Posts
Rachel Corrie and Daniel Pearl?!
By Aaron Davidman / December 18, 2007
The artistic process is a funny one. Sometimes a playwright begins to write one play and winds up with another. This is a good thing. As Ezra Pound said, “If you know what you’re going to write when you sit down at the typewriter, don’t bother.” Originally commissioned by Ari Roth, the visionary artistic director of Theater J in Washington D.C., I had set out to reflect on the public reaction to the deaths of Rachel Corrie and Daniel Pearl. Ari and I had pulled our hair out a bit together over the controversy surrounding the cancellation of the New York production of the play “My Name Is Rachel Corrie.” Ari thought it might be interesting to dive into the currents of American Jewish debate surrounding this play and beyond. Ari wondered if Daniel Pearl’s tragic story was somehow a counter-weight to the controversy over Corrie’s. So I began to research these two very different Americans. I immersed myself in each of their narratives. I won’t go into what I found, here, but I will say that many people, including Daniel Pearl’s father, Judea, found the implications of a comparison between the two figures deeply troubling. There is no moral equivalence, they said, and to imply that there is, is insulting at best. I forged ahead, with great care. Contemplating the implications of moral equivalence, I discovered profound differences and fascinating parallels between the two. Then I traveled to Israel and to Palestine and began interviewing people who brought their own stories forward. These individuals became powerful voices in my play. Voices that transcend singularity because of their complex and surprising points of view. I was getting beyond American-Jewish issues regarding Israel by hearing from Israelis and Palestinians whose daily lives are affected by the conflict. Corrie and Pearl had served as emblems for me to explore a question Ari posed: can we be big enough, as a people, to grieve for all who’ve perished in this tragic story? They stayed in the play for several public readings as I made significant rewrites. And while the idea of grieving for the “other” remains a vital theme in the play, the central story outgrew the pairing of these two icons. They became a limiting polarity, the very trap the work seeks to transcend. The play has developed into the story of a man trying to untangle the competing narratives of the current struggle in Israel and Palestine. Amidst tremendous noise, he’s trying to listen to his conscience. A conscience that was forged at a young age in a political awakening at progressive Jewish summer camp. Some of the material I threw out was good stuff! But I’ll have to leave it for another play. You can find out about upcoming readings and more information about “A Jerusalem Between Us,” at aarondavidman.wordpress.com.
POST A COMMENT
Ok, put me in the 11th. You on the other hand as a muslim are forever condemned to belong to the 7th century.
you were born too late. You belong to the 11th century, maybe could ally your little tribe with the crusaders. Too bad there's no time machine to send you there.
The Muslims are using the Christians as a test case. What they are
doing to the Palestinian Christians today is what they plan for the
Jews tommorrow.
To the Muslims, there is no real difference between the Jews and
Christians. Sadly, many Israelis fail to distinguish between Christians
and Muslims, simply lumping them all together as "Arabs". The end
result is that indigenous Christians feel trapped between the Muslims
who hate them on one side, and the Jews who could couldn't care less if
they are destroyed on the other. This must change.
Israel must redefine the conflict as between THREE equal parties, NOT two!
The only REAL Palestinians are Christians, Jews, and Samaritans. The
Muslims are just Arab invaders. Israel should use
"Palestinian" only in this regard.
There should be a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Nazareth
for the Christians. This state will be in federation with Israel. The
Muslims will have Jordan and should be humanely transferred there. Once
this is done, Israel will no longer need to mar the land with ugly
walls since the Jordan river will be a naturally defendable boundary.
A Jewish Israel with a Christian minority, a Christian Palestine
with a Jewish minority and a Christian Lebanon (after the Partition of
that country) will form an strong economic free trade block as well as
a powerful alliance for mutual defence. Christian Cyprus can also be
invited to join.
"…the large-scale emigration of christians from Nazareth, Bethlehem and
all the other christian population centers began in earnest when Arafat
and his gang took over after Oslo."
Interesting, though, how the Christians had no problem living in Nazareth for hundreds of years including when it was a part of Jordan between 1948Â and 1967, and then, suddenly, because of "Arafat
and his gang", who even aren't religious people, the large-scale emigration started. It's amazing, isn't it? And of course has nothing to do with the Israeli occupation. It's so sad that benevolent Zionist armed forces couldn't protect them against terrible Arafat's gang. Simple oversight, I'm sure.
The
once vibrant Christian communities of Bethlehem and Nazareth, with
roots in the "land of Jesus" going back to first century Israel, are
rapidly declining in the face of a systematic campaign of persecution
conducted by the same Muslim terrorists intent on driving the Jews into
the sea.
Beatings,
sham legal proceedings, property seizures, dismissal and replacement of
elected Christian leaders, accusations of selling property to Jews and
intimidation by gunmen with links to the government of Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas have so reduced Christian populations
in the cities of Jesus' birth and boyhood one community leader predicts
all Christians will be gone within 15 years.
