'Corrie' canceled in Canada

[Scurrilous]

Play has potential to offend Jewish community

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117956295.html?categoryid=19&cs=1&query=rachel+corrie

<snip>

"It's curtains for "My Name Is Rachel Corrie" in Canada.

CanStage, the country's largest not-for-profit theater, has reversed its earlier decision and opted not to present the show as part of its 2007-08 season."

<snip>

"James Nicola programmed it this year for the New York Theater Workshop, but that production was canceled after resistance from board members and subscribers. Show was eventually produced Off Broadway, where it ran for two months.

"It didn't seem as powerful on the stage as it did on the page," said CanStage creative producer Martin Bragg after seeing the production at Gotham's Minetta Lane Theater.

But in a situation eerily similar to the one that faced Nicola, it appears that Bragg faced pressure from some of his board members not to alienate Toronto's Jewish community.

While admitting he has neither read nor seen the script, CanStage board member Jack Rose said, "My view was it would provoke a negative reaction in the Jewish community."

Philanthropist Bluma Appel, after whom CanStage's flagship theater is named, concurred. "I told them I would react very badly to a play that was offensive to Jews," she said.

Bragg denied he was lobbied by the board in any way and insisted, "I pick the plays. No one on our board has ever told me what we can and can't do."

[Behind the Aegis]

1. What a non-story.

So a play was not picked up, big whoop!

[Kagemusha]

2. You strike me as an intelligent person so...

may I safely assume you are aware of the subject matter of this play, and why it might strike some as being at least slightly more than a non-story?

[Behind the Aegis]

3. I know what the story is about.

It is still a non-story. It is a play that wasn't picked-up. If anything, it looks like one more thing to blame on the Jews.

[Kagemusha]

4. It seems you understand exactly what the story is

So fine. I admit it's not exactly on my top 100 list of important things, and maybe the play would've sucked anyway, but my brain hurts when I see stories treated as non-entities because "it looks like" something. End of message.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[bigluckyfeet]

5. Who Ran Over

The Young Woman?

[Behind the Aegis]

8. a bulldozer. Your point?

[aquart]

13. The question was WHO not WHAT.

Unless the bulldozer was a pre-programmed robot vehicle, it had a driver. The driver was a human being. WHO was the driver? What was his/her history?

You never asked, did you?

And that, my friend, is why I don't give a damn about Rachel Corrie or her sanctimonious mourners.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. I know it was by a driver.

But, I was trying to see if I was right about where the poster was going with his post.

[aquart]

15. Of course. The answer to "who" is always "a bulldozer."

How foolish of me not to get that.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Re-read the post I was responding to.

This play is supposedly being pulled because of the "Jews" and their delicate sensitivities. The poster I responded to said something about who killed her. Though I answered with "what" killed her, I was waiting for the "well, an Israeli did it." Thus showing that the poster, like so many others conflate Israel and Jews; thus, when something like this play doesn't get presented, because it is a negative reflection on Israel, the Jews must be behind it not being shown. That is why I answered with a "what" and not a "who."

[Tom Joad]

29. Yes, the man had a name, the Driver of the Cat. I do want to know who it was

He was probably about the same age as Rachel. They may have liked the same music.

He foolishly became part of the occupation machinery that destroyed tens of thousands of homes in Gaza. It has probably hurt him in some way too, this dehumanization process that makes following illegal orders possible. He may be suffering greatly. Or perhaps worse, not even think about it, and that means that he has lost something of his soul. Either way he is probably in need of healing, something that is not possible for Rachel, but only for her family and friends, who you "do not give a damn about".

He is human. What is his name? Israel knows. Will they tell us?

I don't understand Aquart why you dont give a damn about some other human beings.
Perhaps this conflict has hurt you deeply also.

[Tom Joad]

33. Another Caterpillar Bulldozer driver in his own words....

"For three days, I just demolished non-stop. The whole area. Any house they fired from came down. And to knock it down, I tore down some other houses. were warned by loudspeakers to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. I didn't wait. I didn't give just one push, and wait for them to come out. I would just ram the house with full power, to bring it down as fast as possible. I wanted to get to the other houses. To get as many as possible. ...I didn't give a damn about the Palestinians, but I didn't just ruin with no reason. It was all under orders.”
Moshe Nissim, "Kurdi Bear", the Israeli national hero.

From an interview with a Cat' driver, who under orders of his Israeli military superiors, operated a giant Caterpillar D-9L bulldozer and helped make 4,000 camp residents homeless in Jenin refugee camp, April 2000.

http://gush-shalom.org/archives/kurdi_eng.html

Aquart, i know you wanted to know about the man who killed Rachel Corrie, but for whatever reason he has chosen not to go public. Kurdi is the best i could do. I do think Kurdi got a medal for his efforts in Jenin.

[aquart]

10. The spinners of Rachel's sainthood got screwed? Damn.

Damn shame. Here's a girl who decided a house (I heard it was a dentist's summer home, but I must be wrong about that. Surely it was a primary residence.) was worth her life. Who are we to disagree?

Never once, not once, in all the pratings about the breathtakingly arrogant Rachel's martyrdom have I heard one word about the driver of the bulldozer that mowed her down. Wow. Do you think the playwright told the story of the driver? Because I'm curious. Was it a man or a woman? Young or old? Married or single? Children?

Do you suppose the bulldozer driver was as sure Rachel would move as Rachel was sure he/she would stop?

Or do you have it fixed in your mind that evil monster Israel drove the bulldozer over the brave and innocent saint? And, therefore, the only intent was to harm or kill. Because Israel is, of course, a cruel superpower stomping on what or whomever gets in her way.

Although it keeps nagging me that Israeli reprisals (for what nastiness was it, I wonder?) took the form of bulldozing a house, instead of shooting the people in it. Which means that Israel was bending over backward not to kill, NOT to take an eye for however many bloody eyes and arms and legs lay scattered in whatever bus, or market, or restaurant the Palestinians destroyed in their endless quest for peace and tranquility. And then here comes lovely stalwart Rachel, playing chicken with one of the slower-moving vehicles on the planet.

Did it work? Was the house she protected still standing at the end of the day? Was Rachel's sacrifice rewarded with continued shelter for someone who was not willing to put his own body in front of the bulldozer, but instead let the young woman do it?

Was that the play that was rejected? Damn. I wanted to see that.

[Kagemusha]

16. I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or what

I just follow a simple rule: if it was really a non-story, why does the telling of a non-story bother people so much?

But it's not my ox being gored I guess.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. "why does the telling of a non-story bother people so much? "

Because of how the story is being portrayed. Do you honestly not understand that?

[Kagemusha]

19. If you'd said, false story, scurillous lie, calumny, etc, okay then...

But you said non-story, which is like pleading no contest, which is like, even if the story's true, so what? ...Not even sure what you define as "the story" because the article, if taken as a complete story, presents a fact and alternate explanations for that fact (the play cancellation). You were the first responder on the thread and you portrayed this story in total as a non-story.

But whatever... myself, if I see a non-story in a post, I don't reply and call it a non-story, lest people feel it is a story after all, and I just want to pretend otherwise. But more power to you.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. It is a non-story.

