Seattle Jews take on Corrie play

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Seattle Jews are providing the public with information to balance the local production of a controversial play about a pro-Palestinian activist’s death.

"My Name is Rachel Corrie," which opened March 15, is a one-woman show chronicling the life of Corrie, a young woman from Washington state who volunteered in Gaza with the International Solidarity Movement. Since her death in 2003 -- she was crushed by an Israeli army bulldozer as she tried to prevent it from searching for arms-smuggling tunnels -- she has become a martyr-like figure among Palestinian supporters and some in the anti-Israel community.

The Jerusalem Post reported Monday that instead of protesting the play's run, the Seattle community and federation attempted to work with the Seattle Repertory Theater to provide viewers with background for the play. They have taken out ads in the playbill, which promote an informational Web site, http://www.rachelcorriefacts.org.

The show, which has been criticized as one-sided and misleading, was protested by the Jewish community of London, where it opened in 2005, and also attracted controversy in New York City."

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/100871.html


Rachel Corrie, spotlighted yet again

<snip>

"Ever since International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activist Rachel Corrie was killed in 2003 while acting as a human shield against the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, controversy has swirled around the 23 year-old college student and the circumstances of her death.

The much-debated play, "I Am Rachel Corrie," has only fueled the fire, with some seeing it as a politically motivated venture to skew the facts surrounding her death, and others viewing it as the innocuous story of an idealistic young girl's life.

The 90-minute one-woman show, co-written by actor Alan Rickman (Harry Potter and Love Actually), and the features editor of London's Guardian newspaper, Katherine Viner, tells the story of Corrie through her own emails and journal entries.

During its premiere in London in 2005 the play was met with rave reviews, despite some protest action from the Zionist Federation. However, after fostering a hotbed of controversy, the play was pulled from the Broadway New York Theater Workshop (NYTW) before it even premiered, generating accusations of censorship. The show was also later axed from the Toronto-based theater CanStage.

Now it's the Seattle Repertory Theater's turn to host the contentious play. The lights have barely dimmed, but the drama is already underway. Unlike the previous public response in New York and London, which took the form of protests, demonstrations and heavy media coverage, members of the Seattle Jewry have taken a different approach."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879174812&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. This way may prove to be more constructive

When pressure is put to close down productions, it only gives said productions-and their point of view-a greater spotlight. This lower-key encouragement of dialog is much more likely to get people looking at both sides of the question and making up their own minds, I think.

[msmcghee]

2. Thanks for posting.

I didn't know about that information website. I just learned some interesting stuff there.

http://rachelcorriefacts.org/Accident.aspx

(Excerpt)

On March 16 2003, Rachel Corrie, as part of her activities with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), had gone to Rafah on the Egypt-Gaza border to prevent IDF demolitions of arms smuggling tunnels. ISM activists had repeatedly interfered with these operations, standing in front of the bulldozers and then leaping out of harm’s way. In this case, the IDF was bulldozing shrubbery that camouflaged the tunnels. Rachel apparently thought she was protecting the nearby home of a Palestinian pharmacist. She knelt in front of the bulldozer behind a pile of dirt.

The ISM claimed the bulldozer intentionally ran her over and killed her. After extensive investigation, the IDF concluded that the driver could not see her and that her death was an unfortunate accident. The IDF Judge Advocate’s Office concluded: “The driver at no point saw or heard Corrie. She was standing behind debris which obstructed the view of the driver and the driver had a very limited field of vision due to the protective cage he was working in.” An autopsy revealed that the bulldozer never rolled over Corrie: she was killed when debris dislodged by the bulldozer struck her head.

The ISM claim was based on two photos it released: one of Rachel standing in a bright orange flak jacket, a bull horn in her hand, with a bulldozer only yards away; the second of the fallen Rachel, the bulldozer just behind her. ISM claimed these photos were taken within minutes of each other. However, it quickly became apparent that the photos had not been taken sequentially, but probably hours apart. The first photo showed a morning sky; the second photo showed an afternoon sky. The bulldozer in the first picture was not the same one shown in the second picture. The first picture did not fit initial eyewitness reports that Rachel did not have a bullhorn in her hand at the time of the accident nor did it show the mound of earth repeatedly described. ISM bystanders said no photographers were present before the accident occurred. The IDF concluded that Rachel was sitting on a mound of dirt and could not be seen by the driver. When he continued his operations, she could have rolled away but instead tried to climb to the top of the mound but the digging drew her downward, causing the accident. Later autopsy reports revealed that the cause of death was blows to the head, probably from the heavy debris dislodged by the bulldozer.

[breakaleg]

3. I had read that the US asked for an independent investigation but Israel refused.

The fact that the IDF cleared themselves shouldn't surprise anyone.

[msmcghee]

8. Then you read wrong.

The US House introduced a resolution to do a House investigation that did not pass. It was Amnesty International that called for an independent report.

Do a little research maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie

The IDF Report:

"The driver at no point saw or heard Corrie. She was standing behind debris which obstructed the view of the driver and the driver had a very limited field of vision due to the protective cage he was working in.

