My Name is Rachel Corrie – Cancelled!


Rachel and Rachel

The New York Theatre Workshop recently “postponed indefinitely” its off-Broadway production of the London solo, My Name Is Rachel Corrie. The recriminations have already begun – Katherine Viner, co-editor of the play, recently opined in the LA Times that the cancelation was politically motivated. Katherine of course took umbrage with that. She told the New York Times that the play is “a piece of art, not a piece of agitprop.” Viner also predictably, cites the response of several right-wing Jews who saw the play in London and were, uh… moved:

One night in London, an Israeli couple, members of the right-wing Likud party on holiday in Britain, came up after the show, impressed. “The play wasn’t against Israel; it was against violence,” they told Cindy Corrie, Rachel’s mother … I was particularly touched by a young Jewish New Yorker from an Orthodox family who said he had been nervous about coming to see “My Name Is Rachel Corrie” because he had been told that both she and the play were viciously anti-Israel. But he had been powerfully moved by Rachel’s words and realized that he had, to his alarm, been dangerously misled.

Talk about tokenism, huh? “Look! Even these awful Jews liked it!” The whole Rachel Corrie thing has taken on a life of its own since the blonde, photogenic, American ISMer’s untimely death in Gaza. Some have accused the IDF of deliberately murdering Rachel while others have called her an idiot. Was she a saint? A martyr of Anne Frankeian proportions? Or just another stupid white kid caught up in what she thought was a noble revolution? I figure her intentions were probably mostly good – but getting involved in the ISM is definitely stupid, interfering with military operations in a war zone – stupider, and crouching in front of a Caterpillar bulldozer where the driver has limited visibility – stupidest.

But what about the play? Well, the London Times called it “an unabashedly one-sided tribute,” demonstrated in the conclusion of the review:

As she jots down thoughts in her notebook and fires off e-mails to her parents, she declares that “the vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian non-violent resistance”. Even the late Yassir Arafat might have blushed at that one.

Yikes. Art indeed. I mean look, I wouldn’t have seen the play anyway. I don’t need to have my reason distorted by a biased, sentimental, one-sided propaganda piece. Cripes, I haven’t even seen Rent. Or Cats. So clearly I am not heartbroken by the cancellation. But it was pretty lame of the New York Theatre Workshop to cancel the play. Now that their indefinite postponement has created such a stir, and oh so much publicity, expect to see My Name Is Rachel Corrie at an Off-Broadway theatre near you and playing to sold out houses no doubt.

Man… if only someone cancelled or banned Jewlicious, that would so rule! I’m sure we’d all get book deals or something for sure!

Follow me

ck

Publisher at Jewlicious
Founder of Jewlicious? Publisher? Man I hate titles. I coined the name Jewlicious and I slave over the site. I live in Jerusalem and I need to get some breakfast.
Follow me

70 Comments

  1. Alter Kocker

    3/2/2006 at 10:38 am

    The play seems hardly worth seeing, and the cancellation gave the play’s advocates lots to huff and puff about. I dunno that it will play to sold out houses, unless they take it to a college campus and hook up with something like Students for Peace and Justice and Hating Israel. Off broadway there are so many other things to see. Now, if they sponsor a Rachel Correi Cartoon Contest, to compete with the others…

  2. Shlomo

    3/2/2006 at 2:36 pm

    I saw the actual (slanted) RC documentary, and I must say, that even watching the events unfold with my own two eyes… I agree with the “stupid white kid” scenario. I mean honestly, how dumb do you have to be? And the way she was eulogized by her friends proves that there is an endless supply of foolish kids looking for any kind of “anti” cause. It makes me wonder, because honestly I don’t know, if any anti-war hippies condemmed the unilateral arab attack on Israel in the late 60s? Ok, now I’m just off point.

  3. John

    3/2/2006 at 3:17 pm

    I *almost* get run over in Israel every day.

  4. Philip Munger

    3/2/2006 at 4:53 pm

    I saw the play in London. I attended with some Jewish friends. We ALL thought the play was thought-provoking and was given a riveting performance there. When it gets to your town, go watch it and learn.

  5. ck

    3/2/2006 at 5:18 pm

    Learn what exactly Philip? What can that play possibly teach me?

    • Sarah

      5/9/2011 at 10:49 am

      You can learn to be a more compassionate and open-minded individual who doesn’t believe all of the propaganda they are spoon-fed in the media.

      • themiddle

        5/9/2011 at 11:46 am

        Uh, you may wish to apply that suggestion to yourself, Sarah.

  6. Hila

    3/2/2006 at 6:08 pm

    That stupidity kills?

  7. BA

    3/2/2006 at 8:06 pm

    ck, don’t stand in front of bulldozers.

    I’m venturing to guess it won’t have quite the same audience as the “I am Tiger Woods” ad campaign.

    But that’s just a wild guess…

  8. DiGiTaL

    3/2/2006 at 8:16 pm

    I’m going to write the theatrical adaptation of the Rav Meir Kahane story. It would be a hell of alot better then this drek.

  9. Philip Munger

    3/3/2006 at 3:26 am

    I can’t say what you might learn. What we learned was that Meghan Dobbs is one heckuva actress, that Rachel Corrie’s yearning for justice was quite thoroughly founded for such a young person, that London protesters are very civil, and on and on…..

  10. victor

    3/3/2006 at 6:44 am

    Got to learn much about the highlighted issue and looking forward to know more information about this.

  11. typolad

    3/3/2006 at 7:11 am

    I’m all for the “Rav Meir Kahane story”. We can call it “The Jewish JiHad”.

  12. mobius

    3/3/2006 at 7:25 am

    martin luther king and gandhi were crazy stupid like this broad too — standing off against armies and all. fuck those idiots. man, heschel was such a tool. and so were the partisans. shit… didn’t they realize you’re supposed to bow to cruel power?

  13. themiddle

    3/3/2006 at 11:34 am

    Martin Luther King was trying to prevent forces from locating tunnels used by terrorists?

    I can’t believe you have just compared Corrie to King and Gandhi. Hey, I have an idea! Why don’t you go to some busy sites on the Net, beg for votes and blame the Israelis for war crimes, Mobius?