In "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans – to a Jew!"
author and WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein chronicles his
meetings and interviews with leaders of terror groups and Islamist
organizations long accused of intimidation and violence against Mideast
Christians.
'No more Christians in Bethlehem'
For part of one chapter, Klein travels to Bethlehem to meet with the city's Christians and with its terrorist leaders.
Bethlehem
consisted of upwards of 80 percent Christians when Israel was founded
in 1948, but since the Palestinian Authority took over in 1995 the
Christian population has declined to about 23 percent with a large
majority of Muslims. The 23 percent Christian statistic is considered
generous since it includes the satellite towns of Beit Sahour and Beit
Jala. Some estimates place Bethlehem's actual Christian population as
low as 12 percent, with hundreds of Christians emigrating per year.
In "Schmoozing,"
Klein first talks with Bethlehem-area Christian leaders and residents,
most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity, who said they face an
atmosphere of regular hostility and intimidation by Muslims. They said
Palestinian armed groups stir tension by holding militant
demonstrations and marches in the streets. They spokes of instances in
which Christian shopkeepers' stores were recently ransacked and
Christian homes attacked.
The
Christian leaders said one of the most significant problems facing
Christians in Bethlehem is the rampant confiscation of land by Muslim
gangs.
"There
are many cases where Christians have their land stolen by the [Muslim]
mafia," said Samir Qumsiyeh, a Bethlehem Christian leader and owner of
the Beit Sahour-based private Al-Mahd (Nativity) TV station.
Qumsiyeh was one of the few Christians who spoke openly in "Schmoozing."
"It
is a regular phenomenon in Bethlehem. They go to a poor Christian
person with a forged power of attorney document, then they say we have
papers proving you're living on our land. If you confront them, many
times the Christian is beaten. You can't do anything about it. The
Christian loses and he runs away," Qumsiyeh said.
One
Christian Bethlehem resident told Klein her friend recently fled
Bethlehem after being accused by Muslims of selling property to Jews, a
crime punishable by death in some Palestinian cities. The resident said
a good deal of the intimidation comes from gunmen associated with
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization.
A
February Jerusalem Post article cited the case of Faud and Georgette
Lama, Christian residents of Bethlehem who said their land was stolen
by local Muslims and when they tried to do something about it, Faud was
beaten by gunmen.
Klein with the senior Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leadership of Bethlehem
Klein
confronted those gunmen, including Abu Philestine, the Bethlehem chief
of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah's so-called "military wing," and
Eiman Abu Eita, Fatah's main representative in the Bethlehem satellite
town of Beit Sahour. Abu Eita previously served as Brigades chief in
Beit Sahour.
On
the day of Klein's meeting with Abu Philestine, Raad Abiat, a senior
Brigades terrorists in Bethlehem, was killed by the Israeli Defense
Forces after he shot at troops during an anti-terror raid. Klein and
national radio host Rusty Humphries were slated to meet Abiat that day.
After
Abiat was killed, several news media outlets reported Bethlehem's
Christians, in solidarity with the Brigades, closed down all schools,
shops and institutions and declared a day of mourning and of anger
toward Israel.
"Actually,
what really happened was the Brigades and other Palestinian law
enforcers went up and down the streets and demanded all the Christian
stores, restaurants, and schools close. Intimidating terrorists with
guns ensured Christian institutions complied," writes Klein in
"Schmoozing."
Klein asked Bethlehem Brigades chief Abu Philestine about the practice of enforcing Muslim closures.
"We
have our rules in Bethlehem and one of them is shops must be closed if
one of our heroes is killed by the Zionists. We don't enforce anything.
All the people here are on our side," Abu Philestine claimed.
The
terrorists claimed it was Israel that drove out Bethlehem's Christians
by building a "wall" in 2002 that "encircles" the city.
But
Israel did not build a wall that encircles Bethlehem. It built a fence
only where the Bethlehem area interfaces with Jerusalem. A tiny segment
of the barrier facing a major Israeli roadway is a concrete wall, which
Israel says is meant to prevent gunmen from shooting at Israeli
motorists. The barrier was built after repeated terror attacks launched
from Bethlehem.
The vast majority of Bethlehem's Christian emigration occurred between 1995 and 2001, before Israel's barrier was constructed.
Israel
controlled Bethlehem until 1995, when it signed the territory over to
the PA as part of the 1993 Oslo Accords. Reports of Christian
intimidation by Muslims immediately began to surface after the PA
gained control.
Then-PA
President Yasser Arafat unilaterally fired the city's Christian
politicians and replaced them with Muslims. He appointed a Muslim
governor, Muhammed Rashad A-Jabar, and deposed of Bethlehem's city
council, which had nine Christians and two Muslims, reducing the number
of Christians councilors to a 50-50 split.
Arafat
also converted a Greek Orthodox monastery next to the Church of
Nativity into his official Bethlehem residence. The Nativity church is
believed by Christians to be the birthplace of Jesus.
