PMW: Palestinian women are unique, make "cries of joy" upon son's death, says PA minister
The Palestinian Authority Minister of Women's Affairs, Haifa Al-Agha, who is herself a woman, recently praised Palestinian women pointing out their "uniqueness" compared to all the other women of the world because they rejoice upon the news of the death of their sons:The death knell for Women's Studies
"[PA] Minister of Women's Affairs Haifa Al-Agha... noted the Palestinian woman's uniqueness, which differentiates her from the women of the world, as [only] she receives the news of her son's Martyrdom with cries of joy." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 7, 2015]
This official PA promotion of Martyrdom (Shahada - Death for Allah) as an ideal and the praise of mothers who do not show sorrow but make "cries of joy" when their sons die, was voiced by the PA minister during the current wave of terror attacks. Many young Palestinians have been killed as they stabbed or attempted to stab Israelis. By praising mothers for their "cries of joy," Minister Al-Agha is sending a message to PA society to attack Israelis without fear of death because Martyrdom for Allah is said to be the highest value and highest achievable status.
The minister also added that Palestinian women are noteworthy not only because they celebrate death but because they fight as well:
The National Women’s Studies Association (NWSA) has just voted to support a boycott of…ISIS.JCPA: Amb. Alan Baker: 10 Things to Know about the UN Partition Vote of November 29, 1947
No, just joking. The boycott is against Israel - only.
The recommendation was developed in 2014 by Feminists for Justice in Palestine and draws on a “transnational, intersectional feminist framework” which emphasizes an “indivisible sense of justice.”
Please don’t ask me to explain such self-important and obscure language.
The good news: Although NWSA claims that, in 2014, 2500 of their members “stood in unison in support of freedom and justice in Palestine,” in late November of 2015, only 35% of the voting membership (or 653 members) bothered to vote.
1. It was a historic resolution that expressed the then-prevailing view of most of the major states of the United Nations, which voted in favor of it.
2. It established the principle of two states for two peoples.
3. It recognized the uniqueness of Jerusalem and the Jewish people’s bond to the city.
4. Had the Arabs agreed to live with the resolution as the Israelis did, despite its drawbacks from the standpoint of both sides, we would be in a different situation today with far fewer bereaved families on both sides.
5. Because of the Arabs’ rejection of it and in light of their decision to fight its implementation, the resolution has not assumed any validity except for the historical symbolism of its basic content.
6. The significance of its nonimplementation is that all the previously existing historical and legal rights as recognized by the Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and the San Remo Resolution have remained in force.
7. From that time to the present, negotiation mechanisms prescribed by Resolution 242 (1967), the Camp David accords (1979), and the Oslo agreements (1993-1999) have not been completed and no solution has been agreed upon.
8. Therefore, all the claims about Israel’s rights (and also, of course, about the Arabs’ rights) are still valid and remain unchanged until agreement on a permanent settlement is reached.
9. Therefore, any assertion by the United Nations and the Europeans about the territory belonging to the Palestinians in fact contravenes the symbolic basis of the partition resolution.
10. The time has come for the states to recognize this and stop contravening that symbolic basis.