Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘rachel-corrie’

NY Times Nonsense on Arrigoni Murder

Saturday, April 16th, 2011
vittorio arrigoni

Vittorio Arrigoni with Hamas leader, Ismail Haniya (Mohammed Saber/EPA)

The NY Times’ Israel correspondents, always eager to get in a shot against Hamas when they can, fill their report on the murder of Vittorio Arrigoni with nonsense and near-nonsense.  Of course, they published a picture of a bloodied Vittorio shortly before his death.  Better to dramatize his graphic murder and score a few points against the terrorism supposedly running rampant in Gaza.

Next is the claim that the murder makes Hamas look bad which you can see in the headline, Gaza Killing of Italian Activist Deals a Blow to Hamas:

That [the murder] raised embarrassing questions for Hamas about the security it says it has restored in the Palestinian coastal enclave since it ousted its secular rival, Fatah, in a short, factional war.

The only thing Hamas did that made it look bad is saying today that Israel may be to blame, which was genuinely a stupid comment.  But unlike NY Times reporters, most of the rest of the thinking world understands that Hamas didn’t kill this man who was dedicated to the Palestinian cause.  And also unlike NY Times reporters, most people understand that with Gaza under Israeli siege and not subject to the normal conditions under which much of the rest of the world lives, it can be exceedingly difficult to rein in the nutcases, hot-heads and murderous thugs among them.

What NY Times reporters won’t tell you, is that Israel itself has a great deal of difficulty restraining its own settler types who espouse homicidal political views and perpetrate similar acts of mayhem on a regular basis.  What makes it worse when it happens in Israel is that the authorities have neither the will nor the competence to capture and punish these violent thugs.  One thing you can be sure is that Hamas will eventually capture Arrigoni’s killers and they will face justice.  Though I hope it is not the form of justice meted out sometimes by the IDF to Palestinian militants suspected of murdering Israelis–at the barrel of a gun.

Note the near glee with which Isabel Kershner raises the specter of the threat to other international peace activists in the Arrigoni murder:

It also raises the specter of a growing boldness on the part of more extreme, virulently anti-Western Islamic groups in Gaza, which would pose a challenge not only to Hamas but to foreign activists promoting the Palestinian cause.

The only specter here is one raised by Israeli intelligence and ampified by reporters like those of the NY Times.  The group which murdered the Italian peace activist has few members and even less support among the population.  It is a rogue entity with which Hamas has been at war for over a year.  This group poses no threat whatsoever to Hamas.  But it does provide a PR bonanza for the Bibis of the world who can now point to the blood-thirsty scum supposedly thriving in the cesspool that is Gaza.  Of course, there will no mention that the very conditions brought on by the Israeli siege offer the sectarianism represented by these Islamist radicals a fertile breeding ground: joblessness, poverty, illness, hopelessness, prison conditions.  These are the conditions in which extremism and violence thrives.  If the siege ended the radical crazies would no longer have any recruiting ground.

The article contains the questionable claim that Rachel Corrie’s death discouraged other activists from coming to Gaza:

Although her death galvanized public opinion worldwide, it discouraged other activists from living and working in Gaza.

Israel killed Rachel Corrie and her death certainly didn’t discourage others from coming though it may’ve made them more cautious in the risks they took in confronting Israeli forces.

The only true statement in the article is the question the death raises for the upcoming series of flotillas making their way to Gaza to continue the campaign of breaking Israel’s siege.  It is true that activists around the world will question their commitment to a Gaza that contains such murderous thugs.  But I doubt it will have much of a negative effect.  If anything, it will cause Hamas to take better care of such activists to ensure their safety.

What this article proves is that the NY Times hasn’t a clue what is going on in Gaza.  Partly this is because they don’t assign a correspondent there who has the authority to report there on a par with the authority and seniority of Ethan Bronner in Israel.  Partly, it’s because they wear ideological blinders.  They see what they want to see and disregard the rest.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Israeli Supreme Court Affirms Deportation of Nobel Peace Laureate, Maguire

Monday, October 4th, 2010
maguire stands before rachel corrie

Nobel Peace laureate Maguire stands before the MV Rachel Corrie before sailing for Gaza (AP)

In a ruling that should bring shock and disdain on Israeli jurisprudence throughout the world, the Supreme Court ruled that the intelligence services and Interior Ministry were right in excluding Nobel Peace laureate, Mairead Corrigan Macguire from Israel as punishment for her sailing on the Rachel Corrie in order to break the Gaza blockade.