Klein dining with Eiman Abu Atta, the chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Bethlehem-satellite town of Beit Sahour
Fatah's Eiman Abu Eita, confronted by Klein, claimed Bethlehem's Christians were making up stories about persecution.
"Most
of those Christians who left Bethlehem gave the impression of
persecution just as an excuse to justify why they left Bethlehem," he
said.
But
Qumsiyeh and other Christian leaders said if current trends in
Bethlehem continue, there may be no Christians left in the city in 15
years. He said he appealed to U.S. Christian leaders to help initiate
housing projects and find ways to fortify and strengthen Bethlehem's
Christian population, but that little assistance was offered.
"The way things are, soon there will not be a single Christian living in the land of Jesus," he said.
Muslims shout at Jesus' home: 'Islam will dominate the world'
In "Schmoozing,"
Klein bring readers to a large militant march by Islamist groups down
the main streets of Nazareth, highlighting for some there the plight of
Christians in the ancient city where Muslims have become a majority and
members of the dwindling Christian population say they suffer regular
intimidation.
Nazareth,
considered one of the holiest cities for Christians, is described in
the New Testament as the childhood home of Jesus. It contains multiple
important shrines and churches, including the famous Church of the
Basilica of the Annunciation, the site at which many Christians believe
the Virgin Mary was visited by the Archangel Gabriel and told that she
had been selected as the mother of Jesus.
Muslims march through Nazareth, Israel, Sunday, Dec. 31, 2006 (WND photo)
The
Islamic Movement, the main Muslim political party in Nazareth, held the
January 2007 rally down Nazareth's main thoroughfare brandishing their
party's green flag. Young Muslim men in battle gear marched and beat
drums as a man on loudspeaker repeatedly exclaimed in Arabic, "Allah is
great."
Hundreds of activists strutted screaming Islamist epithets, including "Islam is the only truth" and "Islam shall rule all."
In "Schmoozing"
Klein interviews Christians who, like Bethlehem's Christians, speak of
attacks against Christian-owned shops and told stories of Christian
women being raped by Muslim men. They noted several instances of
interreligious violence and Muslim riots they said began when Muslims
attacked Christian worshipers. The Muslims claimed Christians started
the violence.
Also
Muslims hold weekly loud prayer services outside the Church of the
Annunciation at a site local Muslims want to build a massive mosque
many local Christians charge is meant to overshadow the church.
Israeli
security officials say the majority of anti-Christian violence in
Nazareth goes unreported because local Christians are too afraid to
report crimes.
One
Christian resident said violence and intimidation tend to increase
around the time of local elections. The Islamic parties, once in the
minority, are now one seat away from dominating Nazareth's city
council.
"During
the last elections, Muslims on the streets were openly threatening the
Christians. They tried to stop some of the Christian cars from voting,"
stated Saleem, a Christian Nazareth resident.
In
October 2000, the Arab Christian mayor of Nazareth, Ramiz Jaraisy, was
reportedly beaten by members of the opposing Islamist party.
Nazareth's
Christian population, at times the majority during the city's long
history, is now at about 37 percent, according to the Israeli Bureau of
Statistics, which notes a regular downward trend.
Klein with Ahmed Zohbi, Nazareth's Islamic Movement leader
Regarding
the alleged persecution, Klein confronts Nazareth's Muslim leaders,
including Ahmed Zohbi, a member of Nazareth's municipal council and the
leader of an umbrella group consisting of the city's Islamic parties.
In
the same chapter, Klein brings readers into the heart of the
underreported story of Christian persecution in the Middle East,
talking to the antagonists and victims of other conflict locations,
including:
where all religious groups must register with the government and obtain
government permits to hold any meeting other than pre-approved worship
services. The Syrian government reportedly has attempted to control
places of worship, monitoring sermons and services.
intimidated, abducted, and held for ransom by Muslims, even under U.S.
occupation. Churches have been bombed, Christian businesses shut down.
In 2005 alone, thirty thousand Christians fled Iraq, according to
survey information.
establishes Islam as the official state religion and allows for the
appointment to Iraq's highest court judges whose only expertise are in
Islamic sharia law.
is accused of regularly harassing Christian institutions; its "Ministry
of Islamic Guidance" is charged with monitoring all non-Muslim
religions' organizations. The printing of Christian literature,
including church newsletters, is strictly forbidden. Muslims who
convert to Christianity are subject to the death penalty.
regularly singled out and targeted. Restrictions are imposed on
rebuilding or repairing churches. Egypt has effectively banned
Christians from senior government, military or educational positions;
its state-run media spews vicious anti-Christian and anti-Semitic
propaganda.
The issue of Christian persecution in the Middle East is just one topic broached in Klein's "Schmoozing with Terorrists."
Among the highlights of "Schmoozing with Terrorists:"
about politicians and even threaten to kill one 2008 presidential
candidate.
terrorists about whether suicide bombers really get 72 virgins after
their deadly operation.
launching zones? Meet the leaders of the most notorious holy site
desecrations in history.