"The driver and his commanders were interrogated extensively over a long period of time with the use of polygraph tests and video evidence. They had no knowledge that she was standing in the path of the tractor. An autopsy of Corrie's body revealed that the cause of death was from falling debris and not from the tractor physically rolling over her. It was a tragic accident that never should have happened.

"The International Solidarity Movement, to which Corrie belonged, was directly responsible for illegal behavior and conduct in the area of Corrie's death and their actions directly led to this tragedy."<12>


It's hard to believe that the dozens of IDF investigators involved plus those doctors at the Israel National Center of Forensic Medicine that conducted the autopsy would all conspire to produce fabricated evidence and false reports that could be discovered at some point in the future - all so that Israel could falsify the cause of death of a person they admit died as a result of their operations.

I guess when you are really evil though there's nothing out of the question. :sarcasm:

[breakaleg]

23. I did.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=52A4E74D1EA54C3F85256FC50077DD71

[Tom Joad]

11. As i posted, the US State Department has always been unsatisfied with the

completeness of the IDF report, but yes, there was not the political will to really pursue an independent investigation.

[Tom Joad]

10. Thanks for posting that. Such writing is a way of Bulldozing the truth.

The fact a young person's body is run over by a military vehicle of death and destruction is not enough for some people. Now they attempt to bulldoze her memory by spreading lies and propaganda, much as they did when Tom Hurndall was murdered by an Israeli soldier (the story, repeatedly told by the official Israeli propaganda machine, was that Tom was wearing camouflage, he was in the proximity of gunfighters and so on, while in fact he was leading a child out of the line of fire of Israeli snipers. The fact that the truth came out is testimony to the fact that the Hurndalls had more influence in Britain than the Corrie's do in forcing the US in digging for the truth)

The story of Corrie's death was not merely based on two photos, but by eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime.

The US State Dept has said that it is unsatisfied with the official Israeli investigation that was done (the only investigation that was done, unfortunately)

I understand the hatred for Rachel Corrie, and what she represents. I can list several websites, including one where you post with alarming regularity, msm, where people take great joy in the fact that she is now dead. She represents international presence, and an impediment to what Israel can accomplish.

If Israel ever decides to move the entire Palestinian population out of the West Bank, as Israeli leaders such as Avigdor Lieberman seem ready to do, and a solution you think may some day make the most sense, msmcghee, it is a terrible thought that there may be people like Rachel Corrie standing in the way of the army trucks filled with "deportees".

Edited on Sat Mar-24-07 03:12 PM by msmcghee
I did say that . .
a form of ethnic cleansing like that could be a reasonable alternative to a war that kills many children and innocent civilians -

[msmcghee]

14. Since you take such exception to my statement . .

. . " a form of ethnic cleansing like that could be a reasonable alternative to a war that kills many children and innocent civilians"

. . I assume you disagree with it. Is that correct?

[Tom Joad]

15. yes, i think ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity.

Actually, i think i fit right into the mainstream on that question.

[msmcghee]

19. But that's not what I said.

I said if you have two choices - one being adopting policies that encourage people who are trying to kill you to move away from your border - or entering a war with them that would cause the death of many innocent civilians on both sides - that the former would be preferable.

That's my opinion. I think that encouraging people to move is better than killing them - if those are the only choices you have to defend the lives of your own people.

If you disagree with me then you must take the opposite position.

If you want to frame the premise differently than I did - if you simply want to claim that ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, then I would agree - according to the commonly accepted definitions of ethnic cleansing. I don't consider encouraging people who are trying to kill you to relocate - ethnic cleansing.

I should make it clear that I have no idea what Israel's policy is on this. I was wondering what I would do if I was in Israel's position. That's what I came up with - and I'm sure Israel won't be paying much attention to my opinion.

[Tom Joad]

22. You never explained how you would "encourage" people to leave?

Despite decades of such "encouragement" it seems Palestinians are determined to stay on their ancestral land, that they have lived on, and their very direct families have lived on, for thousands of years.

[msmcghee]

33. I have no idea what Israel's policies are with respect to . .

. . encouraging the militants to move. But, it could be a consideration. pelsar would probably have a much more useful opinion on that.

It's possible that an even better military strategy would be to encourage the militants all to stay and cluster as close to the border as possible - where they can be more easily observed - I have no idea.

In any case, when all the costs and benefits are tallied it's possible that the winning alternative for any policy decision could have either a positive or negative component for that variable. But yes, it may be one consideration of many.

I doubt that Israel would go out and just look for policies that would achieve that result. It seems to me it would be very hard to engineer and it would be difficult to predict the value to Israel. I suspect Israel is more intensely focused on simply keeping them out of Israel - which is the bottom line.

It's probably more likely that any benefits that would accrue to Israel would be if Palestinians became impatient with their leadership's obsession with Israel - and actually started thinking about their own economy and social structure. In either case though I expect Israel would weight things in terms of the safety of Israelis.

But here I am talking about complicated ideas and the kind of difficult real-world decisions that Israelis are forced to make in order to protect the lives of their citizens - and you are probably anxious to get on with accusing me of hating Palestinians. So, carry on.

[Tom Joad]

41. I think it is Israel that has an obsession with Palestine... it has moved 400,000 of its citizens

to the West Bank, after all. (this is for "security"?)
It is building a wall INSIDE the West Bank.

and it continues to military control both Gaza and the West Bank.
It holds thousands of Palestinian hostages, otherwise known as prisoners.

