Militant Babies Came to Me
It's Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week, that festive week where David Horowitz sends Ann Coulter to Tulane University in order to teach the students there about berserk ideological extremists.
According to my close friend and erstwhile e-correspondent Robert Stacy McCain (who assures me he is full of Love), these Horowitzian Doves of Peace are encountering savage Leftist resistance on the campuses they have decided to visit.
You don't say. Why, you'd almost suspect that the entire point of this bullshit was to engage in some sort of lunatic psychodrama involving The Left, and not to teach blank-slate American college students about "Islamofascism," whatever the fuck that is when it's at home.
But that would be wrong. Because you can just tell that the presenters Horowitz has discovered are not at all nuts. Nope. (I assure you, I have not made the following up. It is 100% true real. I hope that's a comfort to you, though I can't see why it would be.)
“The radical Muslims on American campuses are getting more belligerent, far more militant,” author and lecturer Nonie Darwish tells me. “They have perfected their intimidation and disruption techniques.”
I don't know who Nonie Darwish is, so I Google her. Feel free to do likewise. Draw your own conclusions. But let's look at the rest of this piece, which I remind you I am not making up.
Last week, on October 18, 2007, our hero Darwish spoke at the all-female Wellesley College as the guest of Hillel on campus. She was not treated as a hero; then again, maybe she was, maybe her treatment is precisely how heroes are greeted on American campuses today. About 80-100 students came. Far more Muslim than Jewish students came and “so many” of the Muslim girls were wearing head-scarves.
According to Darwish, the female students in head-scarves did the following: As she spoke, they made exaggerated, “mean girl” faces at her. They rolled their eyes, practiced “disbelieving” facial expressions—did everything but stick out their tongues. And they continued to talk to each other in loud whispers while Darwish spoke: “How can she tell such lies!” “I was never, ever indoctrinated against Jews!” “Can you believe what she is saying?” “We do not call Jews pigs and apes, how can she lie about her own people?”
In addition to the “mean girl” faces and the continual loud whispering, one by one, at least four to five head-scarved girls, got up to leave the room during Darwish’s speech. This meant that each girl took two minutes to move to the end of her row, physically causing the other students to get up or twist aside, causing the entire room to look at the departing student, not at their invited guest—and then each girl did precisely the same thing when she returned two minutes later, presumably from a bathroom break.
They quadruple-teamed Darwish and did not stop until Darwish ended her lecture. Twenty to thirty minutes of soft-core, well-choreographed, goon squad behavior.
They made "mean-girl" faces at her? They savagely went to go pee in turn? Their whispers were audible in complete sentences from the podium?
You want the punchline? (As if you would say no, redsnouts.)
“They are Hamas-trained” says Darwish.
Hamas is training female Muslim Wellesley students in pretend pee techniques? They don't miss a trick, that Hamas, ya gotta give 'em that. That's a new one on me. But wait, there's more.
“And all the while,” Darwish says, “the Jewish students cringed and cowered, so afraid that they might have hurt Muslim feelings. (Or rather, that the Muslims might physically hurt them afterwards. According to Darwish, one Jewish student told her that “she “was locking her door. I am scared.”)....
The Muslim chaplain at Wellesley herself wears a headscarf, and arrived accompanied by a bearded male companion. Darwish asks: “Who is paying for all these Muslim chaplains on every American campus? Why are they needed? What is their real role?”
In Darwish’s view, “the happiest Muslims on earth are those who live under Judeo-Christian laws, not under Shari’a law.” These young girls are “disconnected from the reality of Islam.” Or, they are exercising the “only power anyone, men or women, are allowed to have: the power to enforce the status quo and to further the Muslim jihadic mission.”
Darwish repeated, many times, that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but so many terrorists are Muslims”; that she is “not speaking about peaceful Muslims or about each and every Muslim” but about Muslims who uphold a reactionary status quo.”
Darwish concludes: “Muslim girls like these are like gangsters. They know more about their rights in America than the Jewish girls do. The Muslim girls all have a chip on their shoulders.”
And then she is silent. Softly, she says: “We are fighting an avalanche. We are too few. I am frightened by my culture of origin. I am scared of my own people.”
Gosh that's persuasive.
I'm not a Citizen Journalist or anything. Because if I were, I'd call bullshit.


I tend to agree that Chesler's account is over the top. It's not at all clear to me that she recounted Darwish's statements or feelings correctly, and so, I really don't know how to feel about who/what Darwish is or believes.
On the other hand her story is similar in many respects to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie and others, that I am willing to give her some weight.