Why schmooze with the professed enemies of Western civilization?
States
Klein: "In the midst of America's war on terror, in the midst of our
grand showdown with Islamofascism, with our boys and girls deployed in
Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world to defend liberty, it is
crucial for all of us to understand the adversary we are up against and
how some of our policies and personalities are emboldening the
terrorists to think they are winning."
Klein
explains he believes America is in trouble. While the U.S. has made
enormous advances in the war on terror the past few years, it is
encouraging terrorists to attack, and people don't even know it, he
professes.
"If
the American approach to identifying, understanding, and dealing with
terrorism is not re-examined in the very near future, if we don't
immediately begin to understand how the terrorists think and respond to
our policies, we face a devastating reality, with global jihad beating
down our doorstep before we even realize what happened," states Klein.
'before the kind and compassionate Zionists introduced their kind and
benevolent project in Palestine, about 20% of the Palestinian Arabs
were Christians; indigenous Christian people, as it happens.'
  Pay attention, this is not too difficult too understand….the large-scale emigration of christians from Nazareth, Bethlehem and all the other christian population centers began in earnest when Arafat and his gang took over after Oslo. The muslims systematically began taking over christian property, committing crimes of extortion and robbery and harassing christian worship. In other words, doing the muslim thing when in control over non-muslims.
who have largely managed to ethnically cleanse all the indigenous christian people from most of the Middle East: Egypt, Iraq, Syria…But, unfortunately for the arab, one people still remained united in their faith and determination to one day re-establish a nation in their historic homeland and in 1948 that event occurred in what was the British mandate of Palestine. So, mr. arab sympathizer, yes, I understand you believe all the Middle East is exclusively meant to be ruled by muslims but we jews do not accept or agree with you. So, get over it.
"…have always been the arab muslims from the time of mohammed til the present day."
…then why wouldn't all the good and kind people like you, buddy, just leave them alone, move elsewhere and forget about that area of the world? See, the problem solved. Just like that.
Next.
have always been the arab muslims from the time of mohammed til the present day. Right now they're driving the christians out of bethlehem and nazareth, they've driven most of the christians out of iraq. Only muslims can rule in the Dar al Islam and that's why they cannot accept the existence of a jewish state on land which jews inhabited and ruled thousands of years before islam. In other words, islamo-fascism in action.
"these terrorists
have intentionally targeted the most defenseless Israelis, including
infants, children, and the elderly."
…sometimes bad things happen when your country is involved in ethnic cleansing, oppression and occupation. Your reap what you sow, as they say.
Knowing what Israel has done since 1947 till this day, Israelis really have no grounds for complaining, none whatsoever. Sorry, buddy.Â
Corrie should be compared with Horst Wessel, a nazi pimp who was killed in the course of an argument over prostitutes. Like Wessel, Corrie has become an icon to anti-Semites. The only similarities between Corrie and Daniel is that they are both dead
Ah, the Guardian, great unbiased source, LOL.There's no more rabid , far left anti-Israel media publication in the United Kingdom than the Guardian. Why not add to your list of 'unbiased' sources a few arab papers also? For the arabs, 'Occupation' means the existence of Israel.
No reasonable person can doubt that Palestinian extremists have been
committing terrorist acts against the Israeli civilian population on a
very wide scale. Call it what you will, under the banners of Hamas,
Islamic Jihad, Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades and others, these terrorists
have intentionally targeted the most defenseless Israelis, including
infants, children, and the elderly. They say they must do it to fight
the "Israeli occupation." They say they have no alternative.
The word "occupation" is indeed the most powerful weapon in the
Palestinians' propaganda arsenal. It is a serious charge. Therefore we
must examine the questions: Just what is this "occupation," and is it a
legitimate excuse for violence against innocent people?
The claim that "occupation" excuses terrorism has made Palestinian
extremists seem credible and has made gratuitous violence look
legitimate. Aside from the very obvious moral weakness of any attempt
to excuse intentional violence against civilians, the claim is false
for at least two basic reasons:
genuine peace offer that could soon have ended the so-called
"occupation." There was never any need to resort to violence.
These two facts are enough to invalidate any attempt to use
"occupation" to justify terrorism. The "occupation" excuse for
terrorism has persisted nevertheless, and so deserves a full
examination.
The word "occupation" in this discussion refers to the presence of Israelis in the West Bank and in Gaza. What is its origin?
Before 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza was part of
Egypt, and Israel had nothing to do with them. Then came the Six Day
War.
In the spring of 1967 the Arab states were preparing for war.
Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force to
leave the Sinai. Egyptian and Syrian troops massed along the Israeli
border. Egypt closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping and
blockaded the port of Eilat. This itself was an act of war. Cutting off
a major supply route placed Israel in a stranglehold.
