Play about Rachel Corrie shut down /NYTheater Neo-Cons? (The Nation)

[KoKo]

(Mods...please move this to I/P Forum if you feel it's too controversial for GD Forum)


Too Hot to Handle

Philip Weiss/The Nation

-SNIP-
Questions about pressure from Jewish leaders morph quickly into questions about funding. Ellen Stewart, the legendary director of the theatrical group La MaMa E.T.C., which is across East 4th Street from the Workshop, speculates that the trouble began with its "very affluent" board. Rachel's father, Craig Corrie, echoes her. "Do an investigation, follow the money." I called six board members and got no response. (About a third appear to be Jewish, as am I.) This is of course a charged issue. The writer Alisa Solomon, who was appalled by the postponement, nonetheless warns, "There's something a little too familiar about the image of Jews pulling the puppet strings behind the scenes."



Perhaps. But Nicola's statement about a back channel to Jewish leaders suggests the presence of a cultural lobby that parallels the vaunted pro-Israel lobby in think tanks and Congress. I doubt we will find out whether the Workshop's decision was "internally generated," as Kushner contends, or more orchestrated, as I suspect. What the episode has demonstrated is a climate of fear. Not of physical harm, but of loss of opportunities. "The silence results from fear and intimidation," says Cindy Corrie. "I don't see what else. And it harms not only Palestinians. I believe, from the bottom of my heart, it harms Israelis and it harms us."

Kushner agrees. Having spent five months defending Munich, he says the fear has two sources: "There is a very, very highly organized attack machinery that will come after you if you express any kind of dissent about Israel's policies, and it's a very unpleasant experience to be in the cross hairs. These aren't hayseeds from Kansas screaming about gays burning in hell; they're newspaper columnists who are taken seriously." These attackers impose a kind of literacy test: Before you can cast a moral vote on Palestinian rights, you must be able to recite a million wonky facts, such as what percentage of the territories were outside the Green Line in 1949. Then there is the self-generated fear of lending support to anti-Semites or those who would destroy Israel. All in all, says Kushner, it can leave someone "overwhelmed and in despair--you feel like you should just say nothing."

Who will tell Americans the Middle East story? For generations that story has been one of Israelis as victims, and it has been crucial to Israeli policy inasmuch as Israel has been able to defy its neighbors' opinions by relying on a highly sympathetic superpower. Israel's supporters have always feared that if Americans started to conduct the same frank discussion of issues that takes place in Tel Aviv, we might become more evenhanded in our approach to the Middle East. That pressure is what has stifled a play that portrays the Palestinians as victims (and thrown a blanket over a movie, Munich, that portrays both sides as victims). I've never written this sort of thing before. How moving that we have been granted that freedom by a 23-year-old woman with literary gifts who was not given time to unpack them.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060403/weiss/5

[madrchsod]

1. 5-4-3-2-1-----

she never existed....

[Jim Sagle]

2. Rachel who?

:boring:

[bloom]

3. you wish n/t

[TomClash]

5. Snoring right through the sermon on the mount nt

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tatertop]

17. Tom, you forget to say 'Raaaaaaaaaaaawks' in your post

Intelligent discourse requires it.
Please edit. :)

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KoKo]

4. A New McCarthy Era...when an article in the"Nation"...has to be

moved to the back room...

Did some of you here, who fight against Anti-Semitism even think about this?

Free speech is not important if it happens to gore your own ox? Sounds hypocritical to me. Just like the Right Wing Religious Christian Fundies who crusade to promote intolerance. Where's the difference?

:shrug:

[meti57b]

7. It needs to be widely publicized that .....

standing in front of a piece of heavy equipment like a D-9, where the operator cannot see you, is really really STUPID!!!

[Englander]

8. Drop the hate. n/t

[meti57b]

10. I agree, everyone should "drop the hate" and realize that ......

it was an extremely unwise action on her part. I would advise against anyone getting close to heavy equipment that is in operation.

In my work, we have safety guidelines and training. We require attendance at safety meetings every workday morning on construction sites to discuss these guidelines... and still there are occasional accidents. To intentionally get in front of this type of equipment is just plain stupid. Or, perhaps the organization she was with, did not provide training?