In effect, Israel’s highest court has implicitly ratified the blockade as a legal act under Israeli law, a view contrary to international law.  It has also ratified the blatant security policy of excluding political undesirables merely because they criticize Israeli government policy.  Interestingly, a significant minority of Israeli society shares those same views, but because they are citizens the security services do not (yet) have the power to exclude them.

For those who enjoy debating my views, I should make clear that Israel and other countries have every right to exclude anyone they wish from their countries.  They usually don’t have to give rhyme or reason.  But in rejecting entry of some of the world’s most distinguished intellectuals, peace activists, and clowns from Macguire to Chomsky to Finkelstein to Ivan Prado, Israel betrays to the world its shrinking from democratic values, free debate, and political diversity (for God’s sake..afraid of a Spanish clown???).  In other words, the nation shows its true colors to the world and can no longer argue it is what most know it isn’t: a democratic society which values free speech for all.

Laughably, the court suggested that the authorities should have allowed Maguire to enter the country using a 48 hour visa to attend the conference she was planning to address.  In that case, I wish the Supreme Court judges who rendered this stupid ruling were instead lowly immigration officials so they could’ve acted sensibly in place of the stupid decision made to exclude her.

Also laughably, the court suggested that the proper route would’ve been for Maguire to protest her exclusion by the Interior Ministry before attempting to enter Israel.  Why should she honor an unjust and corrupt system by engaging in such a charade?  Everyone knows she would be denied, and once denied and after appealing her denial, she would still be rejected; and if she THEN attempted to enter Israel the court would STILL have ruled against her finding a different ground on which to do so.  Once again, I make the point that even Israeli highest court is loathe to second guess security decisions even those having no rhyme, reason or justification in democratic values or common sense.  It is, as Israel’s media have also pointed out, a rubber stamp for the security apparatus.

‘Rachel’ Excluded from Seattle Jewish Film Festival

Sunday, February 14th, 2010


Last year, the San Francisco Film Festival bravely programmed the film Rachel, about the life and death of Olympia-raised pro-Palestine peace activist, Rachel Corrie.  As a result of the screening, the director of the Koret Foundation slammed both the film and the festival for supporting “anti-Israel propaganda.”  To its credit, the Festival didn’t cancel the film and didn’t back down in any substantive way.

The upcoming Seattle Jewish Film Festival has no such courage of its convictions.  The director took one look at the first image on screen and said: “No way:”

Beyond her hopes that Seattle’s festival will bring local Jews together rather than divide, Lavitt said she rejected Rachel first and foremost on quality, which she said was too incendiary and unwilling to see more than one side of the story. Unlike the stage play My Name is Rachel Corrie, in which Corrie’s character opens with her head under a sheet and shining a flashlight on her journal, “this film…begins with the body of Rachel Corrie in a morgue,” Lavitt said. “No dialogue could get your head past that.”

Notice the director says she rejected the film because of its poor quality and then quickly adds it was “too incendiary.”  Of the two, I think we know what the real reason for rejection was.  And apparently you can’t exhibit any film at the Seattle festival that includes images of a dead American girl killed by the IDF.

To view an interview with filmmaker Simone Bitton, watch this YouTube video.

Another film you won’t see this year in Seattle is American Radical: the Trials of Norman Finkelstein.  If you thought Rachel Corrie was too “incendiary,” Norman Finkelstein is downright inflammatory.  And Seattle doesn’t do controversy apparently.  The motto seems to be: don’t rock the boat.  Now here I always thought the purpose of great film and art was to provoke, to question, to trouble, to make you think about the big questions of Jewish identity.  In Seattle, there’s a six foot fence around these issues.

There is one excellent Israeli film the festival is featuring, Ajami, which is an unusual film in that it portrays the seamier side of Israeli life and the poor Tel Aviv-Jaffo neighborhood of Ajami.  Of course, it hasn’t hurt the film that it swept all major Israeli film awards and has been nominated for an Oscar. Clearly, liberal Zionists in Seattle feel comfortable with a film that Israel and the outside world has embraced even if it does deal with troubling notions of what it is to be an Israeli Palestinian in one of Israel’s poorest neigborhoods. But when it comes to discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you can forget about it. As far as the Seattle festival is concerned, the 2007 Gaza war never happened. BDS doesn’t exist and the Goldstone Report never happened. Let’s see if Ms. Lavitt is willing to program documentaries about these difficult issues in future festivals.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Koret Foundation Flays San Francisco Jewish Film Festival Over Corrie Documentary