The Arabs made their intentions clear. An official radio broadcast proclaimed:
Israel, knowing its existence was threatened, launched a preemptive
strike against the Egyptian air force. The result was an Israeli
victory in a surprisingly short period of time. Afterwards Israel found
itself in control of pieces of Arab territory in the front-line states
that had attacked it: Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.
On June 19, 1967 the Israeli Unity Government
announced that it was willing to give back these territories in return
for peace treaties and normalization of relations. The Arabs responded
with resolutions passed at the Khartoum Conference held at the end of
that summer. Then as now, the Arab response to an offer of peace was
belligerence. Article 3 of the Khartoum Resolutions states:
Over time the situation with Egypt did improve. Largely due to Egyptian
President Anwar Sadat's bold gesture for peace, for which he paid with
his life, Israel was able to negotiate a treaty with Egypt, which
included return of the Sinai. The negotiations were hard and took
years, but they have proven that Israel values peace more than the land
it captured in 1967 and is ready to negotiate the return of the land as
part of any serious peace offer.
In contrast, the situation in the West Bank steadily deteriorated.
Any hope of reaching an accord with Jordan ended in 1988 when King
Hussein relinquished all claims to the West Bank, severed all
administrative ties, and canceled his investments there. Israel was
left with the Palestine Liberation Organization as the only possible
partner to any negotiations.
In 1992 disillusion with the policies of Yitzhak
Shamir and the desire to try new approaches to peace led to the
election of his Labor Party rival Yitzhak Rabin. While Shamir did not
truly believe in the negotiation process, Rabin had faith that it could
lead to results. The history of the Oslo agreement is complicated and
beyond the scope of this essay, but we do need to consider its basic
provisions.
The agreement of September 1993 consisted of mutual letters of
recognition, plus a "Declaration of Principles" (DOP). In these letters
Yasser Arafat affirmed the right of Israel to exist, and Yitzhak Rabin
formally recognized the PLO as the official representative of the
Palestinian people. Arafat also promised to renounce terrorism and to
control those factions that would still engage in it.
The intention of the DOP was to provide for a gradual process of
Palestinian autonomy over the West Bank and Gaza, beginning with Gaza
and Jericho. To that end a "Palestinian Interim Self-Government
Authority" was to govern the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank for
a transitional period of at most five years, during which time
permanent status negotiations would take place. The parties were to
negotiate an "interim agreement" specifying the structure of this
Self-Government Authority or "Council" and the transfer of power from
the Israeli military government to this Council.
There were delays in the implementation of the DOP. Palestinian
self-rule in Gaza and Jericho was achieved in May 1994, five months
behind schedule. And in September 1995, two years after the initial
accords, Rabin and Arafat signed the "interim agreement." Known
popularly as "Oslo II," it was a detailed prescription for Palestinian
autonomy.
Oslo II was far more comprehensive than Oslo I, comprising over 300
pages. It provided for the election of the Palestinian Interim
Self-Government Authority, more commonly known as the Palestinian
Authority, and specified its powers. It also provided for the release
of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, the establishment
of a Palestinian police force, and the creation of a safe passageway
between Gaza and the West Bank. But the heart of the agreement was a
prescription for gradual Israeli withdrawal from the territories. The
West Bank was divided into three zones:
Zone A consisted of the major Palestinian cities: Jenin, Nablus,
Qalqilya, Tulkarem, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Hebron. In these areas, to
be evacuated by Israel, the Palestinian Authority would have full
jurisdiction over both civil affairs and security.
Zone B consisted of the more rural areas, including hundreds of
small towns and villages. In this zone the Palestinian Authority would
have full jurisdiction over civil affairs and internal security, while
Israel retained authority over external security.
Zone C consisted of areas that were largely unpopulated, as well as
Israeli settlements and military camps. Here the Palestinian Authority
would have control over civil affairs, while Israel remained
responsible for both internal and external security.
Israel was gradually to transfer Zone B areas to Zone A status, and
Zone C areas to Zone B. This would prepare the way for the final stage
of this peace process, the permanent status negotiations.
To summarize, Zone A consisted of areas under Palestinian control,
Zone B of areas under joint control, and Zone C of areas under Israeli
control, with a process in motion to achieve steadily increasing
Palestinian autonomy in all areas.
The plan should have worked. Both parties agreed to it. It was based
on the same land-for-peace principle that had worked with Egypt. So
what happened after Oslo?
Arab violence against Israelis not only continued, it intensified.
After Israel withdrew from Jericho and the Gaza Strip, those places
became safe bases of operation for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. By the end
of 1995 Israel had withdrawn from all Zone A cities save Hebron. A rash
of terrorism including suicide bomb attacks in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv
in early 1996 caused a delay of Israel's departure from Hebron. Arafat
proved either unwilling or unable to control the terrorists responsible
for these attacks, and indeed members of his own Fatah group
perpetrated much of the violence. Israel finally withdrew from most of
Hebron immediately after ratifying the Hebron Accord in January 1997.
