Substacks
Hamas’s War on Israel: Everything You Need to Know Alana Newhouse
This piece is being co-published with Tablet.
The shocking attack in southern Israel this weekend was the most deadly killing of Jews since the Holocaust. The death toll is worse than the worst day of the Yom Kippur War. It is a massacre that will transform Israel and the Middle East.
What happened? How did the most sophisticated military power in the Middle East get brought to its knees? And what will this mean for the Jewish state moving forward? The answer to those questions will be the reckoning of our lifetimes.
But there are more basic questions that so many are asking. What follows are some answers that explain how we got here and where we might be going.
What is the extent of the attacks? Why are people calling this “Israel’s 9/11”?
More than 700 Israelis have been killed and more than 2,100 wounded in a series of coordinated surprise attacks that occurred inside Israel. The attacks began on the morning of Saturday, October 7. That’s when, according to an IDF spokesman, some 1,000 Hamas terrorists crossed the internationally recognized border between Gaza and Israel and began massacring civilians in at least 14 Israeli towns and communities, entering homes and apartments and killing men, women, and children—including nearly 300 young people who were attending a rave in the desert.
The scenes of horror and bloodshed that resulted, including the murders of entire families, the kidnapping of small children, and rapes of young women, were seemingly intended to cause maximum anger and shock inside Israel. More than 150 people were seized by the terrorists and taken back into Gaza, where they are being held hostage. They include women, very young children, and the elderly.
To give a sense of the scale of these attacks, 700 dead in a country of 9.3 million people (where everyone knows someone’s cousin) is the equivalent of a terror attack on America in which over 25,000 people were brutally murdered. And not in a single catastrophe: imagine 25,000 Americans killed in various murder sprees across the country.
Who carried out these attacks?
Hamas is the short answer, the terrorist organization that rules the Gaza Strip.
Hamas does not recognize the right of Israel to exist and has waged what it calls a war of resistance since its inception. Its tactics over the years have evolved from the recruitment and deployment of suicide bombers to launching barrages of rockets and missiles. But Hamas had never before launched a military operation of this magnitude into Israel.
Okay, but doesn’t Israel have settlements in Gaza, and don’t they control the lives of the Palestinians who live there?
Israel unilaterally withdrew from every last inch of Gaza in 2005, after dismantling the 21 Israeli settlements that had existed in the territory and handing them over to the Palestinian Authority.
The rationale behind Israel’s withdrawal, carried out by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was the notion of land for peace—that Israel would hand over control of certain territories in exchange for security. The land was handed over. The peace never came.
That was 18 years ago. Hamas has ruled the Gaza Strip continuously since 2007, after a five-day-long military conflict with the Palestinian Authority, which was widely hated by Gazans for its corruption.
Since Israel’s withdrawal, Hamas has initiated smaller-scale military conflicts with Israel in 2006, 2008, 2011, and 2018, as well as large-scale wars in 2008–09 (“Operation Cast Lead” in Hebrew), 2012 (“Operation Pillar of Defense”), 2014 (“Operation Protective Edge”), and 2021 (“Operation Guardian of the Walls”).
How could armed terrorists in Jeeps cross Israel’s billion-dollar border fence and massacre hundreds of civilians, take hostages, and bring them back to Gaza? Isn’t the Israeli army supposed to be good at this stuff?
Excellent question. First of all, the timing is important. The attacks came during the Sukkot holiday, when many young soldiers were sent home to be with their families. Other units that were usually in the so-called “Gaza envelope”—the part of Israel that runs along the Gaza Strip—had been moved to the West Bank, in order to protect Israelis who live in Jerusalem and in West Bank communities from attacks during the holiday.
But that doesn’t explain how Israel, one of the most advanced nations on the planet—with some of the most sophisticated surveillance technologies, much of which they invented and developed themselves specifically for these purposes—was caught so unaware.