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009

rachel poster
In yet another incident in which the wealthy, powerful, tired old American Jewish leadership tries to tell the rest of us what’s good and bad for us and Israel, the Koret Foundation has excoriated the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival for screening an Israeli documentary about the life and death of Rachel Corrie.  Even worse than screening the film, for the pro-Israel foundation which funds many Jewish projects and organizations in the Bay Area and beyond, was an invitation to Corrie’s mother, Cindy, to attend and answer audience questions.  But before we delve into the controversy, let’s learn a bit about the film:

…In 2003, Rachel Corrie, a 22-year-old peace activist from the Pacific Northwest, attempted to stop a bulldozer operated by the Israeli military from demolishing homes and other buildings in Gaza. Corrie was struck and killed in what some witnesses claimed was a deliberate action, but what an Israeli inquiry ruled was a tragic accident.

Simone Bitton (Wall, SFJFF 2005), a veteran documentary filmmaker who is a citizen of both France and Israel, has crafted a dispassionate but devastating essay investigating the circumstances of Rachel Corrie’s death—including astounding eyewitness testimony from activists, soldiers, army spokespersons and physicians, as well as insights from Corrie’s parents, mentors and diaries. In assembling a thorough and candid account of the event, using both visual and narrative evidence, Bitton’s quietly persistent questioning manages to accomplish what the inadequate legal proceedings and the overheated press coverage did not: an unflinching examination that refuses to exculpate or equivocate.

But Bitton’s nonfiction essay is hardly a bloodless tract—in fact, even as it raises troubling questions about the Israeli military’s candor, it also manages to paint a complex portrait of a young, perhaps naive, idealist and the high price some pay in the name of committed activism.

Defacing the memory of Rachel Corrie (image from Rachel)

Defacing the memory of Rachel Corrie (image from "Rachel")

So what we have here is a balanced, dispassionate film by an Israeli filmmaker which investigates the death of a highly controversial figure.  This might cause some debate among audience members or within the community.  But the level of vitriol that Koret has managed to elicit is astounding.

Besides inviting Corrie’s mother, the other reason Koret has a bee in its bonnet is that SFJFF invited two local organizations to co-sponsor the film, Jewish Voice for Peace and American Friends Service Committee.  While AFSC has always been viewed with great distrust by the hard-right pro-Israel community, Jewish Voice for Peace is, as its name implies, a JEWISH group that is neither pro nor anti-Zionist (a concept very difficult for the pro-Israel Koret types to wrap their minds around).  While it’s true that JVP is often reviled in these circles, often the revulsion is based on complete ignorance of the group’s real positions.

Now, it’s appropriate to examine Koret’s hysterical attack on the screening and those who orchestrated it.  I quote the statement in full because the rhetoric is quite instructive:

As staunch champions and allies of Israel, the Koret and Taube Foundations do not support any organization that promotes or provokes anti-Israel sentiment; nor do we provide funding to any organization whose mission runs counter to our position. While we have made no decision regarding future funding of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, we take issue in particular with three egregious errors in its upcoming presentation of the film, “Rachel”:

* It is partnering with Jewish Voice for Peace and the American Friends Service Committee, two virulently anti-Israel, anti-Semitic groups that support boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. Both are closely associated with the International Solidarity Movement and other groups that aid and abet terror against the Jewish State. These groups cross the line for inclusion in the Jewish community.

* The film festival made a conscious choice to present a film that lays blame for the accidental death of a civilian at the door of the State of Israel. We are deeply saddened by loss of life, most notably the countless Israeli lives lost and interrupted by virtue of service to their country. Presenting the story of a girl who put herself in harm’s way in no way advances our community dialogue. In fact, it threatens our community purposes.

* Finally, we are appalled at the film festival’s decision to invite Cindy Corrie into our community. This bereaved mother cannot help but have a negative bias toward Israel. Why would a Jewish organization hand her a microphone and a soapbox from which to condemn Israel as Jewish audiences are expected to sit and listen politely? There is no possible counterbalance to a grieving mother.

Those who cavalierly fling Israel’s future into the grasp of those who would destroy it betray a mainstay of the mainstream Jewish community to support Israel and to counteract anti-Israel propaganda events, speakers and organizations. In this case, the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival has aligned itself with the wrong side.