[Englander]

12. The second part of yer post contradicts the 1st part.

I don't know if you realised that, the subject heading is negated by the sentiments
that follow, the suggestion in the subject heading isn't heeded, it wasn't clear that
you've understood what you claim to support....

[meti57b]

18. Since you find it confusing, .... let me clear it up for you ......

I highly advise and recommend that you not get close to heavy equipment that is in operation.

That is a lot like saying .... don't get out in front of moving traffic and don't let your kids play in the street. It's really sort of common sense stuff.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Nothing like blaming the victim, is there?

That form of logic leads to saying that members of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society who chained themselves to trees about to be bulldozed would have only had themselves to blame if they'd been killed. Can't you see what's wrong with thinking like that? Don't you think there's some obligation on the part of those who operate heavy machinery to be careful and to always be aware that there are people around them??

Violet...

[meti57b]

40. Sometimes the victim is to blame for what happens to them.

That should be obvious without my citing other examples.

I will grant you, the IDF should have kept the protesters entirely out of the area they were working in. But if they didn't, the protesters should still have not done something really stupid like getting in front of a D9.

As stated, "And there is no reason to doubt the word of the IDF commander who said the risk of Palestinian sniper fire was appreciable at the time he ordered his spotters to stay inside armored vehicles.", ....the protesters should have stayed clear of the area.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. I'll cite another example for you...

The settler woman and her children who were killed in Gaza. I didn't realise up till now that we should really be blaming her for her own death coz that's what she gets when she goes into a war-zone and not only recklessly put her own life in danger, but those of her children. Or does the blaming the victim routine only apply to those who aren't deemed to be supporters of Israel?

I read that bit you copied, and while I still think it was an accident, it shows the blatant disregard for human life that the IDF is famed for. And I hope you noticed that there was no sniper fire reported, but a mere *risk*, which is an excuse that could be pulled out for any situation...

I find the blaming the victim routine totally disgusting and no amount of attempted justification can make it less stinky a stance than it is...

Violet...

[pelsar]

48. mere "risk" of sniper fire....

WOW!!!...guess that means a soldiers should have been walking around huh!....perhaps for some who have never been in an area where there is a "mere risk" of sniper filre...a little eduation is in order?

it means the sniper (s) are alive an active and will shoot sometime when there is an opportune target.....and no one wants to be that target...therefore nobody goes out and gets exposed...

mere "risk"......hardly an excuse for those who actually understand it

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Here's a good article from Bradley Burston you should read...

He talks about how intentional deaths are no less tragic than unintentional ones, and he in no way tries to blame Rachel Corrie for her own death...

Incidental death. It's what we've learned to live with, the price of our security. We know we can't root it out altogether. But we have to look at it differently, honestly in order to limit it as best we can.

Part of it starts with us. "They had no business being there" is no excuse for what the Pentagon long ago christened collateral damage.

We've learned much. But we're still not there. We should have saved Rachel Corrie's life that day, either by sending out a spotter or delaying the bulldozer's work. Right now, somewhere in the West Bank, there's an eight-year-old whose life could be saved next week, if we've managed to learn the lesson and are resourceful enough to know how to apply it.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=695210&contrassID=2

[pelsar]

33. you forgot a part of the article....

And there is no reason to doubt the word of the IDF commander who said the risk of Palestinian sniper fire was appreciable at the time he ordered his spotters to stay inside armored vehicles.
______________________________

which is why there was no spotter...

[Violet_Crumble]

34. No I didn't...

There's copyright limits on the articles and I posted the section that struck me as being relevent to what I was seeing in this thread. I make the assumption that people have the intelligence and interest to click on the link and read the entire thing....

Violet...

[pelsar]

36. the relevant part?

where it says there was no spotter because of snipers....you seem to think thats "irrelvant"?

[Violet_Crumble]

39. The part that was relevent to what I saw in the thread?

I've already posted it, pelsar. And it should be blatantly obvious from some of the comments in this thread why I thought it was relevant. If you can't see it, I can explain it to you...