According to sources in Israel and America who deal with national security and technology, one possible scenario involved a cyberattack that took down Israel’s border fence, with its layers of sensors, early in the morning on Saturday October 7. The attack would also have also affected parts of the Iron Dome system that protects Israeli civilians from frequent rocket attacks by their neighbors in the Strip.
It also seems likely, as security expert Edward Luttwak explained in Tablet, that Israel’s vaunted security services were deceived by operatives inside the Strip who have been secretly partnering with Israel for the past few years to pass information about rocket attacks by Hamas’s rival inside Gaza, the Iranian-backed terror group Islamic Jihad. As the Israelis became reliant on people they thought to be their partners, they began to imagine that they could quietly manage Hamas by increasing trade with the Strip, letting in more goods, allowing Gazans to enter Israel for free medical treatment, and issuing work permits for Gazans to work inside Israel, where a month’s income can feed a Gazan family for a year.
Since last year, Israel has issued over 15,000 new work permits for Gazans to work in Israel, believing that this humanitarian gesture would be reciprocated by Hamas. They were wrong.
All in all, one of the most striking and terrifying things about the attacks for Israelis, and for outside observers, is that once the terrorists had crossed the border, they seemed to encounter no resistance and were able to simply drive through large swaths of Israel murdering at will. From a security standpoint, there is clearly no substitute for well-trained humans with guns. One of the lessons of this terrible day in Israel’s history is likely to be that the country’s confidence that technology is the key to solving its problems and protecting its citizens is overblown.
You’re telling me that a bunch of low-level terrorists in pick-up trucks managed to do all of this on their own?
No.
This was an Iranian attack carried out by Hamas terrorists. Iran is the main arms supplier and political backer of Hamas (which is also supported by Turkey). As The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, the organization and planning for the attack came directly from the Iranian regime, and was finalized at a meeting last Monday in Beirut.
Beirut? That’s actually important. Iran backs Hamas as part of its “Axis of Resistance,” which is an umbrella alliance of the region’s worst villains—including the butcher Bashar al-Assad in Syria, who killed more than half a million of his own people; Hezbollah, the terrorist group that now runs Lebanon; militias in Iraq; and the Houthi tribal army that has torn apart Yemen.
Over the past two decades, Iran started positioning the Axis of Resistance as a way to dominate the region. It found a receptive ear in Barack Obama, who was looking to pave the road for a quick American exit from Iraq. Obama believed the Iranians to be the only power strong enough to run the region without American help. We see now how well that turned out.
If Joe Biden strongly supports Israel, as he says, why did he send $16 billion to Iran? Help square that for me.
When he was Obama’s vice president, Biden was a central progenitor of the Iran Deal, which he then solidified as the cornerstone of his own administration’s Middle East policy.
By allying the U.S. with Tehran, the Iran Deal created a deadly embrace between the United States and a terror state run by corrupt medieval clerics who keep power through violence against their own people and by promoting terror and chaos abroad. As a self-proclaimed “revolutionary regime,” Iran explicitly aims to set not just Israel, but the entire region, on fire.
Giving the Iranians the backing of the U.S. was a recipe for chaos and a green light for terror throughout the region, which is exactly what has happened since Obama announced his deal. Funding Iranian terror, to the tune of $16 billion that the Biden administration sent to Iran in recent weeks, is an act of criminal negligence. As a result, it is fair to say that America has Israeli blood on its hands, too.
But why attack now? I thought Israel and Saudi Arabia were moving toward peace.
Exactly.
What happened most recently was that an emerging Saudi-Israeli peace agreement began to take shape—which would have offered a potentially powerful counterweight to Iran’s ambitions to regional hegemony. Needless to say, the Iranians don’t like that.
Iran’s thinking seems to have been that if the Hamas attack was brutal and deadly enough, the Israelis would have no choice but to strike back extra-hard in Gaza, generating thousands of photographs and videos of destroyed buildings, dead bodies, and crying children that will inflame the so-called “Arab Street,” making it impossible for the Saudis to publicly ally themselves with Israel and leaving Iran in control of the region.
