That’s right. I am talking about the new Burqa Barbie doll which is now on display in Florence, Italy, to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Barbie doll. As my colleague over at weaselzippers wonders: Will clean-cut Ken now come (pun intended, ‘tis mine) with four burqa’ed Barbie doll wives?

Ah, I am such a Grinch. After all, the Burqa Barbie is being auctioned off for the Save the Children charity.

Save the Children? Surely, you must be jesting. I would like to save the children from this as well as from every other Barbie doll. (Yes, I know Barbie has diversified and now comes in every color and profession). But naked, even Doctor Barbie is still a pagan goddess or fertility figure but one with absolutely no relationship to female biology or reality.

Barbies are always anatomically impossible: their feet are pre-shaped for high heels, their breasts are high, firm, and perky—like Playboy dolls or surgically enhanced Hollywood stars. Bikini Barbie.

These dolls were so retro—or so I always thought. Well, shut my mouth, those were the good old days of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll. Now, Barbie is swathed, shrouded, in a burqa; now, she is even more hopelessly retro.

A woman, a girl, in a chador, chadari, burqa, cannot see that well. You cannot hear what she is saying. She cannot hear you. A woman in a burqa can’t run, or even walk that well. She stumbles. Inside, she has to balance a baby, a shopping bag, maybe a pair of glasses perched on her nose, slipping. If it’s hot, she is sweltering. If it’s sunny, she is still deprived of sunlight and Vitamin D. The burqa violates a woman’s human rights. It poses a danger to a woman’s health, both mental and medical.

The bikini and the burqa: What ever happened to women’s freedom?

I’ll tell you. While the bikini (especially as a symbol of pornography, prostitution, and promiscuity) was nevah (I say this with my best Barbra Streisand Brooklyn accent) a symbol of freedom, the western secular state never forced any woman to wear one; nor did her family. And, if a woman refused to wear a bikini, no one flogged, stoned, or honor murdered her. These things are happening to girls and women today all over the Islamic/Islamist world. They are happening in the West as well when young Muslim girls refuse to wear a modest headscarf.

A wonderful Muslim feminist hero just stayed with me for a week. She is a lawyer and an author, her name is Seyran Ates, she is a Turkish-German and lives in Berlin. Like Algerian-American professor, Marnia Lazreg, whose book about the Islamic Veil I’ve previously discussed, Ates absolutely opposes the veil in any form. She will not wear a headscarf. Ates is a religious Muslim woman.

Mattel: take Burqa Barbie off the market.

Parents: Boycott it.

Calling all Charities: Save the children from it.

I have been told that the Jewish student groups at Princeton, including Hillel, have behaved in a characteristically cowardly and opportunistic way in the matter of canceling Nonie Darwish’s speech. This problem exists on almost every campus in the Western world. The liberal Jews want very much to work with and to please/appease the more left-wing Jews as well as the Muslim students, including various Islamist imams on campus. Thus, they are the first to exclude, cancel, limit, or denounce speakers who do not toe the Party Line.

Based on a conversation with a reliable source whom I will not name, I have now learned that the Director of Hillel, a rabbi, as well as the Jewish group “Tigers for Israel,” literally conspired with the Muslim chaplain on campus to cancel Darwish at the last moment. Perhaps the Hillel rabbi values her interfaith dialogue far more than she values the right to intellectual diversity on an American campus. The Jewish groups (and a student Democratic group as well) had apparently all agreed to sponsor Darwish. But then, the Muslim chaplain allegedly described Darwish, falsely, as the equivalent of a “neo-Nazi.”

That is when everything began to fall apart.

Suddenly, at the last moment, the invitation was withdrawn, the room reservation canceled. Student Rafi Grinberg (with whom I have not yet spoken) tried to find another room—only to discover that the Jews had already canceled Darwish’s security arrangements. The Republican students still backed her speech. Finally, as Darwish sat at a café in New York City awaiting news of her fate at Princeton, Grinberg considered renting the Nassau Inn—right across the street. For a number of reasons, this was ultimately rejected as too ironic, too bizarre an option.