I'm not sure why yr insisting that I should have posted some small snippet of the article that *you* think is relevant. If you see something you think is relevant, you can post it yrself instead of insisting that I should have done it...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

37. It is a good article.

"A turning point of sorts came in July, 2002, when a one-ton bomb dropped from an air force warplane turned a Gaza City residential block into a crater, killing senior Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh, but also causing the deaths of 13 other people. The shock wave of the attack was such that more than two dozen reserve pilots would later sign a letter of refusal, and the army as a whole undertook a "re-examination of the doctrine of overwhelming force."

When I see this sentiment from Palestinians, which results in "re-examination of the doctrine of overwhelming force." Then, I will believe that the PA is willing to create the nation of Palestine.

[Tom Joad]

35. Common sense & compassion compels people to take risks sometimes

Rachel knew she was taking a risk by standing in front of the military machine threatening the home of her friends, but she probably felt she had no choice. This was a great evil being done in front of her eyes and she could not just turn away, not just write a letter to her congressman, she had to take action.

There is little doubt, among eyewitnesses, that the Bulldozer driver did indeed see her, and he chose to do what Rachel thought he would not do... disregard the life of non-Palestinian. Rachel was well aware that in the eyes of the Israeli military that the Palestinian lives are of no account. Basically, Gaza, especially Rafah, was a free-fire zone. She did have a reflective vest, and she did have the bullhorn and there was no doubt the bulldozer driver saw her. He did know that internationals were there to stop his task.

Rachel was wrong in not understanding that the desire to "complete the mission" would be paramount, even in taking the life of an international standing in the way, even risking international rebuke and embarrassment. That the hatred of Palestinians would spill over unto all who those who took an interest in Palestinian lives, and not confined only to the Palestinians themselves. The Corrie Family understands this. The Tom Hurndall family knows this, the James Miller family knows this. Palestinians now know that even the lives of their international friends are of no importance to Israeli military machine.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. Common sense?

No. I don't think 'common sense' prevailed that day. Instead of standing in front of the BULLDOZER, why not approach the driver? There was debris already in the way, which would have slowed the process.

You say, "There is little doubt, among eyewitnesses, that the Bulldozer driver did indeed see her, and he chose to do what Rachel thought he would not do... disregard the life of non-Palestinian." There is "little doubt," which means 'doubt' still exists. Were all of these eyewitnesses clairvoyant? Were they all empaths? How did they "know" what the driver saw? How did they "know" what the driver felt? So she had a "reflective vest?" Does that somehow change the 'line of sight' for the driver? So she had a bullhorn, does that change the decibel level of the machine?

She was wrong in thinking that she could stop a machine with her body. I seriously doubt, IMO, the driver stopped, even for a millisecond and thought, "Gee, how will this look in the international scene?" She sacrificed her body and life for a PIECE OF TIMBER (LAND)! Land can be reinstated; homes, rebuilt; but lives, they cannot be replaced.

Perhaps, in her "passion," good judgment failed to take control, as is often the case. Was it compassion? Ideology? Stupidity? Only G-d knows now! However, let's assume it was compassion. In her believe that that type of "atrocity" should not happen, how was she at dissuading 'suicide bombers?' Would she have "compassionately" thrown herself on top of a suicide bomber in a disco? Would you?

[Tom Joad]

43. Rachel's work against all the violence.

You are probably right, the driver never stopped and reflected upon anything he was doing. Never thought that being part of a military machine that destroyed thousands of Palestinian homes apparently meant nothing to him, the death that surrounded him did not stop him, the international in the reflective vest did not stop him.

When internationals approached him he did not respond. so in classic nonviolent resistance, Rachel placed herself between the death machine and the home of her friends.

Yes, we don't know what exactly happened. We don't know what the bulldozer driver said, what he saw, or anything. It's not like there was an independent investigation of this. There was only a self-serving investigation by the Israeli military itself. No one is satisfied with this. Not Corrie's family. Not even the US State Dept, that still considers the investigation open, the statements of the Israeli military unsatisfactory. Not that we can really expect the State Dept to take serious action on this.

Supporting the continuing occupation is not merely supporting the dispossession of Palestinians from their homes, it is supporting all the violence stemming from the occupation. That is why it is so disturbing to see it supported. Rachel's death was a tragedy for everyone in the region.