So if there was, indeed, a cyberattack, who did it?
“Any hack would have had to be of multiple IDF systems in order for us to see what we saw,” one source told us. “The Gaza fence is built to be one of the most sophisticated barriers ever created, which can detect a ladder placed gently on it, and yet they were able to breach it in multiple areas before anyone had a chance to get out of bed.”
There aren’t that many actors who could have pulled this off all on their own. The Iranians are obviously involved, and would love to take even more credit than they already have, but Iranian cyberattacks on Israeli systems are constant, and rarely very successful. Russia also makes sense as a villain in the context of their increasingly close partnership with Iran to further their war in Ukraine, and the tensions that war has caused in the Russia-Israel relationship. Still, contributing to a large-scale massacre of Israeli civilians would be a fateful departure. There is also the fact that Russia is generally quite sensitive about funding Islamic terrorist groups, after the wars it fought in Chechnya and Dagestan.
It could have been China, since dismantling Israel’s defensive systems with the press of a button would send a powerful message to Taiwan and other Asian nations that have been buying defensive systems from the U.S. And they do buy large amounts of Iranian oil. But what does China need this for? They have their own problems with Islamic radicalism, which they repress at home with an iron fist.
Finally, there are the Americans. In last week’s email dump concerning chief U.S. diplomat Robert Malley demonstrates, the U.S. rapprochement with Iran has involved more than trying to negotiate a nuclear deal. It has also involved finding people, many of them first- or second-generation Iranian Americans, who could serve as go-betweens in negotiations. Were some of those go-betweens in fact taking direction from Iran? They were. But even if this happened, it wasn’t U.S. policy. It was more like hostile espionage.
In the end, the answer is quite simple: Hamas did it.
What should the Israelis do now?
In a perfect universe, the Israelis would be able to tend to the families of their dead and wounded while getting all their hostages back unharmed, and then sign a peace treaty with Saudi Arabia that would counterbalance the Iranian axis of terror and provide the entire region with a new horizon for hope.
Unfortunately, none of that will happen.
In the cruel logic of the region where Israel is located, and has been located for several thousand years, Hamas’s killing spree was not a repulsive example of the depths of human barbarism. Instead, it was a huge win, and shredded Israel’s vaunted military deterrence. Millions of Arabs and other Middle Easterners, stuck in poor countries run by dysfunctional, oppressive regimes, can go to bed at night with a ray of hope: Israel can and will be destroyed. A regional war is hardly impossible, unless Israel can reestablish its deterrence, fast, and prove that it is not a paper tiger. That means war.
But war with whom? Sadly, America’s deal with Iran dictates the answer there, too. Israel can hardly strike back at Iran, even if it wanted to, because Iran is now under the protection of the United States, which feeds the regime with regular shipments of cash and has promised to protect its nuclear program.
An Israel strike on Iran’s oil fields, or a strike on Iran’s nuclear program, or the decapitation of the Iranian regime, would likely be good for Israel, and good for the region. But since those would effectively be strikes against the regional order that was brought into being and is supported by the United States, striking Iran would put Israel in direct conflict with the United States. That is too big a risk for a divided and traumatized Israel to conceivably handle.
Israel could also strike Iran’s most valuable strategic ally, which is Hezbollah, the terrorist group that controls Lebanon. However, since Hezbollah didn’t attack Israel, and doesn’t appear to have had any direct involvement in the attacks, such a move would be harder to justify—and would involve Israel in a two-front war with a much more powerful opponent than Hamas.
Israel will therefore be obliged to do something in Gaza, though its hands are tied there, too, by the 100 hostages that Hamas took, perhaps two dozen of whom are said to be Americans. Which means that the outcome of whatever Israel does is likely to be as pointless as its previous wars in Gaza, which left Hamas in charge of Gaza.