[msmcghee]

44. Yes, well there's nothing in the Israeli constitution . .

. . about clearing all Arabs out of Palestine, nothing about Palestine being an illegally held part of Israel that contains a race of people who all Jews must join together to annihilate and nothing about creating an Israel occupied only by Jews from the sea to the river for the glory of God - if that's the kind of obsession you mean.

[Tom Joad]

45. There is nothing in the Israeli constitution, period.

Israel does not have a constitution.
Please keep up.

[msmcghee]

46. Webster defines constitution as . .

. . a basic political document. Notice I did not capitalize it.

Perhaps you should think more and write less.

[Tom Joad]

47. Okay, Webster Dictionary defines the word, no argument there.

[booley]

104. That is SOOOO DUMB

Not even getting into the arguement abotu whether Israel ha sa constitution or not..

When this country had Manifest Destiny, it didnt put that into it's Constitution. It didnt' have too. It just had ot put in policies that encouraged it.

So what effect do the policies of the Israeli gov have on the Palestinian people? That's the question that matters.

[oberliner]

48. I wonder why Israelis would be so obsessed with East Jerusalem.

That would be where almost 3/4th of those 400,000 people are living.

[Solo_in_MD]

50. Go there...it will aid your understanding

[Solo_in_MD]

42. Careful, alternative views on the martyrdom of Rachel Corrie are heresy and not allowed here

Hyperbole about bulldozers as death machines is funny as is some of the tin foil encased vitriol.

Given the physical evidence such as the photos, field of view from of the dozer driver, a rational analysis of motives and other information leads me to agree that it was unintentional.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[breakaleg]

6. This is very telling.

"This site was created by a group of concerned Seattle-area residents who have seen the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, and are concerned that viewers are getting an incomplete picture of a very complex situation."

Whenever I've been told that the situation between Isreal / Palestinians is "complex" it's usually because I'm not sympathetic enough towards Israel or I'm not taking their side. I suspect this is no different.

[jonnyblitz]

7. check the links provided on the "additional resources" page,

CAMERA, MEMRI, Little Green Footballs,ADL, Andrew Sullivan's Blog (Daily Dish),etc. Of course somebody could point to t Slate and claim slate is "liberal" , I suppose. I am surprised they didn't list Horowitz's FRONTPAGEMAG as a source. :crazy:

They also use the " guarding a secret ammunitions tunnel" story that I have only seen mentioned on right wing sites. :shrug:

sometimes there is only one "truth" and no "other side'". I would never think that a discussion on the Holocaust would have to be "balanced" with a discussion by Holocaust deniers, for example.

[Tom Joad]

13. Little Green Footballs, like the site we see MSM post at , celebrates Rachel's death.

Several people always put up avatars with IHOP logo, which is to say that Rachel is bulldozed into a pancake.

The hate never stops at Little Green Footballs!!

[msmcghee]

16. Sites that don't have strict moderation . .

. . will all get hateful posts. Those posts don't necessarily mean that everything that is said at those sites is wrong. The best policy is to be skeptical of everything you see on the internet and check it out yourself.

There's plenty of hate and support for hate on this site - and a lot of what is said is outright wrong. Allowing ideas to compete where anyone can participate with few restrictions is what the internet is about.

[Solo_in_MD]

31. Where do you dreay that from?

I saw that as IHOP is one of my guilty little pleasures on the weekends.

[Scurrilous]

60. Rachel Corrie ..

...(amongst other names) is referred to as St. Pancake at LGF and other hate-sites. The guy who runs that dump once posted a photo-shopped picture of Arafat presenting a framed photo of a pancake to Rachel's parents. The IHOP images are a direct reference to her and have nothing to do with favorite restaurants or breakfast foods.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msmcghee]

74. If you think their criticism is unjustified . .

. . then you are free to say so. I make my own criticisms and back them up if needed. I don't expect others to back them up for me. I post there occasionally and find most of their comments right on.

When you post things on a public forum others are free to see them and criticize them.

[Tom Joad]

85. What kind of people post there? I mean, they don't just stop at attacking me, but they have

insulted my parents, even. Who they don't know at all (of course, they don't really know me, either). If they want to call me a nazi, that's to be expected -- they call Noam Chomsky a Nazi too. This reflects on their credibility. This is where they laugh about how Muslims pray also, so it all fits in a pattern. But they have to call my parents Nazis also? What kind of people do this?

It seems that most of them, (about a half-dozen or less regular posters) are using tactics most of us abandoned in junior high. But then again, even then, i remember there were some lines jr high kids did not cross. so i take back my statement, as most jr high kids would never go down to that level of hate and foolishness that i have witnessed at the anti-Democratic Underground site in question.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

98. another website describes itself as "Pro-Jewish, Pro-Arab, Pro-Peace"

A rational source of discussion and debate on the web. See this website
www.semitism.net
I just discovered it today.

I am not going to say i agree with everything posted there, since i have not read that much of it, though i certainly agree with the summary of its philosophy...

It has a somewhat similar domain name to the unfortunate site we were discussing... but an outlook that couldn't be more different. humane, informative & seeking answers and seeking peace... and justice. For everyone (what a concept!).

