The Sorry State of The Nation
The current issue of The Nation published some poignant thoughts by Philip Weiss about Rachel Corrie’s death as well as the scuttled (because of pressure from you know who!) play, My Name Is Rachel Corrie, in his article, Too Hot for New York.
Corrie’s horrifying death was a landmark event: It linked Palestinian suffering to the American progressive movement. And it was immediately politicized. Pro-Israel voices sought to smear Corrie as a servant of terrorists. They said that the Israeli army was merely trying to block tunnels through which weapons were brought from Egypt into the occupied territories–thereby denying that Corrie had died as the result of indiscriminate destruction. Hateful e-mails were everywhere. “Rachel Corrie won’t get 72 virgins but she got what she wanted,” said one.
I would beseech the pro-Israel community to remain as apolitical about Corrie’s death as the pro-Palestinian community has been. To their credit, they have certainly not sought any political advantage from her tragic death, as they notoriously abhor the use of martyrs as a political cudgel or recruitment tool.
Additionally, I am reassured that The Nation sees fit to regard anonymous “emails everywhere” as suggestive of a certain community’s “hateful” nature. After all, the writer is a Jew, so no problem.
Also – don’t miss The Nation’s dispassionate editorial on the play’s cancellation, An American Inquisition?
sorry, david, but the more i experience the tail end of things the more i conclude that jews hold the potential to act like a hate group, particularly when it comes to anything having to do with humanizing palestinians or their supporters.
I agree – and I thought that Weiss’ piece was even-handed, as well.
David, you’re right on. We should all mourn the death of every human being, but at the same time we should not loose sight of the facts: the Corrie incident has been spun by the ISM for years. Corrie knew exactly what she was getting into–she entered a zone of conflict and put herself between a building used for cover in weapons smuggling and an Israel bulldozer, running at it at the moment that the driver’s field of vision was completely blocked.
Accidents happen–and they tend to happen even more frequently when a person deliberately puts themselves in danger in order to help the “freedom fighters” that they support.
Mobius, you wrote,
“Sorry, david, but the more i experience the tail end of things the more i conclude that jews hold the potential to act like a hate group, particularly when it comes to anything having to do with humanizing palestinians or their supporters. ”
That may be, but the reasons given by Weiss — politicizing Corrie’s death and anonymous emails — were completely bogus, as was The Nation’s assertion of “modern McCarthyites” for those who pressured to close a play.
Mayor Bloomberg is a nanny. He is a nervous Jewish grandmother. He is not a fascist.
We can discuss things intelligently, or we can scream at each other. The Nation is quite clear that it prefers the latter.
An no, Cipher, Weiss’ piece was not even-handed at all. Not anymore than the paragraph I qouted. The fact that he is not intentionally hateful does not deter the fact that he is at least unintentionally duplicitous.
For many years I had a subscription to the New York Observer, which is quite possiblity the best-written paper in the city. Philip Weiss, who is a regular critic, was the reason I cancelled my sub. He has a hate-on for Jews which frequently appears in his writing. Being Jewish is clearly one of the more problematic and embarrassing matters for him. I would say that his animus toward “out” Jews (Jewy Jews?) causes him to be intentionally duplicitous.
Ariel, even the IDF isn’t claiming that the building she was protecting was used for arms smuggling. It was not the site of a tunnel, although other buildings certainly were.
It was demolished because the army wanted to clear more and more land of all houses, regardless of the behavior of any particular owner. Do you really mean to be quoting misinformation about Corrie’s death?
I’d give a reference, but since you brought up the charge, I’ll let you prove it….
The invective around Rachel’s killing obscures the fact that the West Bank and Gaza should not be a “zone of conflict” as Ariel calls it.
I also do not see remembering the tragic death of someone who stood up for human rights and the respect for international law as seeking “political advantage.” But speaking of seeking political advantage by misusing Rachel’s story, there was recently an fake announcement about a “pancake breakfast” in honor of Rachel Corrie that was spread around the internet. I didn’t hear many Jewish groups/websites condemning the grotesque celebration of a horrible death in the service of a “pro-Israel” agenda. Neither is there large-scale condemnation of the extraordinary amounts of Jewish hate-speech on the internet. We all know the websites I mean.