When a lot of Chinese fled from China and came to the states in the 40s, 50s, etc., they gravitated toward the right. Just because I think the right and David Horowitz are fucktards doesn't mean I think the recent immigrants that flee repressive societies are all wet.
This can be one of the problems with running your life on ingroup politics.
Chesler herself has an interesting background -- you're probably dismissing her on the wrong basis by calling her a citizen journalist. http://apostate.wordpress.com/
If you want an interesting blog, take a look at theapostate, http://apostate.wordpress.com/, a young feminist women with a very similar story to Ali and possibly Darwish.
It may be the case that as much as we dislike Horowitz, we would be wise to listen to the Apostate, Darwish, Ali, Rushdie, etc.
(Note to Jeff Fecke: part one of your search can begin at the apostate's blogroll.)
Posted by: feh | October 23, 2007 at 02:56 AM
I saw Rushdie's show. His novels are smarter than he is, which is no insult.
I hate interesting blogs.
Posted by: Thers | October 23, 2007 at 03:16 AM
"Many of the girls in head scarves refused to sign Darwish's yearbook or compliment her pretty dress."
- or - Shorter Darwish: "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!"
Posted by: Ripley | October 23, 2007 at 03:24 AM
Oops, that link to Chesler was intended to be to the wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Chesler
Re: uninteresting blogs. Althouse is pissed off with Sully tonight -- apparently he doesn't get her "sense of humor".
Posted by: feh | October 23, 2007 at 03:30 AM
Dear Ms. Darwish,
"So" is not an intensifier. It is a subordinating and/or a correlative conjunction. Please make a note of it.
Love,
Molly Ivors
Posted by: Molly Ivors | October 23, 2007 at 05:17 AM
According to Darwish, the female students in head-scarves did the following: As she spoke, they made exaggerated, “mean girl” faces at her. They rolled their eyes, practiced “disbelieving” facial expressions—did everything but stick out their tongues. And they continued to talk to each other in loud whispers while Darwish spoke: “How can she tell such lies!” “I was never, ever indoctrinated against Jews!” “Can you believe what she is saying?” “We do not call Jews pigs and apes, how can she lie about her own people?”
Are you SURE you didn't make this up, Thers? I wouldn't think any less of you if you did; that's some funny stuff.
Posted by: Spokane Moderate | October 23, 2007 at 08:11 AM
The part about them getting up to pee, and then "They are Hamas-trained," that's where I laughed out loud.
By that standard people who died centuries before Hamas was even thought of must have been Hamas-trained too.
They got up to pee. The horror.
Posted by: | October 23, 2007 at 10:23 AM
The part about them getting up to pee, and then "They are Hamas-trained," that's where I laughed out loud.
By that standard people who died centuries before Hamas was even thought of must have been Hamas-trained too.
They got up to pee. The horror.
Posted by: | October 23, 2007 at 10:23 AM
“the happiest Muslims on earth are those who live under Judeo-Christian laws, not under Shari’a law.”
Personally, I would prefer to live under the laws of the United States, but aparently this person doesn't think that's an option . . .
Posted by: rea | October 23, 2007 at 10:27 AM
It just sounds like a bunch of men with bad prostates.
Posted by: spinoza | October 23, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Mean girl faces, whispered comments, and girls excusing themselves abruptly...?
My God, I think I was the victim of Hamas trained teh-rists at every high school dance I ever attended.
Now it all makes sense. They didn't hate me, they hated my freedom!
Posted by: dewey kneadleeder | October 23, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Darwish concludes: “Muslim girls like these are like gangsters. They know more about their rights in America than the Jewish girls do. The Muslim girls all have a chip on their shoulders.”
Just like feminazis, who use their stupid rights against oppressed men who just want to joke around. Or those damn defense attorneys always getting the bad guys out "on a technicality" or those uppity black folk with the chip on their shoulders - they're always Civil Rights Act this and Voting Rights Act that. Good people don't know that stuff because good people don't NEED to know that stuff.
Posted by: eRobin | October 23, 2007 at 12:52 PM
So much to love here.
Darwish asks: “Who is paying for all these Muslim chaplains on every American campus? Why are they needed? What is their real role?”
You know, that's a damn good question if you take out the word "Muslim."
she is “not speaking about peaceful Muslims or about each and every Muslim” but about Muslims who uphold a reactionary status quo.”
I'm pretty sure you can peacefully uphold a reactionary status quo. Hell, I've seen it done, and not by Muslims.
Posted by: Hogan | October 23, 2007 at 02:42 PM
My God.. If getting up to pee and whispering during lectures is a sign that a person is Hamas-trained, then we'd better start keeping better track of Mom.
Posted by: refinnej | October 23, 2007 at 02:50 PM
How do they *know* the girls went to pee? Did someone follow them into the restroom and spy on them? Creepy. Creepy Darwish.
Posted by: eruvande | October 23, 2007 at 03:12 PM
“the happiest Muslims on earth are those who live under Judeo-Christian laws, not under Shari’a law.”
Aunt Jemina was Muslim.
Who knew?
Darwish concludes: “Muslim girls like these are like gangsters. They know more about their rights in America than the Jewish girls do.
See? Jews have been able to run the Zionist Occupational Governement because they're rilly stoopid and don't know their rights.
Darwish asks: “Who is paying for all these Muslim chaplains on every American campus?
Erm....based on my experience of the college Catholic chaplain? Prolly the Muslim Student Society.....
Posted by: | October 23, 2007 at 03:50 PM
Apparently, she has encountered similar problems before
Posted by: feh | October 23, 2007 at 08:08 PM
I don't see what's so unusual about the students being Hamas-trained. Most children are Hamas-trained by age three; otherwise it would be inadvisable to bring them to a long public lecture. If it takes longer than three months to Hamas-train your child, consult your family doctor.
Posted by: Hob | October 23, 2007 at 08:56 PM
Nonie Darwish runs a web site called "arabsforisrael.com", writes books and goes on CNN to talk about the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism, and appears to spend a great deal of her time speaking on campus as the guest of various Jewish student groups.
As Thers says, draw your own conclusions.
Mine: It's nice work if you can get it.
Posted by: Peter Principle | October 23, 2007 at 09:01 PM
spinoza lol
Posted by: ike | October 23, 2007 at 09:05 PM
Darwish concludes: “Muslim girls like these are like gangsters. They know more about their rights in America than the Jewish girls do.
I could probably Google whether there are more female Jewish attorneys in the US or female Muslim attorneys, but in true PajamasMedia fashion, i will pull a number out of my ass and say there are ten FJA's for every one FMA. Anyone want to take a bet?
Posted by: The Kenosha Kid | October 23, 2007 at 09:07 PM
I don't have my calendar handy. Is Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week before or after Republo-Fascist Self-Awareness Week?
Posted by: Wilmott | October 23, 2007 at 09:15 PM
Horowitz's purpose is to uncover and rail at imagined enemies in his own society. That is his whole gig. If you follow his career, you'll see that he modifies his target area from time to time, depending on what's in the news. He doesn't promote anything other than himself.
The object of this exercise isn't really to foment mistrust of Islam, although that is part of the manoeuvre, but to draw out people who object to the exercise and label them traitors.
Posted by: P. Drano | October 23, 2007 at 09:22 PM
Is Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week before or after Republo-Fascist Self-Awareness Week?
Yes.
Posted by: megisi | October 23, 2007 at 09:23 PM
How do they *know* the girls went to pee? Did someone follow them into the restroom and spy on them?
Remember Annie Jacobsen, who had a bone-chilling experience by sharing an airplane with several Muslims -- taking turns -- going to the bathroom! And _they_ made gestures, too!
It's an unmistakable pattern. When Muslims go to the bathroom, it's a dry run for terrorism. Is it irresponsible to speculate? It'd be irresponsible not to.
Posted by: FlipYrWhig | October 23, 2007 at 09:25 PM
Nonie Darwish's father was killed by the IDF in an assassination.
My conclusion Peter Principle, is that for her to make pro-Israel statements, she must firmly believe in what she is saying.
Perhaps you would easily dishonor your father's memory for a few bucks, but that says more about you than it does about anyone else.
Remember kids: if David Horowitz is for something, we must hate it, if it's pro-Israel we must despise it, and we mustn't let common sense get in our way.
Peter, you have reached your level. In fact, I think you've exceeded it.
Posted by: feh | October 23, 2007 at 09:27 PM
Uhm I don't want to get in over my head or anything as I am a male atheist, but Moslem women are not the only ones who cover their hair. So do orthodox Jewish women. Might some of the sighing islamofascist women at the Hillil have been orthodox Jews ?
I mean not to mention the fact that Orthodox Jewish men wear beards "thou shalt not mar the corners of they beard" and all that.
I guess Darwish knew they were Moslem because they had dark skins and we know that no Jews have dark skins.
Also, how can I make a "whirling Dervish" vs "Spinning Dawish" pun ?
Posted by: Robert Waldmann | October 23, 2007 at 09:31 PM
Dear Ms. Darwish,
"So" is not an intensifier. It is a subordinating and/or a correlative conjunction. Please make a note of it.
Love,
Molly Ivors
You are so right!
How right?
So right!
Posted by: Rmj, Face of Bo | October 23, 2007 at 09:45 PM
If Darwish thinks that all Jews are whiteys then I guess she's never been to Israel.
Posted by: Bourgeois Liberal | October 23, 2007 at 09:46 PM
feh wrote, "My conclusion Peter Principle, is that for her to make pro-Israel statements, she must firmly believe in what she is saying."
If you look at the page arabsforisrael.com/whoarewe.html, and ask yourself "how does she suggest Palestinians gain sovereignty over the Occupied Territories?", you'll find these bulleted items to be the most on point:
* "Palestinians have several options but are deprived from exercising them because of their leadership, the Arab League and surrounding Arab and Moslem countries who have other goals besides seeing Palestinians live in harmony with Israel."
* "We can resolve our conflicts using non-violent means. Sending our young people on suicide/homicide missions as a form of Jihad is a distortion of Islam. We can do better."
* "We seek dialogue with Israel. We invite you to join us on a path of love."
No mention of Israel's continuing war crime (viz, transporting its own populace into an occupied territory, in direct violation of the Geneva convention).
Only possible conclusion: she's despicable.
Posted by: anonymous | October 23, 2007 at 09:48 PM
Robert,
I believe covering your head is only a requirement for married orthodox Jewish women.
Also, I am not sure what the kids are wearing on campus these days, but married Orthodox Jewish women tend to wear only a scarf....
Robert, I'm really surprised by your statement about skin color. Nonie Darwish grew up in Gaza, her father was killed by the IDF, she founded an organization called Arabs for Israel -- I suspect she knows a great deal more about Israel and her inhabitants than you or I.
And since the Jewish women invited her, and the Muslim women apparently have a history of trying to keep her off campus, maybe she made the wild assumption that the women with what she felt was rude behavior, standing up and apparently taking two minutes to reach the end of the aisle, the frequent bladder issues and the hostile faces were the Moslems....
I don't know. Maybe that's common behavior where you folks attend lectures.
Posted by: feh | October 23, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Thers, you missed this Chesler quote:
Darwish is a beautiful and passionate speaker. She is an expressive, emotional orator, dramatically thrilling (as so many Arabs can be)
Orientalism much?
Posted by: Karin | October 23, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Get a grip, feh. She's taking a provocative position. If "mean faces" make her suspect the involvement of Hamas, she's being a drama queen.
Posted by: Thers | October 23, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Maybe that's common behavior where you folks attend lectures.
It may be rude, but it's hardly terrorism -- Muslim students making faces and excusing themselves in a coordinated fashion, and that proves their Hamas-trained? I can't believe you don't see how bizarre and over-the-top Ms. Darwish's conclusion is. You seem to have missed the point of this post.
Posted by: teh l4m3 | October 23, 2007 at 10:12 PM
"They're," not "their." Oops. Point stands.
Posted by: teh l4m3 | October 23, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Hamas Terrorist Peeing Squads?
Really?
Posted by: billy pilgrim | October 23, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Yeah, I suppose that the only happy Mormons are the ones that live in Christian America, that is anywhere but Utah.
And it could be that those women that left the lecture did so not to pee, but because they were pissed off at what was being said. But they did use their training to make sure that they sat in the middle of a row, not the aisle.
I'll remember that the next time I'm at the theatre watching a Chuck Norris flick. Any asshole disturbs me by getting up from the middle of a row...
Posted by: Spud1 | October 23, 2007 at 10:18 PM
did they take a "wide stance" in the restroom? this would indicate that they were in fact republofascists?
Posted by: pretzel | October 23, 2007 at 10:20 PM
Sounds like somebody didn't get invited to Fatima's slumber party and is, like, totally upset! She's, like, so mean, you know?
Posted by: Mnemosyne | October 23, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Dear Gawd, think of what might have happened if someone sneezed! And heaven forfend anyone get a case of the hiccups.
If these pants-wetters are the material Horowitz and co. are trying to forge into an army of staunch crusaders to stand fast against the Islamocommiepinkofascist hordes, all I can say is, they're in big, big trouble.
Though it strikes me that it does open lots of dandy new opportunities for a protection racket.