The Koret statement is not only hysterical, as I noted, but it is full of outright lies as much rightist pro-Israel propaganda is.  First, JVP is neither anti-Semitic, nor “virulently anti-Israel.”  In fact, together with J Street, it is one of the most effective Jewish peace groups out there.  I do not support groups that are either anti-Semitic or anti-Israel and wouldn’t support JVP if it was.  In fact, I’d make a pretty strong argument that JVP is pro-Israel, though not in the flag-waving sense that Koret demands in order to achieve that status.

JVP is neither “closely” associated with the International Solidarity Movement, nor associated with it at all.  This too is a flat out lie.  And as for its association with “other groups that aid and abet terror against the Jewish state,” this is such an empty charge as to be unworthy of address.  I would point out though that Koret doesn’t even name any of the other groups so you can’t very well even refute the calumny.

Interesting that Koret finds JVP a group that “crosses the line for inclusion in the Jewish community.”  So in effect, the Foundation has excommunicated the Jewish peace group.  Aren’t you glad that we Jews stopped doing that after the Dutch Jews put Baruch Spinoza in herem?  Unfortunately, no one’s told Ted Taube, director of the Foundation that fact.

The Foundation is so frightened of the impact of telling Corrie’s story through the Festival that it claims it will “threaten our community purposes.”  What is astonishing about this is that an award-winning Israeli documentarian has decided that Corrie’s story is worth making a film about; yet an American Jewish organization believes the same project will damage the community.  Does Koret have such a fragile sense of the strength of the American Jewish community that hearing Rachel Corrie’s story threatens us in some profound way?  What does this say about Koret’s view of Jewish identity?

Also mind-boggling is the objection to hearing Cindy Corrie speak about her daughter.  Somehow hearing Ms. Corrie’s maternal suffering will damage Israel again in some fundamental way.  The very notion is preposterous.  Audience members are intelligent enough to absorb Corrie’s views and integrate them with their own.  Cindy Corrie isn’t going to poison anyone and turn them away from Israel forever over her remarks.  In fact, if you want to be a true supporter of Israel you should be willing to listen to all reasonable critical perspectives including hers.

I also strongly take issue with this rather opaque statement demanding absolute loyalty in order to be a member in good-standing of the Jewish community (“a mainstay of the mainstream Jewish community [is] to support Israel and to counteract anti-Israel propaganda events”).  Is it the purpose of the mainstream community to counteract anti-Israel propaganda?  Perhaps it is a mainstay of Aipac, the Israel Project, ZOA, or other Israel lobby groups.  But is this the sine qua non of what it means to participate in our community?  I think not.  I’d rather that the main quality of being a member of the Jewish community is being a thinking Jew, of caring about the issues that affect Jewish life and identity, of grappling with the problems facing us.  But no, our job as good Jews is not to fight the good fight for Israel–at least not in the sense that Taube defines it.

To be fair, Koret is a funder which does great good in the Jewish community.  The programs it supports reflect a generally progressive view of Jewish life and culture.  But the problem is Israel.  Koret is an exemplar of PEI (progressive except Israel).  And they suffer this affliction to an even greater degree than many other American Jews.  If you examine its giving to Israel-centered groups, it focuses on such right-wing groups as the Likudist Shalem Center ($100k), Jewish National Fund ($100k), and the hasbaraist MEMRI ($200k).  They funded Commentary Magazine ($450k), the Reaganite Hoover Institution ($1.7-million), and the local Chabad network ($160k).

H/t to Michael Levin.

9th Circuit Hears Arguments on Corrie Family Suit Against Caterpillar

Sunday, July 15th, 2007
Rachel Corrie murdered by IDF bulldozerRachel Corrie sometime before, and after being killed by IDF bulldozer (photo: ISM/AP)

On July 9th, three justices of the 9th circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from lawyers representing Rachel Corrie’s family and Caterpillar about the former’s lawsuit over their daughter’s 2003 death under the treads of an IDF operated bulldozer:

The family of a woman killed trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in 2003 asked a federal appeals court panel to reinstate its lawsuit against Caterpillar Inc., saying the company knew bulldozers it sold to the Israeli government were being used to commit human rights violations.

“Caterpillar sold this product knowing — or it should have known — it would cause exactly this harm,” one of the family’s lawyers, Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky told the three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday.

A Tacoma federal judge had thrown out the case:

A U.S. District Court judge in Tacoma dismissed the lawsuit in 2005, agreeing with the company’s argument that it wasn’t responsible for how the Israeli army used its product.