How many other plays did this man not pick-up? How many other plays will not make the 2007-8 season? How many other plays were better on page than in practice? Well, we don't know. But, wild guess, it is more than one. However, we see this one pulled out and then blamed on a group that had nothing to do with its not being picked-up. So, I guess you are right, it is not really a 'non-story' as much as it is an example of anti-Semitism and that is the real story. But a play not getting picked up....

On edit: It may have been more of a real story had the play been in production and boycotted, then dropped, but the fucking thing never even saw the stage.

On 2nd edit: Perhaps I should have said it is a non-story as it relates to this forum. In the "entertainment" forum, it might be a story, but here, it really doesn't serve any purpose.

[Tom Joad]

30. For a non story, you sure give much attention to it. Thanks.

Folks like you have made the play a hit where ever it does open.

Well, i should say *helped* make the play a hit where ever it opens, as it is a compelling well-done play in its own right.

[Taxloss]

32. It's only well-done if it's done well.

According to Bragg, that wasn't the case in Toronto.

[oblivious]

73. OMG! You don't blame the driver because he must have thought Rachel would move!!!

So you see a pedestrian on the highway standing in your way and you plow into her because you assume she will move out of the way.

Well I think she is a saint.

[oberliner]

7. It was a decision based on the play's merits, rather than the political controversy that dogs it

It was a decision based on the play's merits, rather than the political controversy that dogs it, CanStage artistic producer Martin Bragg said in an interview with CBC.ca.

"It was an artistic decision," said Bragg, who saw the play in New York. "It just didn't work on stage."

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/theatre/story/2006/12/22/corrie-toronto.html?ref=rss

In spite of the fact that the artistic producer of CanStage states that the reason why the play was dropped was artistic, this incident is being presented in some places as a result of the influence of "The Jewish/Zionist Lobby".

The article cited by the OP is also cited here:

http://www.rachelswords.org/

With this comment preceding it:

The lobby prevents Rachel Corrie’s voice from being heard — again.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. just another the "Jewish lobby" did it.

It is really just sad!

[guruoo]

11. It's obvious that some people do want the Rachael Cory story to go away. n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

12. It is obvious that it may not be as good as some have been led to believe. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Have you seen this play? You seem to have such a strong opinion about it...n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

52. I haven't seen it, nor have I expressed an opinion about it.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Oh, I must have imagined this post then...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=161519&mesg_id=161543

[Behind the Aegis]

55. You didn't imagine it. You just didn't understand it.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. self-delete...

Not worth the effort...

[Behind the Aegis]

57. Sure. It is very simple actually.

"Because of how the story is being portrayed." The 'story' here is the article itself and how it is being portrayed. It is not a comment about the play. Understand now?

On edit: Was it really "Not worth the effort..." or did you finally understand what that statement meant?

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Is there something you don't comprehend about my post yr replying to?

I said it wasn't worth the edit because yr comments aren't constructive nor civil...

[Behind the Aegis]

59. But it cleared up your confusion. I think that is helpful.

;)

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Oh-kay, you just keep on thinking that to yrself...

I'm kind of curious to know why you've recently taken to posting/discussing both the original and edits of my posts. With this most recent one, I'd edited it less than a minute after I posted it yet you replied to the original and also pasted the edit in and replied to that all in one post. Yr very very very quick off the mark coz I don't know many people that hover so intently over this forum as that :)

[Behind the Aegis]

61. Well...

I was in the process of responding to your post. Then, when I posted, I saw you had edited. So, I went back and added an edit of my own, based on your "new" post. So, it wasn't a matter of replying to your "two" posts with one post, as I had to edit mine as well. As far as 'hovering', you seem to be responding pretty quickly to my posts as well.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Do you mind not doing that anymore?

If I have edited a post there's a reason for it, and I do not think it's appropriate for you to repost my original unedited comment as you did in a recent thread. I'm not sure what the policy at DU is about it, but you could have easily edited out yr response to my original comment rather than keeping it there when you went back in and edited. I consider what yr doing to be against the spirit of constructive discussion and I'd prefer you not do it in future...

Sorry, but I'm not in the habit of starting to respond to a post less than a minute after it's posted, the way you did...

[Behind the Aegis]

64. I did it once.

All this protest, you'd think it was a common occurrence. And why should I modify my post just because you did yours? The only reason to do that is if it made no sense. What is against "constructive discussion" is telling another poster what s/he meant by her/his own post.

[Scurrilous]

21. Documentary Play About Death of US Activist in Gaza Sparks Controversy, Revives Questions

<snip>

"A documentary play that's met with both praise and controversy is heading to Seattle, Washington, following a two-month run in New York City and original productions in London. My Name is Rachel Corrie tells the story of a young American human rights activist who traveled to the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip in 2003, and died there. The play has also revived questions, still not answered, about the death of Rachel Corrie."

More at:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-12-28-voa31.cfm

[oberliner]

22. Have you seen the play?

If so, what were your thoughts on it?

[Scurrilous]

23. No I haven't seen it.

By the time this play finds its way to Miami (if ever) I'll probably qualify for a senior citizen discount.

[Tom Joad]

34. From that newstory. US State Dept does NOT think the Israelis adequately investigated

the death of Rachel Corrie.

"Our own government, the U.S. government, is on record - Colin Powell's chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, said the report didn't indicate an investigation that was thorough, credible and transparent," Cindy Corrie said. "We don't see direct testimony in it. What we see are pieces of testimony that one person has pulled from other evidence that they apparently gathered, and then created a report from. So we're still after almost four years now, we're still working for some accountability."

[barb162]

35. And from that story, there were 70 underground tunnels discovered

"A spokeswoman for the group, Hope Winters, said, "The reason there was so much suffering in particular in Rafah at the time, why there were checkpoints and bulldozers, is that it was the height of suicide bombing in Israel. Just before Rachel arrived," Winters said, "there were 70 underground tunnels discovered, tunnels that were bringing explosives, bombs, from Egypt, which is right next door to Rafah, into Rafah - so they could be strapped onto suicide bombers and suicide bombers could then walk into Israel, and blow up innocents in pizza parlors and bus stations."

Ms. Winters' group critiqued the play on other factual grounds, too, and allege that Rachel Corrie was being used by the International Solidarity Movement, and that the group is not, in truth, dedicated to non-violence - a charge the ISM firmly rejects. The pro-Israel demonstrators also point out that Palestinian suicide bombers have deliberately killed many innocent people, whom they say died in part because activists like Rachel Corrie are used as pawns by Palestinian terrorists.

[Tom Joad]

36. No tunnels under that home. And a US citizen was killed.

A US citizen was killed, and for some, that does not matter, because her politics were different than theirs, she had no allegiance to the military that had destroyed tens of thousands of homes in Gaza. Certainly George Bush does not give a shit. Certainly a poster here (see #13 above) does not give a damn. Seems like for some humans just don't count. No real investigation took place as promised. The State Dept was not satisfied with the investigation. Neither am i. But unlike the State Dept, i still insist that action be taken to fully investigate, to really make fully public this matter.