Carolyn Glick, writing about the disquieting relationship between some American Jewish organizations and the needs of the Jewish state, notes a similar problem with Hillel. She writes:

“Take UC Berkeley’s Hillel center, for example. Since Ken Kramarz, Hillel’s regional director for Northern California, started his job in June 2007, Berkeley’s Hillel has adopted a hostile view towards Judaism and Israel. As pro-Israel community activist Natan Nestel notes, in the past year alone, Hillel held a dance party on Yom Hashoah, and it held a Cinco de Mayo barbecue on Remembrance Day for Fallen IDF Soldiers. It has also failed to hold community Seders for the past two years. Instead, last year, its members hung signs in the Hillel building declaring, “Matza sucks.”

Beyond its derogatory treatment of Jewish and Israeli holidays, Berkeley’s Hillel has allowed an extremist group called Students for Justice for Palestine to participate in its organizational meetings.”

In 2003-2004, I began receiving emails from professors from all across America. They had just read my (then) new book The New Anti-Semitism and wanted to tell me how fearful they were of stating the truth about Israel and about anti-Semitism on their campuses lest they lose their funding, connections–maybe even their positions. I tried to interest several mainstream newspapers in telling this story way back then; indeed, one reporter at a major newspaper tried to do this story only to be stopped “at higher levels.”

What are all the large American Jewish organizations (the ADL, the AJCommittee, the UJA immediately come to mind) doing about the campus situation? Why is the very liberal Hillel in sole charge of the Jews on campus? (At least, that’s how Hillel sees it). Why is this problem only being dealt with by brave, independent, Jewish grassroots groups with 1/100th, maybe 1/1000th of their funding? Why is this problem seen as only a Jewish problem?

They always come for the Jews first but everyone else is right behind. The world did not stop the airplane hijackings, synagogue attacks, and suicide bombings when Palestinian terrorists targeted only Jews and Israelis. Thus, the world soon inherited the whirlwind.

As I’ve written many times before: Now, we are all Israelis.

******************************************************************
Original Story

In our time, a speaker must face a gauntlet of hostility and a menacing crowd if she wishes to speak in favor of Israel or to tell the truth about Islam.

That’s if she’s lucky. Most such speakers never get invited or when they do, their invitations are canceled.

Nonie Darwish, the author of Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law and Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror, has faced on-campus hostility and disruption before. Over the years, I have interviewed her about this a number of times. Like many of us, she has also sometimes been forced to have security guards with her when she speaks.

Phyllis Chesler and Nonie Darwish

This time, Nonie, who is the founder of Arabs for Israel, was invited to speak at both Columbia and Princeton. The official invitation at Columbia came from the very distinguished CAMERA, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), and from a new student organization there: Campus Media Watch, a group which is not yet quite up and running. Darwish flew from the West Coast, and was already all dressed up and ready to travel to Columbia when she got word that she’d been canceled.

“How humiliating is that? To come all this way, to be almost out the door of my hotel only to be told that they had to cancel my speech because campus security felt they could not protect me. Everyone is trying to blame someone else. Even the campus Republicans were afraid to sponsor me. SPME kept trying to fix it, but in the end, they could not.”

True, in 2006, President Ahmadinejad of Iran was not able to speak at Columbia because the notice given was too short. However, in 2007, Columbia University was able to provide security for him. And yet they could not provide it for Darwish. In 2006, Holocaust-denier Norman Finkelstein spoke at Columbia and in 2009, anti-Zionist, Israeli journalist Amira Hass spoke at Columbia–both without incident. Neither speaker was canceled. Next week, Noam Chomsky is speaking there. In Darwish’s view, “I doubt Chomsky will even need any security.”

On Wednesday, Nofrat Frenkel, a Jewish Israeli woman, (and a fourth year medical student) was arrested in Jerusalem for the crime of trying to pray with a Torah and for wearing a prayer shawl at the Western Wall (the “Kotel”). Frenkel was not alone. She was part of a woman’s prayer group (the Women of the Wall) which on Wednesday consisted of 40 other women, some of whom are American Jews. Frenkel was “pushed into a nearby police station and then transferred to the main police station at Yaffo Gate.” But the 40 women formed a procession and followed the police; they remained at the station, singing” (probably praying and chanting psalms) until the police released Frenkel.