And so since 1997 the Palestinian Authority had total jurisdiction over
all Palestinians living in the seven Zone A cities plus Jericho. These
areas comprised about 60% of the Palestinian population. Almost all of
the rest lived in the smaller towns of Zone B, over which the
Palestinian Authority had civil jurisdiction with Israel responsible
only for security. The Palestinians had achieved self-rule. There was
no longer any occupation in any real sense of the word.
But instead of getting better, things got worse.
After Oslo a new form of terrorism became increasingly common: bus
bombings. These attacks were especially deadly, the fatality rate much
higher with the explosion confined to a small enclosed space. Suicide
bombing and other violence spread rapidly to all areas where civilians
congregate: dance halls, shopping malls, birthday parties, holiday
celebrations, even children's bedrooms. No one was safe.
Yasser Arafat, signer of
the Oslo Agreement, was complicit in this terrorism. He signed the
checks that financed many of the terrorist operations.
He was the Commander of Fatah and the Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades. The
areas that Israel turned over to Palestinian control under the Oslo
Accords became terrorist strongholds. Jenin became the capital of the
suicide bombers. Nablus became the terrorist leaders' headquarters as
well as their major bomb factory. Hamas developed Qassam 2 rockets in
Gaza, built them in Nablus, and shipped them to Tulkarem for use
against cities in central Israel. This was the Palestinian response to
the concessions Israel made at Oslo.
The great irony here is that it is not Israeli "occupation" that
provokes escalations of Palestinian terrorism but rather steps taken to
diminish the Israeli presence in the territories. Palestinian terrorism has only increased
since Oslo. And the greatest escalation of terrorism in history came
after the historic peace offer of Camp David 2000, when Israel signed
on to an American plan that would have ceded to the Palestinians
virtually the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip plus shared control over
Jerusalem. The Palestinian response to this peace offer was the Second
Intifada, which grew so bloody, to the point of suicide bombing attacks
almost every day, that Israel had to take drastic measures during
Operation Defensive Shield and reenter the Palestinian cities that had
been granted autonomy under Oslo. This Palestinian answer to the peace
process has so far claimed 500 Israeli dead and 4,000 wounded.
The big lie behind Palestinian terrorism is that it is a response to
Israeli occupation. Palestinian terrorism began long before Israel
gained control of the territories in 1967, and the more autonomy (that
is, the less "occupation") the Palestinians gained, the worse the
terrorism became. The Palestinians have shown the world conclusively
what they would do with their autonomy and with their own state if they
ever acquire one: turn it into one big suicide bomb aimed at the heart
of Israel, taking Israel down and themselves with it.
What can possibly account for such irrationality?
If the Palestinian agenda were really to acquire a state of their
own, they would have achieved it by now. If we understand the
Palestinian goal to be an end of Israeli "occupation" in the West Bank
and Gaza so that they can establish their own state there, then their
strategy makes no sense. They could have done so much more quickly and
without all this bloodshed. The Palestinian strategy makes sense only
if we understand what their goal really is.
The Palestinians are smart, much smarter than the Israelis when it
comes to public relations. The word "occupation" has a double meaning,
and they use it knowing that Western people understand it one way while
they themselves understand it in another. To the West, "occupation"
means Israeli presence in territories captured in the 1967 war. To the
Palestinians, "occupation" means the existence of Israel itself. Their
own maps have no "Israel" at all but show the entire area, from the
Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, as "Palestine."
Occasionally in news interviews given in English one can hear a
Palestinian spokesperson slip and talk about "fifty years of
occupation," going all the way back to the creation of the State of
Israel. Often when speaking to friendly audiences they do not even try
to hide it. In an article entitled "Mother's Day Rally: Over 50 Years
of Occupation" a staff writer for the Ottawa Muslim Network writes:
And in her address to the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in
Durban, South Africa no less a figure than Hanan Ashrawi spoke of
"occupation" pre-1967:
This paragraph is full of distortions and lies, only one of them being
that an "occupation" started in 1948. To the Palestinians, "occupation"
means the existence of Israel itself; yet by clever use of language
they have turned the word into a potent propaganda tool justifying the
worst kind of brutality. They have gotten the world to sympathize with
them while their nail-packed bombs tear apart the bodies of innocent
people.
What then can we say about Oslo from Israel's perspective? Was it a mistake?
Oslo was a tragic mistake in that by granting the Palestinians
autonomy without insisting that they live up to their promises, Israel
has compromised its security more than ever. But Oslo was a necessary
mistake. Israel had to participate, to do what it could to give peace a
chance. The Oslo process began at a more optimistic time, when there
seemed to be real hope for peace, when people believed that if only the
Palestinians would remove from their charter the clauses urging
Israel's destruction that their hearts would change and they would
become real partners for peace. It took Oslo, plus the rejected peace
offer of Camp David 2000, to reveal to the world, once and for all,
beyond the shadow of a doubt, the Palestinians' true intentions. And
still the world refuses to listen.