I bookmarked it!

[Douglas Carpenter]

101. thanx...nice site...

http://www.semitism.net/

[oberliner]

20. What about a play about Golda Meir?

Do you think a play about her ought to be balanced by information from the perspective of the Palestinians?

[Tom Joad]

27. It won't be. Golda did not believe Palestinians were fully human. In contrast, Rachel

Corrie saw the humanity of the bulldozer drivers, one of whom ended up murdering her. She wrote at one point ( i can't find a direct quote at the moment) where she wondered about the drivers of the bulldozers, who were about her age, and what music he listens to, and so on. Rachel also wrote of the

"The resistance of Israeli Jewish people to the occupation and the enormous risk taken by those refusing to serve in the Israeli military offers an example, especially for those of us living in the United States, of how to behave when you discover that atrocities are being committed in your name. "

It seems like in the US, it is not required that plays about a controversial subject must be balanced by another perspective.

When Michale Moore's films are played, no one insisted that moviegoers be provided with Republican information as they go in (oth, no one was prevented from passing out such material to people walking toward the theatre, either)

[oberliner]

32. With all due respect, that is a ridiculous statement

Golda wrote:

"I have been charged with being rigidly insensitive to the question of the Palestinian Arabs. I am supposed to have said, ''There are no Palestinians.'' My actual words were: ''There is no Palestinian people. There are Palestinian refugees.'' The distinction is not semantic. My statement was based on a lifetime of debates with Arab nationalists who vehemently excluded a separatist Palestinian Arab nationalism from their formulations.

I repeatedly expressed my sympathy for the needless sufferings of refugees whose abnormal situation was created and exploited by the Arab states as a tactic in their campaign against Israel. However, refugee status could not indefinitely be maintained for the original 555,000 Arabs who in 1948 joined the exodus from the battle areas during the Arab attack on the new state of Israel."

She has also said:

"To attain peace, I am ready to go at any hour to any place, to meet any authorized leader of any Arab State - to conduct negotiations with mutual respect, in parity and without preconditions, and with a clear recognition that the problems under controversy can be solved. For there is room to fulfil the national aspirations of all the Arab States and of Israel as well in the Middle East, and progress, development and cooperation can be hastened among all its nations, in place of barren bloodshed and war without end."

[Tom Joad]

36. There are many examples of her speech that dehumanizes Palestinians, but even more so the

actions of the government that speak even more loudly.


“How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” — Golda Meir, March 8, 1969

And Israel never will give back the Occupied Territories.

[oberliner]

38. In regard to your quote

Your Golda Meir quote omits the third sentence. It should read: "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to. We can't send it to Nasser by parcel post".

Of course, she was referencing the fact that no one on the Egyptian side or indeed any of the other countries involved in the 1967 war would negotiate with Israel.

The "nobody to return them to" refers to the fact that no leader will sit down and talk to her to negotiate a peace settlement, not that there are no Palestinians. Reading the quote in its full context makes that clear.

I think we had this same exchange in 2006.

[Tom Joad]

40. It is unlawful for nations to take territory by force.

[msmcghee]

57. It is unlawful for people to enter Israel . .

. . from outside that state and kill the Jews who live there.

[breakaleg]

59. One is a state, the other are individuals. nt

[msmcghee]

76. It's hard to understand the meaning of your statement.

In the context of the post you replied to it is not unreasonable to take it as - because Palestinians are individuals who don't live in a recognized state it is OK for them to cross the border into Israel and kill Jews who do live in a recognized state.

If that's not the case maybe you could explain why you just said that and what it means.

[breakaleg]

78. The state of Israel is responsble for its actions. Those individual Palestinians are responsible

for theirs. But you can't hold all Palestinians responsible for that of a few, as they aren't necessarily acting on their behalf, given that they aren't representing a state, like say the IDF does represent the state of Israel.

[msmcghee]

79. My statement was . .

" It is unlawful for people to enter Israel . . from outside that state and kill the Jews who live there."

Is there anything about that statement you disagree with?

[breakaleg]

80. Your statement was in response to Toms which said that it was unlawful for a nation to take

territory by force. It seems to me you were comparing the actions of a state to actions of individuals. I think anyone reading this thread could follow that. I fail to see why you couldn't.

[msmcghee]

81. Hmmm. I was comparing the relative . .

. . seriousness of two illegal acts.

One was a land dispute for which various state and international courts are avaiable to rectify any wrongs committed.

The other was the murder of innocent civilians - who's lives, once destroyed, could not be replaced. I think anyone reading this thread could follow that. I fail to see why you couldn't.

Now that you know what I was comparing I'll ask my question again in a way that you can't misunderstand.

There are two acts being compared:

a)Individuals from one state enter Israel to kill Jewish civilians who live there.

b)Individuals from Israel enter the occupied territories and settle - perhaps illegally - on vacant land.

Which do you think is the more immoral and violent act?

[breakaleg]

82. Who is able to correct these wrongs? Israel doesn't listen to any international bodies. nt

[msmcghee]

83. So, you are unable to agree that . .

. . Palestinian individuals killing innocent Israeli civilians in Israel is a more serious offense - than Israeli citizens setting up settlements on land that may belong to Palestinian individuals?

