On November 19, 2003, Phyllis Chesler wrote a searing piece recounting the time when she addressed a women's "networking" conference of "mainly African-American and Hispanic-American womanists and feminists at Barnard College." Her son accompanied her to this conference.

One of the organizers at the event inquired as to what Chesler's latest book was and was told "The New Anti-Semitism," because "Jew-hatred was a form of racism – only it was not being treated as such by anti-racist 'politically correct' people."

The silence that greeted Chesler concerning anti-Semitism should have been the first indication that things might go awry, as she was told that the conference was to be a forum about how "women sabotage each other and remain divided" in an effort to "come together."

At the time, Chesler rationalized that perhaps she was a bit too "obsessed with The Jewish Cause, with Israel," and she reminded herself that she was "also connected to more than one issue."

As she spoke about her other book titled Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, the vibes were good. The audience applauded and nodded in agreement. Things were going well. And then:

Things became more heated – thus, "the lightning rod of Palestine was enough to turn a very friendly audience quite hostile." As Chesler left the podium, she was approached by a young black woman who claimed to be "hurt" because Chesler had offended a "brown woman," and since Chesler was a "white Jew," this was "proof of a crime."

Although the black women who had invited Chesler were supportive, none of them tried to stop what was happening. They did not try to "disperse the hostility or to address the issue."

The lesson Chesler imparts is that "once the word Palestine is uttered," it is viewed as a "symbol for every downtrodden group of color which is resisting the racist-imperialist American and Zionist Empires." Also, it suddenly becomes a white-versus-brown issue.

As she and her son were leaving the event, he reminded her that "[t]he Jew haters will never allow you into their wider, wonderful world. You can't go back."

This brings me to why I introduced this piece in the first place. A few months ago, I wrote a piece asking why women in the National Council of Jewish Women would even think of sharing the platform with left-wing activists and anti-Semitic Muslims who share the same sentiments as those whom Chesler wrote about 15 years ago.

Daniel Greenfield writes:

Many of these groups were "underwritten by radical currency speculator George Soros who says Communist China's system of government is superior to our own and that the United States is the number one obstacle to world peace." Moreover, Gloria Steinem, feminist writer, activist, and organizer, said, "And remember, the Constitution does not begin with 'I, the president,' It begins with 'We, the people.'" Where the heck was she with Obama and his continual Is peppering every speech?

Martin J. Raffel, who writes for the New Jersey Jewish News, states:

Yet, further in his article, he writes, "Besides Sarsour, Zahra Billoo, San Francisco director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), also spoke at the march. A BDS activist, Billoo is known for sharing extremist material on social media, e.g., 'Blaming Hamas for firing rockets at [Apartheid] Israel is like blaming a woman for punching her rapist.' There were other speakers with a history of problematic statements on Israel, as well."

So which is it? While Raffel acknowledges that "Israel has a problem with Democrats and other progressives" and "antipathy to Trump is pumping renewed energy into the progressive movement, and those hostile to Israel will look for opportunities to advance their agenda," he still maintains that since the Israel-Palestine issue was not actually raised during the Women's March, American Jews "can derive a valuable lesson from this experience. By championing these just causes, [i.e., immigration and refugee policy, criminal justice reform, and the environment], American Jews will also protect Israel."

So if no one brings up the issue, that means that the haters no longer advocate what they repeatedly say in any number of other forums?

How naive and dangerous.