When Britain's 'feminists' cheer for bombs and sneer at Palestinian suffering
They remain silent as Gaza burns, but are quick to find their voice to cheer on Israel and its allies as they threaten to flatten Iran - civilian casualties be damned.
During Israel's recent strikes on Iran, the radical feminist journalist and co‑founder of Justice for Women, Julie Bindel, branded leftist anti-war feminists "Team Iran" sympathisers. It was a disingenuous, grotesquely misleading and dangerously ideological accusation, but not a surprising one.
What we're witnessing goes beyond reasoned critique - it is the cynical weaponisation of feminism to uphold state violence.
This is no isolated incident. It's a pattern.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
In October 2023, Bindel shared a Telegraph column that championed Israel's genocidal war on Gaza as "a stand for civilisation", while spreading propaganda against Palestinians and vilifying those who defend their humanity.
When Palestinian women are pulled from rubble, starved in besieged hospitals, denied reproductive care or give birth next to the corpses of their children, Britain's loudest feminists look away.
UN experts have documented acts of sexual violence against women and girls in Gaza - including rape, forced nudity and public humiliation.
No statements. No hashtags. No vigils.
The same figures who demand global outrage over gender-based violence have nothing to say when those crimes are committed with American firepower and British backing.
Smearing solidarity
While women in Gaza bleed in silence, these pundits reserve their fury for pro-Palestine protesters - smearing them as extremists, branding solidarity as terrorism, twisting every act of dissent into an endorsement of "jihad" and weaponising antisemitism to crush critique.
Such hypocrisy is as strategic as it is shameful.
Nothing unnerves Britain's loudest self-styled 'feminist' commentators more than the Palestinian flag - seen not as a cry for justice but an affront to their moral high ground
Nothing seems to unnerve Britain's loudest self-styled "feminist" commentators more than the Palestinian flag - a symbol they treat not as a cry for justice, but as an affront to their proclaimed moral high ground.
When groups like Palestine Action engage in peaceful civil disobedience - spraying red-paint slogans on Royal Air Force fences and even RAF planes to protest genocide - they are labelled "terrorists".
Indeed, those who dare to expose and resist mass killing face criminalisation as part of a calculated assault on any challenge to the status quo.
This isn't careless commentary - it is a deliberate ideological distortion disguised as feminist critique.
Moreover, it is a betrayal of feminism's proud legacy of nonviolent resistance. From the Reclaim the Night marches that defied police curfews in the 1970s to Southall Black Sisters, who took to the streets to confront domestic violence, state racism and police inaction long before it was politically convenient, this unbroken tradition of protest against gendered state violence lies at the heart of the movement itself.
The same voices who once championed the right to free speech - to occupy, stencil and disrupt - now recoil at a banner that simply demands accountability for colonial violence.
Smokescreen for war
Apparently, the mere objection to the bombing of Iranian civilians is now considered "supporting the regime".
It is a framing that is at once ahistorical and a staggering collapse of intellectual rigour. Even those who have previously criticised some of Iran's policies are accused of siding with the Ayatollah simply for opposing western air strikes.
When it comes to Iran, these pundits become overnight experts - reciting floggings, hijabs and hangings with righteous certainty.
Iranian 'freedom' won't come from Israeli bombs or US regime change Read More »
But raise Israel's war crimes - the bombed hospitals, the mass graves, the deliberate targeting of civilians - and their intellectual faculties, let alone moral clarity, suddenly short-circuit.
Iran is treated as uniquely monstrous - requiring exceptional condemnation and meriting exceptional violence from the so-called champions of human rights.
The doublethink is exhausting.
The same feminists who once championed the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq under the banner of "saving women" are now recycling that same logic to legitimise ongoing western aggression. Have we learned nothing from two decades of war, occupation and manufactured consent?
This isn't solidarity - it's a smokescreen for war dressed up in feminist language.
Equally, opposing Israel's assault on civilians does not imply an endorsement of the Iranian regime. It is a feminist stance against yet another bloodbath disguised as liberation.