And yet from the beginning there were signs of what was to come. On
the very same day that he signed the Oslo Accord, Arafat gave a speech
on Jordanian television indicating he had no intention whatsoever of
abiding by it:
The "resolution in 1974" to which Arafat refers is the infamous "Phased Plan" for Israel's destruction,
a reference well known to his television audience. Many times when
speaking to his own people Arafat referred to Oslo as a step in this
Phased Plan. And both Arafat and Feisal Husseini, another Palestinian
negotiator, have compared Oslo to a "Trojan Horse," a weapon poised to
penetrate Israel's defenses and destroy it from within.
"Occupation" is not only the lie that fuels the Intifada, it is the
Palestinians' most potent excuse for Israel's destruction. A knowledge
of history exposes the lie. But one important question still remains:
Why has this lie so easily taken root?
It is difficult to respond to the word "occupation" because the word
itself has become a powerful slogan whose purpose is to turn off
thought and elicit sympathy for terrorism. Such manipulations of
people's emotions are always hard to counter. Reason and reflection are
often no match for prejudice and hatred – but only in the short term.
Prejudice and hatred abound not only in the front-line Muslim states
but also in those countries that accept the "occupation" excuse
reflexively, without considering the other side. Nevertheless, the
truth must continue to be told. Like water dripping on a rock, after
time its effect on people of good will can overcome even the hardness
of a heart calcified by prejudice.
Lies have power only when people are willing to believe them. Most
of the nations of the world, not only the Arab states but the countries
of Europe as well, have shown themselves only too willing to embrace
this lie. When terrorists receive not condemnation but sympathy for
committing terrorist acts, then those who give their sympathy become
accomplices. Let those nations of the world who give tacit approval to
the deaths of innocent children and grandparents deal not only with
their consciences but with the results of their own policies when they
in turn become the victims of terrorism.
this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,916299,00.html
and you, Jake, are talking out of your ass, unfortunately.
And by the way, there's nothing wrong with people who's been living under a military occupation for 40 years smuggling guns and explosives and fighting for their freedom, independence and self-determination. That too is much more heroic than being a journalist.Â
"They killed him because he was a Jew"
I only said that he was kidnapped because they thought he was a spook. But even if (for the sake of argument) they both kidnapped and murdered him for being a Jew (in their eyes; I don't know if he considered himself a Jew), still what happened to him is not a match to the Rachel Corrie's story.Â
It's one thing to work as a journalist and get yourself murdered (happens all the time) and a completely different thing to move to Gaza to work with Palestinian children there, stand in front of an Israeli bulldozer and get murdered. Simply not in the same league.
and they were being good Jihadi moslems. The 'CIA' statement is complete BS. When Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured and interrogated he admitted that they beheaded Pearl for no other reason than he was a Jew. Something they made him publicly declare on the videotape they made just before they beheaded him.
With particular attention to the activities carried out by ISM members. Kindly proceed.
Aaron-
I hope you aren't too bothered by the historical revisionism excreted by the anonymous posters above, particularly Mr. or Ms. 4:02PM, who apparently lurks at home, awaiting any mention of Corrie in order to post his/her pastiche of calumnies. I won't take the time to correct his/her slapstick history of Corrie's tragic demise (and I imagine from your comments that you find her story at least a little richer than the silly cartoon floated by our anonymous frother), but will only note that this dogeared collection of bullshit has been floating around the internet for about as long as Corrie's been gone, a sort of Protocols of the Junior of Olympia. Disgraceful.
I will certainly see your play or attend a reading if one is presented in the Boston area. In honesty, I have to say that the notion of "grieving equally" makes me a little uneasy, only because I see the conflict in Palestine/Israel as having an aggressor and a victim, rather than subscribing to the "equal claims on both sides, tragedy for all concerned, how sad" school of history. Of course, just because I think the Palestinians are the aggrieved party doesn't mean I regard the deaths of innocent Israelis as less of a tragedy than those of innocent Palestinians, so perhaps in that limited sense we may be more or less in accord.
You'll know you're on the right track if you find hints about jeopardizing your funding increasing as the play gets closer to production.Â
Â
Â
Â
"
I'd like to see you taking chances for an important story the way Daniel did."
A lot of westerners live in Pakistan. He got kidnapped in Karachi, the largest city in Pakistan. They thought he was a CIA agent. Wrong place, wrong time; simply bad luck, could happen to anybody.Â
"Tragic, yes, but not heroic, nothing extraordinary here."
I'd like to see you taking chances for an important story the way Daniel did. Â
 "Rachel Corrie, OTOH, was unquestionably is a heroine."
You got it backwards, she was a very flawed human being, who died as a result of her hubris. This would make her the tragic figure.
