A peculiar mindset
I am writing this piece the day after the news broke that an Israeli court rejected the negligence suit lodged by the parents of Rachel Corrie, the 23-year-old American woman who was killed by an Israeli Defence Forces bulldozer on 16 March 2003.
The verdict was not surprising. Taken overall, it would have to be acknowledged that Israel's tolerance and its capacity for official self-criticism is considerably greater than that of its Arab neighbours, even after the Arab Spring. However, as the Guardian points out today, even when it comes to internal political issues, such as the recent cost-of-living protests, tolerance and freedom of expression are coming under increasing threat. And in matters pertaining to the activities of the military, there has never been serious judicial oversight. In these circumstances, I would have fallen over backwards if the court had ruled in favour of the Corries and I anticipate, sadly, that the appeal will go the same way.
In fact, it could be argued that the Israeli military is as arbitrary as that of any tinpot dictatorship. Rarely have the courts or the leadership of Israel been prepared to criticise them and they have pretty much a free hand to do whatever they like. The circumstances that gave rise to Rachel Corrie's homicide illustrate this. It happened because she was trying to prevent the demolition of the home of a Palestinian pharmacist and his family. Israel justifies such demolitions by arguing that these are the homes of terrorists but there is no due process to establish this. Moreover, it is contrary to humanitarian law; indeed, even if there was a prior judicial process, it could not be justified. In circumstances where an Israeli murderers his fellow-citizens (and organised crime is rife in Israel, by the way), I doubt if the public at large would consider it proportionate for the authorities to drive the man's family, including his children, from their home.
Home demolition is by no means the worst abuse, nor the only one that can be carried out with impunity. Even leaving aside those killed by bombing and shelling, numerous Palestinian civilians have been shot by Israeli military. In one case, a 13-year-old girl had an entire magazine emptied into her; the soldier who did it said afterwards that he would have done the same had she been three years old - yet he was cleared by an Israeli court. In another infamous case that pre-dated Rachel's death, a complaint lodged by the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem about the shooting of an 11-year old boy, was rejected by the Judge Avocate general's office but the office made the mistake of appending the report of its own confidential investigation which, in fact, substantiated the complaint.
Rachel Corrie's case bears many resemblances to that of Sophie Scholl (see my post of May 4 2011). Most obviously, both of them have garnered more limelight because they were young women, compared to the greater number of young male activists who lost their lives in similar fashion (Hans Scholl and Christoph Probst were executed together with Sophie Scholl; James Miller, Tom Hurndall and Ian Hook were a journalist, a photographer/ activist and a UN worker respectively murdered by Israeili military on separate occasions). In Rachel's case, also, she is one of a tiny number of non-Arab victims of Israeli state-sponsored violence; a drop in the ocean compared to the thousands of Palestinian civilians who lost their lives. It is sad that, in both cases, it takes the image of talented young women being cut off in their prime to really fire our indignation - and white women at that. I am sure neither of them would have wanted it that way.
It may seem harsh on the Israeli authorities to juxtapose these two cases. Indeed, I acknowledge that simplistic comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany are gratuitously insulting, considering the historical circumstances. However, the former regime has one thing in common with the latter; it's increasing intolerance of peaceful protest. Supporters of Israel argue that peaceful protest movements, such as the international Solidarity Movement of which Rachel was a member, are equivocal about violence. Well, in their day, the British Authorities said the same about Gandhi and the Americans about Martin Luther King.
We should, nevertheless, salute the courage and integrity of organisations like B'Tselem and the fact that, despite an increasingly difficult climate, they are still operating within Israel. Moreover, despite the stridently partisan pro-Israeli stance adopted by some Jewish-born public figures outside Israel - such as the actress Maureen Lippmann in the UK or Ireland's cabinet minister Alan Shatter - there are numerous Jews that oppose Israel's policies to varying degrees and are even ashamed of them. This should be a warning - if, indeed, such a warning is needed - not to confuse the official policy with either the nationality or the race. It also gives the lie to those, such as Tea-Party radio host Mike Graham in the US, that equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. In recent days, after a 2010 on-air shredding of Graham by Michael D Higgins, now Ireland's President, went viral, Graham tweeted "if opposing Arab terrorists and supporting Israel's right to self-defence still means I'm a w**ker, nothing's changed."
This tweet epitomises the mindset that has impeded fair and rational discussion of the Israeli question in the mainstream media in the US and elsewhere. It smacks of George W Bush's infamous "if you're not with us you're against us" quote. If it doesn't equate Arabs with terrorists it certainly equates criticism of Israel with support for terrorism; exactly the insult that prompted Michael D's use of the "W" word. Moreover, it encapsulates the view that Israel is unique in the global community of nations in that it just has to assert its right to self-defence in order to place itself beyond scrutiny for any alleged atrocities, however brutal, arbitrary or disproportionate.
So yes, Mr Graham, I'm afraid you are a w**ker!