To dismiss such opposition as regime sympathy is a reductive insult to the Iranian feminists who have risked everything to confront injustice without calling for foreign bombs. As Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, one of the country's most courageous feminist dissidents who was jailed for defying the state, has made clear, real change will come from within.
In Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, where western intervention was sold as salvation, its bombs left only mass graves, collapsed infrastructure and broken societies.
Selective sisterhood
Some pro-war commentators have falsely claimed that most Iranians support US or Israeli bombing of their country.
In reality, the small crowds seen celebrating air strikes outside Iran's embassy were rallying behind exiled monarchist Reza Pahlavi - a man known for his open support of Israel, who in recent interviews dismissed the killing of his own people as "collateral damage".
To frame this fringe display as representative of Iranian opposition is not nuance - it is propaganda dressed up as political principle.
Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war
A hashtag like #TeamIran, barely used beyond one media personality's feed, has been transformed into the centrepiece of a manufactured smear campaign against leftist solidarity. This astroturfed narrative, pushed by pundits and politicians alike, attempts to paint anti-war voices as "regime" loyalists - all to shut down dissent and shore up support for military escalation.
These dissenters are then ridiculed as "stupid", "ignorant" or "beyond comprehension". What truly defies comprehension, however, is how some of the UK's loudest feminist voices have spent the past 20 months standing shoulder to shoulder with a military occupier, exposing their casual racism, far-right flirtations and a deep-seated contempt for Muslims cloaked in moral posturing.
Western feminism's silence on Gaza lays bare its moral bankruptcy
Maryam Aldossari Read More »
Their outrage flares only when it flatters imperial power - and disappears entirely when Israeli forces bomb hospitals, block aid convoys or leave women and children to burn while seeking refuge beneath crumbling roofs.
Where is their outrage at Israel's catalogue of war crimes? Where is the feminist fury at apartheid policies, the suffocating siege of Gaza and the systematic erasure of Palestinian life?
Why has selective sisterhood become the norm - loud for some women, silent for others? Why do so many feminist organisations cower in fear, unwilling to speak unless it serves the powerful?
Feminism must mean more than slogans for empire.
It is meant to stand against all oppression, not just the kind convenient for white saviours and western allies. It's time to honour that promise by reclaiming it from those who've turned "women's rights" into a weapon of war and whitewashing.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
22 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
US actors criticise use of antisemitism to shut down discussion on Gaza
A prominent American Jewish acting family has criticised the use of antisemitism to shut down discussions about Israel's policies in Gaza. Actors Mandy Patinkin and Kathryn Grody also told The New York Times they thought the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were threatening the safety of Jewish communities internationally. "The politics of what he's doing is the worst thing for Jewish people. It's like lighting a candle for anybody that has any antisemitic feelings," said Grody. "It's creating a generation of wounded and hurt kids who will understandably be very angry. I feel deeply troubled and horrified by what is happening in my name. So I am very proud of every Jewish person that stands up for the humanity of people in the Middle East." Patinkin concurred, referencing a line from the film The Princess Bride, in which he starred. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "'You know, I have been in the revenge business so long, now that it's over, I do not know what to do with the rest of my life,'" he said. "And I ask Jews all over the world to consider what this man Benjamin Netanyahu, and his right-wing government, is doing to the Jewish people all over the world. "They are endangering not only the State of Israel, which I care deeply about and want to exist, but endangering the Jewish population all over the world." Industry pressure The US entertainment industry has been divided over the war in Gaza, which has killed more than 60,000 people since October 2023. Some artists, actors and production staff have alleged that there is a concerted campaign by industry executives to silence solidarity with Palestinians. How America's entertainment industry manufactured silence on Gaza Read More » Dozens of individuals - from actors and dancers to carpenters, set dressers, animators, composers and screenwriters - recently told Middle East Eye that they had been punished for speaking out against the conflict. In February, Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank assaulted and detained Hamdan Ballal, co-director of the Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land - an attack that Ballal's co-director, Basel Adra, suggested may have been "revenge on us for making the movie". Although the Academy had recognised Ballal's work with an Oscar just weeks earlier, it refused to condemn Israel's actions, issuing only a vague statement about "reports of violence" against Ballal and condemning "violence of this kind anywhere in the world". Speaking to The New York Times, Grody and Patinkin - who have been open advocates for a ceasefire in Gaza - criticised the use of antisemitism as justification for shutting down discussion about the conflict. "I hate the way some people are using antisemitism as a claim for anybody that is critical about a certain policy," said Grody. "As far as I am concerned, compassion for every person in Gaza is very Jewish, and the fact that I abhor the policies of the leader of that country does not mean I'm a self-hating Jew or I'm antisemitic."
Middle East Eye
22 minutes ago
- Middle East Eye
US offers to oversee disputed Armenia-Azerbaijan corridor
The United States has proposed taking over the planned transport corridor between Armenia and Azerbaijan in an effort to advance long-stalled diplomatic negotiations between the two Caucasus nations, the US ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, told journalists during a briefing on Friday. Although Armenia and Azerbaijan reached consensus on a draft peace agreement in March, Baku continues to insist on several additional conditions before formally signing the deal. Azerbaijan demands that Yerevan amend its constitution to remove references to Azerbaijani territory, among other conditions. One of the main sticking points remains the so-called Zangezur Corridor, which would connect Azerbaijan proper to its exclave, Nakhchivan, via Armenian territory. Armenia refuses to use the term "Zangezur Corridor," arguing that it has irredentist connotations on sovereign Armenian territory, known as Syunik. Azerbaijan has insisted that the corridor should not be placed under Armenia's total control, expressing concerns that Yerevan cannot be trusted to guarantee unfettered access. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Likewise, Armenia categorically opposes transferring control of the route to any third party. The 32-km-long corridor has become a significant obstacle to achieving lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. "They are arguing over 32 kilometers of road, but this is no trivial matter. It has dragged on for a decade - 32 kilometers of road," Barrack told journalists during a briefing hosted in New York. "So what happens is that America steps in and says: 'Okay, we'll take it over. Give us the 32 kilometers of road on a hundred-year lease, and you can all share it'." Turkey originally proposed the idea Barrack's comments mark the first official confirmation that the Trump administration offered to manage the corridor through a private US commercial operator, which would serve as a neutral guarantor. A recent report by Carnegie Endowment suggested that the plan is modelled on an earlier European Union proposal, which would put a US logistics firm in charge of managing and monitoring cargo transit along the route, sharing data transparently with all parties. The report noted that the proposal draws on precedents of international oversight in Georgia's breakaway regions, aiming to address Baku's demand for robust, long-term security guarantees while preserving Yerevan's sovereignty over the corridor. Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders to meet in Dubai later in July Read More » Meanwhile, Turkey has quietly urged Baku to sign the peace agreement, reminding Azerbaijani officials of shifting regional dynamics, such as Iran's waning influence. A regional source familiar with the negotiations told Middle East Eye that it was Turkey that originally proposed the idea of a private company, approved by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, managing the corridor. "However, the Armenian side demanded that the company should also work on the Nakhchivan side of the corridor, which was unacceptable for Baku," the source said. The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan dates back to the 1993 Nagorno-Karabakh war, when Armenian forces seized the disputed enclave, recognised as Azerbaijani territory by the United Nations, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. After a bloody six-week war in late 2020, Azerbaijan launched a military operation in September 2023 to retake Nagorno-Karabakh, leading to a ceasefire agreement. Most ethnic Armenians fled, and the breakaway region was officially dissolved on 1 January 2024. Turkey's own normalisation process with Armenia is closely tied to the prospect of a peace deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Turkish officials view Armenia as a vital link in the so-called Middle Corridor, which would directly connect Turkey to Central Asia. Turkish companies are also eager to participate in potential infrastructure projects within Armenia. Despite Baku's objections, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan hosted Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan last month, marking the first official visit to Turkey by an Armenian leader.