What is clear from all of this is that Israel’s deterrence strategy of sticks and carrots and electronic barriers against Hamas has failed, and something new will need to be tried in its place.
But what about the Palestinians in Gaza? Aren’t they suffering?
Yes. They are. Ordinary Palestinians are suffering every day under Hamas’s brutal rule. But murdering grandmothers and uploading their dead bodies onto their own Facebook pages for their family to see and massacring people at a music festival are not actions taken by people looking to build, or fight for, a thriving society. And anyone insisting on asking this question on a weekend when more than 700 noncombatants were murdered, women raped, and babies kidnapped has a marked inability to acknowledge the suffering of others. Or maybe just of Jews.
To support more of our coverage of the war on Israel, become a Free Press subscriber today:
Substacks
Niall Ferguson: The Vibe Shift Goes Global Niall Ferguson
I am a 60-year-old Scotsman with a penchant for red suspenders, oolong tea, and the novels of Walter Scott—so no one will ever accuse me of being an arbiter of cool. But to understand politics and even geopolitics you have to understand culture, which is sometimes—often—upstream of both. And to understand culture you have to understand, well, vibes.
Specifically, vibe shifts.
The pop culture commentator Sean Monahan identified three mini-epochs between 2003 and 2020: Hipster/Indie (ca. 2003–9), Post-Internet/Techno (ca. 2010–16), and Hypebeast/Woke (ca. 2016–20). Each was defined by a distinct aesthetic, and the vibe shift from one to the other was swift and palpable. As the pandemic receded, New York magazine’s Allison P. Davis predicted that another vibe shift had to be approaching. (And indeed, Monahan has dubbed the new epoch “Pilled/Scene.”)
I confess none of this meant much to me. I couldn’t tell a hypebeast from a hipster if my life depended on it.
But the term finally clicked—and acquired a powerful significance—when it was imported to the world of tech. In a clever Substack post in February, Santiago Pliego tried to sum up the change that had occurred from the epoch of woke—which began with the cancellation of James Damore by Google in 2017—to the unfiltered era of Elon Musk’s X.
Substacks
December 11, 2024 Heather Cox Richardson
Substacks
Lee Lakeman and The Whoredom of the Left – Read by Eunice Wong Chris Hedges
Text originally published Nov. 16, 2024
An Unjust Burden — by Mr. Fish
I just got off the phone with the Canadian feminist and activist Lee Lakeman. She is in hospice. The battles she has spent her life fighting, including her advocacy for impoverished aboriginal women prostituted in desolate urban landscapes such as the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver, which once had the highest HIV-infection rate in the West, lay behind her. When she is gone, we are the ones who will be impoverished, bereft of her searing intellect and unwavering fight for justice. She will leave in her wake a sterling example of what it means to live the moral life, a life of meaning.
“Everything you and I have spent our life fighting for is worse,” she said to me ruefully over the phone.
Yes. Worse. But her clear, steely-eyed view of the world, her understanding of power and how it works, never dampened her commitment or passion. To fight battles in the face of almost certain defeat, to demand justice for the oppressed no matter the cost, and to know that despite all your efforts, the forces of oppression are growing stronger and crueler, is the essence of nobility.
Prostitution, she argues, is the quintessential expression of global capitalism. Our corporate masters are pimps. We are all being debased and degraded, fleeced economically and stripped of basic civil liberties and political agency, to service the cruel and lascivious demands of the corporate elite. Jeffrey Epstein surrounded himself not only with prostituted underage girls, but the powerful, including Donald Trump, who 27 women have accused of sexual misconduct, along with Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. The hard drives found in Epstein’s safe at his Manhattan mansion, which purportedly included videos of sexual encounters filmed on his properties, have disappeared. It is unlikely they will reappear. The wretched of the earth are reduced in the neoliberal model to serving the desires and fetishes of the wealthy and the privileged.