If Israel wants to stop the violence, it must do so by calling an end to the occupation, completely withdrawing from the West Bank, dismantling ALL the illegal settlements (and every one of them is deemed illegal under international law, which only Israel says publicly does not apply to them, at least in public. Even among Israeli leaders in private it is acknowledged that they are illegal.)

You think Rachel's sacrifice was for too little? What about Israeli soldiers sent out to defend these illegal settlements, the colonialization of the West Bank and Gaza, the destruction of homes? To defend something that has only brought Israel grief and bloodshed.

There are some Israelis who see that they must stop the madness of occupation and oppression of the Palestinians. They not only fight for justice for their neighbors, but they are fighting for a livable life for all in the Middle East.

[Behind the Aegis]

44. Good propaganda.

Tom, you should look into writing for Palestinian sites.

You are probably right, the driver never stopped and reflected upon anything he was doing. Never thought that being part of a military machine that destroyed thousands of Palestinian homes apparently meant nothing to him, the death that surrounded him did not stop him, the international in the reflective vest did not stop him.

I could write..."You are probably right, Corrie never stopped and reflected upon anything she was doing. Never thought that being part of a terrorist organization that destroyed thousands of Israeli lives apparently meant nothing to her, the death that surrounded her did not stop her, the 3 ton vehicle did not stop her.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

Supporting the continuing occupation is not merely supporting the dispossession of Palestinians from their homes, it is supporting all the violence stemming from the occupation. That is why it is so disturbing to see it supported. Rachel's death was a tragedy for everyone in the region.

How simplistic. One is labeled 'pro-Israeli,' then they MUST be "pro" Occupation! :eyes:

If Israel wants to stop the violence, it must do so by calling an end to the occupation, completely withdrawing from the West Bank, dismantling ALL the illegal settlements (and every one of them is deemed illegal under international law, which only Israel says publicly does not apply to them, at least in public. Even among Israeli leaders in private it is acknowledged that they are illegal.)

I guess, I could stupidly reply... "If Palestine wants to stop the occupation, it must do so by calling an end to the destruction of Israel, completely halting attacks from Gaza and the West Bank, dismantling ALL the terrorist organizations (and every one of them is deemed illegal under international law, which only the PA says publicly does not apply to them, at least in public. Even among Palestinian leaders in private it is acknowledged that they are illegal.)

Oh wait...both proposals call for UNILATERAL moves! No negotiations! Again, how overly simplistic!

You think Rachel's sacrifice was for too little? What about Israeli soldiers sent out to defend these illegal settlements, the colonialization of the West Bank and Gaza, the destruction of homes? To defend something that has only brought Israel grief and bloodshed.

You think Jews sacrifices were for too little? What about Palestinian terrorists sent out to defend the Hamas Charter, the murders in the West Bank and Gaza and Israel, the destruction of homes and lives? To defend something that has only brought Palestinians grief and bloodshed.

There are some Israelis who see that they must stop the madness of occupation and oppression of the Palestinians. They not only fight for justice for their neighbors, but they are fighting for a livable life for all in the Middle East.

There are some Palestinians who see that they must stop the madness of terrorism and anti-Semitism against the Jews. They not only fight for justice for their neighbors, but they are fighting for a livable life for all in the Middle East.

What you fail to see is that there are those who want peace, even if under a "pro-Israeli" flag! There are those of us who think this process is NOT one-sided! The victims here are not a disembodied people. The victims are those of two stubborn governments, one of which calls for the complete destruction of the other in its own charter! What you fail to see is that NO MATTER what the Israeli government does, it will ALWAYS be wrong in the the eyes of supposed "pro-Palestinians." What you fail to see is that there are TWO sides in this conflict! That means TWO groups are responsible for working out a compromise!

This conflict is not as "one-sided" as you'd like it to be.

[Tom Joad]

46. Jimmy Carter also thinks that Israel's continued

efforts to colonize the West Bank and its actions in regards to Gaza are detrimental for peace in the region.

I agree with Jimmy.

[Behind the Aegis]

47. Does Jimmy also find Palestine blameless?

[Tom Joad]

49. Do I?

[Behind the Aegis]

50. Do you?

[Tom Joad]

51. Of course the Palestinian leadership has made mistakes, major

errors. That is why the Palestinian people voted in a new government.