Why some choose to slander Rachel Corrie now, with this baloney about her being a pawn of Palestinian terrorists, is beyond me. She cared about a family. A family other than her own. And not of the same ethnic background. I know that in some places it is popular to celebrate her death, i've seen the websites like Little Green Goofballs or whatever. I don't know why people can be so cruel. Why do people support the military terror that crushes homes and human beings... and any hope for peace?

Rachel Corrie was about the same age as Michael Schwerner & Andrew Goodman, who died in Mississippi because they saw that even though they lived comfortable lives hundreds of miles away, they knew their lives and the lives of people in Mississippi were somehow intertwined, that they could not be silent when others are being oppressed.

Rachel went to Palestine knowing what was happening was being done in her name, with US tax dollars.
Rachel wanted to say no, to say that this is not to be done in her name.

I know that after the death of Schwerner and Goodman, others said "they had no business coming to Mississippi". "They should have just minded their own business." That the civil rights movement "used them" to spread their "communist ideology". They probably made fun of how they died too. The same foolishness and sickness we hear and see coming from the fools you quote.

If i believed in an afterlife, maybe i could believe that Corrie and Schwerner and Goodman and Chaney and Tom Hurndall are together now, maybe they are part of that gentle spirit that inspires others to work in solidarity with others (which is not new, by any means), to look beyond false barriers of ethnicity or arbitrary borders or anything else.... inspiring people to say my allegience is to people and justice and for people to live freely and children playing on open fields and we will not tolerate looking away when children are being killed by military snipers and we will not look away when homes are being demolished and we will not look away when people are being denied political and basic rights as was the case in the South (and much of the USA, even today), we will not look away when our country attacks another country merely because we don't know anyone who is in the military... and we will take risks and we will care for our human family, that goes beyond our little communities. Some of those risks mean even physical violence and even death and the risks of being accused of disloyalty or support for terrorism or communism or whatever.

"People in Third World countries think and laugh and smile, just like us. We have got to understand that we are them; they are us." Rachel Corrie, Age 10 She understood then what many don't understand if they turn 90. Maybe i should feel more sorry for the older ones who live so long and just don't get it. Their lives are wasted. They go through life not giving a damn.

[oberliner]

37. US citizen killed by Palestinians

Here is a name that is not quite as well-known as Rachel Corrie:

Marla Bennett, 24
Killed in the Hebrew University cafeteria bombing, July 31, 2002
Hamas admits responsibility

Marla Bennett completed her B.A. in Political Science at Berkeley University in California in 2000. She was in the second year of a three-year master's program in Judaic Studies at the Hebrew University and Pardes Institute, had been at the university to take a final exam in her sole Hebrew University class of the semester, Hebrew language, when she was killed.

Marla knew that every day she stayed in Jerusalem, the simple choice of whether to turn left or right each morning could make the difference between life or death. "This question may seem inconsequential, but the events of the past few months in Israel have led me to believe that each small decision I make, by which route to walk to school, whether or not to go out to dinner, may have life-threatening consequences," Bennett wrote in a May 10 column in a newspaper in her hometown of San Diego.

More about Marla:

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/18701/edition_id/376/format/html/displaystory.html

http://www.sdjewishjournal.com/stories/sept05_1.html

As we remember Rachel Corrie's tragic death, let us also take the time to remember Marla Bennett, one of five U.S. citizens killed in the Hebrew University bombing of 2002 by members of Hamas.

[Tom Joad]

39. I know about Marla, and her death is no less a tragedy, Her death was

throughly investigated by the United States, and Israel.
No weapons of death are sent by the United States to her killers.

Yet everday, the train of death continues from the United States to Israel, even as its military rains death on the people of Lebanon and Gaza and the West Bank, even has hundreds and hundreds of civilians are killed and maimed. It is a crime to continue to arm such an army, that continues with its purpose of colonialization and dispossession.

[oberliner]

75. What about arming the US army?

Is it not a crime what the US army is doing in Iraq? In Afghanistan?

How many innocent civilians has the US army killed and maimed?

Do you think Abeer Hamza is the only girl who has been raped by American troops?

Do you think her five year old sister is the only child who has been murdered by US forces?

If the US cut all military aid to Israel, as you appear to be suggesting, what do you suppose Bush and company would do with those additional funds?

US military spending last year was approximately 400 billion dollars.

If it is a crime to arm the Israeli army, isn't our own army just as criminal, if not moreso?

Has the US not "rained death" on the people of Iraq? A nation that posed no threat to the US whatsoever. A nation whose people never conducted a single suicide bombing against American civilians.

How hypocritical would it be if the US cut off military funding to Israel for its actions in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories while the US itself continues to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into its own actions in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Tom Joad]

76. I support Rep James McGovern's bill to halt funding of the Iraq occupation.

Do you?

http://www.house.gov/mcgovern/pr102505outofiraqbill.htm

Israel has been a staunch supporter of Bush's Iraq adventure. As has AIPAC and related lobbies.

[oberliner]

78. I'll check it out

Thanks for the link.

[Tom Joad]

79. I would also welcome international sanctions against the US until it ends

its illegal wars of aggression. Not likely to happen, but it would be a good thing.

[oberliner]

80. What is your opinion of the 2006 bill condemning attacks on Israel?

This was the bill that passed in July, 2006:

H. RES. 921
Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes.

Edit: (link not working, but you can do a search here: http://thomas.loc.gov/)

Rep. James McGovern voted yes on this bill. (FYI: No money contributed to his campaign by AIPAC (or any pro-Israel lobby) in 2006, although in 2004 they did contribute $1K of the $240K he received in PAC contributions that cycle)

[Tom Joad]

81. Why no mention of Israeli attacks on civilians?

I am familiar with the bill.

It is an aipac-sponsored bill. It was lacking any kind of balance. Such a bill should include language condemning Israeli attacks against civilians.

These bills come up and i think some vote for it just to prevent massive attacks from the lobby. And they are worded in such a way as to make it look like opposing it means (as in this case) you support attacks against civilians, which i certainly do not, and i am sure McGovern does not.

Another example is the bill that passed in the Senate 100-0 this summer, simply saying "Israel has a right to defend itself" in the context of the Lebanon attack...

But there was nothing in it that said anything about Lebanon's right to defend itself. nothing in it that the US should insist on a cease-fire. Nothing in it about concern for Israel's use of cluster bombs or the death of civilians in Lebanon. It's just crazy.

Listen to aipac crow about its "accomplishment" in Lebanon...
http://www.stopaipac.org/aipaclebanon.htm

A few facts about Israel-lobby funding of Congress campaigns:
aipac itself does not give out money, but they do work with pacs that do (you already know that, probably)
Some will vote all the way for aipac, and never receive a penny. Probably most of the time because they agree with aipac (not just Jewish members of Congress, others as well). others may do this to prevent the lobby from funding an opponent.
Some will get money from the lobby yet sometimes oppose aipac-related initiatives

Yet it is not possible in congress to really present an alternative policy. If someone did that, they would be ostracized by their party, their pet projects for the home district would not likely be backed by others, they would not get good comm assignments and so on. Let's just say the environment is not conducive to that.