  14. typolad

    3/3/2006 at 12:37 pm

    Kinderlach, kinderlach, let’s not fight!

    Seriously though, aren’t there better ways to find tunnels than tearing down a home? Doesn’t visibly destroying a house just give anti-Israel elements a visible source of propaganda?

    Not saying standing in front of one is too bright, but still, maybe not the best way to handle things.

  15. taltman

    3/3/2006 at 12:51 pm

    Mobius: I recall on a thread over at Jewschool you made some statement about Rachel Corrie desiring to martyr herself. I don’t recall precisely what you stated, so I don’t want to misrepresent you. Could you elaborate for us?

  16. themiddle

    3/3/2006 at 12:53 pm

    Sure there are better ways. You can leave Gaza, for example. Of course, then you get Hamas elected and Qassems launched at Ashkelon. Or they could have done what Palestinian smugglers say the Egyptians do: kill the smugglers and the families that house tunnels. That would work, wouldn’t it? Or they could dig a huge trench and flood it – oh wait, the Palestinians and Egyptians screamed this shouldn’t be done.

    There was an article about two scientists who developed technology that the IDF hasn’t adopted that should be able to locate tunnels. Who knows whether this would have helped. What would have really helped would have been having people like our peace-loving far-Leftists like Corrie and Mobius protest Palestinian tunnels, terror, antisemitism, anti-Zionism, desire for the destruction of Israel and attacks in international fora against this verbal and physical violence the Palestinians are perpetrating against Israel and Jews in general.

    You see, the support emboldens the Palestinians and their violence. So perhaps if these supposed “peace activists” actually demonstrated against the Palestinians and their vile tactics and disgusting endgame, they wouldn’t be as confident that they have another column in their army.

    • Sarah

      5/9/2011 at 10:54 am

      “Palestinians and their violence”? Last time I checked, it was the IDF doing the molesting, raping, torturing and killing. Talk about hypocritical. Using the Holocaust as an excuse to ethnically cleanse an entire population and illegally force them off of their own land disgusts me.

      • themiddle

        5/9/2011 at 11:48 am

        How many things can you get wrong in a short paragraph, Sarah? I counted six errors.

  17. shtreimel

    3/3/2006 at 4:10 pm

    “Doesn’t visibly destroying a house just give anti-Israel elements a visible source of propaganda?”

    Ah hell, let’s just de-arm Israeli soldiers and give ‘em empty pic pens to pea-shoot our enemies. That’ll look cute and harmless and will play well to the media.

  18. typolad

    3/4/2006 at 7:30 pm

    Shtreilmel:

    I mention apples and you give me oranges. Nice.

  19. DiGiTaL

    3/4/2006 at 11:36 pm

    Yea Shtreimel way off here, a simple scolding and possibly a a fine of 100 shekels would suffice.

  20. typolad

    3/5/2006 at 6:56 am

    Har har.

    Apparently one cannot suggest that not every single Palestinian is a sworn enemy of the Jewish people. Fascinating. Is it okay to mention the scores of Israeli Arabs who fight and die for Israel as members of the IDF? Am I allowed to point out that Palestinian does not equal terrorist automatically, despite the fact they have a terrorist government? Is the suggestion hat the State of Israel is not always 100% right and sometimes makes boneheaded mistakes okay? What about mentioning the fact that even if you’re not living in Galut, we are still in Galut?

    I just want to see what’s okay to say here, since a free exchange of opinions seems to be frowned upon. If only Binary thinking is allowed, I’ll have to forget how to critical think and try that.

  21. DiGiTaL

    3/5/2006 at 1:43 pm

    No, I think this a great forum for the free exchange of idea, albeit a little humorous jibing at times. The point I was trying to convey is how critical situation is. While your trying to encourage a more PC way of finding tunnels, scores of weapons are being smuggled in, stockpiled, with the sole purpose of slaughtering us. Regardless of what Israel does, it will be thrown back in their faces, so while some of you comtemplate more PC solutions I support any means necessary to stop one more gun,one more bomb, one more Jew being slaughtered. SCores of Arabs serving in the army?? ” State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the occupied territories, “Israeli Arabs were not required to perform mandatory military service and, in practice, only a small percentage of Israeli Arabs served in the military” from Wikipedia. WIth the victory of Hamas, the constant bombardment of rockets, and escalating violence, even with our recent concessions, what would be a better approach?

    • Sarah

      5/9/2011 at 11:02 am

      One more Jew being slaughtered? Are you kidding me? What planet are you from? First of all, let’s not make this a religious issue…. The ISRAELIS are the ones in power, the ISRAELIS are the ones with all of the weapons and organized, government sanctioned military, the ISRAELIS are the ones with the misguided support of the USA, the ISRAELIS are the ones who are illegally occupying land and systematically slaughtering Palestinians…mainly unarmed civilians…including innocent children. Just because the Holocaust happened, some Jewish people think this gives the Israelis the right to commit crimes that are just as horrifying. They should be ashamed, and they will ultimately be judged in the eyes of God.

      • themiddle

        5/9/2011 at 11:52 am

        “First of all, let’s not make this a religious issue”

        Oh, okay, tell that to Hamas and to Arafat.

        “The ISRAELIS are the ones in power, the ISRAELIS are the ones with all of the weapons and organized, government sanctioned military, the ISRAELIS are the ones with the misguided support of the USA, the ISRAELIS are the ones who are illegally occupying land and systematically slaughtering Palestinians”

        Um, Fatah and Hamas are both organized to fight. The USA is right to support a fellow democracy. The presence of Israeli troops in Judea and Samaria is perfectly legal according to international law, and on the basis of UNSCR 242 and the Oslo Accords. Israel does not slaughter Palestinians, systematically or otherwise. They are so bad at slaughtering Palestinians that the Palestinian population in the Territories has – going by the Palestinians’ own numbers – grown by a multiple of six since 1948.

        You really need to get your information from real sources, Sarah.

