The Rachel Corrie Story

Last week’s presentation at the Nexstage Theater in Ketchum of the one woman play “My Name is Rachel Corrie” has certainly provoked animated dialogue in my community, to the degree that this discussion can be called dialogue. (See here and here) Charlotte Hemmings’ portrayal of Rachel Corrie, a young woman from Olympia, Washington, who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer while defending a Palestinian home in Gaza engaged everyone in the audience. There was, however, a large gap in the way that people in the audience responded. On Tuesday night, one questioner linked Ms Corrie to terrorists and Hamas. On the other hand, on Wednesday night most of the conversation was about how it felt to lose a daughter who was so committed to human rights and justice.

One of the problems with any attempt at conversation on this subject is that it is often not about facts. With some exceptions, almost everybody can agree that Ms Corrie was in Gaza as part of the International Solidarity Movement, a non-violent international activist group. She saw and experienced terrible destruction and violence inflicted on Palestinian residents of Gaza and she was killed, intentionally or unintentionally, by an Israeli bulldozer attempting to destroy a Palestinian home.

Some of the issues arise from transporting the events of 2003 into today’s Middle East context. In 2003 neither Gaza nor the West Bank were governed by Hamas. Gaza was occupied by Israel with 8000 settlers living there protected by thousands of Israeli soldiers. In order to protect these settlers, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) was creating “no man’s” areas, check points and barriers around Gaza’s borders and the Jewish colonies. It was into the resulting maelstrom that Rachel walked.

Most people can agree on the basic facts. The disagreement becomes a question of values. Some people know exactly what is happening in Palestine and think that it is right. Others know what is happening and think that it is wrong. Some justify what is happening by citing Israel’s security needs. Certainly all Israelis, Muslims, Christians, Jews and atheists, are entitled to security. The question is “Can Israel achieve its security needs by doing what it is doing or does it have to find another way?” Does anything go in the name of security? I would argue that it has to find another way. (Maybe the US needs to ask the same question.)

In many ways the political issues are easier than the moral issues. The larger question that Rachel raises is “How are we called to respond to injustice in the world?” This question is hard to deal with in our affluent comfortable life in the US. Rachel answered the call in her way and paid with her life.

Technorati Tags: Rachel Corrie,Gaza,Israel,Palestine

Crossing the Red Line

Last fall while I was attending a conference in Washington D.C., I took the opportunity to visit the newly opened Newseum, which chronicles news media from the First Amendment to Twitter and YouTube. At one of the exhibits, I was a little surprised to note that Israel’s press had been downgraded by Freedom House from free to partly free, now ranking 71^st in the world. (The U.S. ranks 24^th.) Israel, similar to other countries in the region such as Iran and Jordan, has long had some degree of overt government censorship, but the downgrade was a result of an increase in self censorship.

In a self censorship environment, media outlets respond to pressure and establish red lines that cannot be crossed without serious consequences. The US has been home to this practice as well, particularly with respect to Middle East issues. The phenomenon does, however, appear to be on the increase.

Helen Thomas, Dean of White House Correspondents, was forced to resign from Hearst News as a result of comments questioning the whole premise behind the Zionist project. Last week CNN Senior Middle East Editor, Octavia Nasr, was forced to resign for expressing her respect for Lebanese cleric Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Fadlallah and sadness at his death (See here) after the pro Israel bloggers went into full attack mode. (See here)

When I met with Ayatollah Fadlallah two years ago he revealed himself to be a complex character who defies labeling. In his role as a “source of emulation” for Shias and leader of one of the largest social services organizations in Lebanon and Syria, he was extremely influential, ranking with Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq.

A fierce critic of US Middle East policy, he issued “fatwas” (Legal opinions under Islamic Law) supporting resistance against the US/Israeli occupation of Lebanon. These opinions may have led to the bombing of the US Marine Barracks and the US Embassy in Beirut and certainly led to Hezbollah’s successful campaign to drive Israel out of Lebanon. On the other hand, he promptly condemned the 9/11 attacks as acts of terror.

As a result of his outspoken opinions, he has enemies as well as friends. One of his enemies was the CIA who in 1985, with assistance from Saudi Arabia, attempted to kill him with a massive car bomb which failed in its goal, but did kill 80 innocent civilians and wounded 256. (This story is here.)

Whatever one thinks about Fadlallah, it is disturbing that expressing respect for him should be a red line that if a member of the press crosses it, she will lose her job. It is also disturbing that the main stream media has been largely silent on the issue. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the Constitution are only words on paper unless citizens are willing to defend them. Without this we start a slide down the same slope as Israel.

Technorati Tags: Ayatollah Fadlallah,Octavia Nasr,Helen Thomas

Whose National Interest

While I was traveling around China a few weeks ago, a number of events took place related to the situation in the Middle East and its neighbors. These included the Israeli attack on the Gaza bound aid flotilla which resulted in the deaths of 9 people including one American, the startup of so called “proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and the US full court press for sanctions on Iran.

These stories were available in China, but were not front page news. The Chinese press was more focused on floods and labor unrest. The Chinese government’s squabble with Google made it inconvenient to access Google related web sites to post comments so I’m going to rehash some old news here.

The US high pressure effort to get the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council on board for a new sanctions resolution on Iran was successful and the new resolution passed with only Turkey and Brazil voting against and Lebanon abstaining.

It is reasonably clear why China and Russia might support sanctions. The Chinese government is not going to do anything that is against Chinese national interest. In the case of Iran, China values its economic ties with the West and the sanctions have been so watered down that they will not affect China’s economic relations with Iran. Russia also values its economic ties with the West and any action that might disrupt Iran’s natural gas industry would enhance Russia’s monopoly position on gas supplies to Europe.

What is less clear is why Europe and the US would support sanctions. As noted above, one possible outcome is that Europe will be even more dependent on Russian natural gas and will be more exposed to being held hostage to supply cutoffs resulting from Russian pricing disagreements with Ukraine or Belarus.

The US is engaged in two intractable conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why the US would want to escalate its confrontation with Iran at a time when it needs Iranian cooperation in order to stabilize these situations, is unclear to me. The stated purpose is to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. However, CIA Director Leon Panetta recently said on ABC "Will it (sanctions) deter them (Iran) from their ambitions with regards to nuclear capability? Probably not.”

China’s policy is to defend its own national interest, whereas the US seems to persist in taking actions in the Middle East that are not in its national interest. It seems to me that China will be more successful.