[oberliner]

82. What about the bill Dennis Kucinich introduced?

This is the one I am referring to:

H. CON. RES. 450
Calling upon the President to appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence and to commit United States diplomats to multi-party negotiations with no preconditions.

What were your thoughts on that bill? That bill seemed to present something of an alternative policy, wouldn't you agree?

Rep. Kucinich had thirty-four co-sponsors for that bill. I do not think that the introduction of that bill negatively impacted his or the co-sponsors' abilty to get good committee assignments and the like.

[Tom Joad]

86. Dennis Kucinich has done more for Israel and Palestine than maybe any other

Congressperson. I applaud his leadership and i applaud those that cosponsored this bill, including my own rep, Barbara Lee.

He is not well-liked by the Party establishment. Probably tolerated, and he does add bring in people to the party that otherwise would not vote or go into the green party.

Also this bill is fine but it is basically symbolic. It just asked bush to do something right. And it was moot soon after it was introduced.

What if a congressperson were to ask for an investigation of Israel's nuclear weapons. Current US law prohibits military aid to nations that have nuclear weapons and have not signed the Non-proliferation treaty. This would be a very dramatic thing, it would mean a very dramatic reversal of US policy, to actually apply US law in dealing with Israel. Or would a congressperson wrote a resolution saying that the US should not allow funding for settlements in the West Bank (which are almost universally acknowledged (outside bushworld and Congress)to be illegal under international law under the Geneva convention). This would get nowhere.

But every once in a while, you get little resolutions, that go against what the lobby wants, true. But nothing that would dramatically alter US policy.

There was a resolution calling for an impartial, transparent investigation into Rachel Corrie's death. it did get like 60 cosponsors (imagine, 60 out 350 congresspeople asking for nothing more than an investigation of a US citizen's death) The bill died. Opposed by Democratic and Republican leadership. So it goes. Even so, people working for justice in the Middle East were happy it got as far as it did.

Maybe things will change. But things don't look very good now. If it is going to change, we have to create the environment to make it happen. People who oppose the status quo have to mobilize and speak out and make demands. Just like any other issue.

[msmcghee]

40. Comparing Rachel Corrie to Michael Schwerner & Andrew Goodman?

There seems to be one huge gap in your analysis.

Blacks in Mississippi were engaged in no terrorist campaign to kill white people.

They were not walking onto buses and into night clubs with C4 wrapped around their waists. The had no tunnels under their homes being used to smuggle explosives for that purpose.

Blacks in Mississippi had never claimed that whites had no right to live there nor did they vow to keep killing whites until they were gone from the southern US.

Blacks in Mississippi followed the non-violent principles of Martin Luther King and ended up making solid gains for their people with a minimum of death and destruction on both sides. (That's not to say that racial discrimination in this country has ended and that there's no more injustice to be opposed. There absolutely is.)

I find your comparison quite abhorrent.

Rachel Corrie was a passionate teenager who attached herself to a particular cause. Some would say she chose poorly. I believe she died tragically. I'm not sure how cynically she was being used as a weapon against Israel when she was alive but anyone can see that her death is being used for that purpose now.

[Tom Joad]

41. Why do you call a 23 year-old woman a "teenager"?

Is it because msmcghee you don't know anything about her? That must be it.

Corrie worked only with the great majority of Palestinians who defy the brutal, violent illegal occupation nonviolently.

[msmcghee]

45. I have read many accounts of what a passionate . .

. . teenager she was and how she always attached herself to causes of some type.

Most accounts of the event are sympathetic and they seem to stress her young innocence. From reading those reports I assumed she was a late teen.

And I never claimed to be an expert on the event. But, what does her age have to do with the substance of my post. Nothing.

About her death:

"Rachel Corrie was injured as a result of earth and building material falling on her when she tried to climb on a pile of earth while work was being carried out by an armored Israel defense forces bulldozer," the army said in a statement. "The crew of the armored bulldozer did not see Miss Corrie, who was standing behind a pile of earth, nor could they have seen or heard her."

Do you have any evidence that refutes this?

[msmcghee]

47. I also have to wonder about this . .

"Corrie worked only with the great majority of Palestinians who defy the brutal, violent illegal occupation nonviolently."

I am not aware of any significant non-violent protest actions by Palestinians against Israel. I know that most Palestinians suffer from the checkpoints, etc. and complain bitterly about it. I don't blame them for that. But I'd hardly call that non-violent defiance.

Occasionally a group of women will place themselves in harms way to prevent IDF arrest or attacks against known violent leaders of various militias - that are actively trying to kill Israelis. That's hardly what I'd call non-violent resistance in the tradition of Martin Luther King.

But, maybe you know more about this principled non-violent protest movement against Israel that you seem to imply is an ongoing fact - and you could provide some links.

[Tom Joad]

77. Nonviolent action in progress....

Imagine... being able to walk through the land that has been yours for countless generations.

http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/12/29/shuhada-breakthrough/
Breakthrough for Palestinian Human Rights in Tel Rumeida
December 29th, 2006 | Posted in Reports, Hebron Region

by Sam, December 29th

This morning at 10 a.m, three Palestinian residents of the Tel Rumeida District in Hebron accompanied by a handful of Israeli activists and media personnel as well as international volunteers successfully crossed an area off limits to Palestinians for the last six years.

Tel Rumeida falls in the Occupation controlled H2 military zone of Hebron City and is illegally barricaded by the IOF even though there are many Palestinian residents within the area. Access is only available via a checkpoint and Palestinians are not allowed to drive their cars in the zone. The illegal Jewish settlers however, enjoy total freedom of movement and are infamous for their constant harassment and attacks on Palestinians.

A recent Israeli High Court ruling stipulates that the restriction of Palestinian movement in Shuhada street has been mistakenly enforced for the last six years and that Palestinians in fact have the right to use this road. Armed with the court ruling the three men peacefully approached the area and were immediately stopped by an Israeli soldier outside the Beit Hadassah settlement who refused to look at the paper and physically attempted to restrain the Palestinians from bypassing. Five more soldiers then came running up from the checkpoint, soon followed by an army jeep with a few more soldiers. They read the court ruling and then telephoned the Border Police who arrived shortly thereafter.

The soldiers then made the 3 men face and put their hands up against a wall and searched them while the police were on the phone. After approximately 30 minutes the soldiers and police allowed and escorted the Palestinian men as well as the activists through the area to the end of Shuhada Street and agreed that Palestinians shall henceforth be allowed to use this route unhindered by the IOF or settlers.

The three men walked through a street in their own neighbourhood for the first time in six years and the happiness was evident on their faces. This represents a significant breakthrough in the human rights of the local Palestinians and a buzz was soon evident amongst residents in the area as the news spread. All that remains to be seen is if the IOF adhere to the High Court Ruling, and allow the Palestinians the freedom of movement which is now legally theirs.