It's really a pretty simple question. Yes or No?

[Violet_Crumble]

86. Both are wrong and neither makes the other one right...

Do you agree? Yes or no...

And I notice you totally ignore the fact that Israelis have killed innocent Palestinian civilians. No surprises there....

[msmcghee]

87. It's interesting that you like to ask challenging questions . .

. . in your posts - without answering any of the questions posed to you (or those who share your position). That leaves the impression that this is some kind of rhetorical game for you where you get to show off your cleverness at avoiding the points of your opponents while barraging them with questions that confound them.

If I simply addressed your questions without pointing that out I would be falling into your trap - abandoning my line of debate and going off on yours. However, I think that answering challenging questions is a good idea. If I can't answer them cogently then maybe my position is not as strong as I thought. So I will try to answer your questions - and then I would hope to see a serious response from you answering mine.

VC: Both are wrong and neither makes the other one right...Do you agree? Yes or no...

Crossing the border of another state with the intent to kill as many innocent civilians as possible is definitely wrong - morally and legally. It is an extreme violation of civilized norms because it always leads to even more violence where innocent people die. States (or quasi-states) that sponsor such activity, or don't try to prevent it, should be treated as the worst pariahs by all peace-loving people.

People who don't condemn such activity in the strongest possible terms - as a starting condition before any other questions of right and wrong can even be discussed on an issue - or who justify that activity in the sense of "what else can they do" are just apologists for the killing of innocent people and they share significantly in the guilt of such despicable acts in my opinion. There is no excuse for murdering innocent people - ever.

VC: And I notice you totally ignore the fact that Israelis have killed innocent Palestinian civilians.

I also totally ignored the death of Anna Nicolle Smith. That's because neither of those were part of the carefully delineated topic of this sub-thread.

But in the spirit of addressing questions that could reveal a weakness in my pov - I will point out that the simplistic frame that you place around your off-topic question is hardly surprising. When it is examined seriously - its serious flaws appear.

When innocent Palestinian civilians die at the hands of the IDF - they are in virtually all cases the result of IDF attempts to stop terrorist attacks against Israelis. They are the result of defensive actions. If Palestinian terrorists were not launching such attacks against Israeli civilians - the IDF would not be there to prevent them. In that sense the Palestinians who die due to IDF operations in the territories are the result of the terrorists' activities - the terrorists are guilty of their deaths.

Their deaths are very similar to when a bank customer dies in the barrage of bullets during a police attempt to stop a bank robbery. Things may be different down under but here, the robbers are guilty of any deaths that occur and can get the chair for them. The cops are not guilty.

Your question leaves the impression that perhaps you think that Israel has no right to defend itself from those attacks. Care to clarify that for us?

The government of the territories also shares a large amount of that guilt - because it does little or nothing to stop those attacks and even takes credit for some of them.

It also teaches Palestinian children from the earliest age that killing Israeli civilians is the most honorable act they could commit their lives to when they grow up. It fills their school books with justifications for such killing. I find that particularly sickening and disgusting. Don't you?

So now I have not ignored the deaths of Palestinians at the hands of the IDF. And I have placed the blame for those unfortunate deaths exactly where it belongs.

Now I will repeat my question to breakaleg and we will see if you can answer it with the same level of honesty and completeness that I gave to your question. I'd also like to see answers to the questions I asked above - bolded for your convenience - while responding to your diversionary challenge.

****************

There are two acts being compared:

a) Individuals from one (quasi) state enter Israel to kill Jewish civilians who live there.

b) Individuals from Israel enter the occupied territories and settle - perhaps illegally - on vacant land.

Which do you think is the more immoral and violent act?

[Violet_Crumble]

91. It wasn't a challenging question, and I notice you didn't answer it...

Let's refresh yr memory...

I asked: Both are wrong and neither makes the other one right...Do you agree? Yes or no...

You did not answer the question at all. It's telling that you claim that it's off-topic to point out that you ignore the fact that innocent Palestinian civilians are being killed, while you jumped into a discussion that wasn't about innocent Israeli civilians being killed and introduced it as a tangent. If one's off-topic, then the other certainly is...

Can you explain to me how Palestinian children being shot while playing soccer or walking to and from school or playing outside their homes is Israel defending itself against terrorists? The fact that you paint Israel as being totally blameless all the time and the Palestinians being totally to blame all the time does tend to confirm suspicions about an extremely one-sided and unbending pov. People who are extremely one-sided aren't the sort of folk who want or can contribute to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and imo are a complete waste of space on a progressive forum like DU...

Yr loaded question is one that doesn't have a yes or no answer, which is what I explained. I'll also explain why. Yr intent is to try to ignore that both the killing of innocent civilians as well as the occupation is wrong, and to make out that the killing of civilians justifies the occupation and continued settlement of the occupied territories. I have many times in the past voiced my opposition to the killing of civilians. I suggest you go back and read what I've said instead of trying to make out that anyone who doesn't answer yr loaded question supports the killing of civilians. Unlike you, I'm opposed to the killing of innocent civilians no matter if they're Israeli or Palestinian...