The widening income disparities, the collapse of the social contract and the grotesque entitlement that comes with celebrity, political power and wealth, has deformed all institutions, including the courts, into instruments that serve the exclusive interests of the entitled. The fight for equal pay, equal distribution of wealth and resources, access to welfare, legal aid that offers adequate protection under the law, social services, job training, healthcare and education services, have been so degraded, they barely exist. This is especially true for poor women and girls.
When the elites tire of us, or when we are no longer of use, we are discarded, like the women and girls men exploit. We are being transformed into serfs on a global plantation ruled by corporations and oligarchs. The fight against prostitution, Lee says, is not only the fight for women and girls, but the fight against a dehumanizing neoliberalism. Poverty, she reminds us, is not an aphrodisiac. Those who sell their bodies most often do so out of desperation. They are usually women and girls of color trafficked from the Global South, as well as refugees from countries at war such as Ukraine. They end up physically injured, with a variety of diseases and medical conditions, and suffer severe emotional trauma. The average age at which a girl enters prostitution is estimated to be 12 to 14. Their life spans are often short.
This fight against prostitution – Lee seeks to decriminalize those who are prostituted and bring criminal charges against the clients, pimps and traffickers – along with her insistence that we should not abolish the police but strengthen its mandate to go after those who abuse women and girls, makes her an anathema to the left. But she has as little time for a feckless left as it does for her. The left, with its woke politics, lack of class consciousness and naiveté about “sex work,” she argues, is bankrupt.
“Selling your body for sex is not a choice,” she says. “It is not about freedom. It is an act of economic slavery.”
You can see an interview I did with Lee and Alice Lee, one of the founders of Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution, here.
I met Lee in March 2015. I did not know that my few hours with her would trigger a firestorm. I was in Vancouver to give a lecture. I had admired her as one of Canada’s most important radicals and collective member of Vancouver Rape Relief & Women’s Shelter. I arranged to speak with her and other women from the shelter along with the women who run Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution the morning before my talk in the shelter’s storefront office.
In the 1970s, Lee opened her home in Ontario to abused women and their children. By 1977 she was in Vancouver working with Vancouver Rape Relief & Women’s Shelter, which was founded in 1973 and is the oldest rape crisis center in Canada. She built alliances with groups such as the Aboriginal Women’s Action Network and Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution to mount court cases to challenge the prostitution industry.
Lee and the shelter refuse to give the provincial government access to victims’ files in order to protect the anonymity of the women. They also deny this information to the courts, in which, Lee says, “defense attorneys try to discredit or bully women complainants in criminal cases of male violence against women.” This defiance has led to losses of government funding.
“It is still impossible to work effectively in a rape crisis center or a transition house and not be breaking the Canadian law on a regular basis,” Lee says.
But Lee is not only the bête noire of the state, but of liberals who, she says, think physical abuse of a woman is abhorrent if it occurs in a sweatshop, but is acceptable in a rented room, an alley, a brothel, a massage parlor or a car.
She stands with the feminist Andrea Dworkin who writes:
Capitalism is not wicked or cruel when the commodity is the whore, profit is not wicked or cruel when the alienated worker is a female piece of meat; corporate bloodsucking is not wicked or cruel when the corporations in question, organized crime syndicates, sell cunt; racism is not wicked or cruel when the black cunt or yellow cunt or red cunt or Hispanic cunt or Jewish cunt has her legs splayed for any man’s pleasure; poverty is not wicked or cruel when it is the poverty of dispossessed women who have only themselves to sell; violence by the powerful against the powerless is not wicked or cruel when it is called sex; slavery is not wicked or cruel when it is sexual slavery; torture is not wicked or cruel when the tormented are women, whores, cunts. The new pornography is left-wing; and the new pornography is a vast graveyard where the Left has gone to die. The Left cannot have its whores and its politics too.
Lee battles a world going numb, a world banishing empathy, a world where solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized is increasingly a foreign concept. She warns that with the political and economic upheavals ahead, caused by climate change, the rise of authoritarian governments, misogynist demagogues and the breakdown of global capitalism, the exploitation of women and girls will explode.