[Taxloss]

42. She certainly chose. She picked her fight.

And she picked the leading bugbear of overwrought young idealists toying with extremism - Israel. She even acknowledges why in her writings. As opposed to fighting a genuine tyranny, which might put her up against a wall and shoot her, she thought that she would be protected by Israel by her "international white person's privilege". Then she took an absurd risk - absurd for its pointlessness - and died. It's a terrible shame, but it's what happens when one treats a violent internal conflict as some sort of gap-year TEFL module.

And now she is the recruitment poster-child for extremists attempting to recruit British Muslims for suicide bomb raids against Israel. I wonder what she would have made of her name being used as the rallying call for the murder of innocents.

[Tom Joad]

44. An internal conflict? Yet with US support of the Israeli military, it is a

question of US policy...

I think it is very unfortunate that all the innocents that Israel has murdered are used as recruitment for extremeists. Perhaps the best course for israel is to stop killing innocents.

A good idea for the United States as well. Stop wars of aggression.

[Taxloss]

46. Oddly, that "not murdering innocents" strategy

hasn't occurred to the likes of Hamas, whether those innocents are Israeli or Palestinian. Still, I suppose the fact that Hamas murders Palestinians as well as Israelis could be presented as some sort of enlightened equal opportunities policy. Or it could be seen, more accurately, that the Palestinian cause - a wholly genuine one - is seen as a useful tool for anti-Israel extremists across the Middle East and the world to turn the Palestinians into a sort of Janissary slave army, kept in check by Hamas commissars whose interest is to keep peace beyond reach.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Not oddly at all...

See, some of us are opposed to the killing of innocent civilians and it makes no difference to some of us whether those who are doing the killing are Israeli or Palestinian :)

[Violet_Crumble]

53. 'As opposed to fighting a genuine tyranny'?

So what don't you consider to be genuine about the occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people?

[Taxloss]

65. Reading trouble?

The state of Israel is a democracy.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. Not at all..

I know Israel is a democracy, which is why I've mentioned that more than a few times in this forum, but thanks for breaking that startling bit of news to me. On the other hand, Israel's rule over the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is not a democratic one :)

What I'd like to know is why you have some problem with people protesting against what's being done to the Palestinian people by Israel. Would protests somehow be more acceptable to you if the form of govt in Israel was a dictatorship? If a democratic govt is doing bad things to another group of people, why shouldn't there be protests?

[Taxloss]

67. She was free to protest wherever she wanted.

She chose - chose - the plight of the Palestinians, a popular decision for people of her frame of mind because Israel will allow them to come and go, gives them the protection of the rule of law, respects their rights and so on. No wonder it's the hot destination for activists like this, unlike states that might bar her entry or put her up against a wall and shoot her. Israel welcomed her, and gave her the freedom to make her protest.

She then chose to wander around a rubble-heaped wasteland in a war zone that was being traversed by heavy machinery. That would be a dangerous choice in a construction site in a region at peace. Was it an accident or murder? I doubt we'll agree and we certainly can't know for certain. But it's a great place for accidents to happen.

Palestinians deserve peace, as do the Israelis. Corrie campaigned under a banner of peace, and saw her actions as the best route to peace, which is commendable, whatever my differences with her politics might be. I consider her to have been incredibly naive and somewhat foolish. It is the ultimate in grotesque ironies that her name is being used as a recruitment banner for suicide bombers - a fact that should give ISM pause for thought, a pause that has not happened.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. I think yr being pretty unfair to her, Taxloss...

Yr post is permeated with a belief that for Rachel Corrie her decision to go to the Occupied Territories was one of convenience and that somehow her and other internationals are shallow in their beliefs.

Where she was 'wandering' happened to be home for a whole bunch of Palestinians, btw. While terms like 'rubble-heaped wasteland' and 'war zone' might make people (not saying you as I haven't seen you placing blame on her yet) feel better about placing blame on Rachel Corrie for what happened to her, the reality is that it's a 'rubble-filled wasteland' coz of Israel destroying homes like the one Rachel Corrie was trying to protect...

As for doubting we'll agree on whether it was an accident or murder - if yr view is that we can't know for certain, then I have to inform you that we do actually agree...

One last comment and question. You said: 'It is the ultimate in grotesque ironies that her name is being used as a recruitment banner for suicide bombers - a fact that should give ISM pause for thought, a pause that has not happened.'

Al-Queda is currently taking their bows and giving themselves the credit for the Democrats doing so well in the US mid-terms. So, do you think that should give the Democrats pause for thought? Or should we put it down, as we should with Rachel Corrie's name being misused to wankers with a different agenda to the Democrats trying to ride on their coat-tails? btw, have you got a link to anything saying her name is being used as a recruitment banner for suicide bombers rather than merely the martyr banners of her that were put up?

[Taxloss]

72. That link, first.

Recruitment under her name:

Iranian Group Seeks British Suicide Bombers

Mr Samadi's group was participating in a recruitment fair for "martyrdom seekers" being held in the grounds of the former US embassy in Tehran. Several hundred volunteers have signed up for missions in the past few days.

Volunteers attracted to his group were asked to complete forms specifying whether they prefer to carry out operations against "the Quds occupiers" (Israel), the British author Salman Rushdie - subject of a death sentence passed by Iran's late spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, over The Satanic Verses - or "the occupiers of Islamic lands", the US and Britain.

Mr Samadi was standing at an exhibition stall festooned with portraits of Palestinian suicide bombers, including pictures of the aftermaths of attacks. It also featured a tribute to Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist killed by an Israeli army bulldozer in Gaza three years ago. A banner outside the fair read: "There is no voice higher than intifada." Nearby stood a mock model of the Statue of Liberty, with iron bars cut into the torso to symbolise a prison cell.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1756462,00.html

This story, about two Britons who later blew themselves up in Israel, killing three people, is connected:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,949297,00.html

My mentioning ISM could be considered a mistake as to debate it is something of a digression. But she is seen as an inspiration to suicide bombers, as that latter piece demonstrates. Another Guardian piece ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,947798,00.html

... says that the British bombers visited the scene of her death before they went to their own "martyrdom". Those that see fit to promote the cult of Rachel Corrie with plays like this might consider what some draw from her story - inspiration to kill and maim. She would obviously deplore that, but the cult continues.

Do we need to retread the arguments behind why these clearances take place? Her death was pointless. She risked her life to save a house - wouldn't it be better if she was alive and the house rubble? I suppose we can argue the pros and cons of demolishing this house in particular, but isn't that just another digression, really, an irrelevance? Peace would have been better served if she was still alive. I think that this play is unnecessarily divisive, but would not agree with any effort to stop it being performed. No such effort appears to have happened in Toronto.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. Thanks for the link...

Nothing surprises me when it comes to the Iranian govt or their whackadoodle groups...

I do not, however, agree with you that there is a cult when it comes to the play that was done about her, nor do I think the plays writer nor the ISM should be held responsible for what extremist groups choose to do when they abuse her memory like that. As left-wingers, similar charges are levelled against us by conservatives for our opposition to the invasion of Iraq - eg that we are supporting terrorism etc when we spoke out against the invasion. What also comes to mind is instances where credible, respectable writers are quoted on extremist websites in an attempt to bolster their extremist arguments...

[Tom Joad]

43. You also don't understand the difference between military occupation and

living together with the same rights.