[msmcghee]

92. Why am I not surprised . .

. . that you just can't deal with the actual ideas in my posts in any reasonable way. Doesn't that even bother you? You make it so obvious that you have no point to your posts - other than smearing Israel and insulting those who defend Israel. My reply more than answered your question.

But you have not answered mine:

There are two acts being compared:

a) Individuals from one (quasi) state enter Israel to kill Jewish civilians who live there.

b) Individuals from Israel enter the occupied territories and settle - perhaps illegally - on vacant land.

Which do you think is the more immoral and violent act?

[Violet_Crumble]

93. Maybe it'd help if you actually read my posts before replying...

I have answered yr question. Go back and read it again...

I reply to posts that contain reasonable ideas all the time. Yr post contains nothing in the way of reasonable ideas and yr tendency to accuse anyone even the slightest bit critical of Israel of 'smearing' Israel displays just why that's the case...

[msmcghee]

94. I did see where you said that you don't approve of killing . .

. . civilians. But that wasn't my question. I asked you to compare the seriousness of two offenses. You didn't answer.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. I answered yr question in post #86...

Refreshing yr memory here:

Both are wrong and neither makes the other one right...


Do you agree? Yes or no...

Of course you didn't bother answering my question, so how about answering it now?

[msmcghee]

96. Certainly you know that I believe it is wrong . .

. . for Palestinians to kill Israelis. I'm sure you could not have misunderstood me on that one. So you are now only asking if I think it's wrong for Israeli citizens to set up settlements on land that may belong to Palestinian individuals?

Yes, if someone else has legal title to the land it is wrong. I thought that was obvious.

And no, if someone builds a house on land that another person claims - there are courts to settle such disputes - killing the homebuilder is not justified.

Now, where are the answers to my questions.

[Violet_Crumble]

97. Try answering the question I asked you...

Will I need to repost it for what seems like the millionth time?

And as I've already told you for what seems like the millionth time, I answered yr loaded question in post #86...

[breakaleg]

88. Why put words in my mouth? AGAIN?

I said nothing close to what you claim and the "so you are unable to agree that" crap is just that.

There was nothing in my post that a reasonably intelligent person could infer was what you claim, so I chose to ignore you.

[msmcghee]

89. It's hard to know how I can put . .

. . words into your mouth by asking you a question. I'll ask it again.

So, you are unable to agree that . . Palestinian individuals killing innocent Israeli civilians in Israel is a more serious offense - than Israeli citizens setting up settlements on land that may belong to Palestinian individuals?

It's really a pretty simple question. Yes or No?

[Tom Joad]

30. There was no tunnel under this home (that eventually the IDF demolished)

even the IDF did not say there was a tunnel under this home.

The home, by the way, is being rebuilt, with funds raised mostly in the United States.

http://www.rebuildingalliance.org/

[oberliner]

21. You don't think the situation is complex?

I don't think calling the situation complex implies what you suggest it does.

[breakaleg]

28. At the specific times and context in which it was said to me, it most certainly does.

It's not that the situation is labeled complex. It's that it's "too complex" for me to understand. However many other people who fall into my demographic but share the pro-Israeli view on everything, they get it.

[oberliner]

35. I think it goes both ways

It seems that many people on the pro-Israeli side are told that they don't understand what is really going on whereas those on the other side, they get it.

[breakaleg]

37. I disagree.

The pro-Israeli side does know what goes on on the Palestinians side. They just don't care. Or they manage to find excuses that justify Israeli or IDF behavior. The difference between those two are negligible.

[oberliner]

39. I don't know, I've seen posts recently that have said things like

"Those IDF soldiers weren't really captured in Israel, they were captured in Lebanon."

Or: "The real reason Israel invaded Lebanon was to steal their water."

[breakaleg]

43. I saw those as well. That's not the same as what I was writing about. nt

[oberliner]

49. I just wish people could discuss this conflict with less hyperbole

Especially at a site like this.

There are so many people with so much information, knowledge, and perspectives to share, all of whom, are presumably interested in the same general goal.

Yet things always seem to devolve into the same rehashing of overheated talking points.

There are actually some positive developments happening right now that the progressive community, in my view, should be trying to get some energy behind.

[Shaktimaan]

52. Well, if you took a stance that was strictly anti-Palestinian

or supported the settlers particular worldview then you might hear the same statement about complexity from a different side. The fact that you only hear it when you are looking at the situation simplistically from an entrenched anti-Zionist standpoint makes sense as that's the sole position you take. It sure doesn't mean that another side, one which is pro-Israel yet also overly simplistic, doesn't exist.

When would you ever have an opportunity to be told that you were being overly simplistic for any reason other than the one you described, seeing as it is your standard perspective?

[pnorman]

5. I'll try to keep open-minded on this, and will welcome ALL verifiable info.

For the record, I attended the Rachel Corrie Memorial Service held in Seattle 5 years ago. I supported then as I do now, her fight for justice, but am also appalled at some of the overt anti-Semitism that frequently enters these affairs. And NO, I do NOT equate criticism of the State of Israel with anti-Semitism.

pnorman

[rockymountaindem]

9. What kind of overt anti-Semitism? n/t

[Shaktimaan]

55. stuff like this.

http://www.zombietime.com/stop_the_us_israeli_war_8_12_2006/

[rockymountaindem]

56. What a bunch of freaks and assholes n.t.

[Shaktimaan]

58. word.