Rachel Corrie's writings are available now as a book, entitled Let me stand alone.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Rachel+Corrie
The verdict was not surprising. Taken overall, it would have to be acknowledged that Israel's tolerance and its capacity for official self-criticism is considerably greater than that of its Arab neighbours, even after the Arab Spring. However, as the Guardian points out today, even when it comes to internal political issues, such as the recent cost-of-living protests, tolerance and freedom of expression are coming under increasing threat. And in matters pertaining to the activities of the military, there has never been serious judicial oversight. In these circumstances, I would have fallen over backwards if the court had ruled in favour of the Corries and I anticipate, sadly, that the appeal will go the same way.
In fact, it could be argued that the Israeli military is as arbitrary as that of any tinpot dictatorship. Rarely have the courts or the leadership of Israel been prepared to criticise them and they have pretty much a free hand to do whatever they like. The circumstances that gave rise to Rachel Corrie's homicide illustrate this. It happened because she was trying to prevent the demolition of the home of a Palestinian pharmacist and his family. Israel justifies such demolitions by arguing that these are the homes of terrorists but there is no due process to establish this. Moreover, it is contrary to humanitarian law; indeed, even if there was a prior judicial process, it could not be justified. In circumstances where an Israeli murderers his fellow-citizens (and organised crime is rife in Israel, by the way), I doubt if the public at large would consider it proportionate for the authorities to drive the man's family, including his children, from their home.
Home demolition is by no means the worst abuse, nor the only one that can be carried out with impunity. Even leaving aside those killed by bombing and shelling, numerous Palestinian civilians have been shot by Israeli military. In one case, a 13-year-old girl had an entire magazine emptied into her; the soldier who did it said afterwards that he would have done the same had she been three years old - yet he was cleared by an Israeli court. In another infamous case that pre-dated Rachel's death, a complaint lodged by the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem about the shooting of an 11-year old boy, was rejected by the Judge Avocate general's office but the office made the mistake of appending the report of its own confidential investigation which, in fact, substantiated the complaint.
Rachel Corrie's case bears many resemblances to that of Sophie Scholl (see my post of May 4 2011). Most obviously, both of them have garnered more limelight because they were young women, compared to the greater number of young male activists who lost their lives in similar fashion (Hans Scholl and Christoph Probst were executed together with Sophie Scholl; James Miller, Tom Hurndall and Ian Hook were a journalist, a photographer/ activist and a UN worker respectively murdered by Israeili military on separate occasions). In Rachel's case, also, she is one of a tiny number of non-Arab victims of Israeli state-sponsored violence; a drop in the ocean compared to the thousands of Palestinian civilians who lost their lives. It is sad that, in both cases, it takes the image of talented young women being cut off in their prime to really fire our indignation - and white women at that. I am sure neither of them would have wanted it that way.
It may seem harsh on the Israeli authorities to juxtapose these two cases. Indeed, I acknowledge that simplistic comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany are gratuitously insulting, considering the historical circumstances. However, the former regime has one thing in common with the latter; it's increasing intolerance of peaceful protest. Supporters of Israel argue that peaceful protest movements, such as the international Solidarity Movement of which Rachel was a member, are equivocal about violence. Well, in their day, the British Authorities said the same about Gandhi and the Americans about Martin Luther King.
We should, nevertheless, salute the courage and integrity of organisations like B'Tselem and the fact that, despite an increasingly difficult climate, they are still operating within Israel. Moreover, despite the stridently partisan pro-Israeli stance adopted by some Jewish-born public figures outside Israel - such as the actress Maureen Lippmann in the UK or Ireland's cabinet minister Alan Shatter - there are numerous Jews that oppose Israel's policies to varying degrees and are even ashamed of them. This should be a warning - if, indeed, such a warning is needed - not to confuse the official policy with either the nationality or the race. It also gives the lie to those, such as Tea-Party radio host Mike Graham in the US, that equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. In recent days, after a 2010 on-air shredding of Graham by Michael D Higgins, now Ireland's President, went viral, Graham tweeted "if opposing Arab terrorists and supporting Israel's right to self-defence still means I'm a w**ker, nothing's changed."
This tweet epitomises the mindset that has impeded fair and rational discussion of the Israeli question in the mainstream media in the US and elsewhere. It smacks of George W Bush's infamous "if you're not with us you're against us" quote. If it doesn't equate Arabs with terrorists it certainly equates criticism of Israel with support for terrorism; exactly the insult that prompted Michael D's use of the "W" word. Moreover, it encapsulates the view that Israel is unique in the global community of nations in that it just has to assert its right to self-defence in order to place itself beyond scrutiny for any alleged atrocities, however brutal, arbitrary or disproportionate.
So yes, Mr Graham, I'm afraid you are a w**ker!
Rachel Corrie's writings are available now as a book, entitled Let me stand alone.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Rachel+Corrie
posted by Reluctant Irishman @ 8:13 AM
0 Comments
