Profile image
By Atlas Shrugs (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Can You Be a Zionist Feminist? Pro-Sharia Linda Sarsour Says No

Tuesday, March 14, 2017 9:30
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Sarsour says: “It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, ‘Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?’ There can’t be in feminism. You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There’s just no way around it.”

Remember: the woman saying this is an open supporter of sharia. She claims that “Palestinian” women are being oppressed by Israel, but doesn’t have a word to say about the genuine oppression that Muslim women suffer because of sharia, which sanctions wife-beating, allows for polygamy, and opens the door to female genital mutilation and honor killing. That’s oppression. But Sarsour, as the new leader of the feminist movement, is never going to say a word about that.

The media adores the Islamic supremacist bigot and rabid anti-Semite, Linda Sarsour, who wields her religion like a club. The Times did a puff piece on this annihilationist some time ago — what they’re puffing is anyone’s guess.

I debated this hatemonger here:

Robert Spencer wrote, “Linda Sarsour is an energetic purveyor of the ‘Islamophobia’ myth, and has hysterically claimed that ‘Muslim kids’ are being ‘executed’ in the United States. She was instrumental in prevailing upon de Blasio to end legal and necessary surveillance in Muslim communities in New York. She is also a frequent visitor to the Obama White House, and has claimed that the jihad underwear bomber was a CIA agent — part of what she claims is a U.S. war against Islam. She is a practiced exploiter of the ‘hate’ smear against foes of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, and has never apologized for using the Islamic honor murder of Shaima Alawadi to spread lies about the prevalence of hate crimes against Muslims in America. She is also an enthusiastic supporter of the ‘Palestinian’ jihad against Israel. Given the general support for that jihad among Leftists, and the hard-Left tilt of the de Blasio regime in New York, it is not surprising that her hate-filled endeavors are taxpayer funded. But it is scandalous nonetheless: a grim sign of the times.”

“Can You Be a Zionist Feminist? Linda Sarsour Says No,” by Collier Meyerson, The Nation, March 13, 2017:

Since Donald Trump was elected to the presidency, millions of women across the country have become active in a newly resurgent feminist movement. But, like in all feminist movements before it, tensions between groups of women are bubbling to the surface. The latest fissure making its way into public consciousness is about the role of Zionism in feminism, raised last week by Bustle politics editor, Emily Shire, in a New York Times op-ed.

The International Women’s Strike, an international day of action “by and for women who have been marginalized and silenced,” took an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist position, calling for the destruction of walls “from Mexico to Palestine.” Organizers of the strike wrote in its platform that the decolonization of Palestine is “the beating heart of this new feminist movement.” The day before the strike, Shire, who identifies as a Zionist, expressed her dismay over the platform’s stance on Israel and wrote that she felt like she was being forced to “sacrifice” her Zionism for the sake of her feminism.

In the days after its publication, Shire’s piece has reignited a debate among feminists about the tenets of the movement. I spoke with Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian-American feminist activist, who disagrees with Shire’s claim that feminist actions shouldn’t take a hard line on Israel. Sarsour is one of the architects of the January 21 Women’s March, the biggest national demonstration in history, and also helped organize “A Day without a Woman,” an action that took place in solidarity with the International Women’s Strike.

The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

“Anyone who wants to call themselves an activist cannot be selective.”

In her op-ed, Emily Shire asks, “why should criticism of Israel be key to feminism in 2017?” I think she was being a bit flip there, but I’d love if you can answer her question in earnest.

I was quite surprised and disturbed by her piece. When you talk about feminism you’re talking about the rights of all women and their families to live in dignity, peace, and security. It’s about giving women access to health care and other basic rights. And Israel is a country that continues to occupy territories in Palestine, has people under siege at checkpoints—we have women who have babies on checkpoints because they’re not able to get to hospitals [in time]. It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, “Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?” There can’t be in feminism. You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There’s just no way around it….


We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 1 comment
  • Canderson

    “took an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist position, calling for the destruction of walls “from Mexico to Palestine” What? This is globalization. It is what that communist Soros is hitting the world with, many, many color-revolutions, then balkanization.