Hey, I’m not an attorney, but I’d think product liability should apply in this case. If a product is being used to commit an act of violence (destroying a home) that COULD ALSO, and HAS killed people in the process–wouldn’t you think that the company would be liable for the way its product was used? Wouldn’t you think the company should at least be required to create guidelines or conditions under which the IDF would use its product so as to minimize possible injury or death??
I suppose it’s possible my theory of the case doesn’t work since the family’s lawyers have pursued a different legal tack:

Her parents, Cindy and Craig Corrie, sued Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar, which manufactured the bulldozer, seeking to hold the company civilly liable for aiding and abetting human rights violations — the destruction of civilian homes.

Unlike the courts in countries like Belgium and Spain, U.S. courts have been notoriously inhospitable to tort claims based on human rights violations. I’m hoping that this will change both with this case and others against multinational corporations accused of causing the deaths of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals.

I’m delighted that a human rights attorney as distinguished as Erwin Chemerinsky has taken on the case representing the Corries. He argued against the dismissal in the 9th circuit hearing:

Chemerinsky insisted that the [Tacoma] judge applied the wrong legal standard, and that as long as the company knew how the bulldozers were being used, it can be held liable under common law dating back centuries.

The arguments advanced by Caterpillar attorneys are predictable, though quite interesting in one respect:

But lawyers for Caterpillar and the U.S. Justice Department, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Caterpillar’s behalf, argued that letting the case proceed would require U.S. courts to improperly intervene in political issues reserved for the president and Congress. It would also require American judges to pass judgment on Israel’s practice of demolishing Palestinian homes — “you can’t aid and abet a legal activity,” Caterpillar attorney Robert Abrams told the judges.

It is quite provocative to claim that home demolition is legal under Israeli law. Of course, under international law home demolitions are a clear-cut violation. But I’d like to see Israeli legal code that would justify home demolitions.

Human rights groups note that the majority of cases the IDF claims a home was constructed without a building permit. Of course, it is impossible to get a building permit from the Israeli authorities so virtually every home built in the past 40 years or so is illegal. And one wonders whether illegal building by Israelis is pursued with the same zeal??

A Human Rights Watch report also questions the underlying rationale for such demolitions:

Based on extensive research in Rafah, Israel, and Egypt, it [the report] places many of the IDF’s justifications for the destruction, including smugglers’ tunnels and threats to its forces on the border, in serious doubt. The pattern of destruction, it concludes, is consistent with the goal of having a wide and empty border area to facilitate long-term control over the Gaza Strip. Such a goal would entail the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods, regardless of whether the homes in them pose a specific threat to the IDF, and would greatly exceed the IDF’s security needs. It is based on the assumption that every Palestinian is a potential suicide bomber and every home a potential base for attack. Such a mindset is incompatible with two of the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian law (IHL): the duty to distinguish combatants from civilians and the responsibility of an Occupying Power to protect the civilian population under its control.

I also found this colloquy instructive:

Judge Michael Hawkins asked Justice Department lawyer Robert Loeb to consider the hypothetical case of a U.S. oven manufacturer during World War II: If the company continued selling ovens to Germany, knowing they were being used to kill Jews, would there be legal grounds to go after the company?

Yes, Loeb replied — treason, for starters.

But Israel is a U.S. ally, and “a U.S. court would have to opine on what really happened in Gaza and the West Bank,” Loeb said. “This is a prime example of where the court should decline to extend its common-law jurisdiction. … The financing and the sale of this equipment have been approved by the United States. (The plaintiffs) want to have a court second-guess the judgment of the government.”

This is of course a provocative question which overstates the relevance of the Holocaust to this case. But it is nonetheless suggestive that if it would be illegal for a U.S. corporation to participate in a project that killed Jews, why would it be much different for a company to allow its products to be used to destroy the homes and livelihoods of Palestinian civilians? I’m not arguing as some might that those who participate in the Occupation are engaging in genocide, an argument I find a stretch.

Isn’t it interesting that Caterpillar’s attorney finds it legally problematic for a U.S. court to “opine” on the Occupation when the U.S. government has already made quite clear that it opposes the settlement policy which is one of the pillars of the Occupation. The U.S.’ avowed policies oppose, in large part, the Occupation. So why would it be problematic for a judge to rule in accordance with announced government policy opposing Israeli home demolitions?

Chemerinsky and another Corrie attorney, Gwynne Skinner of the International Human Rights Clinic at Seattle University School of Law, …wondered aloud how the U.S. could finance Israel’s acquisition of bulldozers while simultaneously decrying the demolition of civilian homes in the occupied territories.

Let’s hope the judges see the logic of this summary of the plaintiff’s claims:

“This is a case about direct commercial sales,” Chemerinsky said. “It’s about holding corporations liable when they aid and abet violations of human rights.”