I have just been told by one of the women worshippers that many of the women had been wearing prayer shawls for more than an hour; that there was no “outcry” that required a police arrest to “calm things down.” Three men burst into the women’s section (where they should not go) to interrupt the women at prayer and to demand a police arrest. According to journalist Deborah Nussbaum Cohen, Frenkel was held for an hour before being moved to the police station clear across town, where she was detained for another 90 minutes.

“Outside the station, the WOW participants sang the Hebrew song ‘Gesher Tzar Maod’ (whose words mean “the world is a narrow bridge and the important thing is not to be afraid as we cross it”), and the American civil rights anthem ‘We Shall Overcome.’”

“They threatened that she might not get a medical license because she would have a felony on her record. They frightened her. But this is an idle threat. We will go all the way to the Supreme Court with this,” said (Anat) Hoffman (a long-time WOW leader).

The outcome is uncertain. If tried and found guilty, Frenkel faces up to six months in prison or a 10,000 shekel fine (about $2,650).”

“She would be guilty of a felony which in Israel will bar her from being a doctor,” Hoffman said.

Hoffman says that it may be time for IRAC to revisit the Supreme Court decision which banned them from reading Torah at the Kotel.”

********************************************************
As everyone knows, I am a passionate advocate for the state of Israel and view the country both as a necessary miracle and as the only democracy in the Middle East. I am also a religious Jew; I pray with a modern Orthodox congregation and study Torah with joy. I understand what is religiously forbidden and what is religiously permitted. Although the matter is complex and controversial, please understand that what the Women of the Wall tried to do today is not forbidden by halakha (Jewish religious law). They are praying in a women-only group. They do not count themselves as a minyan (prayer quorum). They omit certain prayers.

They are 100% kosher. Yet, over the years, they have been called and often treated by ultra-Orthodox Jews as if they were “Nazis, pigs, destroyers, witches, satanic, fools, feminists, and enemy politicals.”

However, you must also understand: the police were only enforcing the law. Incredibly, the praying women did commit civil disobedience. They probably hoped that no one would notice their quiet and orderly prayer service. For those who want to understand how this law came about, please read my piece, which I am reproducing below, which appeared last year. Also, please read the book that Rivka Haut and I co-edited: Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaism’s Holy Site.

Always, from the start, other women, more traditional women, sounded the alarm against Women of the Wall (WOW). Haredi (ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic women) have cursed, physically assaulted, drowned out, and tried to steal WOW’s Torah in a knock-down-drag-out fight for it. Sometimes, Haredi men are behind them, but often the Haredi women do this spontaneously.

Always, those women who have been denied religious power and freedom find their only power in restricting other women; those women who have internalized sexist values perennially enforce the dress and behavior codes for other women—not only in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but also in Jerusalem, Israel.

And let’s not forget: ultra-Orthodox groups in Jerusalem have also been fighting for segregated buses in which women and men sit separately—with women literally sitting at the back of the bus. (Who could make this up? Alas, it’s true). A few weeks ago, a special committee appointed by Israel’s Transportation Ministry decided that “bus segregation is legal if voluntary.” They are going to conduct a year-long trial in which those women who wish to segregate themselves from men may do so.

‘Tis true: women do face sexual harassment on public transportation. Women in India prefer women-only railway compartments. But segregated buses in Jerusalem have not been launched as a counter-measure in response to male sexual harassment. It is a clear statement of women’s subordinate (not “special”) status.

While the mainstream media, leftists, feminists, and human rights groups rage on about the question of justice for Israeli Arabs and for non-Israeli (“Palestinian”) Arabs (I myself have done so in the past), few have been concerned with the rights of Israeli women. The elite do not often credit Israel for the relative freedom that Israeli secular women enjoy (compared to women in the Middle East), nor do they note the increasing Taliban-ization of Jerusalem vis-a-vis Jewish religious women.

