BostontoPalestine
Boston
support group for the International Solidarity Movement
Home
About
us
News
from Palestine
Contact
Email
Subscribe
Donate
Current Delegation
Summer 2006
Past Delegations
Summer 2005
Olive Harvest
2004
Freedom Summer
2004
Past Campaigns
Events
Photos
Videos (ISM)
Rachel Corrie
Links
Speakers
Be a Delegate
Press
faq
Actions!
Please READ and WRITE!!
In his March 6, 2005 New York Times article "Too Hot
to Handle, Too
Hot Not to Handle" (see below or
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/theater/newsandfeatures/06conn.html)
New York Times cultural critic Edward Rothstein comments on the
New
York Theatre Workshop's "postponement" of the play
"My Name is
Rachel Corrie", about American activist Rachel Corrie who
was crushed
to death by an Israeli bulldozer while attempting to prevent
the
demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip on
March 16,
2003.
REQUESTED ACTION
Write to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com and to
the
Times' Public Editor Byron Calame at public@nytimes.com
Suggestions when writing to them
1) You appreciate that The New York Times is following
the important
story of the postponement of the play "My Name is Rachel
Corrie" in
New York City. However, the New York Times needs to get
central facts
right.
2) Contrary to Edward Rothstein's innuendo, Rachel Corrie
was killed
while defending the home of a Palestinian family that had no
relationship to arms smuggling or terrorism.
3) Despite Rothstein's attempt to defend the Israeli government's
policy of large-scale home demolition in Rafah, Human Rights
Watch,
Amnesty International and the Israeli organization B'Tselem have
all
documented that Israel's large-scale home demolition in Rafah
violated international law and could not be justified as a defense
against arms smuggling.
4) Rothstein attempts to discredit Rachel Corrie as
"naïve" and
"radical." Rachel was killed while using nonviolence
to stand
against a clear injustice and widely recognized violation of
international law. If using nonviolence to support international
law
made Rachel "radical " and "naïve",
then the world needs more
naïve, radical people.
5) Hamas' victory in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections
in
2006 should not be twisted to serve as a rationale for "postponing"
a play about an American activist killed in Rafah in 2003.
THE ARTICLE: TOO HOT TO HANDLE, TOO HOT NOT TOO HANDLE
Edward Rothstein hints that the New York Theater Workshop
was naïve in
not understanding that the play was politically charged, an obvious,
but valid point.
Oddly, however, Rothstein then seems to turn around and blame
the
playwrites Alan Rickman and Katharine Viner, suggesting that
they
disguised the political content of the play. Rothstein
suggests that
the play "My Name is Rachel Corrie" is "disingenuous"
and that
the playwrites "elided phrases" "to camouflage
Corrie's
radicalism and broaden the play's appeal".
But here Rothstein himself is guilty of camouflaging the truth,
or at
least of naiveté. The primary example Rothstein
cites of the play's
supposed "disingenuousness" is Rothstein's assertion
that in the
play "there is no hint about why such demolitions"
of Palestinian
homes in Rafah were taking place. Rothstein then explains
that
"dozens of tunnels leading from Egypt under the border into
homes in
Gaza were being used to smuggle guns, rocket launchers and explosives
to wield against Israel."
Thus, Rothstein leaves open the possibility that Rachel Corrie
herself
may have been killed while preventing the demolition of a home
hiding
an arms smuggling tunnel, and that the Israeli military's wholesale
demolition of thousands of homes in Rafah was aimed only at destroying
arms smuggling tunnels and preventing terrorism.
Rothstein is wrong on both these crucial points. Rachel
Corrie died
defending the home of a Palestinian family who she knew well
-
Palestinian pharmacist, Khaled, Nasrallah, his wife and children.
There was no tunnel in the Nasrallah home, and the Israeli army
never
asserted that there was a tunnel in the Nasrallah home. Nonetheless,
the Nasrallah home, like thousands of others, was eventually
demolished
by the Israeli army. The international organizations Human
Rights
Watch and Amnesty International
(http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150532004?open&of=ENG-ISR,
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150402004?open&of=ENG-ISR),
and the respected Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem
(http://www.btselem.org/English/Razing/) have all documented
that homes
in Rafah were bulldozed as part of an Israeli government policy
of
systematically demolishing entire Palestinian neighborhoods,
irregardless of any relationship to arms smuggling, in clear
violation
of international law.
In their October 2004 report Razing Rafah: Mass Home Demolitions
in the
Gaza Strip (http://hrw.org/campaigns/gaza), Human Rights Watch
noted
that:
"Sixteen thousand people - more than ten percent of Rafah's
population - have lost their homes, most of them refugees, many
of
whom were dispossessed for a second or third time...
The pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli
forces
demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed
a specific
threat, in violation of international law. In most of the
cases Human
Rights Watch found the destruction was carried out in the absence
of
military necessity...
Under international law, the IDF has the right to close smuggling
tunnels, to respond to attacks on its forces, and to take preventive
measures to avoid further attacks. But such measures are
strictly
regulated by the provisions of international humanitarian law,
which
balance the interests of the Occupying Power against those of
the
civilian population. In the case of Rafah, it is difficult
to
reconcile the IDF's stated rationales with the widespread destruction
that has taken place. On the contrary, the manner and pattern
of
destruction appears to be consistent with the plan to clear
Palestinians from the border area, irrespective of specific threats....
The IDF has failed to explain why non-destructive means for
detecting
and neutralizing tunnels employed in places like the Mexico-United
States border and the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) cannot
be used
along the Rafah border. Moreover, it has at times dealt
with tunnels
in a puzzlingly ineffective manner that is inconsistent with
the
supposed gravity of this longstanding threat...
Rothstein attempts to discredit Rachel and the play "My
Name is
Rachel Corrie" by mentioning her "radicalism",
Rachel's "more
contentious view", and her views that seem "naïve".
He further
confuses the issue by directly comparing the conflict over staging
the
play in New York City to the conflicts over "Andres Serrano's
photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine to the Danish cartoons
portraying the Prophet Muhammad." Thus Rachel and
the play, already
"disingenuous" and "radical" are made sacrilegious
and even
obscene to some readers. Despite all Rothstein's efforts
at
distraction, the simple truth is that Rachel was an idealistic
woman
who used nonviolence to support international law.
Finally, Rothstein implies that Hamas' recent victory in the
elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council somehow should
have
some bearing on whether or not the play "My Name is Rachel
Corrie"
should be staged in New York City ("and when the election
of Hamas
provided proof that all was not simple, perhaps that was when
the play
became more clearly understood"). It is a significant
stretch to
understand how the election victory of Hamas in 2006 should influence
the cancellation of a play in the US about an American woman
who was
run over by an Israeli bulldozer almost three years earlier.
Indeed,
if anything the random, brutal deaths of thousands of innocent
Palestinian civilians, and a few foreigners like Rachel Corrie,
at the
hands of the Israeli military from 2000 - 2006, help to explain
the
dissatisfaction and anger that contributed to Hamas' election
victory
in 2006.