I do recognize, however, that Israel and Palestine are not equal parties, each with equal power. One is occupied, one is the occupier. One is oppressed by the other, and not the other way around.

The demands by Israel is that Palestine surrunder most of its land, its hopes to live in a free and independent and livable state, and be confined to 5 prison-like cantons, is not acceptable. They have no choice to resist. Palestine will not die quietly and peacefully as Israel pulls the plug, as Olmert and his followers dream.

[Englander]

41. No, I don't, but nevermind.

If you actually read what I've posted, & realised what the comments refer to,
you might see that I wasn't referring to the nonsense about heavy machinery, but
the "intense dislike" that was clearly expressed in those sentiments about heavy machinery.

The subject heading;

--I agree, everyone should "drop the hate"--

was flatly contradicted by the rest of the post, that's what I was referring to. By my reading
of the rest of the post, it was clear that "intense dislike" was being expressed.

[bloom]

9. Or maybe you just believe what you want to believe....

The Death of Rachel Corrie

Nablus, Palestine
March 16, 2003

Today a young woman was killed in Gaza. Young women, but more often young men, get killed in Gaza and the West Bank every day, and the world pays no attention. What was different today is that Rachel Corrie was an American, an activist with the International Solidarity Movement, the group that I'm here with in occupied Palestine. And her death is a particularly horrifying example of the cold-blooded dehumanization that characterizes this occupation.

Rachel was trying to stop the demolition of a Palestinian home. According to the other activists who were with her, she was in dialogue with the operator of the bulldozer. She was working in the spirit of nonviolence that is a guiding principle of the ISM, which provides support for Palestinian civilians and for nonviolent efforts to bring about justice for Palestine. Rachel climbed up on the bulldozer to talk to the soldier in the cockpit. She climbed down. She sat in front of the bulldozer. The soldier in control of the huge machine drove it deliberately over her. He then backed up, and ran over her again. Rachel was twenty-three years old.

I am trying to fathom the mind that could pull the levers and gun the motor to crush the life out of her young body. That choice, that deliberate act of murder that ended her sweet life, seems incomprehensible. But here in occupied Palestine, that murder is a logical outgrowth of the system of total dehumanization that controls every aspect of life, that cannot see the human being in the Palestinian, that claims to be fighting terror by institutionalizing it. Please register your outrage -- at Rachel's murder, at the home demolitions that she was trying to stop, at the illegal occupation that can only be defended by brutalizing a whole people.

Call the Israeli Ministry of Defense 972-3-69-55476 (011-972-3-69-55476 from the US) and 972-3-69-75220 (011-972-3-69-75-220 from the US)

Fax the Israeli Foreign Office 972-2-53-03506 (011-972-2-53-03506 from the US) General Director: Phone [phone] (011-972-2-530-7704 from the US)

Call, or demonstrate, or shut down your local Israeli Embassy or your local Consulate office.

If you are from the US, call or write your Senators and Congressional Representative.

-- Starhawk

For more information on the International Solidarity Movement for non-violent peace and justice in Palestine, visit the website at www.freepalestinecampaign.org (Note: page will open in a new browser window).

http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/rachelcorrie.html

http://www.rachelcorrie.org/statements.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,916299,00.html

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meti57b]

19. He didn't see her.

check out the pics on this page of a Cat D9. Scroll down and look at all of them. What do you think the shortest line of sight from that small front window, over the front of that thing, to a person standing on the ground would be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_D9

[Violet_Crumble]

22. I didn't realise you were actually there, Meti...

You don't know whether he saw her or not....

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Were you?!

Was the person she was responding to claiming the driver DID see her? Maybe this is one for "Cold Case Files."

[Violet_Crumble]

29. No, but I'm not claiming I know what the driver saw...

And I'm not sure what she was replying to seeing as how it's deleted, btw...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

31. He said/She said.

That was what she was responding too.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. And that makes a difference how?

She made the claim the driver couldn't see. That's what I'm responding to and I'm not the slightest bit interested in what some deleted post did or didn't say....

fwiw, I find the 'she was murdered!!!' and 'she brought it on herself and deserves what she got!!!' arguments equally annoying. I'm just going to stick to my gut feeling that it wasn't intentional, but there should have been a lot more care taken about what was going on around the bulldozer at the time...

Violet...

[bloom]

15. Israeli apologists are very devoted to their propaganda

Free speech doesn't have anything to do with it. Just like this play. It goes against the propaganda. They can't have that.


More from the OP article:

"Dodgson was further upset when a Workshop marketing staffer, whom she won't name, used the word "mollifying." "It was a very awkward conversation. He said, 'I can't find the right word, but "mollifying" the Jewish community.' It shocked me."

...At the heart of the disagreement was an insistence by supporters of Israel that Corrie's killing be presented in the context of Palestinian terror. And that specifically, the policy of destroying Palestinian homes in Gaza be shown to be aimed at those tunnels--even though the pharmacist's house Corrie was shielding was hundreds of yards from the border and had nothing to do with tunnels. One person close to NYTW, who refused to go on the record, elaborates: "The fact that the Israelis and such were trying to bulldoze these houses was not due to the fact that they were just against the Palestinians, but the underground tunnels, ways to get explosives to this community. By not mentioning it, the play was not as evenhanded as it claims to be." Another anonymous NYTW source said that staffers became worried after reading a fall 2003 Mother Jones profile of Corrie, a much disputed piece that relied heavily on right-wing sources to paint her as a reckless naif.

Just whom was the Workshop consulting in its deliberations? It has steadfastly refused to say. In the New York Observer, Nicola mentioned "Jewish friends." Dodgson says that in discussions with the Royal Court, Workshop staffers brought up the Anti-Defamation League and the mayor's office as entities they were concerned about. (Abe Foxman of the ADL visited London in 2005 and denounced the play in the New York Sun as offensive to Jewish "sensitivities.") By one account, the fatal blow was dealt when the global PR firm Ruder Finn (which has an office in Israel) said it couldn't represent the play...."

[auagroach]

26. Israeli apologists are very devoted to their propaganda???

Devoted? You are much more the diplomat than I.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. So are Paletinian apologists.

[bloom]

52. I don't think that "Paletinian apologists" are nearly as well funded....

and look whose play is not being shown...

[question everything]

24. I constantly miss good TV programs, good plays

that just come and go because they do not generate enough revenue.

I suspect that a play about Rachel Corrie will not attract the people who like to go to the theatre and to say a good play.

As for the "real story" about the Middle East - go and count how many stories on DU put Israel as the victim and how as the bully, the aggressor.

Most people know of Israel as the one who conquered the West Bank and Gaza and the Golan Height. Very few even care to bother to find out the history of Israel, or how the 1967 war even started.

Most people here have no idea the size of Israel (like that of Rhode Island) and the map of the Middle East.

We mourn the death of peace activists who went to Iraq and were murdered. War zone is not like a civic center in an American city. When you are going to a war zone you may be killed, you may be captured (and if this is Israel, you will be returned to your country).

Rachel Corrie chose to go to a war zone, to protest at a place that later was found to have a tunnel between Gaza and Egypt where ammunition was smuggled. She chose to stand in front of a tank, and was killed. End of story. Sad that such a young life had to end up doing dumb things. But if you choose to go to a war zone, you may be captured, you may be tortured and you may be killed.

I thought that we, Democrats, do stand for personal responsibility.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. It was a bulldozer, not a tank...

And the 'place' you say she protested at was the home of a Palestinian family that the IDF was going to destroy. I'm also doubtful of yr claim that a smuggling tunnel was later uncovered under the house...

Also, this size thing gets mentioned a fair bit. What does the size of Israel have to do with anything? Is there some belief that the physical size of a country indicates its power?

Anyway, I guess seeing as I'm one of the most people here who have no idea of the size of Israel and the Middle East and don't care to find out the history of Israel, I should get myself up to speed on it next time I've got some spare time on my hands. It's just that the Comedy Channel keeps on showing South Park all the time and I can't tear myself away from the repeats to pick up a book and read it ;)

Violet...

[Englander]

42. That's complete nonsense. n/t

[bloom]

53. I heard the play sold out faster than anything...

RE: "I suspect that a play about Rachel Corrie will not attract the people who like to go to the theatre and to say a good play."