The national media have as usual failed the test in ignoring this story. Happy to say my local Seattle papers have covered it along with the AP. Even Fox News covered it though only in order to make fun of the case.

For further resources on this subject, check out:

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
Center for Constitutional Rights summary of case
Corrie family statement
Rabbis for Human Rights housing rights initiative

Joel Beinin Disinvited from School Speaking Engagement After Silicon Valley JCRC Protests

Monday, February 5th, 2007

It is hot and heavy these days what with the counterattacks by the organized Jewish community’s Israel protectorate against dovish Jews. We’ve covered here a number of these stories. Now, here’s a new one (actually not ‘new’ but new to this blog). Cecilie Surasky of JVP told me recently that Joel Beinin, Stanford University professor and Mideast peace activist, had had an invitation to speak at the private Harker School in San Jose rescinded at the last minute by the School’s headmaster.
The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora
I contacted Joel to ask him what happened and he advised me he was writing an Op Ed piece about the incident. Now, Cecilie informs me via Muzzlewatch it’s been published in the San Francisco Chronicle, Silencing critics not way to Middle East peace:

Last Sunday in San Francisco, the Anti-Defamation League sponsored “Finding Our Voice,” a conference designed to help Jews recognize and confront the “new anti-Semitism.” For me, it was ironic. Ten days before, my own voice was silenced by fellow Jews.

I was to give a talk about our Middle East policy to high school students at the Harker School in San Jose. With one day to go, my contact there called to say my appearance had been canceled. He was apologetic and upset. He expected the talk would be intellectually stimulating and intriguing for students. But, he said, “a certain community of parents” complained to the headmaster. He added, without divulging details, that the Jewish Community Relations Council of Silicon Valley had played a role.

It is instructive to read the “explanation” provided by the JCRC of its actions:

[Editor's note: Diane Fisher, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Silicon Valley, says that although she left a message for the school principal, she never actually spoke to him, and any suggestion that the council was responsible for the cancellation of Beinin's appearance at the school is inaccurate and an "unlikely inflation of JCRC's influence."]

If you’ll recall the ADL’s involvement in getting Tony Judt’s invitation to speak at the Polish consulate cancelled recently, Abe Foxman and David Harris used almost precisely the same language in attempting to mitigate their role. We didn’t tell them to cancel Judt. We merely explained to them that it wouldn’t look good for the government of Poland, given its history, to host a speaker inimical to Israel and Jewish interests.

So Fisher’s denial of playing a major role in this incident is disingenuous. Besides, one must ask whether other JCRC community volunteers or Harker parents with some connection to the JCRC played an even more direct role.

Harker’s headmaster used code to explain his decision to cancel the event:

And the Harker School in San Jose recently canceled a talk by a Palestinian supporter after a few students and parents complained that a different lecturer already aired that viewpoint in the fall:

We’re slowly learning how sensitive this really is,” said Christopher Nikoloff, head of school at Harker.

These are almost precisely the same words used by James Nicola of the NY Theater Workshop in explaining why he was delaying the production of My Name is Rachel Corrie scheduled for his theater. He believed you couldn’t put on the play in the hypercharged political atmosphere in New York City without first “contextualizing” (whatever that means) the entire issue and preparing the Jewish community for the controversy that would undoubtedly ensue.

Over and over, we read of otherwise progressive individuals intimidated by the firestorm of opposition coming from groups like the JCRC. Silencing of respected academics like Joel Beinin is shameful. We in the Jewish community only do ourselves a disservice when we reveal we’re afraid of letting the world hear about ideas that diverge from the so-called communal consensus around Israel.

If you look on the JCRC’s own website you will see that it sponsors events that have a hard-right Israeli nationalist perspective. You will never see this community sponsor a talk by Israeli doves like Yossi Beilin, Yossi Sarid or Amir Peretz. I doubt you’ll ever hear Peace Now’s perspective represented at any event of theirs. You will hear Ehud Olmert’s press spokesperson. You will hear Palestinian ‘Zionist,’ Noni Darwish. This JCRC (not all local JCRC’s are so rigid) seems to take a hardened ideological perspective on matters related to Israel. So when Fisher claims her group’s influence is being exagerrrated, don’t you believe it.

When will groups like the JCRC, AIPAC, ADL and AJCongress and Committee realize that shutting Jewish dissenting voices out of the debate makes them look like the Israel hegemonists that they really are. No one likes someone who claims to speak for all Jews when it’s clear they don’t. You lose crediblity when you overstate your case or overreach in the way the JCRC did in this case.

