Shelley Berkley, Jane Harman, Nita Lowy and Elliot Engel; and Senators like Joe Lieberman and Frank Lautenberg; played key roles in forging and maintaining their party’s strong support for Israel and the U.S.-Israel alliance.
In recent years, however, things have changed. As Democratic voters and leaders have become more hostile to Israel, and as Republican voters and leaders have become more supportive of Israel, Jewish Democratic lawmakers have increasingly adopted policies and accepted support from organizations that are harmful to Israel’s national security.
The current election cycle makes this point very clearly. As JTA reported this week, there are 36 Jewish candidates running as Democrats in House races. Half are incumbents, and half are challengers.