Surely Americans will not put up with this censorship

"...The Royal Court production of My Name Is Rachel Corrie, the play I co-edited with Alan Rickman, was transferring next month to the New York Theatre Workshop, home of the groundbreaking musical Rent, following two sellout runs in London and several awards...."

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1720592,00.html

[bloom]

6. a letter to the Guardian...

Stage censorship

Saturday March 4, 2006
The Guardian

Given the lack of free speech and right-wing pressure in the US, it is no surprise that a theatre company in New York has refused to put on the play My Name is Rachel Corrie (Surely Americans will not put up with this censorship, March 1 http://arts.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1720592,00.html ).

Composer Philip Munger tried to put on a classical cantata, called The Skies are Weeping, about Rachel at Anchorage University in Alaska, only to be met with opposition from the local Jewish community, followed by threats sent to himself and the soprano soloist. He cancelled the performance as he feared for the safety of the student performers. It was then scheduled to be put on in New York, but the organisers backed out for no reason.

In contrast, I had no problems organising and singing the soprano part in its world premiere in London last year. There was a small pro-Israeli government demonstration outside, but more Jews (like myself) were involved in organising, donating towards and inside watching the concert.
Deborah Fink
Project director, The Skies are Weeping

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1723300,00.html

[MrPrax]

11. Hope word gets around...

about this...it is a great and obvious case.

I am usually up on tons of little 'controversies' but I ONLY heard about this one, when Robert Fisk wrote about it and then Wolcott mentioned it.

An eariler March 2 blog from AlterNet nails the hypocrisy:
Rachel Corrie play... censored?

"...Still, Nicola's excuses are inconsistent and a bit unconvincing in spots. In the Guardian article he concedes that it's controversy that prompted the postponement:

"In our pre-production planning and our talking around and listening in our communities in New York, what we heard was that after Ariel Sharon's illness and the election of Hamas, we had a very edgy situation," Mr Nicola said.

"We found that our plan to present a work of art would be seen as us taking a stand in a political conflict, that we didn't want to take."

Taking a stand in a political conflict? For a play? About an activist who dies in a political conflict? Perish the thought. What stand would that be? And when will that "edgy situation" go away? After Sharon dies, after Hamas is voted out, when the conflict is resolved? Come on.

AlterNet



To think that a mere two weeks ago 'liberals' were shouting from the roof tops 'let freedom ring' commending the publishing of racist cartoons by the Right--but n'ery a peep about this one and especially in a profession (and a town!) known for it's liberal attitudes. It's not like there hasn't been 'controversy' before...'jewtopia' comes to mind, but for different and less nuanced reasons.

Similar cowardly silence in Seattle a few years ago as well that didn't get quite the media interest. I believe Al Franken stepped in at the last moment...

It's been said that Israel is as much a point of hypocrisy for the Left as South Africa was for the Right.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bloom]

54. "In Defense of a Play" - letter by Harold Pinter and others

A letter to the editor of the New York Times -

In Defense of a Play

Published: March 22, 2006
To the Editor:

Re "Theater Addresses Tension Over Play" (Arts pages, March 16):

We are Jewish writers who supported the Royal Court production of "My Name Is Rachel Corrie." We are dismayed by the decision of the New York Theater Workshop to cancel or postpone the play's production. We believe that this is an important play, particularly, perhaps, for an American audience that too rarely has an opportunity to see and judge for itself the material it contends with.

In London it played to sell-out houses. Critics praised it. Audiences found it intensely moving. So what is it about Rachel Corrie's writings, her thoughts, her feelings, her confusions, her idealism, her courage, her search for meaning in life — what is it that New York audiences must be protected from?

The various reasons given by the workshop — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's coma, the election of Hamas, the circumstances of Rachel Corrie's death, the "symbolism" of her tale — make no sense in the context of this play and the crucial issues it raises about Israeli military activity in the occupied territories.

Rachel Corrie gave her life standing up against injustice. A theater with such a fine history should have had the courage to give New York theatergoers the chance to experience her story for themselves.

Gillian Slovo
Harold Pinter
Stephen Fry
London, March 20, 2006
This letter was also signed by 18 other writers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/opinion/l22corrie.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Democracy Now today has Katherine Viner on (co-editor of the play) - as well as representatives of the the New York Theater Workshop who decided to pull the play. Ends with Rachel's parents comments.