How many Israeli settlers say that Palestinians and Israeli Jews should live together in the West Bank under the same law, vote in elections together, be accountable under the same law? That Israeli Jews would not be able to steal private land from Palestinians, that they must respect property rights (as we know from a Peace Now study, much of the land the settlers live on is privately owned by Palestinians, who have not been compensated, or even consulted about this land grab).

That might actually be a possible solution, one state for all. Is that what you support?

But when a nation takes another land and sets up a military occupation, it is illegal under the Geneva Convention to transfer some of its population to the occupied territory. Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

Amira Hass and other Israeli Jews have lived in the occupied territories, and they were welcomed by the Palestinian people. The difference? They went to live as neighbors, not as occupiers and dispossesors of land.

[Taxloss]

24. Having read about this play's ill-starred run in the UK,

I'm not sure that it could be considered particularly offensive. It's propaganda for sure, and I think its politics were fairly objectionable, but I don't think that is enough to stop its production.

Besides, it sounds as though Bragg was more moved by the fact that it is not a good play, rather than political considerations. Michael Billington wrote a very sympathetic review of it in the Guardian (4/5 stars) but drew the distinction that it is not a complete picture of the Palestinian situation - simply an honest picture of Corrie's reaction to the Palestinian situation, which was of course quite extreme. Review here.

[msmcghee]

25. Reasonable comment.

"I'm not sure that it could be considered particularly offensive. It's propaganda for sure, and I think its politics were fairly objectionable, but I don't think that is enough to stop its production."

I would add that the decision by this director/producer not to do the play is what happens when art is funded by those who pay to see it. Director/producers always have to make decisions as to where to apply their limited resources to get the best return for their theater group.

Anyone is permitted to write and produce whatever plays they wish in a free society - like Canada. Having been peripherally involved with stage production in my town I know the huge commitment it takes in time and resources and especially personal energy to produce a play for an audience.

I suspect there were several reasons why he chose not to do this one - but I also suspect they all boiled down to his prediction that his group would not be as successful doing this play as they would be doing another.

[Taxloss]

26. It is, also, a one-woman show.

Whatever one's views of Rachel Corrie, there's little doubting the strength of her convictions. To bring that across on the stage requires quite a bit of virtuosity from the actor playing Corrie, and it sounds from Bragg's comment that the casting was simply not strong enough.

[Scurrilous]

69. Thanks for the Guardian review.

More on Martin Bragg who judged "My Name is Rachel Corrie" as not powerful enough to stage at his theatre:

http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/165333

<snip>

"In the other corner, however, sporting a black hat and twirling a metaphorical moustache, is CanStage's Martin Bragg.

In 2006, his company produced 10 shows and not one of them could be called a true success, either critically or popularly.

CanStage's productions are usually presented with enough surface polish so that they avoid being really awful (although Hair was an exception), but what they've been lacking recently is any sense of the reason why they're being done. If ever an organization needed a mission statement, it's this one.

Bragg's recent decision to cancel My Name Is Rachel Corrie, supposedly in the face of board pressure, is just one more indication of the muddied artistic thinking that is plaguing this theatre and needs to be remedied as soon as possible."

[oblivious]

94. You are misinformed about its 'ill-starred run in the UK'.

Harold Pinter and 18 other Jewish writers in a letter to the NYT:

In London it played to sell-out houses. Critics praised it. Audiences found it intensely moving.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/18/1437210

[Taxloss]

97. That's an opinion, yours and theirs. n/t

[oblivious]

101. Actually, it's not an opinion. It's a fact.

Taken at random from a google search:

My Name Is Rachel Corrie is the one-woman play based on the real-life writings of a young American peace activist who lost her life in Gaza. A sell-out success during two runs at the Royal Court last year
http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/news/display?contentId=88741

After a sell out run at The Royal Court, the production of My Name is Rachel Corrie will transfer to the Playhouse Theatre for 36 performances only from 28 March – 7 May 2006.
http://www.pressureworks.org.uk/dosomething/events/2006/080306_corrie.html

SOLD OUT, WITH PLANS TO READ THE PLAY IN SCHOOLS

"My Name is Rachel Corrie," the new play that opened at the prestigious London theatre recently described by the New York Times as "the most important theatre in Europe," has sold out. It has become one of the fastest-selling plays in 50 years, and is probably on its way to the US, with plans to distribute the text of the play in schools.
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000361.html

The controversy behind "My Name is Rachel Corrie"
We wrote about the attempt this spring to bring this polemical monologue to New York, from its wildly popular run in London.
http://www.keshertalk.com/archives/2006/10/rachelcorrieplay2.php

“My Name is Rachel Corrie,” which had a sold-out run April 14 to 30 at the Royal Court Theater, tells the story of how a young, idealistic American from Olympia,Washington becomes a committed peace activist who ultimately dies for her cause.
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_2005/0507080.html

The show eventually played to a sellout audience at the off-Broadway Minetta Lane Theatre in early 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Dodds

My Name Is Rachel Corrie
Royal Court Theatre

Alan Rickman's production is 'A triumph' Observer 'Pitch-perfect' Independent 'Vibrant' Standard 'Gripping' Telegraph 'Riveting' Time Out

Direct from the West End Why did a 23-year old woman leave her comfortable American life to stand between a bulldozer and a Palestinian home? Taken from the writings of Rachel Corrie, this new play tells the story of her short life and sudden death, from the words she left behind.

'Funny, passionate, bristling with idealism and luminously intelligent' Time Out
http://www.pleasance.co.uk/edinburgh/listings/grand

...crucially, Rickman and Viner have created something that works on the stage, that flows and builds, and engages the attention; even with the best intentions their efforts would have counted for little if this were not the case.

...This is as humane and moving a piece of theatre as you could come across; yet in the States there are some who still regard Corrie as a contentious figure, as a kind of traitor. It speaks volumes about the spread of censorship in the Land of the Free that people weren't even given the opportunity to make up their own minds.
http://www.musicomh.com/theatre/rachel-corrie_0306.htm

[Taxloss]

103. It was less successful in Edinburgh than in London, and attracted controversy

and debate. Why bother scraping up positive reviews? I pointed to a positive review. Harold Pinter has been at the forefront of the play's promotion since its inception, he's a strong voice in favour of it. What is clear from all the reports of the play is this: that the quality of the writing is not in question, but that it requires considerable virtuosity from the actor given the title role. That is clearly what is at issue in Toronto - the quality of the production. Bragg says that his decision was based on that, not on hypothetical political problems that may have occurred down the line. Against Bragg's version of events, we have these anonymous insiders. Who might these Canstage insiders be? We don't know. But it is easy to see why those who were involved in this play artistically might want to protray the decision not to present it as political rather than artistic. The only political controversy here emanates from the play's supporters.

[Violet_Crumble]

106. 'Why bother scraping up positive reviews?'

I'm pretty positive the only intent of any links in that post was to point out that what you said about the play had an ill-starred run in London was incorrect...

[Tom Joad]

27. On a related note: Help rebuild the home Corrie was trying to save.

The home of the Nasrallah family was not destroyed on the day Corrie was allegedly murdered by the Caterpillar Bulldozer driver. Not until most of the internationals had left Gaza was it destroyed by the Israeli Occupation forces, like thousands of other homes in Gaza.

Human Rights Watch found the Israeli Defense Forces made 16,000 people homeless in Gaza since September 2000. Our US Tax dollars at work.

You can help rebuild the home Corrie was trying to save. Contrary to myths that have spread on the internet, the Nasrallah family has NEVER even been accused of having any terrorist ties. They are simply a family living in Gaza.

You might want to cosider a donation to help rebuild their home, as a gesture of goodwill from the people of the United States. Most of the funds have already been raised, and the home is nearly finished, but they need just a few more donations to get it done.
http://www.rebuildingalliance.org
After this home is rebuilt, the Rebuilding Alliance will go on to rebuild other homes.

[question everything]

28. Lousy play - some comments

Palestine is the new Cuba, a political cause whose invocation has the effect of instantaneously anesthetizing the upper brain functions of those who believe in it.

he script is disjointed to the point of incoherence, the staging crude and blatant, while Megan Dodds's performance as Rachel Corrie is frankly cartoonish.

Part of Ms. Dodds's problem, however, is that the real-life character she is portraying was unattractive in the extreme, albeit pathetically so. Whimsical, humorless and -- above all -- immature, Corrie burbles on about her feelings ("The salmon talked me into a lifestyle change") without ever troubling to test them against reality. When she finally does so by thrusting herself into the middle of the Israeli-Palestinian blood feud, she sees only what she passionately longs to see: "The vast majority of Palestinians right now, as far as I can tell, are engaging in Gandhian nonviolent resistance."

"My Name Is Rachel Corrie" is a scrappy, one-sided monologue consisting of nothing but the fugitive observations of a young woman who, like so many idealists, treated her emotions as facts. "I am disappointed," she declares, "that this is the base reality of our world and that we, in fact, participate in it. This is not at all what I asked for when I came into this world." To mistake such jejune disillusion for profundity and turn it into the climax of a full-length play is an act of piety, not artistry.

[bigluckyfeet]

31. If the Truth is offensive,Thats Too Bad

"Philanthropist Bluma Appel, after whom CanStage's flagship theater is named, concurred. "I told them I would react very badly to a play that was offensive to Jews," she said."

[Behind the Aegis]

92. That doesn't make it the truth.

[oblivious]

95. I'll trust Harold Pinter's judgement over yours.

“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 Theatre 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 letter goes on to say, “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.”

And the final line of the letter says, “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.” Signed Gillian Slovo, Harold Pinter, Stephen Fry, London, March 20, 2006. Harold Pinter this year won the Nobel Prize for Literature.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/18/1437210

[nicoll]

38. Freedom of speech

Don't see why the play was not shown. Seems to have been played in other places, so the reason being that the play was not good enough does not hold water. Whats it all about anyway. In truth an American civilian was run over by a bulldozer and killed. I don not know about you but in my book of rights and wrongs that is definitely wrong. Why, Why, Why do people try and justify or shift the argument by saying she was in-directly helping terrorists or giving examples of Jewish people who have been killed by suicide bombers to in some ways make it OK that she was run over and killed by a bulldozer. The driver should be arrested and charged for at a min manslaughter and in the extreme murder. What was his name.

[Behind the Aegis]

48. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

If you read the article, you will see that the producer (or whatever his title) chose not to pick up the play because he felt it was 'more powerful on paper than on stage.' The play has had very mixed reviews, so your false conclusion doesn't hold water. Furthermore, no is trying to justify her death, that is your own perception. I have yet to see one poster to say it was "OK" that she was run over by a bulldozer. Most, if not all, have said it was sad, but, this where people diverge, she bears some responsibility for her death. As far as "shifting" the argument, discussing the reasons for her death is not shifting the argument. And, no one said anything about Jewish people killed by a suicide bomber. That one comment was about another AMERICAN killed in the conflict; seems reasonable to include that since the argument is about an AMERICAN citizen being killed. I think the real question is why do so many want this play to be seen? Of course, I find it interesting that this play is about an American and not a Palestinian involved in the peace movement. It serves as yet one more example of American ethnocentrism. Interestingly enough, those in this forum that accuse people of Israeli lives being more important than Palestinian lives, don't see the irony in a play that is about an AMERICAN and not a Palestinian, and, to my knowledge, no plays of this sort have been produced or preformed involving Palestinians. I guess some lives are more important; American ones.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. 'Most, if not all' have said her death was sad??

Most, if not all, have said it was sad, but, this where people diverge, she bears some responsibility for her death.

There was an influx of 'Pancake Queen' posts after her death, and there was one particular now-tombstoned poster who not only posted sick 'pancake queen' jokes, but also blamed Rachel Corrie for her own death. Oh, and then there's the one who posted a really insensitive letter he'd written about her death which he claimed he was going to email to her parents....

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

68. Yes, i can site more than one "pro-israel" website forum

where the IHOP icon is popular, or a bulldozer is used to celebrate her death. Like little Green goofballs and others.

As for "bearing some responsibility for her death" no more than the brave souls I cited above who chose to go to Mississippi instead of staying in their comfortable hometowns on the East Coast... they too made a dangerous choice.

[Behind the Aegis]

70. Which bears little on those who posted in this thread.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[Behind the Aegis]

89. I am ashamed of nothing in regards to this thread.

[oblivious]

84. Toronto Star: Board alarmed by negative reaction from influential supporters

Theatre scraps play on Mideast 'martyr'

...The alternate version being told among CanStage insiders: Members of Bragg's board were alarmed by negative response from influential supporters of the theatre, especially in Toronto's Jewish community, who were canvassed for their opinion. Many were dismayed and openly critical when confronted with the prospect of the city's flagship not-for-profit theatre producing a play that could be construed as anti-Semitic propaganda, especially during a frightening period when Israel's existence is threatened by Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

"I was asked what I thought, and I told them I would react very badly to a play that was offensive to Jews," says veteran cultural activist Bluma Appel, whose name is affixed to the theatre where CanStage presents its mainstage productions. "I would react just as badly to a play that was offensive to blacks or Muslims or white Christians," Appel said from her winter home in Florida.

A complicating factor: CanStage posted a loss of almost $700,000 this year and has seen its audience dwindle. This is no time to alienate subscribers and risk controversy.

Developer Jack Rose, a member of the CanStage board who, like Appel, has not read or seen the play, says: "I had one phone conversation about this. There was a question whether it would be a mistake to proceed with it, and my view was it would provoke a negative reaction in the Jewish community."
http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/164309

[breakaleg]

85. I find it disturbing that this play is being pulled due to protests from the Jewish community.

It's one woman's story and if it is critical of Israel (I haven't seen it, obviously) then that's not the same as being critical of Jews. It's about time we made that distinction.