[Tom Joad]

67. Why do you post a link to an Anti-Arab Hate site? A proud defender of Bush's

war policies in the middle east?

[Shaktimaan]

75. A hate site?

What did you find to be anti-arab in that link?
A proud defender of Bush's war policies? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Unless criticising anti-semitic propaganda is somehow anti-arab to you. And making fun of anti-American, pro-terrorism and sometimes flat out nonsensical protest signs is your idea of being "pro-war."

You've stumped me on the "proud defender of Bush's war policies in the middle east" though. What are you talking about?

[Tom Joad]

12. There is also overt anti-Arab racism that enters these affairs as well.

Neither is justifiable.

[TomClash]

17. "A Different Approach"

New bottle, same old whine.

That a play with this viewpoint has actually made it to the US and has been produced in two American cities is really quite extraordinary. ADL, AIPAC and their allies must be slipping.

[Tom Joad]

18. They are too busy defending the likes of John Bolton and the rest of the cast-offs of the Bush

mis-administration to have the time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x160962

[oberliner]

24. Actually the ADL has been busy working to uphold the rights of gays and lesbians

Most recently through their support of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act.

This bill was recently introduced in the House by John Conyers.

The measure would extend the federal definition of a hate crime to include violence based on the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity. It would also provide added resources to help local law enforcement agencies combat hate crimes.

Statement from the ADL:

"We urge Congress to promptly enact this essential legislation, which would strengthen federal hate crime laws by authorizing the Justice Department to assist local authorities in investigating and prosecuting bias-motivated crimes," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "This bill would give law enforcement important tools to combat bias-motivated crime. Federal support will help to ensure that these hate crimes are investigated and prosecuted."

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HatCr_51/5010_51.htm

[TomClash]

25. Yes, they can do very good work

Just not in the ME.

[Tom Joad]

29. But you don't deny that they worked long and hard to defend John Bolton,

that is also part of their work. They wanted him to remain in his job, as did Bush.

[TomClash]

26. Great stuff nt

[Shaktimaan]

53. Why? Is anyone trying to stop it?

These people are just telling their side of the story for balance. You know, more speech, not less? That's how it is supposed to work.

I've noticed that people sometimes mistake criticism for suppression. The idea that the ADL is going around trying to halt any kind of speech that could be considered antithetical to their cause is pretty dumb. They may denounce it or call for it to close. Or even rally protests against it if they think the cause is serious. But that's democracy in action.

[TomClash]

62. No, but there was an attempt to stop its production in New York

I'm perfectly happy if anyone who wants to discuss, criticize, condemn or suppport the play says whatever they please.

It is once again beginning to become a free country, even on the Palestinian question. Hallelujah.

[Shaktimaan]

63. What happened in New York?

[TomClash]

65. The play was supposed to be originally shown

by the NY Theatre Workshop but was cancelled after right wing jews labelled it "too offensive."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060403/weiss

It was then picked up by Rickman and shown at the Minetta Lane.

So much for free speech.

[eyl]

70. How does this abrogate free speech?

Free speech means you can say whatever you can - and so can anyone else even if they're objecting to what you're saying. Nor is anyone obligated to supply you witha platform to excersice your free speech.

In none of the accounts have I seen any indications that the theater company was subjected to undue pressure (e.g. threats of violence) to pull the play - they did so on their own out of concern as to how it would be received. Now, you can say that they were oversensitive, or that they were foolish; but this is not censorship.

[TomClash]

71. You're taking the quote out of context. It was in response to the prior post

I understand the legal definition of "free speech."

[eyl]

77. not talking about

the legal definition. You posted

So much for free speech

in response to the cancelation of the play because the company felt that "right-wing Jews" might find it offensive. That is exactly the context of my reply.

[TomClash]

84. Then I guess you didn't read this

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060403/weiss

Just whom was the Workshop consulting in its deliberations? It has steadfastly refused to say. In the New York Observer, Nicola mentioned "Jewish friends." Dodgson says that in discussions with the Royal Court, Workshop staffers brought up the Anti-Defamation League and the mayor's office as entities they were concerned about. (Abe Foxman of the ADL visited London in 2005 and denounced the play in the New York Sun as offensive to Jewish "sensitivities.") By one account, the fatal blow was dealt when the global PR firm Ruder Finn (which has an office in Israel) said it couldn't represent the play.

[cali]

51. Aaargh. Another Rachel Corrie thread.

Those who view her a a martyr murdered by the Israelis won't change their mind. Those who view her a a useful idiot whose death was accidental won't change theirs.

[msmcghee]

54. How about those who . .

. . see her death and the reaction to it on both sides as a useful window into the much larger conflict that it is a part of - and perhaps even into human nature?

[wellst0nev0ter]

61. Yeah, I'm Surprised No One Mentioned Her Burning An American Flag

that always shut up the pro-Corrie brigade.

[TomClash]

66. I served my country so

people would have the right to do that. Even you.

[wellst0nev0ter]

72. I Know

that was a particularly sickening argument in defense of her untimely death. Perhaps even some of the hawks here have learned not to cross that line.

