Sometimes we forget what we're dealing with when we read about the Amazons. They're a family, right? Diana's island full of good-natured kick-ass Aunts? Sure, when we look at them through Diana's eyes.
Through a stranger's eyes, things look different.
These are not a peaceful people. The Themiscryans are a warrior race patroned by a war-goddess, a hunting-goddess, a love goddess who is not the nicest of love goddesses, and a mother goddess who didn't mind letting the entire world starve to death over her daughter. They're also the reincarnated souls of women who were violently killed by men, and who have characteristically distrusted the male gender since Perez was writing. They had peace because they were on an isolated island. The Bana-Migdall tribe, which is now intermingling with the Themiscyran tribe, was not nearly so peaceful when we met them. They are also, by tradition, a Monarchy.
As far as they know, they have just been grievously wronged as a people again, through the treatment of a member of their Royal Family.
There've been complaints about Amazons Attack. On this one point, I must respectfully disagree (and insist those complaining learn continuity and context). The Amazons are not a sweet, peaceful people. They like quiet afternoons and intellectual pursuits, but they will not hesitate to kick ass when wronged.
After Wonder Woman #8, it makes perfect sense and is in character. Granted, that first scene made me cringe, but I'm suspecting another divine enemy's hand in all of this, someone last seen very close to the primary villain here. Beyond that, it is perfectly logical they'd attack the USA, given the events in Infinite Crisis and the end of Wonder Woman #7, and especially given the development in Wonder Woman #8.
Remember, an ongoing theme in Wonder Woman since the 80s has been that Diana carries the olive branch to both groups. She preaches peace at home and abroad. Without her, the island would not be open to talking to the other countries.
There's also a really obvious and traditional resolution ahead of us. I hope Pfeiffer plans on it, because it takes this mess and ends it with something other than "Feminism is a bad thing." I can see why so many people are annoyed, because the implication is there, but as long as I can see a few options past that I'm with Pfeifer.
If the moral does end up being "Feminism is a bad thing" I very much doubt I'll be persuaded to read anything by that writer again.
There's really nothing that can prevent mass Amazon casualties, though. Unnamed Amazons are the Red Shirts of the DC Universe, even more so than non-human Green Lanterns.
That is the problem I see developing.
Pfeifer treating the Amazons as an allegory of All Feminism? Not such a workable analysis at this point. We have to see how Diana factors into this first, and how her viewpoint is treated. She's clearly marked as a peacemaker, but how's she going to approach it? Is Diana going to be allowed to represent Feminism here, rather than the Amazons? Too many options yet, and I figure the writer deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one. He hasn't actually made a mistake so far, its the First Act, and this day's reading started with a wonderful revelation.
Too bad about the fourth page, though. I do hope there's an external influence to explain that. But we are dealing with a raid from a three-thousand year-old warrior civilization here. They didn't have the Geneva Conventions three thousand years ago. Its nasty as hell and Diana certainly won't approve, but its still in character.