At some point people have got to stop putting this stuff forth in a “pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian” framework and refocus on building human rights and international law. Examples of this include ICAHD, ISM (which works with Israelis and internationals alike), Rabbis for Human Rights, etc…
The West Bank and Gaza should not be a “zone of conflict†as Ariel calls it. Indeed. Conflict and war sucks. Nowhere should be a zone of conflict. On the other hand, normative stances are something different than empirical facts.
At some point people have got to stop putting this stuff forth in a “pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian†framework and refocus on building human rights and international law. Erm, sure, it is better to resolve conflicts than to perpetuate them.
The death of Rachel Corrie linked pro-Palestinian activism with the American progressive movement? I think the issue was on their agenda before that.
I do not believe that Rachie Corrie was standing up for human rights and international law. Condemning suicide bombing was not part of her vocabulary. She was, like many others before her, standing up for the oppressed in the by-any-means-necessary way, and doing so through an organization which also has not issued a condemnation of suicide bombing. I’m willing to concede that she believed in something, even if she was misguided. But standing up for HR and IL? C’mon.
Let’s cut the BS about how the ISM is committed to non-violence. They’re committed to non-violence the same way a cornerman in a boxing match is commited to non-violence.
Jewish hate speech on the internet is a problem, but it’s not mainstream and not very serious. Islamic hate speech is, unfortunately, far more common and far more mainstream. (The Arab European League is a mainstream European organization.)Nevertheless, I’ll condemn it.
It is idiotic from a Hasbara standpoint to try to demonize Rachel Corrie and ridiculous to try and censor a successful play about her.
Weiss’s comments about the Mother Jones article, with its ominous and totally unsupported assertion that nefarious “right-wing sources” were to blame for – gasp – disagreeing with the ISM version of events, speak for themselves.
Michael Brenner. She was, like many others before her, standing up for the oppressed in the by-any-means-necessary way,
If that were true, she would have been a suicide bomber herself. They have condemned suicide bombing as a war crime,
[i]Attacks on innocent civilians, be they Israeli or Palestinian, are forbidden under most understandings of international law and ISM seeks nothing more for Israelis and Palestinians than the implementation of international law. We oppose the tactic of suicide bombings, especially those that have been carried out against civilian targets.
[/i]
Mobius, this kind of language isn’t helpful: “jews hold the potential to act like a hate group.” What group doesn’t? Do the Palestinians not have this potential? Christians? Muslims? You’re way too knowledgeable about the conflict to say things like that. Don’t paint with such a wide brush.
As far as I saw, there was no effort by any hasbara group or anyone else to censor the play. I suppose people will say that the “Israeli Lobby” is so powerful that they now suppress speech by saying nothing. But the outcry has been from the other side, who are now saying that the theater MUST show the play, even if the theater would rather not do so.
Well, it sure sounds like someone behind the scenes wanted the play censored, and most people in our community will support it on the presumption that it is unabashedly pro-Palestinian.
It’s not a helpful move.
Michael,
you wrote,
“It’s not a helpful move.”
No, it is not. No argument there.
Neither side has a monopoly on “human rights” and “international law” advocacy. To define Corrie in this way is misleading.
Personally, I don’t care much for Corrie. Her death was shameful, a testament to the brutality and futility of the occupation. But, this idolization of her doesn’t help anything.
There have been countless American citizens in this conflict. None of them were exploited the way her death was. I remember when I first read about it on St. Patrick’s Day three years ago, and I saw the photos the ISM put up, the photos which were deceivingly put up in “order” to show how she was run over.
She’s a propaganda piece, and it’s because of that fact I don’t really care.
My only problem is that I don’t want to be blamed just because people don’t believe the ISM’s propaganda.
So the ‘who cares about Corrie’ crowd have made repeated assertions that:
1. She was somehow protecting arms smugglers.
2. That pressure was not brought to bear on the theater.
3. That she was an extremist who supported terrorism.
4. That her activism was not rooted in support for human rights and international law.
B.u.l.l.s.h.i.t. How craven and immoral do supporters of Israel have to be to fall for this shit? Your like propadandists for Stalin for crying out loud. This girl was protecting the home of a doctor not even accused of helping to smuggle arms. She belongs to a group resting on the very solid ground of opposing Israeli colonisation of the West Bank and Gaza. The United States has condemned the acts she was protesting.
How utterly cynical to play around with words in this way. To dishonor the memory of an innocent young woman. For shame.