        • Sarah

          5/9/2011 at 2:21 pm

          Yes, “themiddle”, because information from wikipedia that has been tampered with by Israeli propagandists is so legitimate and believable.

          While Fatah and Hamas might be “organized to fight”, they do not have the large numbers of soldiers, the monetary backing or the weaponry that the IDF so conveniently has. And calling Israel a “democracy” is an insult to the definition.

          I beg to differ with you on your suggestion that the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is “perfectly legal” by international law. As for UNSCR 242, it calls for total withdrawal of Israeli troops from the occupied territories. Any attempt at annexation through force is illegal, according to this resolution and all international laws.

          Let’s check out some statistics on casualties:

          According to casualty figures from the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), in the period since the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority took office on March 29, 2006 through November 3, 2006, 491 Palestinians were killed by Israelis while 19 Israelis killed by Palestinians, 25.8 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Since July 1 that ratio has increased to 76.2 Palestinians killed per Israeli, with 381 Palestinians killed versus just five Israelis.

          Source: btselem.org/En...

          And FYI: Arafat is dead. So you can tell it to him all you want.

          • themiddle

            5/9/2011 at 7:50 pm

            Wow, you finally got something right. Arafat is indeed dead. Congratulations.

            As for the rest of your errors, you should know that I usually get my info about this conflict from primary or secondary sources, not Wikipedia. So, just to correct you again:

            –Israel is a vibrant democracy. It has withstood wars, many failed coalition governments, deep existential crises, shitty prime ministers, good prime ministers and boasts a vibrant and free press, a powerful independent judiciary and the right to all of free speech – even when it is used to express enmity to the state.

            –The presence of Israeli troops in Judea and Samaria is perfectly legal. Sorry.

            – UNSCR 242 does not call for total withdrawal. In fact, it states the opposite – you need to read it more carefully – and was worded carefully to say what it does after months of debate by the senior diplomats who wrote it.

            – Judea and Samaria were not a territory that belonged to another high contracting party in 1967 and therefore the rules that apply to sovereign territories in wartime are very much in dispute here. There is also a legal dispute as to whether territories captured in a defensive war have the same standing as territories captured in offensive wars.

            – Regarding casualties, there is a major difference between complaining about casualties and stating that Israelis are (“systematically”) “slaughtering” Palestinians. It is natural that there are going to be many more Palestinian casualties than Israeli ones as long as the Palestinians continue to wage war against Israel. That’s because the Israelis have a regular army and it is a superb one, while the Palestinians have militias without anywhere near the resources of the Israelis. Israel built its military to fight regular Arab armies and will always enjoy an advantage over the Palestinians in this respect. If it makes you feel better, the Palestinian Authority has been training its own army using US funds and instructors for some years now.

            – Israel uses its military to target terrorists and those who attack Israel, not civilians. When you quote B’Tzelem, you are quoting an organization that constantly and consistently sets criteria for “civilian” casualties that do not pass the smell test. Hamas itself, for example, rejected B’Tzelem’s claim that the Hamas police officers who were killed in Cast Lead by Israel, were not militants. This organization likes to consider any Palestinian who is not actively shooting a rocket or gun at an Israeli a “civilian” if they are killed. Of course, that’s a ridiculous standard. About 80% of the Palestinians killed by Israel are militants and engage in attacks on Israel. With targeted killings, the percentage is closer to 98%. With wartime, such as in Cast Lead, even by Hamas figures only half the casualties were civilians. By IDF figures, that figure is closer to 35%. These are unheard-of numbers in modern warfare. Just consider civilian deaths in the Iraq war to get a clearer example of this.

            Oh, and I almost forgot to add that the lower death rate of Israeli soldiers teaches us nothing. Would you send American soldiers to war and only accept that they fought fairly or justly only if a large number of soldiers is killed? When provoked, you go to war and you do it to win while suffering minimal casualties in the process.

  22. Roger

    3/7/2006 at 2:47 pm

    Isn’t it ironic that Corrie had the guts to stand up to a bull dozer and is now being condemened for her “stupidity.” Remember, she was fighting for a cause (whether right or wrong or misguide).
    I find that admirable and can’t wait to see the play.

  23. ck

    3/7/2006 at 5:57 pm

    Fighting for a cause is not the point. Rachel’s activism and empathy is an example to us all while at the same time, her naiveté serves as a warning. The play contains none of that duality and thus does not accurately reflect who Rachel really was. Booooring. Unidimensional. Blah …

  24. Ephraim

    3/7/2006 at 6:27 pm

    I see that Mobius is off his meds again.

    Corrie was a terrorist running dog. I feel sorry for her parents, but she got what she deserved. She should have stayed in Washington instead of running around in a war zone, aiding and abetting terrorists and expecting that nothing would happen to her. Stupid anti-Semitic bitch. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    If you don’t Israelis to tear your house down, don’t let terrorists use it as camoflauge for smuggling weapons used to murder Jews.

    And let’s hear it for the bulldozer driver. He was fighting for a cause, after all, just like Saint Pancake.

  25. themiddle

    3/7/2006 at 7:41 pm

    How is her activism an example for us all? Or was it Purim when she burned that US flag which represents the sacrifice of so many Americans so that someone like Corrie could grow up in a peaceful, prosperous and free country where freedom of expression is prized?

    Activism for the sake of activism is merely another outlet for expression. Lots of lame, stupid people are activists, just as you have brilliant folks with great ideas who could be making a mint working on Wall Street instead of trying to help others as activists. Now that Corrie has died, she has become this saintly figure and some sort of emblem for the Left. But is that what she was?

    People tend to be idealistic at a younger age and are more apt to take steps to invoke their idealism. They also have more freedom than those who chase careers or have families to feed. But just because one is an activist, especially at a young age and even if one is naive, one does not suddenly become a saint. She didn’t sacrifice herself. Rather, she died because she made a critical error in judgement. She made a foolish mistake and never got the chance to correct it. Next thing you know, there are plays about you…

    Then again, those bulldozers were there because arms were being smuggled through hidden tunnels in that area. Houses nearby were involved in smuggling as we learned from the Ha’aretz article on tunneling. So what exactly was she protecting? Innocent families? Perhaps. But she had no way of knowing whether there was a tunnel where arms were being moved directly under where she stood…there could well have been one.