    Today democracy is plutocracy wearing sheep’s clothing, and meaning imperialism by the way, under a new flag called globalization.
    “Sustainability” is a code word for regulatory authority.
    Globalism through sustainability is a world without borders, and all is acceptable as long as it is done in the name of a ‘sustainable’ future, including the ‘humanitarian’ invasion of a sovereign state.
    Democracy is indispensable to socialism. — Vladimir Lenin
    Scientific Socialism. (Terror, mind-control, eugenics, when the inmates run the asylum)
    “Communism is Socialism in a hurry” and neither truly exist. They are no longer viable. Manufacturers no longer have a monopoly on the means of production. Thus, they both are an anachronism, just like the British and their empires.” — Chylene Ramsey “War On Terror”

    Communism cannot exist without biased reporting, censorship, and other restrictions against individual expression. “Individuals” cannot exist in a collective, socialist state. The “common good” outweighs individual rights, and any news deemed unfit or threatening to the common good cannot be permitted. But as always some are more equal than others, the multi trillionaires.

    Globalism is global-Imperialism, the prison-planet:
    The meaning of Globalization: one world, one leader, one world religion, one sheeple. Global citizens these are the neo-feudal Lords. The common man will be chipped like cattle and disposed of, this is called UN Agenda 21, 2030. (stacked and packed in urban mega cities, see China. Then fed gmo and vaccines, sterilized until extinct)
    Globalization in two steps:
    1.) This is actually a Marxist New Colonization, multiculturalism (balkanization) to end the nation and they become the new owners of the former nation in the process,

    also like in the Bolshevik revolution, later called the Communist revolution with the arrival of Lenin.
    2.) The slaughter like in the Bolshevik revolution, or Albert Pikes third world war.

    The national-minority theory is said to be grounded in Marxism, and specifically in a doctrine derived from a 1913 essay by Stalin, ‘Marxism and the National Question’.1

    In essence, the argument is simple. Stalin listed the attributes which, in his opinion, an ethnic group must possess to qualify as a nation. This was Stalin’s famous ‘definition of the nation’, which became the orthodox Marxist concept of the nation, accepted by most Marxists, Stalinists and non-Stalinists alike, down to recent times.

    Complementing the concept of ‘nation’ was the concept of ‘national minority’, a term which designated ethnic communities that failed to qualify as nations.
    The distinction was terribly important. Real nations had the potential to become independent states, and deserved the right of self-determination. National minorities had no such potential, and were fated to dissolve, in political terms, through assimilation. Moreover, national forms of political struggle were justifiable for nations, but not for national minorities. One of Stalin’s crucial criteria for nationhood was the possession of undivided national territory. Ethnic communities which were fragmented or dispersed were not real nations: They were national minorities.

    The National Question: Decolonizing the Theory of Nationalism.

    EU the New Soviet Union:
    “The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western
    Europe.” — Mikhail Gorbachev

    The EU version of what a nation is equal to
    Otto Bauer and Joseph Stalin’s version of what a nation is:
    “A nation is an aggregate of people bound in a community of the character … by a common destiny.”
    This is wrong ! This is pure Red- Marxist- bull.
    The real, the true definition of what a nation is:
    A nation is a collective of people united by common factors such as language, religion, ethnicity, descent, history, culture, traditions, a shared governance and social norms.
    Expression of the nation is nationalism.

    Divide and Conquer by multiculturalism. A form of the economic hitman.

    Divide and Conquer by war:
    This is also according to the same formula: (divide and conquer, balkanization) –> communitarianism (vasall state, weak and easy to control), see the Fabian-Society.
    Create a region made up of petty squabbling and weak “micro-states and mini-states”

    Former Al-Qaeda Operative Claims Qaeda/ISIS Run By The CIA
    Na’eem first referenced the Project For A New American Century and the Bernard Lewis plan to break up the Middle East, re-establish national boundaries, and create a

    region made up of petty squabbling and weak “micro-states and mini-states” when he stated the following:

    The term “communitarian” was coined in 1841, by John Goodwyn Barmby, a leader of the British Chartist movement, who used it in referring to utopian socialists.
    The Fabian Society Exposed

    Podcast 042 : Interview : Niki Raapana : Communitarianism – Dialectical Tool of the New World Order (EU, UN directives)

    Neo-Feudalism Captures the United States
    Wealthy individuals and corporate interests are the new feudal lords—with billionaires and multi-national corporations as the new kings and millionaires and regional corporate interests as the new lords—while the American majority has become the new serfdom. In effect, organizations like the petrochemical lobby and individuals like

    the Koch brothers are the new neo-feudal monarchs, who command the loyalty of their local vassals (politicians), in order to control and exploit the serfs (the American people).

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Top Global


Top Alternative




Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.