Following my debate last week on SBS Television regarding Israel/Palestine and the death of American peace activist Rachel Corrie, the following comment was left on the program’s website by Melbourne-based Jewish writer, Philip Mendes:
Rachel Corrie’s death is no more or less tragic than the deaths of many Israelis and Palestinians in this horrendous conflict. It is unfortunate that some of your contributors wish to use her death to promote further hate and violence against one side. It is worth noting that the ISM which organized Rachel’s involvement is not a pro-peace or pro-compromise group. Whilst the ISM may favour non-violent rather than violent “resistance” to the Israeli occupation, it does not support a two-state solution. Rather, it favours the elimination of Israel and its replacement by an Arab State of Greater Palestine. Hence it is part of the problem, not the solution. I would also point out to Alex from Perth that Bren Carlile from AIJAC is not Jewish. He is actually a Christian Zionist. And Antony – despite his Jewish background – is probably the chief pro-Palestinian propagandist in this country.
The rules of the games explained. Supporting Palestinian rights (and being critical of Israel and its occupation) makes me a “propagandist”. Supporting Israel would make me balanced and rational. Talking about the two-state “solution” for decades, as Mendes continually claims he has, makes him a good Zionist, a figure to be warmly welcomed into the mainstream Jewish community.
One day soon people like Mendes will wake up to find that their two-state dream is no longer possible, the hundreds of thousands of illegal Jewish settlers on Palestinian land unwilling or unable to be moved. Then what?
I’m pro-human rights, not pro-anything or anybody.
Well I guess this response is somewhat tame compared to some I’ve seen that actually take pleasure in her death and suffering. Those individuals take the position that she deserved what she got and that the agony she experienced before dying is a suitable object lesson for anyone else trying to stand in the way of Zionist supremacy.
Thank you Anthony, for spotlighting this particular viewpoint.
“I’m pro-human rights, not pro-anything or anybody.”
Well said, Antony.
A balanced statement. Fair enough.
That woman died because she opposed the Jewish State and supported the arab cause that dreams of throwing the Jews into the sea. Classic political zionism favors a multi-cultural society. This means that arabs can sit in the Israeli Pariiament, and Supreme Court; they get free health care and can attend Israeli universities. But if they want to carve up the Jewish state, that’s crossing the line. This woman crossed the line and died. The house she attempted from being destroyed was a terrorist house. When the British controled their Palestinian Mandate which they recieved from the League of Nations, they too made terrorist families accountable for terrorist acts carried out by family members. Outsiders, who have no children riding in buses that arabs blow up, so easily empathize with the brutal death of this woman. They jabber jabber about her “tragic” death, and never a word about why Israel reacted by demolishing an arab house! This woman did not die in a vacuum. Could Israel have perhaps handled it better? These back seat sofa quarterbacks with their 20/20 hindsite appear so wise and noble – NOT.