Well, as they say, “No good deed goes unpunished.” Try to help others — indeed, devote your life to doing so — and you will inevitably find yourself attacked, especially by the people on your own side.

No big deal. Read the Torah. While I’m no Moses, this happened to Moses too; he had to get out of Egypt in a hurry lest the Jewish slaves turn him right in to Pharaoh.

And thus, I have recently been on the receiving end of quite a bit of nastiness from both the political left and the political right. At their best, both groups seem to share a capacity for viciousness and vulgarity that is quite uncompromising. Makes my life an exercise in irony, one both tragic and hilarious.

I was recently a panelist in Greenwich Village, a fabled neighborhood, which, star-struck, I first visited in 1952. Yes, this budding bohemian once wrote poetry at Café Figaro, waited tables at Rienzi’s, visited the White Horse Tavern and the Cedar Bar. From the mid-sixties on, I also lived in the Village, both on its east and west flanks; I stayed there (at a variety of addresses) for more than a decade–after which I continued to attend countless “downtown” feminist meetings, parties, and demonstrations.

I was, therefore, quite happy to be on a panel in the Village, glad to see friends and allies from the 60s and 70s on the panel and in the packed audience. And then, “Feminism: 1970” appeared, once again, right before our astonished eyes, and the attacks began.

“You are a panel of white women only, where are the black women, the women of color?” It is fine to raise a question about racism; less fine was the angry, bitter, strangled voice in which it was raised—of course, by yet another white women. A firestorm erupted.

On cue, right after “racism” came this question — again, in a coarse and bitter voice. “Where are the working class women? I see none on the panel.” Ah, funny you should ask. One of the panelists had just talked about women making only 78 cents on the male dollar, only she’d said that, based on her calculations, once you factored in unpaid work such as parenting and housework, or low-paid work for part-time workers, women in America were really earning 38 cents on the male dollar. Had this questioner been asleep? Or did she just want to “rage against the machine”?

Hard on her heels came a mighty growl from a woman in a motorized wheelchair. “What about me, I have multiple sclerosis, who cares about me? Why are there no disabled women on the panel, why haven’t you talked about disability issues?” Again, a fair enough question but her rage was…clinical. Funny, several of us had canes and walked unsteadily. Six panelists were in their sixties and seventies.

The balkanization of the imagination (only a disabled woman could talk about disability; only a woman of color could talk about racism, etc.) was staggering and heartbreaking. And completely unacceptable.

Most of the feminists and lesbians present were polite, supportive, accomplished, and civilized. But no one exactly knew how to stand up to this loutish bunch and no one on the panel or in the audience could believe that this was really happening. And so, the “bystanders” let the bullies rage on. It really was 1970 all over again. Without a grownup in sight.

I know what it is to face a raging, hostile mob. But in this case, I did not anticipate such anger and bitterness among senior citizens and was unprepared for it. What a bunch of burned-out spoilers. They need an AA or NA meeting, a therapy group—a leash of some kind, on their 1950’s-style grade B women’s prison movie aggression.

Let them blog—that’s what I’m doing.

Dear Friend, Reader, and Supporter:

Welcome to my first-ever annual fundraising letter. I urgently need your help in order to continue my work. Donations are tax-deductible and can be made to my not-for-profit organization: The Phyllis Chesler Organization. You may send funds through paypal at my website: www.phyllis-chesler.com Or, you may send a check to the not-for-profit Phyllis Chesler Organization c/o my lawyers:

Bender and Rosenthal
451 Park Avenue South
NYC 10016

As you know, I have been doing cutting-edge work on the front lines for many years, as an author, lecturer, media interviewee and blogger. In the early 1970s, I was among the first to speak out against anti-Semitism on the American left and among feminists and progressives. In the mid- to late 70s, I worked hard to defeat the Zionism=Racism mindset at the United Nations. I also worked with groups in Israel. More recently, I had to condemn anti-Semitism more publicly, and in writing. Thus, since the Second Intifada, I was, again, among the handful who first spoke out against anti-Semitism and the demonization of both America and Israel; against jihad and Islamic terrorism; about Islamic gender and religious apartheid; and especially about the betrayal of the truth—indeed, of the “Palestinianization” of the world’s leading progressives, academics, and activists.

