Post-September 11 anti-war movement

The post-September 11 anti-war movement is an anti-war social movement that emerged after the September 11 terrorist attacks in response to the War on Terrorism .


On September 11, 2001 a series of coordinated terrorist attacks against the United States killed approximately 3000 people. These attacks APPEAR to-have-been the carried out by a small group of Individuals Who FORMED share of the al-Qaeda network: Islamists without formal backing from Any state (though There Were and are suspicions That Al Qaeda Was aided and funded by Several Arab / Muslim countries). Following the US President George W. Bush declared a campaign with the stated aim of defeating terrorism which he called ” War on Terrorism “.

ALTHOUGH qui de son programs Constitute share of this “war” have HAS never been Formally articulated, the term Appears to embraces at least two major Bush initiatives: a set of exchange to US criminal law and immigration law(most notably through the USA PATRIOT Act ) and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq . The term may also include such matters as the creation of a Homeland Security Department .

Many Of Those on the left and others Who Would come to oppose the War on Terrorism Did not believe it That was really a response to the terrorist attacks. They point to the New American Century Project as proof that Bush has simply used the excesses to put the Imperialist plans on neoconservatives into action. They also point to what they perceive as the ineffectiveness of Bush’s strategy for the reduction of terrorism and the lack of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda .

Immediate reaction to the attacks

The immediate, worldwide response to the attacks was widely described at the time as “shock”. [1] [2] [3] No national government struck responsibility or connection to the attacks. Indeed, the governments most associated with Islamism. Wakeel Ahmed Mutawakel , the foreign minister of Afghanistan’s then-ruling Taliban government, declared, “We denounce this terrorist attack, whoever is behind it.” [1] Mohammad Khatami , the Iranian president, said he felt “deep regret and sympathy with the victims.” [1] Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh ,Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama, said, “Hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts.” [4] Palestinian President Yasser Arafat said, “We completely condemn this serious operation … We were completely shocked …” [5] Many, though, considered hypocritical reactions, since several Arab and Muslim states encourage anti-Americanism and many newspapers in the Arab world-for-example the Islamist opposition press in Egypt [6]-openly celebrated the September 11 attacks. Moreover, states like Iran and Syria Were Known for long-year funding of terrorist networks Such As Hezbollah , Hamas and Islamic Jihad . Also, Al-Qaida training camps Were undisturbed operating in Afghanistan and the organization Held bank accounts in Saudi Arabia .

On the left, condemnation of the attacks is usually general, even frequently (even in the days immediately after the attack) condemnation of ostensibly related aspects of US policies. Noam Chomsky ‘s statement in the wake of the attacks begins by condemning this “major atrocity [y]” and “horrendous crime”, but also by contextualizing it in the terms of the Clinton- ra US attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory and prefiguring what would be a widespread concern for the left around: “… the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains.” [7] Similarly, from Vijay Prashad, “The attacks must be condemned without reservation.” But we must be certain that these are probably the workings of frustrated and alienated human beings, and that they are anonymous. [8] Martin Woollacott , writing in The Guardian , called the attacks, “above all a stupendous crime”, but also wrote, “America’s best defense against terrorism Plainly, this is furthest from the case in the Muslim world. ” [9]

Elected partners are generally identified as being in the United States of America. For example, the day after the attack, Senator Edward Kennedy describes the attack as “vicious and horrifying … acts of unspeakable cruelty … a massive tragedy for America”, and commended President Bush for “his strong statement … about finding and punishing the perpetrators of this atrocity. ” [10] President Bush to use force against “those responsible”. The Senate voted 98-0, the House 420-1, with only Barbara Lee (D-California) dissenting. [11]In a lengthy interview explaining her dissent, Lee pointed to her professional training as a social worker and remarked, “Right now, we’re dealing with recovery, and we’re dealing with mourning, and there’s no way … [we should ] … deal with decisions that could escalate violence and spiral out of control. ” [12]

An anti-war movement forms

Within days of the September 11 events, it was widely agreed that the issues were carried out by al-Qaeda . The dissenters from this view were mostly Muslims ; al-Qa’ida responsibility for the attacks may be a minority view in majority-Muslim countries, [13] but not among Muslims in the US [14] A small segment of the population also calls this belief into question. A much larger segment (though still a minority) of the left (both in the US and elsewhere) competed with the clear majority of Muslims that has a military attack on Afghanistan. This anti-war is still more widespread than the other two Muslims in Iraq.

The left was somewhat fragmented with respect to the invasion of Afghanistan. US Representative Dennis Kucinich , who had opposed the war in Kosovo and would soon oppose the invasion of Iraq, voted for authorize military action against Afghanistan, it would be a disaster, a nightmare, and a counterproductive. [15] US Representative Cynthia McKinney , speaking on September 24, Acknowledged That “We must find and hold accountable all Those Who perpetrated Those MOST terrible crimes contre our Nation and Its People”, goal denounced what she saw as impending “suspensions of Fundamental civil liberties”, adding,” Already there is growing disquiet, “said it,” adding that it is “highly concerned that we are about to engage in an extremely hazardous military campaign of unknown duration, with unrealistic objectives and even in the Muslim world that the US is poised to turn its terrorist campaign into a war against Islam. ” [16] Indian leftist writer Arundhati Roy, writing on September 29, strongly condemned both the attackers who had “blown a hole in the world as we knew it” and Bush for reacting by going to war against Afghanistan: “President Bush’s ultimatum to the people of the world -” If you You’re against us – it’s a piece of presumptuous arrogance, it’s not a choice that people want to, need to, or should have to make. ” [17]

Within A Few weeks after September 11, est devenu it clear That two major prongs of the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism” Were to be a set of exchange to US criminal law and immigration law and an invasion of Afghanistan. An international anti-war movement In the United States and other countries, the laws of the United States and the United States of America, it was also a movement in the field of civil liberties and immigrant rights. This movement has a loose coalition of groups united in their opposition to US military campaigns in the Middle East. Most prominent in the ranks of the movement were leftists; pacifistsand others with longtime associations with global peace movements ; and Arabs and Muslims, including, but not limited to, Islamists. Most commentary focuses on the “anti-war movement” in the singular, although in many ways it can be argued that there is a difference in US foreign policy.

The movement (or movements) included an enormous variety of groups that could not be categorized as “left” in any one of the following terms. In addition to the many non-leftist Arabs and Muslims in the movement, there were uncomfortable European nationalists with US unilateralism (their numbers would increase significantly in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq). There Was aussi year uneasy relationship with Explicitly antisemitic groups charged que la Who Was being white war waged On Behalf Of Israel ; with the few, small right-winganti-war groups; and with certain political fringe groups, such as the followers of Lyndon LaRouche . These latter groups were sometimes involved in the same demonstrations with other opponents of the war, but seldom were involved in any of the same organized coalitions.

Almost no one denied the connection between Afghanistan and Taliban government and al-Qaeda. However, various leftists opposed to Afghanistan and the subsequent invasion of Iraq on the following grounds: pacifism; believe that the war was illegal under international law ; opposition to perceived US imperialism ; disbelief (especially in the case of Iraq) in the sincerity of the US’s war Stated Aims of counter-terrorism and the spread of political freedom ; believe that the wars were motivated by neocolonialism and petroleum politics ; and, in a few cases, denial of al-Qaeda’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks.

Another argument against the Afghanistan invasion was that it would be more likely that it would be more effective to isolate or isolate al-Qaeda: that it would inflate their importance and gain them. Similarly, Iraq was one of those who was not a threat to the United States and was preemptively attacked, but Saddaam Hussein was widely seen as a violent dictator. Saddam’s relation to al-Qaeda, about his possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and about the effectiveness of war for a cause of containing WMDs, or because of the lack of United Nations support for war.

Many Islamists and Arabs, and a few leftists, saw the war as a crusade -against Islam. Reviews This was the obverse of the ideas Expressed, for example, by Samuel P. Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order . However, this view is largely rejected by those on the left, which is generally divisible into civilizations with fundamentally opposed cultures.

In the United Kingdom, the Stop the War Coalition was formed within the 9/11 attacks. The coalition rallies political groups around three main principles: condemnation and rejection of both the War on Terrorism and the 9/11 attacks; opposition to the erosion of civil rights and the racist backlash that followed 9/11; Unity of the Constituency is a group of groups that they believe to be able to build in the context of the War on Terrorism, but diversity in the sense that these groups are free to develop their own political analysis and local activities. Over the next two years, the Stop the War Coalition organized a series of mass demonstrations in London, together with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Muslim Association of Britain, culminating in the largest demonstration in British history on 15. February 2003, with 1-2 million demonstrators. Although the Stop the War Coalition includes a broad range of political groups, it is often criticized because of the strong influence of the Socialist Workers Party .

Anti-war organizations and rallies

The anti-war movement has organized massive anti-war rallies , in opposition to the War on Terrorism . Some of the most prominent organizations started by opposing the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Others form only after the Afghanistan invasion and after Bush’s January 29, 2002 State of the Union Addresses Iraq , Iran , and North Korea , which Bush referred to collectively as an ” axis of evil “.

Left and anti-war in the US

The most prominent US-based movement groups are Act to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) , Not in Our Name (NION) , and United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) .

ANSWER was one of the first US left groups in the aftermath of September 11 attacks in the back of the nascent “War on Terror”. With the United States, the International Action Center (IAC), a group founded in 1992 by former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark and perceived both on the left [18] and right 18] 19] as closely tied to the Workers World Party. Drawing on that party’s tight organization, ANSWER attracted an estimated 8,000 people to their first major action, an “anti-war, anti-racist” rally and march in Washington, DC, primarily in protest of the impending invasion of Afghanistan. This rally occurred on September 29, 2001, at 18 days after the September 11 attacks. This rally happened several hours after the first national protest against the war, an unpermitted march of 2,000 through the streets of Washington which had been organized by the Anti-Capitalist Convergence.

Notwithstanding their organizational ability, Workers World’s role in ANSWER and ANSWER’s role in the movement were (and are) controversial, both on the left and elsewhere. In a typical example of criticism from the left, Michael Albert and Stephen R. Shalom writing on October 24, 2002 for Z , about a then-impending nationwide set of demonstrations (called by ANSWER), begin their discussion [20]with a scathing critique of the World Workers, IAC, and (by implication) ANSWER. Describing IAC as an “extremely energetic antiwar group” and laying out their relationship to ANSWER, Clark, and Workers World (which they call “WWP”), they say, “It’s a North Korea.” socialist Korea ‘… a fantastic distortion of the reality of one of the most rigid dictatorships in the world.IAC expresses its solidarity with Slobodan Milosevic … [T] o champion Milosevic is grotesque. on Afghanistan that refers to the dictatorial government that took power in that country in 1978 as’ socialist ‘and says of the Soviet invasion the next year: the’ USSR intervenes militarily at the behest of the Afghani revolutionary government … Saddam Hussein. There is no mention that he is a ruthless dictator. (This omission is not surprising, given their inability to detect any problem of dictatorship with the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan.) … ”

Albert and Shalom: “If there were another large protest organized by us, then we would urge There is no doubt that we should be working on an organizational structure for the antiwar movement that is not dominated by IAC, but at the moment the ANSWER is proving to be the only show in town. ”

Finally, they discuss how they expect these politics will not affect the demonstration: “IAC demonstrations … have programs in the direction of IAC politics, but without excluding alternative voices. they do not say that they will not like Saddam Hussein from the podium, but they will be able to do so. express positions et une position des visibles, les effets de l’action d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’une question d’un commentaire. This is a powerful antiwar protest.And most of the public will see it that way too. ”

ANSWER attracted significant numbers to their rallies, but. In contrast, the list of early endorsers of NION’s spring 2002 “Statement of Conscience” reads like Who’s Who of the US left, ranging from celebrities such as Laurie Anderson , Deepak Chopra , and John Cusack , to intellectuals like Noam Chomsky , Toni Morrison , and Howard Zinn .

NION was founded a full six months after ANSWER, it was becoming clear that the US would not stop with Afghanistan. NION’s origins are left to rest on the left. Quoting again from the same article by Albert and Shalom, “Significant impetus behind NION comes from the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) . RCP recognizes itself as followers of Marxism – Leninism – Maoism . Their website expresses support for Shining Path in Peru , .. an association with a gruesome for the record of violently targeting other progressive groups.bourgeois formulation, they say, pushed by John Mill Stuart and Rosa Luxemburg ) … ”

In spite of these origins, Albert and Shalom see NION in a rather different light than ANSWER-and this goes far to explain the list of prominent members of the US Left. Albert and Shalom Acknowledges the Power of Authorities of the “eloquent and forceful” pledge and write, “RCP does not push its specific positions on NION to the degree that IAC does on ANSWER”, pointing out the contrast between the contents of the respective organizations web sites: “[T] he NION website and its public positions have no connection to the weird views of the RCP.” The case for participating in NION is stronger than for ANSWERevents. NION activities promotes an antiwar message that helps us build stronger antiwar coalitions.

The third major US group, UFPJ, founded around the time Albert and Shalom were writing, free from such accusations of sectarianism. Motivated no doubt in part by Albert and Shalom, UFPJ has been, from the start, a broad coalition of organizations; NION itself is a member of UFPJ, as are MoveOn , the National Council of Churches , and Albert’s own Z magazine.

The groups have collaborated at times on events, although collaboration has not always been easy. In the most infamous incident, Rabbi Michael Lerner was banned from a February 16, 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco, less than a month before the US invaded Iraq. It was thought that this was done at ANSWER’s behest, because Lerner had been critical of what he saw as ANSWER’s anti- Israel politics. Lerner, though irked that NION and UFPJ did not stand up for his inclusion as a speaker, continued to encourage people to wait for the rally. [21] [22]

Anti-war in Europe

There was widespread support for the US in Europe after the September 11 attacks, and little opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan and moves against the Al’Qaeda network. However, a large anti-war movement began to develop when the American government started agitating for an invasion of Iraq. Before and during the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, opposition to George W. Bush in Europe. [23] Many were angered by what was seen as a stubborn unilateralism .

Some have speculated that European countries are against a resurgence of “anti-American” feeling. Contributing to thesis feelings Were the positions taken by the Bush administration are international issues: for example, American policies are global warming and environmental protection, on the International Criminal Court , we pre-emptive attack, and What Has beens long as Perceived A policy of stubborn unilateralism practiced by successive American governments culminating in the Bush administration and especially the neoconservatives within it.

The commonly articulated reasons included: a belief that a process (including Hans Blix’s inspections) should be allowed to reach its natural conclusion, an aversion to America’s neo-con bellicosity, a belief that the threat posed by Iraq was being exaggerated, a preference for multilateralism, a belief that war might just serve as a recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda, and the fear of the fog of war, the uncertain and unpredictable consequences of invading another country.

The scale of the change in attitudes in Europe between 9/11 and late 2002 was astonishing, with the enormous goodwill and support of the 9/11 period having been greatly eroded. Changes in the Republic of Ireland are an example of this. In the aftermath of the destruction of the World Trade Center , Ireland declared an unprecedented full day of mourning for the victims. The reaction was two-fold: horror at the deaths but also a strong degree of sympathy for the United States, whom Ireland saw as a friend, particularly after US President Bill Clinton’s welcome interventions during the negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement. By February 2003, the public reaction to the Bush administration actions over Iraq had changed America’s image utterly. Instead of being white seen in a positive light, the United States under Bush Was seen as a ‘bully’ Determined to strength the international community to accept icts demand for a war contre Iraq, and if Necessary ignores the international community in the United Nations . Hence, an estimated 100,000 people took part in an anti-war march in Dublin (the organizers had expected 20,000) with demands being made that the United States be refused permission to use Shannon Airport as a stop over point when flying their soldiers from the United States to countries bordering Iraq. Yet opinion polls showed that the Irish would support a war ifit had United Nations approval. What they would not support was a UN-sanctioned war declared in the UN by the Bush administration.

Such ‘anti-Bush’ and anti-war sentiments were reflected in many western European countries, with the US less likely to be stance even when politicians in a given country (eg the UK and Spain) aligned themselves with the US position. The general populations of France and Germany were reported to be more likely to be affected by the policy. France’s position in the United States of America UN resolution, France advised the US that it (the USA) had sufficient UN support for the United States a second resolution. Nonetheless, the US and the UK did not push for a second resolution Blair gains support for the war within the UK) and France is reversing its earlier positions. The French government took the position that the inspection process should be allowed to be completed.

Some Observers, being white Then unconvinced That Iraq’s secular government HAD Any links to Al Qaeda , the terrorist group That attacked This is the US, Expressed puzzlement que la US Would Consider Military Action contre Iraq and not contre North Korea , qui HAD Claimed it already HAD nuclear it was willing to contemplate war with the US

Many critics of the American War on Terror , including the UK’s foreign intelligence services, did not believe that American actions would help to end terror, and believed that they would actually increase the ranks and capabilities of terrorist groups; Al-Qaida is believed to be one of the most important weapons of mass destruction in the world.

America’s presence in Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia has-been one source of discontent HAS That served as an apology to Islamic fundamentalists to commit acts of violence. Even as the US downscales its presence and existing bases (eg Saudi Arabia), it is not clear that the US presence in Iraq will be anything but-de-stabilizing because of the Muslim world resent the “infidel” presence in the Middle East, using this as a means of inciting the disenfranchised in their populations to violence. On the other hand, a stable democracy in Iraq could have a stabilizing influence. Clearly, there was a gamble there, and only the post-war period will be proven which viewpiont was correct.

Perhaps the most popular comment, at least outside of the US, was that the Bush Administration’s reason for going to war with Iraqi natural resources (ie, oil ). Iraqi Oil Fields (a) Iraqi Oil Fields (a) time when arguably links with Saudi Arabia were at risk).

Popular opposition to war on Iraq in Europe in the context of anti-war rallies , which climaxed in an international synchronized anti-war demonstration around the world on February 15, 2003. The largest of these rallies were in Rome, Barcelona , and in London where one million marched at a rally organized by the Stop the War Coalition . All of these cities are in countries that were part of the “coalition of the willing” which took part in the war in Iraq.

Anti-war in Canada

The Canadian Peace Alliance is Canada’s largest umbrella group of over 100 member groups.

Criticism of the anti-war movement

Allegations of hypocrisy and influence of “radical” groups

See also: Euston Manifesto and Red-green-brown alliance

Some opponents of the anti-war movement point to the prominence of groups such as ANSWER and NION and suggest that the movement has been “hijacked” by small radical parties. For example, a November 4, 2002 article [24]by Sherrie Gossett in the right-wing WorldNetDailymakes many of the same criticisms of ANSWER, IAC, Workers World, NION, and the RCP as the Albert / Shalom article quoted above; most of the sources of NION and ANSWER come from within the left. While Gosset gives more details, his general picture of the groups’ politics is the same, but she presents the matter very differently: speaking of the Washington, DC rally that occurred after the Albert / Shalom article, Gosset acknowledges the breadth of speakers at-rally, but-despite the recent-founding of UFPJ, which she does not mention the anti-war movement as “dominated by the international ANSWER coalition”.

Gosset asserts that libertarian Justin Raimondo of agrees with the “hijacking” thesis, but then quotes him: “The people who came to these demonstrations – 100,000 in Washington – do not share the politics of the organizers. ‘t many people on earth – save in North Korea – who share the politics of the organizers I will not go into a long tirade about those politics – the’ International ANSWER ” coalition ‘is, in reality, a front for a group of particularly kooky leftists, Workers World Party. ”

ANSWER and the IAC for the ignorance of atrocities committed by various Arab states – mainly Saddam Hussein ‘s Iraq and the Palestinian Authority : “Not surprisingly, criticism of Saddam Hussein is not aired at IAC / ANSWER – controlled protest events. of Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds, the invasion of Kuwait, murder of an Estimated 1 million de son own celebrities, environmental terrorismThe suffering of the Iraqi people is blamed solely on the United States, just as the suffering of Palestinians is blamed solely on Israel. “She also reiterated Lerner’s accusation against ANSWER as being anti-Israeli and Even antisemitic: “ANSWER’s pro-Palestinian march in April was Regarded by many, in fact, as little more than a thinly public disguised display of anti-Semitism masquerading as a ‘pro-Palestinian’ market.” The Anti- Defamation League published pictures [25]from that protest but noted that “Unlike last spring [as of January 28, 2003], when antiwar rallies have often come out for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic expression, recent protests have largely been focused on American policies toward Iraq.”

Some critics, such as exiled Iranian writer Amir Taheri , view portions of the anti-war movement in Western Europe as “an alliance between radical Left and hard-line Islamists.” In an article published in a somewhat edited version on June 10, 2004 in the Jerusalem Post , [26] much of which is a rehash of his November 18, 2003 article in National Review , [27] Taheri writes “In this month’s election for A new European Parliament, Voters in several European Union countries, notably France and Britain, Europe is moribund extreme Left to a new lease of life thanks to hundreds of young Muslim activists … ”

Without Actually naming the UK-based Stop the War Coalition , he Discusses the membership of ict steering committee: “18 come from various hard Left groups: Communists, Trotskyites, Maoists, and Castroists Three others belong to the radical wing of the. Labor Party Watermelons ( Green outside, red inside) ” There are also eight radicals . He points to a similar alliance of the French Revolutionary Communist League (LCR) and Workers’ Struggle (LO) with radical Islamists. “Are these not the new slaves?” he quotes Olivier Besançonneau (who he describes as “leader of the French Trotskyites”), “Is it not natural that they should unite with the working class to destroy the capitalist system?”

“The European Marxist – Islamist coalition,” Argues Taheri, “does not offer a coherent political platform Its ideology is built around three themes: hatred of the United States, the dream of wiping Israel off the map, and the Hoped-for collapse. of the global economic system. ” Taheri also claims that the French Communist Party (PCF) “commissioned a study of the possibilities of electoral alliances with Muslim organizations.” He does not say that these muslim organizations were Islamists or anything ever came of the study.

Taheri clearly views this alliance with Islamists as it compromises traditional humanist values ​​and the “leftist” values ​​in general. He Clearly Implies That this coalition Could go on to embrace terrorism, paraphrasing Carlos the Jackal , the Venezuelan terrorist Known as “Carlos the Jackal” to the effect That “Islam is the only force capable of Persuading wide numbers of People to Become ‘volontaires’ for suicide attacks against the US “, and directly quoting him,” Only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the US. ”

While many leftists have or have been working with Arab or Muslim groups in opposition to perceived US or Israeli imperialism, alliances between leftists and Islamists are relatively unusual, and Taheri’s sole example of a leftist actually praising Islamist terroristsis from Carlos the Jackal, a terrorist himself. As discussed above, the leftists largely condemned the September 11 attacks, although some differed from those to their right by contextualizing the attacks in terms of what they see as comparable or worse acts of imperialist violence. More typical examples of leftists working in anti-war coalitions with Muslims would be the membership of American Muslims for Jerusalem in UFPJ or of the Muslim Student Association, American Muslims for Global Peace, and Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam in ANSWER. These are Muslim groups, but they are not Islamist groups.

Allegations of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism within the European anti-war movement

See also: New anti – Semitism and Red-green-brown alliance

Some who? ] allege that anti-American sentiments have been expressed at most of these anti-war protests in Europe. Some rallies even turned into violent events, with attacks on police, shops and passers-by, such as the March 24, 2003 rally in Hamburg , Germany.

Some allege That aussi have Muslim minorities are bigger in Many European countries than in the US They Influenced the movement. (5% -10% for France, 3.7% for Germany, 1.3% for Greece, according to the CIA World Factbook). There has been a large number of European anti-war rallies, and many of these have been held against the American War on Terror campaign, often because of Arab / Muslim solidarity. In some groups, such as the British Coalition Stop , Muslims have taken leading positions. The presence of extremists and Alleged Islamists has-been Cited By Commentators Such As Taheri in questioning the anti-war groups’ commitment to human rights .

Anti-Israeli slogans and acts, allegedly most often chanted and committed by Islamists , have caused some to see anti-war rallies to be “hijacked” by them to become anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist and anti-Western events.

In France, Iraqi and Palestinian flags were common in anti-war rallies, while Israeli flags were often set on fire. In one case, [28] the inflammatory atmosphere led to a serious case of violence: two Jewish teenagers, members of Hashomer Hatzair , were attacked in a demonstration in Paris against the war in Iraq . Aurélie Filippetti , a spokesperson of the Green Party in Paris, was among the organizers of the demonstration. In an interview she gave Maarivcorrespond Sefi Handler, [29]she criticized some of her fellow French left-wingers for creating an anti-Israeli atmosphere which encourages antisemitism . She said:

I felt we should stop putting our head in the sand, saying that these are only fringe effects and therefore ‘none of our concern’, which leads us to just condemn them and do nothing more … They explained to me that the slogan ‘ Bush and Sharon are murderers’ anti-Semitism anti-Zionism. But for me, when you burn the flag of Israel, it is anti-Semitism. The meaning is the delegation of Israel’s right to exist .

As a protest, Fillipetti promised to carry both flags of Israel and the Palestinians in the following demonstration of a message of peace and solidarity with Israel’s right to exist. As a result, she received threats and an urged meeting of the Green Party. Fillipetti honored the decision, but said that anti-war protests were still full with Iraq and Palestinian flags. “It was a violent event” she recalls. “I said to myself that if I would carry the flags of Israel and Palestinian, I would then face some serious troubles.”

Parallel to the controversy over the flags, Filipetti published an item in the left-oriented French newspaper Liberation in qui she Warned Against the antisemitism That Seemed to plague Their Own Camp. It was an attack on her fellow leftists for turning a blind eye on what she was doing as a distinctly anti-leftist character of rallies and demonstrations. The article is based on the fact that they are hypocritical, and, as such, it is a major shock and sparked much controversy. [29]

Israeli left wing and Human rights activist, professor Amnon Rubinstein wrote que la French Left Seems To hold a double standard: Opposing neo-Nazism When It Comes from the Western right wing (and PARTICULARLY from the French Far Right, Such As the National Front ) , but not when it comes from the “oppressed world” of the Arabs . He called that “the big treason of the French Left, which came as a shock to the Jews who used to see the Left as their true friend”. [30] These accusations have generated great controversy, particularly because they come from within the Left itself.

However, a 2004 Pew poll shows that in Europe, favourability ratings are much higher for Jews than for Muslims. [31]

See also

  • American popular opinion of invasion of Iraq
  • Anti-war
  • Civil disobedience
  • Criticisms of the War on Terrorism
  • International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan
  • Japanese history textbook controversies
  • New anti-Semitism
  • Protests against the Iraq war
  • Protests against the invasion of Afghanistan
  • pacifism
  • Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War
  • Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)
  • Tax resistance
  • Views on the 2003 invasion of Iraq


  1. ^ Jump up to:c “World Shock over US attacks – September 11, 2001” . September 11, 2001 . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  2. Jump up^ “Psychological Shock Of September 11 – PEWS Research Report” . . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  3. Jump up^ “September 11 Executive Summary – 1” . Archived from the original on August 3, 2004.
  4. Jump up^ “Scholars of Islam & the Tragedy of Sept. 11th” . . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  5. Jump up^ Webmanship. “International Reaction – The 09-11-2001 Attacks on the USA With Archived News, Images, Photos, & Newspapers from the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on New York City & the Pentagon” . September 11 . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  6. Jump up^ “Special Dispatch – No. 281” . MEMRI . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  7. Jump up^ [ permanent dead link ]
  8. Jump up^ [ permanent dead link ]
  9. Jump up^ Woollacott, Martin (September 12, 2001). “How: US terrorist attacks – the best defense is justice | Politics” . London: The Guardian . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  10. Jump up^ Kennedy, Edward M. “Statement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy on the Terrorist Attacks in New York and Washington, DC” . Archived from the original on 2004-08-27 . Retrieved 2004-09-16 .
  11. Jump up^ “Congress Approves Resolution Authorizing Force – September 15, 2001” . September 15, 2001 . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  12. Jump up^ “Barbara Lee Congresswoman Explains Her Lone Vote” . . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  13. Jump up^ “Poll: Muslims call US ‘ruthless, arrogant’ – February 26, 2002” . February 26, 2002 . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  14. Jump up^ “Hamilton College – Muslim America Poll – Executive Summary” . 2002-05-30. Archived from the original on 2009-03-27 . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  15. Jump up^ Walsh, Edward (November 20, 2003). “Kucinich Denounces US Tactics in Afghanistan”. Washington Post .
  16. Jump up^ “The Office of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney Special Order Remarks” . September 21, 2001. Archived from the original on March 30, 2002 . Retrieved November 11, 2016 .
  17. Jump up^ Roy, Arundhati (September 29, 2001). “The algebra of infinite justice” . The Guardian .
  18. Jump up^ “Information About Ramsey Clark” . . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  19. Jump up^ “FrontPage Magazine – Tracking Down A Fifth Column Front” . . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  20. Jump up^ “ZNet – Anti War Activism Q and A” . 2002-10-24. Archived from the original on 2008-03-11 . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  21. Jump up^ “Tikkun Magazine – Tikkun Magazine” . . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  22. Jump up^ “The Banning of Rabbi Lerner” . Archived from the original on 2008-10-06 . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  23. Jump up^ “Europe | Polls find Europeans opposes Iraq war” . BBC News . 2003-02-11 . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  24. Jump up^ “Has anti-war movement been hijacked?” . 2002-11-04 . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  25. Jump up^ “Pro-PAnti-Semitism on Display: Marches and Rallies” . . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  26. Jump up^ “THE BLACK-RED ALLIANCE – Amir Taheri – Benador Associates” . . Retrieved 2016-11-11 .
  27. Jump up^ Taheri, Amir (2004-12-06). “The London Streets, Who are these anti-Bush people?” . National Review . Archived from the original on 2004-12-06 . Retrieved 2016-11-11 .
  28. Jump up^ Carmel, Philip. “Anti-war fever coupled with anti-Semitism roils France” . Jewish Telegraphic Agency . Archived from the original on October 17, 2004.
  29. ^ Jump up to:b “NRG מעריב” . . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  30. Jump up^ “חדשות NRG – הקשר הצרפתי” (in Hebrew). . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .
  31. Jump up^ “A Year After Iraq War: Summary of Findings – Pew Research Center for the People & the Press” . 2004-03-16 . Retrieved 2009-07-16 .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright 2023
Shale theme by Siteturner