[Tom Joad]

69. Flags aren't sacred, people are...

[wellst0nev0ter]

73. I Wish More People Would Understand That Simple Concept (n/t)

[Shaktimaan]

64. Put me down for...

naive idealist who, sadly, never got the chance to become a cynical idealist.
Or a naive cynic.

[msmcghee]

99. I saw the play Tuesday evening in Seattle.

It was a good look into the mind of a young impressionable woman who seems drawn to take on causes. It got her killed.

It is obvious to me that if your cause places you into a foreign place in the middle of a low grade war - and the people who protect you and feed you are Palestinian and the people who you are fighting are IDF - then your pov is going to be quite political. I think most who see the play understand that.

Even so, I don't think the play was so political until the voice-over at the very end when this ethereal offstage male voice claims that there is no question that the driver purposely killed her. But I think everyone going in knew that was the pov the play was about. So I think it wasn't very effective on that level.

From her own words I learned that her father is a "neo-liberal". I took that in context to mean that he didn't share her dedication to the Pal cause but saw it as something his idealistic daughter had to go through. I had many women friends like her in the sixties who attached themselves with equal fervor to various movements - like Bob Dylan as a new-age Messiah, Maher Baba, the anti-war movement - or sometimes it was a rock band. Even though I don't share her political pov I do see her death as a tragedy and I feel bad for her family and friends - and I regret yet another senseless death to this tragic conflict.

Rachel was a good writer and that comes through in the selections from her diary and letters that the authors chose for the play.

Some observations. Small venue - maybe 300 seats - Leo Kottke theater at Seattle Repertory. Females to males in audience - about 3 or 4 to 1. Sitting in lobby before the play noticed several groups of ME women talking with either heavy accents or in Arabic. Saw no ME Arabic males. Polite applause at end - no standing ovation or curtain calls. The actress was pretty good although she did stumble a few of the many lines - and recovered well.

It was an interesting play - but for me - not a moving experience. Walking out after the play I didn't feel that others were moved much either. They were talking about their car keys and things like that.

I think objecting to its showing is a mistake. I'd like to see a really powerful play some day expressing the terrible dilemma faced by Israel - and placing that in an immediate and compelling human context. It seems there's a lot to work with there. I'm sure any good writer could do a better job on that than "I am Rachel Corrie" did for the Palestinian cause.

I also think there are good things about Arab culture that when twisted for other ends - end up trapping their people into a senseless war that has permeated their lives now for more than one generation - and I think those questions are very worth exploring through art.

[Phx_Dem]

100. Thanks for the info. nt

[booley]

102. ok, I have a question...

....she (Corrie) was crushed by an Israeli army bulldozer as she tried to prevent it from searching for arms-smuggling tunnels

Ok, how would one a BULLDOZER to check for tunnels? Unless Palestinians have a massive warehouse complex with loading docks under thier houses, then this sentence shows something is seriously out of whack.

These bulldozers are made to knock down houses. Which means that if the hosue in question hadnt' even been verified as to having secret tunnels, it was going to be knocked down anyway. (not to mention the Israeli Gov's accounbt of what happened is contradicted by numerouse eyewitnesses)

I did go to the Racel Corrie "Facts" page but it only made things look worse, becuase I have argued with Freepers to know how to recognize common propganda techniques and fallacouse arguements (Transference, Straw Men, using PR as fact to name but a few. Indeed, even the pics they cite as "proof" don't follow thier account of Corrie's death)

Sorry to those that feel that Israel didn't do anything wrong but this seems very simple to me... The Israeli Gov was knocking down people's houses whether they were fronts for terrorism or not (becuase who ends up on that land when the Palestinian homes are knocked down and they can't rebuild?), they ended up killing someone and then tried to downplay it .

Governments have often killed people callously becuase they got in their way. Governments typically LIE when caught . . Why should Israel be any different?

If this had all happened in the US becuase of the actions of the US government (Democrat or Republican) the wrongness of the government's actions would not be debated.

[breakaleg]

103. That Rachel Corrie facts site is not operated by her supporters.

I believe she was trying to prevent a home demolition. I don't think that was disputed.

Check this out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,916299,00.html

[booley]

105. I gathered that...

But that site is obviously run by people with thier own agenda. And thier account of the events don't jibe. And it's soo obviouse. It's like some people's brains are are programmed to turn off when they hear certain words.

Thanks for the Guardian link.

[pelsar]

106. the bulldozer..

was clearing the land .....probably for two reasons:

to clear fields for clearer visions for the IDF lookouts and fire.....


bulldozers dont go out alone without jeeps and tank support for other missions.

[breakaleg]

107. Whatever.

[IndianaGreen]

108. Zionist Federation? More like the Avigdor Lieberman fan club!

What passes for Zionism nowadays lacks all of the moral and ethical precepts that used to distinguish Judaism from the barbarism of her sister monotheistic religions.

[Shaktimaan]

Really?

I take it you aren't a fan of Zionism. So tell me then, what is your interpretation of Zionism's meaning today?

[Shaktimaan]

109. Really?

I take it you aren't a fan of Zionism. So tell me then, what is your interpretation of Zionism's meaning today?