I was among the very first who described what happened at Fort Hood as an “act of jihad” and “terrorism” and the first who explained that Major Hasan committed mass murder because he is a jihadist, not because he is “mentally ill.” I spoke about this on CNN on the Lou Dobbs program and I also challenged President Obama for not describing this as an act of jihadic terrorism.

I published the first study which compared honor killings to western domestically violent femicide in Middle East Quarterly. This study received serious attention and led to predictable controversy. I am about to publish my second study about this phenomenon in Middle East Quarterly as well. I served as the only on-air expert for a FOX documentary about honor killings in America. I have also been interviewed by the media and by law enforcement officials on this topic since it is of growing concern in the West and has serious implications for North American and western immigration policies. I have just been quoted in the Canadian media about Canada’s new Guide for Immigrants, which notes that “barbaric customs” such as “honor killings and honor-related violence” is against the law in Canada. I intend to continue researching and speaking out on this issue.

I have been publishing books and articles for more than forty years. They have always been well and widely reviewed. This all changed in 2003, when I published my twelfth book, The New Anti-Semitism. Then, I suddenly became persona non grata in my publishing, media, activist, and social circles. In 2005, when I published my thirteenth book, The Death of Feminism, I condemned feminist leaders for having abandoned a universalist vision of human rights in favor of multi-cultural relativism. This meant that feminists would do anything to avoid being called “racists” or “Islamophobes.” Many feminists focused obsessively on the quintessential evil of Israel and America and, in so doing, sacrificed the cause of women’s rights both here and in the developing, Muslim world.

And thus, in 2003, I began writing for Frontpage magazine, City Journal, the Washington Times, Intellectual Conservative, National Review, and Pajamas Media where I am now happily ensconced.

I was no longer welcome at my old haunts such as the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. I still occasionally published pieces in the Times of London, the London Guardian, and Canada’s Globe and Mail. The usual mainstream media opportunities were no longer mine to claim nor were the old watering holes.
Mind you: I have no regrets about being censored, blackballed, marginalized, or demonized as a “neo-conservative” or as an “Islamophobe.” Anyone who isn’t similarly demonized is part of the problem.

But here’s my particular route to glory.

From 2001 on, I was the first among us to write about a possible second Holocaust of Jews in Israel; the first to challenge the danger of memorializing a previous Holocaust instead of saving people from current and future Holocausts; among the first to warn of the Iranian threat; among the first to begin documenting the systematic bias against Israel, Jews, and America in the mainstream media, in the academy, and among progressives, including feminists; the first to begin a systematic study of Islamic gender apartheid as it has penetrated the West in the form of honor killings and honor-related violence. I was among the handful who first analyzed the dangerous biases against Israel and America at the United Nations and among human rights groups; the first to write about the psychoanalytic roots of Islamic suicide terrorism and the psychological dimension of jihad.

I have lectured about this both here and abroad as a keynote speaker and as a panelist. I’ve done media interviews. I’ve written articles. And, I’ve conducted original research.

I have also hosted informal “salons” in my home so that visiting thinkers and activists can present their views in an intimate setting. For example, I’ve hosted and interviewed speakers from around the world including Seyran Ates, Paul Berman, Nonie Darwish, Bassam Eid, Brigitte Gabriel, Tareq Heggy, Ibn Warraq, Alan Johnson, Philippe Karsenty, Nancy H. Kobrin, Irshad Manji, Nidra Poller, Fred Siegel, Sol Stern, etc. And, I’ve worked with Aayan Hirsi Ali, Zeinab al-Suweij, Zeyno Baran, Valentina Colombo, Irwin Cotler, Leon de Winter, Manda Zand Ervin, Tawfik Hamid, David Horowitz, Douglas Murray, Daniel Pipes, Natan Sharansky, Wafa Sultan, Ruth Wisse, and many others on panels and at conferences.