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
Grooming gangs and Trojan Horse: The poisoned politics of Muslim integration
There has been a steady drumbeat, in right-wing and liberal media alike, about the failure of British Muslims to integrate. This drumbeat warns of self-segregated lives insulated from mainstream values. This is often fed by official reports that are occasioned by media "scares" and used to align public policy with media-driven concerns highlighting threats to public safety. Among the most potent of such concerns are those involving children and young people. On the one hand, there is the claimed risk of "radicalisation" and involvement in "Islamist" terrorism to which some young people may be vulnerable (because, we are told, of a deficit in "British values"). On the other hand, some Muslim men allegedly pose a threat to white girls through group-based sexual exploitation, or the activities of "grooming gangs" as recently set out in Baroness Casey's recent rapid review although the available data doesn't warrant that conclusion. Both issues generate a discourse directed at different responsible authorities – whether local government, social workers, or police – and their failure to act because of what they claim to be 'a fear of being thought 'racist''. This was a feature of the early reports (by Peter Clarke and Ian Kershaw) on the so-called Birmingham Trojan Horse affair, and was used as an explanation of why the perceived inappropriate demands of Muslim governors and teachers had been acceded to in the past. Decisive action followed, in the introduction of the Prevent duty in 2015 as a safeguarding measure and the requirement of all schools in England and Wales to 'promote fundamental British values', a controversial addition to the curriculum for its assumption that people not of a British background ("people of colour"), somehow did not naturally embody these values, when in fact research has shown the opposite to be the case. Surveys show increased suspicion toward Muslims and Islam, especially among middle class professionals responsible for implementing public policy The main social attitude surveys – such as those conducted on an annual basis by the National Centre for Social Research – have consistently shown that British Muslims were the group closest to the average of the nation as a whole in terms of adherence values deemed to be "fundamentally British". Despite this, the surveys show increased suspicion toward Muslims and Islam, especially among middle class and professional respondents responsible for implementing public policy. Now, "British values" are increasingly decried in favour of a new "cultural nationalism" drummed by Reform, with large sections of the Conservative party and those Labour politicians seeking to appeal to Reform voters. In the area of child sexual exploitation, fear of being called racist has also become a convenient excuse for past inaction. In the current media focus on "grooming gangs", for example, the focus is upon the ethnicity of the perpetrators (who should, of course, be prosecuted and punished with all the severity the law allows), rather than the victims, and, importantly, the root cause: the failures in care that underlie child sexual exploitation. As Baroness Casey set out, multiple reports on child sexual exploitation have identified systemic failures by responsible authorities without the recommended remedial action being taken. Despite this core highlight, the consistent call has been on identifying the ethnic and religious identity of the perpetrators. Systemic failures vs identity obsession Significantly, both issues – safeguarding children and young people from the risks of radicalisation, and safeguarding children and young people from sexual exploitation – fall under the responsibility of the Department for Education. This has been the case since the 2004 Children's Act, when local authority children's services departments were made responsible for child protection and schooling. The Police Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) published a report in 2011 to which the DfE responded with an "action plan", albeit, according to Baroness Casey, little came of it. Another report on group sexual exploitation was submitted to the DfE by the Children's Commissioner in 2012 and it was followed up by a comprehensive Ofsted report into children's services at a sample of five local authorities in November 2014. Trojan Horse: When 'facts' are contested, who decides the truth? Read More » There have been multiple reports since then with the last major report – that of Dame Alexis Jay in 2022 – stating that what was needed was action on previous recommendations on improving child protection, not a focus on the identity of the perpetrators. The Birmingham Trojan Horse affair involved accusations of extremism by parents and governors, and were directed at "successful" headteachers amid a claim of a "plot" to take over schools. However - and crucially - media reporting and the official reports neglected the fact that the only mechanism for taking over a school was through the government's flagship academies programme, where a "successful" school would be encouraged to leave local authority control and incorporate failing schools into a "multi-academy trust" and implement its policies for school improvement. The school at the centre of the affair - Park View - was identified by the DfE as just such an outstanding school that would absorb others. It was in fact, the same teachers who had improved it from a failing school over a remarkable period of four years prior to the alleged "plot", who lost their jobs despite the case against them collapsing. Despite the Prevent duty being introduced in 2015 as a direct response to the Trojan Horse affair, the following year, when professional misconduct cases against teachers were begun, it was accepted that no extremism was involved in the Trojan Horse affair. At least we must infer that to be the case; no charges of extremism were involved in any of the legal cases, notwithstanding the claims of the Clarke report and media reports. In fact, there were no instances where the practices of the schools in Park View Educational Trust (PVET) were in conflict with statutory requirements or guidelines. Indeed, all the evidence suggested otherwise – here I am referring firstly to the nature of the findings of fault in the court cases that did conclude, and, secondly, the fact that the primary set of cases against the senior leaders at PVET collapsed due to misconduct by lawyers for the government. Trojan Horse narrative Nonetheless, the government acceded to a moral panic about Muslim-led schools, despite (perhaps, because of) the situation in Birmingham being a direct consequence of its own policies on schooling. Whatever the reason, this laid down a pattern; the Trojan Horse affair became the emblem of government claims of a 'failure of multiculturalism'. An example of this is Dame Louise Casey's 2016 Review into Integration and Opportunity, which cited the affair and attributed the problems it had supposedly revealed, in particular to education leaders who acceded to the views of a minority of parents claiming to represent the school community: 'Many of the individuals involved deny the allegations against them and continue to this day to maintain they were acting in the best interests of pupils. We heard wider views in Birmingham that sought to underplay the seriousness of the issues or to deny the extent of the problem, portraying the whole episode as a conspiracy and the letter a fake. Professional misconduct and legal proceedings are underway against the individuals involved, so we will only have a complete picture when these conclude.' They did not conclude; the cases collapsed, and the DfE did not take up the call to relaunch them. It is easy to understand why they did not. They had been designed specifically to keep the Clarke inquiry and its evidence away from scrutiny. This would have revealed serious flaws in the inquiry, including a failure to disclose the role of the team at the DfE that was involved in managing the takeover of failing schools by Park View and, indeed, the expansion of Park View Educational Trust. I will return to Louise Casey, but this indicates a pattern: the setting down of a narrative that 'multiculturalism' and Muslim participation is associated with excess demands, and reluctance to counter them is identified as deriving from fear of being regarded as "racist". Why did the DfE not act as decisively to protect children at risk of sexual exploitation? While the government did act in the Trojan Horse affair, it did so by forcing Prevent into education - not just secondary and tertiary education, but also into nurseries and primary schools. It continues to ensnare thousands of innocent children and young people, with disproportionate numbers of Muslim children represented. At the same time, the government presented its action as "fearless" and 'without favour to 'group interests' or 'identity politics''. Systemic failures in child protection Why, then, did it not act in the same way with regard to the recommendations of reports on child exploitation? Significantly, the issues relate to local authority departments of children's service. Of course, since the financial crisis of 2008, local authorities have been under serious financial pressures and requirements to cut services. Children's services were also disrupted by the expansion of the academy schools programme. By 2014, around a quarter of primary schools and three-quarters of secondary schools had opted out of local authority control. This had the consequence of disrupting the relationships between child protection and schooling for many children. For example, most of the reports on group-based child sexual exploitation associate it with looked-after children going missing from their care provision and children missing from school. There was a major failure at the heart of government to take the needs of vulnerable children seriously, and to safeguard them from sexual exploitation There was a major failure in data-gathering and to act where problems were perceived. In other words, there was a major failure at the heart of government to take the needs of vulnerable children seriously, and to safeguard them from real risk of sexual exploitation. At the same time, overtly strenuous efforts were made to 'safeguard them' against spurious risks of 'radicalisation'. In this context, it is clear why the present government should have resisted a national inquiry into grooming gangs. Dame Louise Casey has declared that the topic should not be politicised and the focus should be on the victims. But then the answer would have been the rapid and full implementation of Dame Alexis Jay's recommendations. Instead, acceding to the call has reinforced the same false narratives about the integration of British Muslims. Dame Louise Casey already showed herself to be sympathetic to that narrative. In fact, her recent report contributes to it. If national politics and the policies that follow it are driven by a common disrespect of British Muslims and the child victims of group-based sexual exploitation, what kind of future are we creating?