After Cancellation, ‘My Name is Rachel Corrie’ Finally Comes to New York Stage

Friday, June 23rd, 2006
rachel corrieRachel Corrie (photo: Rachelswords.org)

A few months ago we covered the shameful episode in which the New York Theater Workshop, which had contracted to produce the New York debut of My Name is Rachel Corrie suddenly got cold feet and cancelled the production. For those who don’t know, Rachel Corrie was an Olympia, WA native who travelled to the Occupied Territories with the International Solidarity Movement to help Palestinians as they faced the Israeli Occupation. She was murdered by an IDF bulldozer as she tried to prevent the demolition of a Gaza home. The one-woman show utilizes her journal, letters and e mail messages home to weave a portrait of a principled, conflicted and passionate woman who tried to make one part of the world a little better for its inhabitants.

NY Theater Workshop’s excuse for backing out was that after consulting unidentified Jewish people and board members they suddenly realized just how damn controversial the play would be for the Jewish community. They wanted to postpone till next season so they could do more to educate the public and “contextualize” the play before mounting it.
my name is rachel corrie logo
Alan Rickman and Katharine Viner, co-authors of the hit London play wouldn’t have any of it and yanked the play from NY Theater Workshop.

I’m pleased to report that (from the NY Times) My Name is Rachel Corrie will come to the Minetta Lane Theater in Greenwich Village this fall:

Pam Pariseau and Dena Hammerstein, partners in James Hammerstein Productions, are bringing the play, critically acclaimed in London, to the Minetta Lane Theater in Greenwich Village. Previews are to begin on Oct. 5, with an opening scheduled for Oct. 15. The play is to run for 48 performances, closing on Nov. 19.

Unlike James Nicola, who so undervalued the play, the new producers understand the value of the property that’s been entrusted to them:

“We both saw the play and both responded to it very strongly,” Ms. Hammerstein said in a telephone interview yesterday. “We identified with the material in terms of being mothers and were struck by the production and the theatricality.”

…After reading the play, Ms. Hammerstein and Mr. Pariseau, associate producers of the current London production of “Sunday in the Park With George,” attended a performance at the Playhouse in mid-April.

“We went out to dinner afterwards with a whole bunch of friends, and we talked about it for two hours,” Ms. Pariseau said. “We responded to that and thought, ‘God, it would be so amazing to present that Off Broadway so that New York theatergoers would have that same experience.’ “

Isn’t it interesting to note the difference between Nicola’s timorous response to the potentially controversial material and Ms. Hammerstein’s:

Neither Ms. Hammerstein nor Ms. Pariseau said they were concerned about inviting any kind of firestorm.

“On reading it, our initial thoughts were about the play and about her writing, and not about any of the controversy,” Ms. Pariseau said. “Our hope is that people will form an opinion based on that, as opposed to all the other stuff surrounding it.”

Of course, they must realize that there will be some controversy and perhaps a lot. It depends on how high a horse the hardline pro-Israel community in New York wishes to ride. It could get ugly. But I’m hoping that Pariseau is right and the play is seen for its artistic merits rather than for the controversy it’s generated.

The NY Theater Workshop managed to continue to make itself look bad with this self-serving public statement:

“Although the Royal Court and its collaborators have decided to produce ‘My Name Is Rachel Corrie’ commercially, the New York Theater Workshop is pleased to learn that New York audiences will have an opportunity to see this powerful play,” Richard Kornberg, a spokesman for the workshop, said yesterday. “We’re especially pleased that Dena Hammerstein is the producer because she produced in London one of the workshop’s biggest hits, ‘Dirty Blonde.’ “

The statement is riddled with hypocrisy. They make it seem as if Rickman had chosen to mount a ‘commercial’ (Minetta Lane), rather than non-profit (NY Theater Workshop) production as if to explain why he’d decided not to use the latter’s services. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Interesting that now they feel the play is “powerful,” but not powerful enough to have the courage to produce it themselves when they promised to. And finally, they have to get in the fact that they’ve worked successfully previously with Hammerstein as if to show that NY theater is just one big happy family. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

I’m sure that there will be differences between Rachel Corrie’s view of the Israelis and Palestinians and my own. I’m certain that we differed on some issues and that I might find some of her views extreme. But I value them nevertheless and want as many people as possible to hear them.

I’m also delighted to report that Rachel Corrie will be coming here to Seattle Repertory Theater from March 15-April 22, 2007.