It is crucial that I continue to inform Americans and Westerners about the danger of jihad and terrorism, and about the nature of Islamic gender and religious apartheid. However, it is just as important to find, work with, and support Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents and feminists. Our lives depend upon our doing both.

I absolutely cannot continue without your help. I hope you can donate generously at this time. No check will be too small. All donations will be acknowledged and appreciated. For donations of $500.00 or more I will sign a copy of one of my books (your choice) and mail it to you.

Please visit my website at www.phyllis-chesler.com and read some of my work. You may also visit Pajamas Media where I blog at: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler

Bless you and thank you for reading my work.

All best,
Dr. Phyllis

The Canadian government has just revamped its citizenship guide for immigrants. The document is titled “The Rights and Responsibilities of Canadian Citizenship.” According to Canada’s National Post:

“In Canada, men and women are equal under the law,” the document says. “Canada’s openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, ‘honour killings,’ female genital mutilation or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada’s criminal laws.”

Western governments are beginning to wake up to dangerous or “barbaric” practices among immigrants—especially among Muslim immigrants. Whether such practices are pre-Islamic, non-Islamic, even anti-Islamic (and people have argued all of the above), the truth is that certain “barbaric” practices are most often committed by Muslims against Muslims. Sikhs and Hindus, to a much lesser extent, also commit honor murders.

Some scholars argue that the Qu’ran specifically supports and inspires such practices; other scholars argue the opposite case. One must note that Islam has, so far, failed to educate against or abolish certain “barbarisms,” and has, instead, enshrined them in state shari’a law in Muslim states such as Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Somalia, and Sudan.

But something new may finally be afoot.

Canada has just sentenced a man, Yusef Al Mezel, the head of Ottawa’s taxi union, to a year in jail for threatening—just threatening—very serious violence against his daughter. In 2007, the town council in Herouxville, Quebec, passed a motion “governing the behavior of immigrants, including provisions against stoning women and genital mutilation.”

Last night I was on the The Lou Dobbs Show on CNN to talk about whether the Fort Hood massacre was or was not a terrorist attack. I’ve been writing about this very subject rather steadily right here. I was “facing off” on CNN with someone who writes poppycock about “Islamophobia” for The Nation. What greater joy could there be? And I was flying the colors of Pajamas Media, which is how I was identified. (I was, of course, also identified as a professor, author, etc.) Dobbs was a gracious and seasoned host, and his producers were impressively organized and very friendly. The makeup artist was a genius. I’d go back daily just for her.

As it turned out, Dobbs wanted to take The Nation guy on as much as I did, and he did so quite effectively. He made my job a bit easier. John Nichols was effectively neutralized. Once I distinguished between radical, jihadic Islamism, and Muslims in general, including the Muslim and ex-Muslim feminists and reformers with whom I work—Nichols had no Straw Woman to oppose. Of course, some of my esteemed colleagues and commenters at this very blog site wanted me to denounce all of Islam, every Muslim—but I did not do so. I will deal with this very subject in a future column.

I have been around television studios for the last 40 years. I was on the David Frost Show (yes, the same Frost who interviewed Nixon!) and on Donohue when he was still in Dayton, Ohio. Over the years, I’ve done all the major network programs many times including The Today Show, Good Morning America, Merv Griffen, Geraldo, Oprah, Sally Jessie, the Mac-Neil-Lehrer Report, and C-SPAN.

I was on The O’Reilly Factor even though I’m not young or blonde. And yes, he was very kind to me.

I’ve been on CNN many times. In January of 1986, I remember sitting with the entire CNN staff in Washington, D.C., as the shuttle Challenger blew up before our stunned eyes. In 2003, when Judy Woodruff bravely interviewed me about anti-Semitism, two of the cameramen came out from behind their cameras to shake my hand. This was truly a first.

Trust me: This is unusual. And last night, as I was leaving CNN’s very spiffy headquarters in NYC, a tall and handsome CNN man stopped me and said: “You spoke very well. Thank you.” The guest who followed me said, “I agree with you.”

Folks: I am talking about CNN, not FOX. I think, maybe, perhaps, possibly, my God, if not now when, that things might be beginning to change. (The realist in me is scoffing; the optimist has her fingers crossed).

Jamie Glazov at NewsRealBlog thought I “scored big.” Thanks, Jamie. And for me? It’s just another day in my life.

Had there been time enough, here’s what I wanted to say.

Phyllis Chesler’s Talking Points

First, I want to offer my deep condolences to the families of all those murdered and wounded in the jihadic attack on Ft Hood.

Westerners, Americans, even the American President are afraid to name or blame the attacker

At the Ft. Hood Memorial, President Obama did not use the words “jihad,” “terrorism,” “Islamism,” or “Islamic terrorism.” He said that the fact that these soldiers were killed on home soil is “incomprehensible.” He referred to a “time of war” but failed to name what the war might be and who might be fighting it. Radical jihadic Islamism was given a free pass today by the President of the United States. I know, I know: It was a memorial service, not a political rally or a military pow-wow. Perhaps his mild and sober mien was comfort enough for the soldiers and their families. And yet, as Obama busily appeases and flatters the Muslim world, I have been waiting to hear our President talk about Islamist terrorism, jihadic terrorism, for a long while now and have grown quite impatient.

Nevertheless, today, a half hour ago at Ft Hood, President Obama did not pronounce the following words: “Jihad.” “Terrorism.” “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamic terrorism.” Early on, President Obama said that “this is a time of war,” (followed by many platitudes). Towards the end, he said something unscripted, something not contained in the speech transcript. Obama said that “these soldiers could not escape the horror of war even at home”– but he failed to name what that war might be and who might be fighting it.

Indeed, Obama said that the fact they were killed on American soil is “incomprehensible.” He also made a point of proudly saying: “We are a nation whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman (a “gunman, not a “jihadist”) and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crime (his “crime,” not his “act of war,” not even his “act of terrorism.”

Radical jihadic Islamism/jihadic terrorism was given a free pass by the President of the United States at the Memorial Service for the thirteen soldiers and mental health professionals who were slaughtered at Ft Hood.

I will be talking about alleged “Islamophobia” and Ft Hood tonight on CNN on the Lou Dobbs Show which appears between 7pm-8pm est and at other times around the country.

Given how quickly reproductive rights were just jettisoned in the House, and mainly by Democrats, I wonder if there is any breast-beating going on over there. I certainly hope so, but I doubt it.

It seems like only yesterday that Hillary was running against Barack—but it also seems like a hundred years ago.

However, long before the Ms. magazine cover, I remember The List, which first came out during the Democratic primary race. I was shocked and disheartened by it. How could so many educated American women be so foolish, so desperate, so easily conned?

No, I am not talking about the McCarthy era blacklist (the only list that tenured and creative leftists really take seriously) but about the “Feminist Petition for Obama and for Peace.”

I have personally known many of the signatories; have truly admired (or strongly disagreed with) the views of some; have, over the years, been at odds, publicly, with more than a handful on issues such as pornography, prostitution, custody, surrogacy, the nature of Islamic gender and religious apartheid, 9/11, jihadic terrorism, the fate of both America and Israel, global anti-Semitism—but still: Let’s set that all aside for a moment. In their own terms, they have all just been royally screwed.

Many of these feminist signatories devoted their academic and activist lives to the fight for women’s reproductive rights. For example: Eleanor Bader wrote Targets of Hatred: Anti-Abortion Terrorism; Rosalyn Baxandall authored Women and Abortion: The Body as Battleground and Dear Sisters: Dispatches From The Women’s Liberation Movement; Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English wrote about women’s rights, including reproductive rights, way back in the 1970s, in For Her Own Good: Two Centuries of the Experts Advice to Women; Linda Gordon wrote Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: Birth Control In America and The Moral Property of Women: A History of Birth Control Politics in America; Rosalind Petchesky wrote Negotiating Reproductive Rights and Abortion And Woman’s Choice: The State, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom, among others; and Katha Pollitt of the Nation magazine has written extensively about abortion rights in their pages.