  26. themiddle

    3/7/2006 at 10:09 pm

    Ephraim, dude, that was brutally harsh. Really. People make mistakes all the time, and you don’t know whether she would be the same kind of person in 5 years. Also, I don’t see where the antisemitism comes in, do you have a source for this?

  27. Ephraim

    3/7/2006 at 10:32 pm

    Source? Jesus, Middle, you’ve got a Yiddishe kop, don’t you? Use it, for crying out loud.

    Anybody who is an ISM running dog is ipso facto an anti-Semite. She believed that Jews have the right to be blown up in their homes. If that’s not anti-Semitism, what is?

    She was a growm woman. She knew what she was doing, and she knew with whom she was associating.

    You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.

    Like I said, I feel sorry for her parents. But this beatification of a terrorist-enabling self-righteous privileged suburbanite, all because she was stupid enough to think that her privilege made her invincible, is just sickening.

    What about all of the Rachels she helped her paleostinian friends blow up, huh?

    I want to see those terrorist nuchschleppers write a play about them.

  28. Roger

    3/8/2006 at 12:31 pm

    Whose missing the point about “Rachel Corrie”?Is it a documentary or is it a play pertaining to a political/personal event that is permitted (or possibly not permitted to be shown as a free expresswion of speech)to have a biased point of view?
    Based on some comments it appears that we are now entering a new but dangerous period of censorship.
    Should the movie Munich be censored, should Wagner not be performed in Israel?
    Possibly a reader can render his or her opinion on what are “acceptable” guidelines regarding what is and isn’t permissable in a public performance pertainingt this issue.
    Ultimately the question must be asked: can Rachel Corrie be allowed to be performed?

  29. letsmambo!

    3/9/2006 at 12:48 am

    Whose missing the point about “Rachel Corrie”? Is it a documentary or is it a play pertaining to a political/personal event that is permitted (or possibly not permitted to be shown as a free expresswion of speech)to have a biased point of view?

    What planet are you from? Everything is permitted. Nothing is forbidden. Here it is being criticized and that, too, is forbidden. If some government agency with the power to do so forbids it, you be sure to let us know. In the meantime, folks will continue to employ their right to, y’know, say what they think about it.

    Based on some comments it appears that we are now entering a new but dangerous period of censorship. No, silly, criticism isn’t the same thing is censorship. It’s even alloweded! Great fun.

  30. Roger

    3/9/2006 at 12:30 pm

    “Cancelled” and “postponed indefinitely” while maybe not censorship seems a bit more than criticism to me. Let the play go on in Brooklyn (planet Earth). I’m very anxious to see the play and THEN hear the critcism or comments from those who also have seen “Rachel Corrie”, hey maybe we’ll get another point of view worth listening to.It just could be informative, biased and provocative: but that’s exactly what a strong uncensored play should offer.
    Again, should Rachel Corrie be permitted to be performed?
    Oh and let’s refrain from the the personal asides, attack the argument not the messenger.

  31. Ephraim

    3/9/2006 at 4:58 pm

    From the linked article:

    “we found that there was a strong possibility that a number of factions, on all sides of a political conflict, could use the production as a platform for their own agendas. We were not confident that we had the time to create an environment where the art could be heard independent of the political issues associated with it.”

    Translation: “we cancelled the play because we didn’t have the stones to deal with the inevitable controversy that we knew surround such a transparent piece of hagiographic agitprop”.

    The idea that somebody could be so colossally obtuse to think something so blatantly partisan and political should be (or even could be) shown in “an environment where the art could be heard independent of the political issues associated with it” is just so ROTFLMFAO funny as to beggar description.

    This isn’t art, it’s propaganda. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. You can’t expect to beatify a terrorist sympathizer and then yell “I’m being censored!” when people take issue with it.

    It is interesting that she also blamed the supporters of the play for their perceived role in this comedy. So who’s to blame for the “censorship”?

  32. Ephraim

    3/9/2006 at 5:00 pm

    From the linked article:

    “we found that there was a strong possibility that a number of factions, on all sides of a political conflict, could use the production as a platform for their own agendas. We were not confident that we had the time to create an environment where the art could be heard independent of the political issues associated with it.”

    Translation: “we cancelled the play because we didn’t have the stones to deal with the inevitable controversy that we knew surround such a transparent piece of hagiographic agitprop”.

    The idea that somebody could be so colossally obtuse to think something so blatantly partisan and political should be (or even could be) shown in “an environment where the art could be heard independent of the political issues associated with it” is just so ROTFLMFAO funny as to beggar description.

    This isn’t art, it’s propaganda. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. You can’t expect to beatify a terrorist sympathizer and then yell “I’m being censored!” when people take issue with it.

    It is interesting that she also blamed the supporters of the play for their perceived role in this comedy. So who’s to blame for the “censorship”?

  33. Roger

    3/9/2006 at 5:42 pm

    Ephraim;
    Did you see the play?
    You seem intelligent enough, not obtuse, that you could make up your own mind on what is or isn’t propaganda.
    Oh well, I over estimated the audience which seems committed to preventing the showing of “Rachel Corrie” . You must be afraid some other view may intrigue an audiance.
    Please answer the question…Should Rachel Corrie be permitted to be performed?
    Is it possible for you to offer a yay or nay even with commentary or qualifiers ?
    Even it is propaganda as judged by YOUR criteria, then excoriate the damn thing…sadly you must see the play first.
    Have the guts ,and intelligence, to view something before condemnation. Use your own G_D given mind.

  34. Ephraim

    3/9/2006 at 7:28 pm

    What does permitted or not permitted have to do with anything? I don’t care if they show it or not. Nobody forbade them to stage it. What are you talking about?

    The producers decided to cancel it because they weren’t prepared to deal with the controversy it would create, part of which they clearly saw would be generated by Saint Pancake partisans. No government order shut down the production, nor was anyone threatened with arrest if they showed it. There was no censorship involved.