Posted by: grouchomarxist | October 23, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Get a grip, feh. She's taking a provocative position. If "mean faces" make her suspect the involvement of Hamas, she's being a drama queen.
I agree with you completely on that. More disturbing is if any of this is true, where are the youtube vids? I mean, seriously, this occurred this year, not last year, and there's no video to show exactly what's happening at a speech that is controversial and thought to generate extreme responses?
My points are a) it's hard to determine how much of what Chesler writes portrays Chesler's views or Darwish's views, b) assuming Horowitz is a nutcase doesn't mean Darwish is wrong, c) considering what us liberals usually claim about repressive religions and how they treat women, I give a woman of her background enormous credit in making her views known. d) her father was killed by the IDF and people are saying she's a whoring out her father for money? e) Robert Waldmann (roomate of DeLong in college) is obviously an educated sophisticated guy -- which perhaps goes to show the levels of misunderstanding that pervade these debates.
I dunno, we had this conversation earlier, but before Hitch and Horowitz got there, I thought it was us liberals that championed the Rushdies, Darwishes, and apostates from most religions. This thread seems eager to toss Darwish into the nutjob pile and I'm not certain how much "we" know about her or why we feel so compelled.
Horowitz is a complete fucktard. But I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think it's possible to simultaneously think a) Horowitz is an asshole, b) we shouldn't be in a war in Iraq or going to war in Iran or Syria or, and c) there may be something seriously repressive and ill about some very popular movements in Islam today -- and we should pay attention to that.
And note: yes, I think the same can be said for Christianists in the United States and certain Jewish fundamentalists in the West Bank as well.
Is it Islamofascism? I dunno. It seems more like good old everyday Theocratic nutjobs to me. And I don't think we should ignore them just because Hitchens and Horowitz say they're the evilest thing on the planet. Stopped clocks and all.
Posted by: feh | October 23, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Is it Islamofascism? I dunno. It seems more like good old everyday Theocratic nutjobs to me. And I don't think we should ignore them just because Hitchens and Horowitz say they're the evilest thing on the planet. Stopped clocks and all.
You have a great beginning. It seems your finish needs work.
Posted by: MasonMcD | October 23, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Isn't there a Dave Chappelle skit that would go along with this perfectly?
"I schmeelll an Islamofachist!!"
Posted by: Indy | October 23, 2007 at 11:05 PM
As a non-militant atheist myself, I would love to champion apostates from any 'religion,' but I'm getting the impression that Horowitz, et al, aren't that at all; they appear to me anyway, as zeolots of a different sort. Allies of fascists, anti-modernists, and fundamentalists as long as the shared target are Muslim. Completely ignoring, of course, the shared values of fundamentalist religions in general.
Posted by: Steve | October 23, 2007 at 11:22 PM
good to know these hysterical nutjobs can be defeated by making mean faces. i suspect their whole wingnut gang can be taken down by rustling paper.
Posted by: ron | October 23, 2007 at 11:23 PM
More disturbing is if any of this is true, where are the youtube vids?
I honestly don't give a rat's ass. I think the article speaks for itself, overdone sympathy for its copiously quoted subject and all.
Posted by: Thers | October 23, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Dawrish is no Rushdie. I mean, please.
Posted by: Thers | October 23, 2007 at 11:32 PM
It's true. Jewish girls in America are shy, retiring, and afraid to speak their minds. Perfect little princesses, one might say. I can imagine that at a rough, scary place like Wellesley that all it would take to silence them is a bit of eye-rolling.
Posted by: A NON | October 23, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Hamas taught me how to flick boogers in class when no one is looking.
Posted by: Douglas Watts | October 24, 2007 at 12:08 AM
regarding feh's comment
The reason why I (and here I speak only for myself) don't credit Darwish at all is precisely because she argues, in qutoation marks, that the muslim students that were engaged in organized pissing were trained by Hamas. Now, it is possible that Chesler is lying about what Darwish said, but I find that unlikely - Darwish's org is highly pro-Israel, and clearly she blame 'Jihadism' for the death of ehr father. And she may hold this belief in good faith.
But if she is arguing, as again seems likely, that Hamas was training young women to pee on cue to disrupt little ol' her, then clearly Darwish, although arguing in good faith, is delusional. Your point, in other words, is totally consistant with Darwish being nuts. I too think it unlikely that she's dissing her father for cash, rather than for issues of abandonment, but that in no way means we should listen to a thing she says, without first examining its veracity and its agenda. In other words - treat her like anyone else with a history of saying crazt shit.
Posted by: Padraig | October 24, 2007 at 12:15 AM