[oberliner]

87. Did you read the headline (and the content) of the linked article?

Here is what was omitted from the article link in the post to which you are responding:

CanStage boss insists artistic merit, not political pressure, behind decision

Bragg's version: When he read the script (based on Corrie's journals) he had an emotional reaction and was "absolutely reduced to tears" as he told the Star's Richard Ouzounian five weeks ago. But later when he went to see it on stage at the Minetta Lane Theatre in New York's Greenwich Village (where it recently closed) it fell flat. The theatre was half-empty, and there was no standing ovation at the end. "The truth is it just didn't seem as powerful on stage as it did on the page – and the audience wasn't buying it."

And also:

Bragg plans to announce next season's playbill in mid-February. "I pick the plays," he says. "No one on our board has ever told me what we can and can't do."

<End of quotation>

You state in your subject line that "this play is being pulled due to protests from the Jewish community." Yet Martin Bragg, the artistic producer says in this article that is was pulled for artistic reasons.

The viewpoint that the play, while very engrossing on paper, does not work well on stage is not an unusual one.

From the New York Magazine review:

"Seeing the play confirms the impression: Corrie’s death was important, and the subject is excruciatingly important, but the play is not important. It’s a well-meaning wisp."

From the New York Times review:

"It is all the more surprising, then, to discover that for long stretches “Rachel Corrie” feels dramatically flat, even listless. This is not the fault of the text. From earliest adolescence, Ms. Corrie, who wanted to be a poet, had a voice that was unusually and emphatically her own, and a precocious gift for concrete metaphors that give form to nebulous feelings."

It seems that some theatre critics agree with Mr. Bragg's assessment of the play as being interesting on paper but somewhat dull on stage.

Other critics disagree and find it to be very engaging on stage.

Thus, some theaters, like the Minetta Lane Theater and the Seattle Rep have chosen to include the play in their season, while others like Toronto's CanStage have chosen not to.

And, of course, people who are pro-Israel (many of whom are also Jewish) may have a negative reaction to this play's inclusion in a theatre's season and it is their right to voice their displeasure if asked for their view on the subject.

No artistic producer has the responsibility to produce any play that they do not feel comfortable producing, be it due to the plays's political content or the play's artistic merits.

[breakaleg]

88. Yes.

[Behind the Aegis]

91. You did?!?!

Yet you replied that you found it disturbing that the play was pulled because of Jewish protests despite the fact that wasn't in the article?!

[oberliner]

93. self-delete

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[breakaleg]

108. So we are arguing against the word "pulled".

Let's say it had been scheduled play and then it was pulled from the schedule. And the article lists two possible reasons why it was canceled (if you like that word better). I'm simply saying that to cancel it due to pressure from the Jewish community (which was one of the reasons listed) would be wrong.

It's a play about a young activist killed in Israel. Isn't it about time we make a distinction between Israel, its policy and Jews? One is not necessarily the other and criticism of one is not the same as criticizing the other.

[Behind the Aegis]

109. One more time...

"Let's say it had been scheduled play and then it was pulled from the schedule."

It wasn't. We can can play the "what/if" game until the cows come home.

"I'm simply saying that to cancel it due to pressure from the Jewish community (which was one of the reasons listed) would be wrong."

But that is not what happened! You seem to be mixing up what happened (the play wasn't picked up because of artistic merit) and what you think happened ("I find it disturbing that this play is being pulled due to protests from the Jewish community."). The first thing happened, the second did not.

"Isn't it about time we make a distinction between Israel, its policy and Jews?"

By all means, let's. However, I think it is also high-time that we also realize bullshit articles like the OP are also fruit from a poisonous tree. It was not chosen because the person who picks the plays because he felt, "It didn't seem as powerful on the stage as it did on the page." What other plays did he not choose? This story is about people trying to make an issue where there wasn't one. It is "much ado about nothing."

[breakaleg]

110. Last time...

"CanStage, the country's largest not-for-profit theater, has reversed its earlier decision and opted not to present the show as part of its 2007-08 season."

So, if they reversed an earlier decision and now are not presenting the play, then the earlier decision must have been to present the play.

I don't know why you insist on splitting hairs when it gets you exactly nowhere. You will choose to see in this what you want, so I'm out of this.

[Behind the Aegis]

112. Well...

For the simple...

"It didn't seem as powerful on the stage as it did on the page," said CanStage creative producer Martin Bragg after seeing the production at Gotham's Minetta Lane Theater.""

"So, if they reversed an earlier decision and now are not presenting the play, then the earlier decision must have been to present the play."

Again..."It didn't seem as powerful on the stage as it did on the page," said CanStage creative producer Martin Bragg after seeing the production at Gotham's Minetta Lane Theater.""

"I don't know why you insist on splitting hairs when it gets you exactly nowhere. You will choose to see in this what you want, so I'm out of this."

It is YOU that is splitting hairs! The play was not picked up because "It didn't seem as powerful on the stage as it did on the page," said CanStage creative producer Martin Bragg after seeing the production at Gotham's Minetta Lane Theater.""

Do you get it now?! It wasn't because of some 'over-sensitive Jews.' It wasn't because of some powerful Israeli lobby. It was because, ""It didn't seem as powerful on the stage as it did on the page," Do you fucking understand that NOW?!

[oblivious]

96. They use phrases like 'anti-Semitic propaganda' and 'offensive to Jews'

I can't see the play but I have read enough of her letters to know that there is nothing anti-semitic or offensive to Jews about them.

http://www.rachelswords.org/rachels-emails/
http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0304/030420.htm

People that equate criticism of specific Israeli government programs with anti-semitism are just not worth listening to. But when they are major benefactors, what is the artistic producer of a money-losing enterprise to do?

I find the alternate version by CanStage insiders of the reasons for the cancelled play considerably more persuasive than Bragg's version.

[Taxloss]

98. Well, you would, wouldn't you?

Agree with the version that fits your preconceived ideas.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[Taxloss]

100. Mote, beam. n/t

[oblivious]

102. Fine, I won't waste my time reading your comments anymore.

[Taxloss]

104. .

Happy New Year.

[oblivious]

111. That was a bit rude of me. Please accept my apology.

[Taxloss]

113. Apology accepted. Please accept mine in return

for my tone. I'm trying to work on it. Too emotional at times. :hi:

[oberliner]

105. The front page of the "Rachel's Words" website

The "Rachel's Words" front page leads with the headline "Rachel Corrie play: censored in Toronto" with this sentence following: "The lobby prevents Rachel Corrie’s voice from being heard — again."

What "lobby" are they referring to? Even if the reports that the play was pulled due to "negative response from influential supporters of the theatre (especially in Toronto's Jewish community)" are accurate, how does that constitute a "lobby" preventing the play from being produced? None of the people whose comments are cited in the article are identified as lobbyists.

What is the distinction here between saying "the lobby" and "the Jews"?

[oblivious]

107. That's not very clear is it. Perhaps they mean people of influence?

They can hardly say 'the Jews' since many Jews are clearly against this sort of censorship. And some of these people of influence who object to criticism of Israeli government policy may not be Jewish. So what to call this influential group?

[bidiboom]

114. Well, that would make them pro-Israel lobby in my book.

Not meant to inflame, but it seems that it would be an accurate description, unless some other less offensive title can be suggested.

[oblivious]

115. yup