    Why should I see the play? Corrie was a terrorist collaborator whose organization aids and abets the murder of Jews. Her story may be presented artfully, but so what? A terrorist running dog is a terrorist running dog no matter how much vaseline they try to smear on the lens.

  35. Philip Munger

    3/10/2006 at 4:04 am

    The term “Saint Pancake partisans” defines the current of this factually devoid post best yet.

    I’m not one who believes Rachel Corrie was deliberately run down. Nor do I believe the house she failed to protect hid smuggling tunnels. Nor does the IDF, in their report of the incident.

    “My Name is Rachel Corrie” is one of the better, if not one of the best, recent one-person plays around. I saw it in London with several Jewish friends.

    I’ve noticed at several Jewish and Christian Zionist web sites, the complaint “Where is the art about all the other Rachels?” The first few times I saw the complaint (23 months ago), it was directed at me, because I had created a memorial to Rachel Corrie which was considered one-sided.

    So, 23 months later, I am wondering, where are the tributes to the other Rachels. As both a composer and presenter, I would love to see art created honoring those other innocents – yes, OTHER innocents. If it has quality, I will seek to present it anywhere, any time, as best as it can be presented. I promise.

    Get serious, folks!

  36. Philip Munger

    3/10/2006 at 4:11 am

    BTW,

    jewlicious, overall, is a helluva good website. This thread, however, is disappointing.

  37. Ephraim

    3/10/2006 at 2:31 pm

    I’m glad you think it’s a good play, Phil. Go ahead and see it as many times as as you want.

    But Corrie was not an “innocent”. She was an active member of a group that aids and abets the Palestinian terror war against Israel while fraudulently claiming to be a “peace” group. She lost her life in the process of disrupting Israel’s attempts to defend itself against terrorist attack. That particular house may or may not have hidden a smuggling tunnel. But many such houses do. Israel is under no obligation to leave itself open to attack just because the Palestinian terrorists hide among the civilian population.

    If Corrie’s opinions as they have been presented in the media bear any resemblance to the truth, it is clear that she fully supported homicide bombings against Israeli civilians. Such a person is a terrorist sympathizer. To portray her as an “innocent” is disingenuous at best.

    The play may indeed be very artfully done. But art in the service of whitewashing the careeer of a terrorist lackey is not something I am going to waste any time seeing.

  38. themiddle

    3/10/2006 at 3:07 pm

    Well, there are so many other innocents, but they all get killed in similar ways. You know how it goes, they go to a restaurant and start eating and then Boom! Or maybe they climb on to a bus to go to school and then they go Boom. Or maybe they go to the market to buy some food for their family and then they go Boom!

    Does that sound like good fodder for a play to you? I mean, they are not always young foreigners in a foreign land living out some idealistic activist dream where they get to burn an American flag. No, they might be a student at a university who isn’t a dropout and whose convictions are to simply complete their teaching credential and while they are eating their lunch instead of stopping a bulldozer trying to ferret out a large smuggling operation, they go Boom! What’s so interesting about that where you could get a one person play out of it?

    This hagiography surrounding Corrie is unfortunate precisely because her actions were intended to prevent the IDF from securing Israel. That isn’t something the Israelis made up. It was real and it was done in the very neighborhood where Corrie stood that day. Ha’aretz, no friend of the bulldozers, had an article done after a survey of the tunnels (this was post Gaza pullout) where it became clear that there were many tunnels in the area and that families were paid $30,000 for use of their homes. This is in a place where annual per capita income is at $2000.

    So if you don’t hear about the other innocents, it’s because their story isn’t sexy enough. If you hear about Corrie, it’s because it offers a lot of different opportunities to discuss the conflict from the POV of a young activist who then dies tragically by the supposed symbol of the thing against which she was active. It would all be perfect if she and now the play producers and writers would also address what happens when those tunnels aren’t discovered and those innocents who are just living their lives end up dying.

  39. Philip Munger

    3/10/2006 at 3:20 pm

    themiddle,

    Innocents such as the three Palestinian children blown up by an Israeli rocket earlier this week?

  40. Roger

    3/10/2006 at 4:06 pm

    Let’s be perfectly frank…both “sides” have exhibited both deplorable and honorable deeds over the years. Neither the press, nor governments, nor organizations , nor world leaders have been particularly effective in quelling the atrocity.
    The power of the written word (or movie, painting, poem or other form of expression)hopefully will reflect a powerful expression of a view without inciting a catastrophe but rather inform or opine in a provactive manner in order to more deeply understand the issue.
    No Rachel Corrie wasn’t censored but it was withdrawn because of a spineless producer who succumbed to the wishes of one biased neighborhood group…too bad for free expression.
    If performed I personally would have welcomed seeing a biased, informed retort from the other “side”.
    Through the medium of theatre people may possibly become a little bit better informed leading to a more vigorous but safer debate ultimately leading to greater understanding and acceptance. It sure beats running around with bombs attached to oneself or bulldozing homes.

  41. themiddle

    3/10/2006 at 4:56 pm

    Yes, Philip, that includes Palestinian innocents who are killed.

    Of course, you do realize those innocents weren’t targeted the way the innocents in the restaurants are targeted, but you were trying to make a point and I agree with that point. Victims are victims. However, this play was in some ways about the Palestinians who get killed much more than it was about the Israelis who get killed, wans’t it?

    This is consistent with other public messages we see in the media where somehow the Israelis are the victimizers but when they are victimized, it’s somehow understandable because the Palestinians are the weaker party and the Israelis’ victims.

    Oh, and one more thing since we’re on the topic. Both you and Roger keep trying to find a balance here. I understand that, neither of you is invested in the conflict, you probably don’t have family on either side of the conflict and after all, people are suffering. Okay, I understand that you want to say that war and harming people is bad. After all, it is!

    However, that doesn’t mean that everything is equivalent.

    Attacking a bus or a restaurant with a bomb in order to kill as many civilians as possible is different than a military operation that destroys houses in an area rife with smuggling tunnels used to import the explosives for those restaurant bombings.

    Attacking a car with terrorists in it who have launched attacks on buses or restaurants, even if innocent people do get killed, should be prevented if possible and the IDF definitely fucked up in this attack in that they were not as diligent as they needed to be, but it is not the same as sending a bomb into a crowded market to kill as many people as possible. Also note that the IDF has been able to lower the ratio of innocents versus terrorists killed in these attacks to 1 in 28. Surely that is meaningful when it comes to a comparison between the two sides.

    Not everything is balanced here. All the checkpoints in the world are not equal to one bomb in a disco. Okay?

    The Palestinians have made a decision to fight what they believe is a historical wrong with a very brutal campaign of violence. Whether the campaign involved blowing up international airliners, or murdering young Israeli children in their school, or using suicide bombings, these tactics are simply beyond anything that would be or should be morally or ethically acceptable to anybody. And yet, somehow, these repugnant actions are compared to what the Israelis do.

    I actually think that people like Corrie who espouse this view of equivalence are causing greater harm to the prospects of peace than otherwise. Essentially, for decades now the world has been giving the Palestinians a voice, an international diplomatic platform, a status that is not conferred on any refugees except for Palestinians, money for support, agencies for support, endless UN resolutions against Israel, etc., etc., etc. Israel, on its side, has agreed to try to come to a resolution of the conflict and even offered a state. At one point, Israeli forces were out of Palestinian areas entirely and they had, effectively, what one would consider self-rule.

    Throughout all of this, all we’ve seen is increased violence against Israelis. The bombings and attempted bombings have increased significantly, shootings became routine, and while there was some targeting of Israeli soldiers, most attacks have been directed at civilians, and most of those have taken place inside Israel’s borders not in the territories.

    This has all culminated in the Palestinians democratically electing a party that leads in this violence against Israeli civilians and rejects any form or agreement or compromise with Israel.

    In other words, the Palestinians are emboldened by all this support and equivalence. They believe it gives them latitude to do more of these dirty deeds against Israelis, because after all, somewhere out there a Roger or a Philip or a Rachel Corrie will defend them and say that they and these hideous murderous groups that have sprung up among them are no different than the Israelis. They don’t view Corrie’s version of peaceful disobedience as anything other than another tactic in their war. She allows them, in essence, to continue to fight and make claims about peace without actually doing it peacefully. She becomes nothing more than a shill while Islamic Jihad, Fatah and Hamas do the real work.

    The Israelis are far from perfect and the presence of Israeli troops among a Palestinian population should end, in my opinion. But that does not mean equivalence. At the end of the day the two peoples in this conflict remain very different in their approaches to its resolution or lack thereof.

  42. Roger

    3/10/2006 at 6:08 pm

    Middle:
    Big, big mistake and interpertation on your part believing I am looking for some “equivalence”.
    For arguments sake let’s say the Israel’s are 99% “right” and the Palestinian’s are 1% “right” (which,of course, is a an absurd argument quantifing ugliness); does that still justify cancelling “Corrie”?
    I just want to see the play and hope someone produces something to counter its message so I can better understand both sides. No one can justify the cancellation with such glib gibberish as “oh, we can’t produce the play now because of the current political environment or Sharon is in a comma”
    Again I’m not defending Corrie’s position but I sure want to hear her side of the story and I don’t need anyone preempting that right.

  43. Roger

    3/10/2006 at 6:11 pm

    Middle:
    Big, big mistake and interpertation on your part believing I am looking for some “equivalence”.
    For arguments sake let’s say the Israel’s are 99% “right” and the Palestinian’s are 1% “right” (which,of course, is a an absurd argument quantifing ugliness); does that still justify cancelling “Corrie”?
    I just want to see the play and hope someone produces something to counter its message so I can better understand both sides. No one can justify the cancellation with such glib gibberish as “oh, we can’t produce the play now because of the current political environment or Sharon is in a comma”
    Again I’m not defending Corrie’s position but I sure want to hear her side of the story and I don’t need anyone preempting that right.

  44. themiddle

    3/10/2006 at 6:48 pm

    Is that what we’re talking about here? Let her play run. I don’t care. I didn’t cancel it, and if it came to my town I wouldn’t say boo.

  45. Ephraim

    3/10/2006 at 8:08 pm

    Roger:

    No Rachel Corrie wasn’t censored but it was withdrawn because of a spineless producer

    Thank you.

    Let’s be perfectly frank…both “sides” have exhibited both deplorable and honorable deeds over the years

    What? Name me one single “honorable” thing the PLO has done. The Arab goal has always been to destroy Israel and either murder or drive out the Jew who live there. And now they have elected Hamas as their government. This is honorable? What planet are you living on? The Planet Bend-Over-Backwards-To-Be-Nice in the Can’t-We-Just-All-Get-Along-Galaxy somwhere in the Ignore-The-Evidence-of-Your-Senses Nebula?

    Phil:

    I was going to pre-empt what I knew was going to be your inevitable conflation of deliberate terrorist attacks on civilians by the Arabs and unfortunate civlian casualties as a result of targeted Israeli attacks on known terrorists who use said civilians as human shields, but I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt. I now see that I should have gone with my gut.

    When the Israeli army starts deliberately killing unarmed civilans, let me know. Until then, fuck off.

  46. Philip Munger

    3/10/2006 at 8:17 pm

    Middle, you stated:

    “Also note that the IDF has been able to lower the ratio of innocents versus terrorists killed in these attacks to 1 in 28. Surely that is meaningful when it comes to a comparison between the two sides.:

    Since 2001, the IDF has killed 711 Palestinian children. Using your formula, that would mean they had killed 19,908 terrorists during that period of time. In fact, since 2001, the IDF killed 3,274 Palestinian adults. Many of these adults were, as all the children, innocent bystanders.

    It is difficult to take seriously the arguments of a person who throws absurd numbers in my face. I really do prefer to argue with truthful people.

  47. themiddle

    3/11/2006 at 3:05 am

    What is 3.5%?

    haaretz.com/ha...

    In case you can’t figure out the math, I’ll give it to you in another article:

    ynetnews.com/a...

    Yup 1:28

    By the way, do you notice the discrepancy in the ages of the third innocent victim? Hmmm, wonder how that happened. Shades of Jenin.

    In any case, when you find me being untruthful about anything, let me know. When you find me being absurd, let me know. Until then, I’m afraid you now have to debate the point I made because it stands.

    Oh, and one more thing. You’ll note the general theme of what the Chief of the Israeli Air Force is saying, right? He is not saying, “Since they attack our buses and civilians, we will return our fire in kind.” Nope, Philip, he is saying “Since they attack our buses and civilians, we will target them when we can’t catch them, but we will do our utmost to ensure that as few innocent Palestinians will be harmed. We are down to one in twenty eight and working on none.”

  48. Philip Munger

    3/11/2006 at 6:08 am

    Middle,

    Some walls are thicker than others. One in 28. Not true. Thank you for explaining where you got your information from. That doesn’t absolve you from checking for accuracy. The Israeli Air Force General, like good military men everywhere, just friggin’ made it up, or like you, passed on bogus numbers which had been handed to him by somebody else.

    I’ll amend my previous closer: I DO prefer to argue rationally.

    OTOH,

    I’ll grant the Israeli Air Force credit for being more professional about this – minimizing collatoral civilian casualties – than the Israeli ground forces. And the Israelis in general are far more professional about this than the U.S. forces working in Iraq. By a long shot.

  49. Roger

    3/11/2006 at 10:11 am

    Ephraim:
    OK Israel is 100% , Palestinians 0%{not the PLO which you referenced} in your calculated “honorableness” (this is a wickedly reprehensible commentary on both peoples but you constantly promote this theme in justifing cancellation of Rachel Corrie).
    The issue here is the recreant producer backing down, you can’t blame the poor guy because he’s…well, spineless.This unfortunately side steps the issue of free expression.
    Corrie deserves and must be performed otherwise we are in real trouble.

  50. themiddle

    3/11/2006 at 3:04 pm

    Why do you think the Israeli ground forces are not being as careful? They have a much bigger problem with respect to protecting their soldiers than the air force in that it is very easy for them to be in harm’s way. Behind every corner, every hill, every mound, every pregant woman and every child, there could be a gun or a molotov cocktail, or a bomb strapped around the waist. The terrorists do not wear uniforms and they use teenagers and even children to do their bidding. They use pregnant woman and women wearing burqas. They used to hide at the back of demonstrations with guns; at the front you had the kids. If you recall, when the Americans arrived in Iraq, it took a couple of surprise attacks at roadblocks or in places where soldiers were standing before they realized anybody could be an attacker. Their response was far more brutal than Israel’s has been.

    There is no question that having Israeli forces inside the Palestinian population is a detrimental and corrupting influence on Israeli society. I think it hardens people on the one hand, and puts them in difficult situation which they would never encounter otherwise on the other hand. The Palestinians use this difficulty, and particularly the impact it has upon the Israelis whose values lead them to try to fight this difficult war in a moral way (i.e, the commander of the Air Force taking pride in minimizing harm to bystanders). As one of the smugglers said in his Ha’aretz interview, it is much easier to get families in Gaza to accept tunnels into their homes because the worst that will happen is that their homes will be destroyed. If they were caught in Egypt, the family would be killed.

    If Olmert gets enough of a mandate in this election, we may be just a couple of years away from not having many Israeli soldiers in Palestinian areas at all…

  51. Philip Munger

    3/11/2006 at 4:09 pm

    the middle and Ephraim have an opportunity to create a new play on this issue. A group of young London-based writers, etc. are soliciting ten-minute plays “that reflect the thoughts behind the recent ban of My Name is Rachel Corrie from the New York Theatre Workshop.”

    Here’s the link to their project:

    practicumtheat...

    have at it!

  52. themiddle

    3/11/2006 at 6:17 pm

    Why don’t those brave Londoners just ask the people at the NY Theatre Workshop why they did it?

    Oh, I know, they’d rather have a bunch of conspiratorial 10 minute plays.

  53. Ephraim

    3/11/2006 at 10:58 pm

    Phil:

    The play wasn’t banned, you fucking idiot. The producer chickened out. End of story.

    And you want people to be truthful? Practice what you preach first.

    Roger:

    I can’t blame the producer for being spineless? Why the hell not?

    It’s no one’s fault but his own that he didn’t have the courage of his convicions. Did he get any death threats? Did he wake up to find a severed horse’s head in his bed or something? No. He just didn’t want to deal with the hassle.

    For people to then go around saying the play was “banned” (and we know who “banned” it, right? Wink, wink, nudge nudge) is just flat out dishonest pandering.

    If that producer wants to produce a blatantly political play that whitewashes a terrorist sympathizer, he should expect to take some flack. That’s what politics, even politics masquerading as art, are all about.

    Instead of sniveling and creating the impression that dark and nefarious forces made him cancel the play, he should either own up to his own cowardice of just freaking grow a pair.

  54. Philip Munger

    3/12/2006 at 3:50 am

    Ephraim,

    the term “banned” was used inside a direct quotation I took from the web site soliciting the new 10-minute plays. I’ve never claimed the play is being banned.

    As for “growing a pair,” what makes you think the people soliciting the new London plays are less manly than you? I have no evidence of that.

  55. Roger

    3/12/2006 at 12:59 pm

    Hey Phil and Ephraim:
    I’m dropping off this running squabble since Ephraim sounds like a person out of control with his personal deragatory comments. We won’t change Ephraim’s opinion but Phil ,even though I am in your camp so may be biased, is to be commended for at least searching for as much factual info. as possible.
    Again, I hope the play is performed in order to hear one side of the “story” and I would hope someone else presents an alternative view.
    Ephraim you may want to get your blood pressure checked.

  56. themiddle

    3/12/2006 at 4:50 pm

    Roger, feel free to respond to Ephraim in kind. We’ve all been on the receiving end of his missives.

    By the way, some Brooklyn theater group has just picked up the play and will perform it.