Rachel
Corrie was a young fanatic college student from Washington State, who
decided she could make the world a better place by showing her
solidarity with Middle East terrorism and Palestinian mass murderers. She
joined the International Solidarity Movement, a communist-anarchist
group who openly support Palestinian terrorism. Corrie set up shop in
the Gaza Strip, where she and her ISM comrades spent their days trying
to harass and provoke Israeli troops and interfere with Israel's anti-terrorist military operations. They would set up obstacles on roads to prevent Israeli troops and otherwise assist and defend the terrorists. The ISM is probably the campus organization most upfront about its support for the Palestinian “right” to engage in terrorism, and that is saying quite a lot these days!
Â
In
one confrontation with the Israelis, Corrie was trying to block an army
bulldozer that was knocking down homes of terrorists and buildings
hiding tunnels through which weapons and explosives were being smuggled
into Israel. These tunnels brought weapons from Egypt to the Gaza city
of Rafiah. One of these homes might have been that which Corrie's
parents describe as that of an “innocent pharmacist.” Corrie and her
ISM comrades wanted to help protect the Gaza smuggling tunnels. Rachel
Corrie put herself in a position where the bulldozer driver could not
see her, and she was dragged under the heavy machine. She died in a PLO
ambulance or hospital shortly thereafter. The ISM then issued a host of
"eyewitness" reports about the accident, which turned out to be fabrications.
The simple fact of the matter was that Corrie had figured the Israeli
bulldozer driver could be cowed into backing off if he saw her blocking
his access to the terrorist house; she probably figured correctly,
except that he did not see her from his limited-visibility window in the rig.
Ever
since, Rachel Corrie has become the matron martyr saint for the
pro-terrorism Left, the Joan of Arc of Palestinian terrorism. Her ISM
friends declared she was "murdered" intentionally by Israel (see for
example http://www.rachelcorrie.org/ ). Her death has been exploited by the Bash-Israel movement and by anti-Semites all over the world, as a means to delegitimize Israel. The PLO adopted her as mascot, declaring that she died “fighting Israel's security fence”; never mind that Israel did not begin building the security fence until well after she was dead.Â
Later
other ISM activists were also injured when they put themselves in the
middle of firefights, started when the PLO would fire on Israelis, and
– like Corrie – they were injured and one other died trying to protect
those terrorists from Israelis shooting back. In this other case of a death of ISM member Tom Hurndall,
the ISM led a worldwide campaign to demonize the soldier who shot him.
Ironically, it turned out the soldier who shot Hurndall was an Arab Bedouin patriot living in Israel and serving in the Israeli military.
Â
Corrie's own parents have gone on their own revenge, touring the world to demonize Israel, and represent daughter Rachel as a "victim of Israel's illegal occupation."
They and other ISM supporters have been organizing a boycott of the
Caterpiller Corporation, because it sells machines to Israel, including
the one with which Corrie chose to face down a year ago. The Corrie parents insist that Rachel was there to promote non-violence and brotherly love. But Rachel and her ISM friends of course believed in nothing of the sort and were doing nothing of the sort. The official ISM web site endorses "armed struggle" by Palestinians, which means random mass murders of Israeli children.
Â
Corrie died as a result of her own stupidity. She was in Gaza to help promote Palestinian terrorism and to prevent Israel from protecting its own citizens. She died protecting the illegal tunnels into Gaza from Egypt, through which the suicide bombers obtained their materials. The most lasting images of Corrie was of her face contorted with rage and as she burned an American flag. When Reuters reported that Palestinians "honored" her after her death in a "symbolic funeral" by flying U.S. flags, James Taranto from the Wall Street Journal remarked that if Corrie were still alive, no doubt she'd have burned the flags. Even the far-Left Mother Jones magazine considers her a dangerous and deluded little twit. The Israeli army investigated the death and concluded that Corrie had effectively committed suicide. Taranto also suggested that Corrie be awarded the "Idiotarian of the Year Award" for playing chicken with a huge earth-mover.
Â
The ISM is not simply an innocent, if evil, fringe debating society. Within Israeli territories, its members have actively collaborated with terrorists. They hid weapons and wanted terrorists in their offices. The local ISM offices hosted two Moslem suicide bombers from the UK, who had entered Israel as "peace activists," only to blow a Tel Aviv bar to smithereens the next day.
Â
The ISM is so closely coordinated with the PLO that it is for all intents and purposes nothing more than a PLO front group (which means that Rachel Corrie in effect died as a member of the PLO). More recently, ISM trouble-makers have been trying to sabotage Israel's security fence, lest the fence prevent some Palestinian mass murderers from blowing up Israeli children and other civilians.
Â
Daniel Pearl was doing his job, taken hostage and executed. Tragic, yes, but not heroic, nothing extraordinary here. Rachel Corrie, OTOH, was unquestionably is a heroine. How do you tie these two together?
Amen! It is amazing that as a people who have suffered so much at the hands of state and local terror gangs, we still have jews who align themselves with those who seek our destruction and their fellow-travelers, as was this Rachel Corrie. The group responsible for her being in israel, ISM, is notorious for aiding arab terrorists to kill or maim israelis. For Davidman, Tony Kushner and all the other self-hating jewish enablers of terror, please accept this Dope-slap.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!