These feminist signatories have gotten tenure for their work on reproductive rights. They’ve had long careers as paid journalists, paid lecturers, funded researchers, and funded conference participants both here and abroad based on their work in this very area.

Newsflash: See below: FBI believes Hasan may potentially be connected to three of the 9/11 hijackers.

More Newsflash: See below. Hasan told physicians at Walter Reed that infidels should be beheaded; his collegues afraid to report him due to the politically correct climate.

Our president is quoted in the pages of the New York Times advising us not to “jump to conclusions.” According to CNN, President Obama has also cautioned against a “backlash” against Muslims in the military and in the country. This — from the charmer who bowed before the Saudi King and who betrayed Muslim women in his Cairo speech.

Ordinarily, I’d agree with such advice about conclusion-jumping. The military does first have to investigate the matter fully. One can’t always believe what one reads in the media, etc. But whether or not Major Hasan acted alone, had allies, was inspired by religious and political Islamism, was psychiatrically troubled — the fact remains that he committed an act of terrorism. He terrified other soldiers precisely where they were supposed to feel safe. So much of the truth is already so clear that it would be insane, insulting to the intelligence to deny or minimize it.

Unlike President Obama or the head of Homeland Security (who is more concerned with the possibility of an anti-Muslim backlash than with Homeland Insecurity), senior United States senator Joseph Lieberman is demanding a “terrorism” probe into army killings. You won’t read about this today in the mainstream media.

Quickly, reflexively, without waiting for more of the facts to emerge, the mainstream print media (I am talking about the Paper of Record) has already decided that Major Hasan is a tormented “innocent” who must have snapped under alleged conditions of extreme provocation and humiliation. Indeed, today, the headline in the New York Times about this story is: “Little Evidence of Terror Plot in Base Killings” with a sub-heading of “Investigators Say Major at Fort Hood Faced Many Pressures.”

As I predicted yesterday, the New York Times views the jihadist as the victim, as a man who was suffering from secondary trauma given the stress of listening to other soldiers talk about their battlefield trauma. The mainstream media assures people that there is no such thing as Islamic jihad; that the Ft. Hood massacre has nothing to do with Islam or with violent jihad; that if there are any victims here, it is not the dead and wounded soldiers (whose young and beautiful faces have begun to haunt me), but the man accused of their mass murders.

The portrait of Major Hasan to be found in the pages of the New York Times is that of a solitary and tormented man, one who was being forced to fight in a war he opposed for religious reasons, an unjust war, a man who viewed America as the aggressor, and Muslims, especially Muslim suicide killers, as innocent, justified, even heroic.

So far, he sounds like a New York Times reader himself.

I am a psychologist, a retired Professor of Psychology and a psycho-analytically oriented psychotherapist. But I have also been following current events, even studying them. Based on the evidence to date, Major Hasan’s bloody rampage seems to have been planned. The day before the murders, he gave away his furniture and copies of his Qu’ran. On that day, Major Hasan also had a mysterious, brief meeting with another man dressed in Islamic clothing. He shred lots of documents. And, strangely, he asked to use his neighbor’s computer when he had a computer of his own.

Thus, Hasan’s action was a planned execution. It was not the act of a man who suddenly “snapped.” Yes, as I wrote in my earlier piece, we may characterize Hasan’s action as a case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome but that does not mean I am making an actual psychiatric diagnosis. The phrase is descriptive, perhaps even sarcastic. Yes, we may call this the act of a lone shooter — if it turns out that he acted alone — but still, this lone shooter was someone who was inspired by a radical Islamist ideology which views such murderous acts as religiously heroic, not as “psychiatrically deranged.”

In Gaza or on the West Bank, Major Hasan would be given a hero’s parade. Osama bin Laden’s followers will print posters and banners with his face.

Some may choose to view him as dysfunctional, psychiatrically challenged, socially inappropriate, isolated, inflexible, fanatical — but that does not justify or excuse his jihadic crime. Many religious fanatics are also “mentally ill.” It is the religious ideology that empowers criminal and, in Hasan’s case, treasonous activity. Hasan did not commit jihadic mass murder because he is “mentally ill,” but because he is a jihadist.