  57. independentminded

    3/12/2006 at 9:00 pm

    Hi–saw all the posts and felt the need to respond. As much as I disapprove of Israel’s occupation of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem(in fact, Israel has to withdraw it’s troops, settlers/settlements and checkpoints from the Occupied Territories NOW), I would probably not go to see “My Name is Rachel Corrie” for several reasons. Nonetheless, it’s wrong to cancel the play, especially at the last minute. People who DO wish to see the play shouldn’t be deprived of the right to do so.

    By the way, it was the New York Theatre Workshop, the organization that was going to HOST the play that yanked the play, NOT the producer(s) themselves.

    To give my opinion of Rachel Corrie: The loss of her life was unfortunatte–and needless. Her tragic death indicates underscores afew things:

    First, it shows the horrors and craziness of war.
    Secondly, the wisdom of sending ordinary, run of the mill people who are young, inexperience and with only very rudimentary training at best, over into the heart of a war zone that they’re unfamiliar with to act as human shields, is questionable at best, and, at worst, no less foolhardy than what President G. W. Bush is doing by sending our own soldiers into Iraq to fight an immoral, illegal, and unnecessary war, that, from the beginning, was based on a pack of liles.

    Thirdly, the Israeli-Arab conflict has been going on for several decades, and there’s been enough maiming and killing of innocents, not to mention the arrogance, hubris and stupidity,
    on BOTH sides going on for years and years. Nobody’s hands are clean in this whole conflict.

    Fourth: There’s plenty of responsibility for Rachel Corrie’s death to go around. There’s no disputing the fact that (a.) the Israeli Govt’s policies of occupation of West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem have created the circumstances that ultimately led to Ms. Corrie’s death. (b.) The United States and, by extension, the European community abetted it by not exerting more pressure on Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and allow the Palestinians to create a viable, independent, sovereign nation-state of Palestine of their OWN, right alongside the Jewish Majority state of Israel.(c.) The Israeli soldiers manning
    the bulldozer that fatally ran Ms. Corrie over were criminally and recklessly irresponsible and should be also held accountable for ms. Corrie’s death.

    Fifth: Unfortunately, the International Sollidarity Movement, of which Ms. Corrie was a member, also bears some responsibility for her death. Here’ s why: Prior to Rachel Corrie’s death, several ISM members had narrow escapes while blocking bulldozers with their bodies: One woman managed to get out of the way at the last moment when t he bulldozer she was blocking started to pile earth around and underneath her feet. One young man barely escaped impalement by barbed wire when the bulldozer he was blocking stopped at the VERY last possible moment. Rachel Corrie herself had been shoved into the side of a house she’s been trying to protect from destruction by a bulldozer, and predicted that she would probably be not so lucky the next time around. Horribly enough, this prediction came to pass shortly thereafter.

    And, finally: Rachel Corrie herself, unfortunately, did not exercise the best judgement, which along with the other above-mentioned factors and the criminally reckless, irresponsible behaviour of the Israelli soldiers driving the bulldozer that fatally ran Rachel Corrie down, contributed to the loss of her life.

    A couple of more afterthoughts: First of all, I believe that had Rachel Corrie and her friends/colleages in ISM had blocked the bulldozer as a GROUP, rather than singly, the advent of death/serioius injury by a bulldozer would’ve been far, far less likely.
    The narrow escaepes that ISM members, including Rachel Corrie herself, encountered, definitely should’ve been a wake-up call for t he ISM to immediately alter their strategies somewhat.

    Another afterthought: When I read/heard about the cancellation of “My Name is Rachel Corrie’, I was immediately reminded of the cancellation of a school production of the stage nusical of West Side Story, by Amherst Regional High School, in Amherst, MA several years ago. The production, which was pulled exactly one week prior to its formal rendezvous, was not rescheduled. A petition, arguing that West Side Story presented a negative stereotype of Puerto Ricans, and which was signed by some 150 people, circulated around the high school. Under duress and pressure, the school officials caved in and pulled the WSS production. The town of Amherst, MA, which is supposedly a liberal, openminded and progressive town, gave itself a PAIR if big, black eyes on that one, especially since the Hispanic community out in that area was very, very divided on the whole issue. All of the above having been said, I firmly believe that both the play “My Name is Rachel Corrie” and the production of the musical “West Side Story” were both cancelled for a similar reason: fear of controversy. No school, theatre, ect, should ever, ever succumb to that fear. It’s very sad to see that happening.

  58. themiddle

    3/13/2006 at 5:12 am

    Yeah, well, Independentminded, it’s kind of you to lay out the situation for us but if it’s okay with you, Israel should do no such thing as leaving the “occupied territories” immediately. If you hadn’t noticed, Hamas is about to govern there. Also, if you haven’t noticed, the Palestinians rejected the last offer of a state that they received. Also, the suggestion that Israel should leave East Jerusalem is absurd. I’m sure next you’ll be proposing that Christians abandon the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and that Muslims should abandon the Haram Al Sharif. Or maybe you won’t.

    The driver of the bulldozer is not criminally negligent. He’s not negligent at all. He didn’t see her.

    But you’re right about the irresponsibility of the ISM, not to mention their support for terrorism.

  59. Ephraim

    3/13/2006 at 7:01 pm

    My blood pressure is fine, Roger. Not to worry.

  60. Christine

    3/23/2006 at 10:36 am

    The new Ann Frank – well, the old one was part of the holohoax, but no matter…. This is armageddon for jews.

    I think this latest mis-step will garner more jew hatred than Zundel, Rudolph, Irving, or any other voices.

    I am soooo looking forward to the advance of Islam in world politics. Gentiles have been beaten down and back by stealth, treasonous Jews in so many countries.

    I can hardly contain my glee knowing that Islam will finish what Germans began.

    And not a moment too soon.

    tick tock tick tock…
    this time REAL ovens.

  61. Danielle

    3/23/2006 at 10:42 am

    Wow, Christine…all I have to say is “BRING IT ON BITCHES!” After nuclear war, there will be three things: bacteria, Cher and Jews. We are impossible to get rid of.

  62. Pingback: Celebrating Rachel Corrie: Israeli Tax Dollars at Work Choosing Life - God's Gift To The Unborn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>