“We have never stopped having to deal with misogyny among activists,” she once told me. “It is a serious problem. How do we talk to each other as movements? We want to talk about coalition building. But we want new formations to take women’s leadership seriously, to use what has been learned in the last 40 or 50 years. We deal with the most dispossessed among women. And it is clear to us that every sloppy uprising, or every unplanned, chaotic uprising, devastates poor women. We need to have thoughtfulness built into our practices of revolt. We do not want the traditional right-wing version of law and order. We work against it. We do not call for a reduction in men’s rights. But, without an organized community, without state responsibility, every woman is on her own against a man with more power.”
“We are seeing a range of violence against women that generations before us never saw — incest, wife abuse, prostitution, trafficking and violence against lesbians,” she went on. “It has become normal. But in periods of chaos, it gets worse. We are trying to hang on to what we know about how to care for people, what we know about working democratically, about nonviolence, yet not be subsumed by the state. Yet we have to insist on a woman’s right not to face every man alone. We have to demand the rule of law. Globalization and neoliberalism have accelerated a process in which women are being sold wholesale, as if it is OK to prostitute Asian women in brothels because they are sending money home to poor families. This is the neoliberal model proposed to us. It is an industry. It is considered OK…just a job like any other job. This model says people are allowed to own factories where prostitution is done. They can own distribution systems for prostitution. They can use public relations to promote it. They can make profits. Men who pay for prostitution support this machinery. The state that permits prostitution supports this machinery. The only way to fight capitalism, racism and protect women is to stop men from buying prostitutes. And once that happens, we can mobilize against the industry and the state to benefit the whole anti-racist and anti-capitalist struggle. But men will have to accept feminist leadership. They will have to listen to us. And they will have to give up the self-indulgence of prostitution.”
“The left broke apart in the 1970s over the failure to contend with racism, imperialism and women’s freedom,” she told me. “These are still the fault lines. We have to build alliances across these gaps. But there are deal breakers. You can’t buy women. You can’t beat women. You can’t expect us to coalesce on the ‘wider’ issues unless you accept this. The problem with the left is it is afraid of words like ‘morality.’ The left does not know how to distinguish between right and wrong. It does not understand what constitutes unethical behavior.”
She warns that backing movements such as Defund the Police are counterproductive. The problem is not policing, the problem is the misuse of the police and the courts to protect the powerful, especially powerful men.
“In the progressive left it is popular to be anti-state,” she said. “It is not popular to say we have to press the state to carry out particular policies. But all resistance has to be precise. It has to reshape society step by step. We can’t abandon people. This is hard for the left to get. It is not, for us, a rhetorical position. It comes from our answering the rape crisis line every day. There is cheap, thin rhetoric from the left about compassion for the prostituted, without ever doing anything concrete for the prostituted.”
She has been boycotted. Grants and funds are denied, especially since the shelter does not allow “male bodied” people who identify as women to take refuge there. Many in the shelter are victims of rape and they need to know, Lee argues, that they can heal and recover in a space where biological males are not present. She has been shamed at public events, attacked as homophobic, “transphobic,” hyper-moralistic, pro-state, “hateful” of men and “anti-sex.”
The battle she and the other feminists fight have its origins in not only patriarchy, but settler colonialism and imperialism, systems of power and exploitation where women are viewed as commodities and rape is ubiquitous.
“For women of color, prostitution is an extension of imperialism,” Alice Lee said. “It is sexualized racism. Prostitution is built on the social power disparities of race and class. Women of color are disproportionately exploited through prostitution. This racism is not acknowledged by those in First World countries, including the left. When the left argues prostitution is a choice, its purpose is to cement the sexualized racism and the status quo of men’s access to our bodies. Sexualized racism renders us invisible and irrelevant. It makes it impossible for us to be considered human.”
“The global trade, particularly of Asian women, has been steadily worsened by the neoliberal policies of First World countries,” said Alice, part of the Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution. “These policies are grounded in social disparities of race, class and gender. They create conditions that force poor women to migrate and funnels women of color into prostitution. Those who support legalizing prostitution often argue that trafficking is bad, but prostitution is acceptable. But trafficking and prostitution are inseparable.”
Women and girls from indigenous communities are especially vulnerable.
“Indigenous women get beat up and killed because of prostitution more than anyone else,” Lee told me. “They have less access to police and less access to support. This is where the rubber hits the road. If you’re not willing to arrest men for endangering the prostituted indigenous women in the Downtown Eastside, how the hell do you call yourself a leftist or a revolutionary? How do you call yourself a decent human being? And if the people around you don’t call you out, who are you to say you’re leading us to a better future or a better life?”
“When some women are bought and sold,” said Hilla Kerner, who when I interviewed her had worked at the shelter for 10 years, “all women can be bought and sold. When some women are objectified, all women are objectified.”
I included the interviews, which I have quoted from here, in a column titled “The Whoredom of the Left.” Liberals were not pleased. I was scheduled to give the keynote address six weeks later at Simon Fraser University for a conference on the climate crisis and the efforts to halt the extraction of fossil fuels. The conference organizers disinvited me. They said they would pay me the lecture fee, but I should not bother attending.
What they did not anticipate was that Lee and other feminists would mount a nationwide campaign to shame the university. I was reinvited but my lecture, scheduled in a large auditorium, was moved to a smaller hall that sat 300 people. My class visits were canceled. Those on the wait-list were told not to come to the event because there were no seats. There was a reception, but when I arrived it was boycotted.
I have faced this kind of shunning and hostility before. It is not pleasant. But this time I did not face it alone. Ten women from the shelter and Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution, most of whom crashed the event without tickets, joined me. This public solidarity and willingness to face an antagonistic crowd speaks not only to their courage, but their integrity. I was very moved. Of course, I focused the talk on the exploitation of women and girls.
“Hedges’ Keynote Sparks Controversy,” read the headline in the Watershed Sentinel.
“Advocates from both camps chimed in online, some radical feminists denounced Hedges, and a few State of Extraction organizers tried to cancel his opening address,” the article read. “But attend he did, and as to be expected from an unbridled social critic, Hedges’ keynote address on Friday night continued to rattle some chains. Eloquently and with the rolling cadence of a seasoned preacher, Hedges described how the extraction industry gives predatory power to men and launched into a graphic account of sexual exploitation of women and girls, (particularly those of color), under global capitalism. He gave a callout to men and the left to ‘stand with all who are turned into objects, especially girls and women’.”
“What is done to girls and women through prostitution is a version of what is done to all of those who do not sign on to the demented project of global capitalism,” I told the crowd. “And if we have any chance of fighting back, we will have to stand up for all the oppressed, all of those who have become prey. To fail to do this will be to commit moral and finally political suicide. To turn our backs on some of the oppressed is to fracture our power. It is to obliterate our moral authority. It is to fail to see that the entire system of predatory exploitation seeks to swallow and devour us all. To be a radical is to stand with all who are turned into objects, especially girls and women whom the global community, and much of the left, has abandoned.”
Lee’s clash with the university, a clash in which she triumphed, was national news. There was a lot of press.
“I know we disagree on this issue, but we have most everything else in common,” one of the reporters said, turning to Alice Lee.
Alice stared at him icily.
“You and I have nothing in common.” she said.
-
Awakening Video1 year ago
This is What Happens When You Try to Report Dirty Cops
-
Substacks9 months ago
THE IRON-CLAD PIÑATA Seymour Hersh
-
Substacks1 year ago
The Russell Brand Rorschach Test Kathleen Stock
-
Substacks1 year ago
A real fact-check of Trump’s appearance on Meet the Press Judd Legum
-
Substacks1 year ago
Letter to the Children of Gaza – Read by Eunice Wong Chris Hedges