I read Katherine Viner’s editorial in the Guardian. Sbe says the play is an unbiased look into Rachael Corrie’s life. From the rest of her editorial, I can easily see that it isn’t unbiased. She also claims that she “humanizes” Corrie. She doesn’t. She turns her into a secular saint who was purposefully bulldozed to death. I don’t know what happened. I don’t think that Israel should be bulldozing houses, but it is quite possible that she was simply not seen and was not purposefully bulldozed. This possibility never enters Viner’s mind for a second. It seems pointless to block the play, but it is just plain silly to call it McCarthyism.
The play probably was not very good and would have folded on its own.
RACHEL’S WORDS
MARCH 22nd, NEW YORK CITY
Co-hosts: Amy Goodman and James Zogby
Riverside Church
490 Riverside Drive
8.00 pm
$20 Suggested donation (No one turned away for lack of funds. Doors open at 7.30)
http://www.rachelswords.org/
Viner’s editorial sentimentalizes Corrie. The only remotely negative things she writes are that Corrie was skinny and never cleaned her closet – big whoop. Frankly it seems stupid to demonize OR beatify Rachel Corrie. She was an ideologue, admirably passionate but committed to freshman-level political theories, with a tendency to simplify and romanticize. That’s common in privileged college kids, but 23’s kinda old for it. The play downplays her radicalism by omitting things that would raise eyebrows – her justification of suicide bombing and hysterical description of Israeli policy as genocide. Her words aren’t exactly the gospel. But the theater guy is a wuss anyway.
The occupation is militarily unsustainable, terrible for Israel and morally abominable. I have no doubt the IDF was doing some shady, immoral bullshit that day, but that DOESN’T mean Corrie was murdered. She thought she was invincible as an American, the IDF was negligent in not having spotters for the dozer – that combo is a disaster waiting to happen. Add an accident like her tripping and it’s not surprising she was killed.
i hope she rests in peace.
– this letter is from the new york times
In Defense of a Play
Published: March 22, 2006
To the Editor:
Re “Theater Addresses Tension Over Play” (Arts pages, March 16):
We are Jewish writers who supported the Royal Court production of “My Name Is Rachel Corrie.” We are dismayed by the decision of the New York Theater Workshop to cancel or postpone the play’s production. We believe that this is an important play, particularly, perhaps, for an American audience that too rarely has an opportunity to see and judge for itself the material it contends with.
In London it played to sell-out houses. Critics praised it. Audiences found it intensely moving. So what is it about Rachel Corrie’s writings, her thoughts, her feelings, her confusions, her idealism, her courage, her search for meaning in life — what is it that New York audiences must be protected from?
The various reasons given by the workshop — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s coma, the election of Hamas, the circumstances of Rachel Corrie’s death, the “symbolism” of her tale — make no sense in the context of this play and the crucial issues it raises about Israeli military activity in the occupied territories.
Rachel Corrie gave her life standing up against injustice. A theater with such a fine history should have had the courage to give New York theatergoers the chance to experience her story for themselves.
Gillian Slovo
Harold Pinter
Stephen Fry
London, March 20, 2006
This letter was also signed by 18 other writers.
RACHEL’S WORDS
MARCH 22nd, NEW YORK CITY
I don,t understand. How can they get away with this? The Jewish mafia isn’t coming to shut it down?
check out the people from the new york theater workshop defend their decision, and rachel’s parents: http://www.democracynow.org/
A more specific link:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/22/1435259
David:
Do you not think that your own tagging of this post as dealing with ‘anti-semitism’ is somewhat banal and inflamatory? .. and do you not think that one action will make most rational people think that The Nation’s handling of this is somewhat more dispassionate than your own?
Susan said “The play probably was not very good and would have folded on its own.
Having seen the play (twice), I can tell you that it is outstanding, powerful, thought-provoking and deeply moving (to borrow the words of the deeply Zionist ‘Daily Telegraph’). Your own own bias may well demand that you think otherwise, but I think you will find that the sell-out audiences at every single performance will all tell you otherwise.
Susan says:
“I read Katherine Viner’s editorial in the Guardian. Sbe says the play is an unbiased look into Rachael Corrie’s life. From the rest of her editorial, I can easily see that it isn’t unbiased
How can it be biased when it is ALL Rachel’s own words? It is a preposterous claim to make.
Mark,
I never tagged “anti-semitism.” I am charging duplicity.