NY Theater Workshop Still Digging Itself Out of ‘My Name is Rachel Corrie’ Hole

Friday, March 17th, 2006

Today is the third anniversary of the murder of Rachel Corrie, the pro-Palestinian activist run over by an IDF bulldozer during an attempted Palestinian home demolition. So James Nicola of the Theater Workshop picked an odd date to make yet another feeble attempt in the NY Times to explain to the world why he reneged on his commitment to produce My Name is Rachel Corrie this month:

James nicola and lynn moffatJames Nicola & Lynn Moffat: what they didn’t know was ‘too great a burden’ for them (photo: Ruth Fremson/NYT)

In an interview this week James C. Nicola, the workshop’s artistic director, and Lynn Moffat, its managing director, insisted that they wanted only to postpone, not cancel, the show — despite declarations by the authors and the Royal Court Theater, the London troupe that initially produced the award-winning play, that the workshop pulled the plug on a done deal.

I find several things distressing about Nicola’s behavior in this matter. First, he agreed to produce a play about a very controversial subject, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet he seemed utterly unprepared to deal with that subject matter in producing the play. When you’re talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of course you need background, discussion and research in order to carefully frame the discussion. But Nicola, in his protestations makes it seem like the process needed to be a slow, painstaking one before the New York theater community would be “ready” to see such a play. This is ridiculous. I’ve been studying and living this conflict since 1967. Sure it’s complicated. Sure it’s emotional. Sure it treads on difficult terrain. But what subject important to the human race doesn’t? There ARE ways to present such a play to a potentially polarized audience without having riots in the aisles or streets. The fact that Nicola couldn’t seem to envision a way to do this speaks volumes to his inadequacy as a producer of a play about this conflict.

The other disturbing element of his defense is that he won’t tell us who he consulted with about the play, nor will he tell us what they told him. He won’t tell us precisely why these consultations convinced him that he needed to delay the production. Until he is more candid and forthcoming he can have no credibility on this subject. This is what he IS willing to say about this:

Neither Mr. Nicola nor Ms. Moffat…would say exactly who they spoke to before they decided to delay the show. Mr. Nicola originally said that he had spoken to “religious leaders” in making his decision; this week he said that the workshop did a “wide reaching out into the complexity of the community of New York” that included reading Palestinian views on Web sites. Mr. Nicola did say he had had a conversation with one board member who said that his rabbi had concerns about the play. An old friend, who is Jewish, also questioned the play’s message.

Ms. Moffat said that she and Mr. Nicola — who are not Jewish — took advice from members of their in-house artistic staff, as well as “colleagues and colleagues of colleagues.”

He based on his decision on a board member’s rabbi who didn’t like it?? And an “old friend” who “questioned the play’s message?” Wow, that’s a really scientific and compelling survey of opinion on which to base such a decision, now isn’t it? If I consulted someone’s rabbi and an old friend about every post I write here about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I’d never write a damn thing. No wonder Nicola pulled the plug on the show.

How about some more cluelessness:

…how the workshop, an artistically bold and popular company, found itself in such an embarrassing public jam still baffles Mr. Nicola and Ms. Moffat…

If the response to what they did baffles them it only serves to prove their absolute inadequacy as producers of plays about politically-charged material.

I found this passage in the NY Times article especially ironic:

Mr. Nicola said that he read the play in December and was impressed.

“I read what I think the authors intended for me to read, which was that this life, in her own words, was an example to Americans, who are in some fog of avoidance right now,” Mr. Nicola said, adding, “I thought that this, in the voice of this young, pure, innocent woman, was a very powerful thing to say right now.

Apparently not, if he decided to abandon the play as he did. Or was it just too powerful for his theater to handle??

More cluelessness:

Meanwhile in January, the political situation in the Middle East intensified after a stroke suffered by the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, and electoral victories by Hamas, the militant Palestinian group. At the same time, Mr. Nicola said his company’s dramaturge raised some red flags about the symbolism of Ms. Corrie’s tale.

Said Ms. Moffat, “As we went deeper and deeper into it, we discovered what we didn’t know was getting to be too great a burden.”

I’d rephrase this: when they got deeper into it they discovered they were ignorant and clueless. As I’ve already written here before, it is absolutely pathetic to say that Ariel Sharon’s stroke or even the Hamas electoral victory prevents you from mounting this play. When is there not an incendiary incident happening in the Mideast? If you allow such events to immobilize you you will never take a position on anything.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE