A legacy of two martyrs

Israel/Palestine
on 145 Comments

frankcorrie

Madison, WI

Sixty-seven years after the end of World War II, a team of researchers and cameramen from the Anne Frank House in Holland showed up at the Capitol Lakes retirement center in Madison, Wisconsin to interview my father-in-law, Fritz Loewenstein. Fritz is the only known person still living who had been boyhood friends with Anne Frank’s “secret annex” companion, Peter van Pels (known in the Diary as Peter van Damm).

The oral historical account Fritz gave lasted over two hours, the interviewers – including Teresien da Silva, head of collections at the Anne Frank House in the Netherlands –  asked probing and thorough questions about every aspect of his life before his family fled Germany, especially insofar as it intersected with Peter van Pels’.  For Fritz this meant recalling many unwanted ghosts of his own past and what it was like for him as a Jewish schoolboy growing up under the darkening cloud of Nazism in 1930s Germany. There is no question that Anne Frank’s life and death, and all who played a part in it, still capture the imagination of millions long after her senseless and systematic killing. Fritz’s account of his childhood friendship with Peter will be featured prominently in new documentary footage on Anne Frank that will become available at the Anne Frank House later this year. Over a million people visit the Anne Frank House annually to see for themselves the place where Anne lived with her family and the van Pelses in hiding for more than three years.

Fritz Loewenstein’s father was a doctor in Osnabrueck in the 1920s and 1930s. Germany had been their family’s home for generations and they had lived successfully there for decades, cultured and upstanding German patriots. The Loewensteins hoped very much to weather the worst of the National Socialist rule, but as time passed it grew clearer to Fritz’s father and mother that they would have to get their family out. Fritz recalls his own, personal anti-Hitler campaign: washing the swastikas off the door of his father’s clinic each morning. That was in the spring of 1937 as it grew increasingly difficult for Jews to leave Germany. The Loewenstein family, at least that part of it, was fortunate:  they were able to get out with some of their belongings and immigrate to the United States, the first choice of many Jews fleeing the horrors of the Nazi regime. They ended up in Binghamton, New York, where my husband, David Loewenstein, grew up.

Throughout the interview with the crew from the Anne Frank House, David marveled at what an iconic figure Anne Frank has become. People of all ages the world over still read Anne’s remarkable Diary  and visit the place where Anne hid from the Nazis with her family after the Germans invaded and occupied Holland. I remember reading Anne Frank’s Diary when I was twelve, utterly absorbed in the world of this creative and eloquent child despite the fact that she and her family were caught and deported to concentration camps where everyone but Anne’s father, Otto, ultimately perished. She nevertheless remains a beacon of hope and perseverance to victims everywhere who have suffered persecution. Although some have tried to claim that Anne’s life and death were uniquely Jewish experiences, fully comprehensible only to other Jews,I believe that the source of Anne’s appeal is universal. In both her life and death, Anne Frank embodies the human will and desire to live and resist some of the worst odds imaginable. We recognize in Anne a child wrestling with the circumstances of a nightmarish human condition.

On August 28th, 2012 in Israel, Judge Oded Gershon issued the verdict in the civil trial of Rachel Corrie. Unsurprisingly, however, the Israeli State and Military Machine exonerated itself from all responsibility for Rachel’s killing. I expected this. In the nine years since she was crushed to death by a D-9 armored Caterpillar bulldozer that was out doing routine –  illegal and unconscionable – work destroying the landscape and the lives of tens of thousands of people from Rafah, Gaza, Rachel Corrie is still virtually unknown to the vast majority of the educated US public. Unlike Anne Frank, whose life has been immortalized by the circumstances of her death, Rachel’s name, life, and death have been virtually blacked out of US official history like the news out of Palestine generally. Both remain unknown, obscured, or distorted by deliberate disinformation.

The cause Rachel died defending, and the people she stood up for – people whose voices have yet to receive equal validation as credible and legitimate voices bearing witness to their own suffering and ruin – are still waiting to receive the long overdue recognition they deserve as the indigenous inhabitants of historic Palestine against whom a crime of unimaginable brutality and magnitude was committed. Until Israel acknowledges, offers reparation, and honors International Law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; until the Israeli State can publicly apologize for the enormous historic injustice committed against the indigenous people of Palestine – the wound it has created will continue to fester and spread, as it already has, across the Middle East and into the four corners of the world casting modern day Israel into the role of a Pariah State. Its status as such has been increasingly recognized, even by western powers, that understand Israel can continue to act with impunity only as long as it remains under the protective umbrella of US military power.

Rachel Corrie was a resilient, articulate, and defiant 23-year-old college student who went to Gaza with other members of the International Solidarity Movement to bear witness to Israel’s ruthless and deliberate destruction of a coherent Palestinian national life, history, and culture. Because Rachel stood up for the voiceless victims on the wrong side of US-Israeli Middle East policy, her name and legacy have been blacked out of official historical records like classified information. She exists in whispers only; a shadow in the halls of power and in the mainstream media where the official version of modern political-historical events is authorized and spun; where US support and complicity in Israel’s regional hegemonic goals help sustain the necessary illusion of Israel’s overall benevolence.

If official America has so far successfully committed to the dustbin of US foreign affairs the life and death of a courageous white heroine who nevertheless chose to fight for justice on the ‘wrong’ side of American policy; what does this tell us about the overall status and credibility of Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims trying to get their voices heard and their cases re-opened?  How many Palestinian Rachels have left diaries that will never be read? What school will require its students to read the hundreds of personal accounts and records of the abuses their people have suffered at the hands of colonial and imperial powers and their supplicants over the last century?

The Anne Frank’s  and Rachel Corrie’s trapped in today’s US military arenas must be censored out of our consciousness. Their words threaten to expose the abominable policies of the United States and its allies. How many people, young and old, will die in drone attacks against civilians, never having had the chance to ask why they have been condemned to such a hell?

The occupation, ethnic cleansing, dispossession, fragmentation, and wholesale colonization of Palestine have been essentially reclassified in language used to render legitimate the tactics and goals of modern Israel. Its overtly racist framework and raison d’etre, and the methodologies used to perpetuate policies that will maintain the Jewish majority of the state, have been carefully redefined in the US’ and Israeli narratives as the necessary social and political preconditions all Palestinians must accept before “peace” talks can begin again. In plain English, only a total capitulation of sovereignty over the land, including sacred religious sites, and the renunciation of Palestinian nationhood would satisfy Israel’s leadership, which has the audacity to insist that the Palestinian leadership “come to the negotiating table without preconditions”  – Netanyahu’s offer of a non-viable “statelet” notwithstanding.

Rachel saw for herself how the destruction of Palestine was being engineered and implemented in the Gaza Strip. With clear eyes, keen perception, and a conscience too rare in today’s world, Rachel Corrie would describe in her diary and in letters to her mother the unspeakable misery Israel’s routine procedures had from the most trivial to the most significant aspects of Gazan life: everyone and everything was affected by the checkpoints, settlements and settler roads, the curfews and closures.

No one – then or today – can live a life free of the soldiers with their guns, their guard towers, walls, and fences; of the barbed wire, motion sensors, and the futuristic “crossings” that suck the humanity out of the beings that enter them, commanding them with remote controlled voices; turning them into lifeless spare parts on a new age assembly line. No one can avoid the Orwellian surveillance technologies that infiltrate the lives of the inhabitants of Gaza, or that float like the ethereal white blimp above the Gaza Strip gathering “intelligence” on every aspect of the on-going lives below; no one can predict when the tanks and armored personnel carriers or the helicopter gunships and F-16s will invade or appear instantaneously, as if out of nowhere, to incinerate people identified as “suspects” in a matter of seconds. No one can avoid the sadistic and gratuitous actions that result from carefully-crafted strategies intended to humiliate, dehumanize, inflict pain, fear, and permanent psychological damage on children and adults alike. The water and food shortages; the daily electricity blackouts; the open sewage and dangerously inadequate infrastructure; the shortages of food, medicines, and the materials to rebuild the world that is literally crumbling into dust and debris all around them define the average day for Gaza’s unpeople.

Rachel Corrie’s death occurred during a time of great violence; during the second Palestinian Intifada (uprising), and – in the United States – just days before the Bush II administration began its war on Iraq. The timing and pretexts used to justify more land theft and natural resource appropriation could not have been better. America’s “War on Terror” was about to peak with the beginning of the “Shock and Awe” campaign over Baghdad. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had skillfully linked his administration’s policies to the psychopathic US obsession with “terror” and “terrorists” initially concocted by conservative and neo-conservative politicians and corporations devising ways to expand and consolidate US hegemony over a region saturated with oil and natural gas resources. 

The violent context of the Second Intifada exacerbated the most racist and sanctimonious assertions by those who claimed Israel was defending itself against terrorist-infidels and that Sharon’s crusade was a necessary and vital component of the United States’ battle against Evil.  Little, if any, effort was put into US reporting from the Palestinian side because it was understood – part of the accepted canon –  that Israel was fighting for its survival. To portray the Palestinian cause as a just and necessary struggle for freedom, independence, and self-determination was as unheard of when Rachel lived in Gaza as it is today, inviting the most vicious attacks and outrageous accusations.

Like many who bear witness to criminal regimes that oppress, dispossess, and kill people under their rule, Rachel Corrie was deeply troubled by what she had been witnessing in Gaza – in a landscape that defied description. On the day she was crushed to death, Rachel stood between a bulldozer and a family home to protest one of the infinite number of indignities and crimes hurled like grenades at a population of overwhelmingly poor and defenseless refugees trying each day to find new ways of surviving without going mad. According to the Israeli courts, Rachel’s death was a “regrettable accident;” Rachel had put herself into a dangerous situation in the middle of a war zone. She was to blame. The victim was responsible for her own murder; the stateless, poor, and dispossessed were to blame for their status as refugees; for their relentlessly miserable treatment; their imprisonment, dehumanization, and occupation.

Rachel left a diary,  letters and a legacy of courage and steadfastness that mirrored the courageousness and determination of the people around her. She refused to move when the bulldozer came closer and, after a certain point, she was trapped and unable to escape. Her death, like her life, reflected the outrage of a young woman who knew she was too weak to prevent the demolition of homes and the creation of a “closed military zone” in an area earmarked for destruction long before she’d ever arrived in Rafah.

In another age, Rachel’s diary, Let Me Stand Alone, would be the iconic classic of a young woman living a great adventure; determined to survive and fight for what she believed was right. In another time Rachel’s story would be read by school children around the world and millions of people would visit the place where she stood alone facing an armored bulldozer to say with her body, “this has to stop!” In our day she is an unknown martyr in the annals of official history. Her courage has been decried and condemned; her name sullied and vilified. But I believe that Anne Frank would have admired Rachel Corrie. She would have recognized the universal call for justice in the face of war and terror, the dangers inherent in the dehumanization of an entire people and the brutal occupation of their land. She would have verified the violence that a silent and indifferent world bestows upon the victims of nations bloated with power and a righteous sense of their God-given destiny, nations determined to avenge their past, and licensed to kill. Equally, I believe she would have been mortified by the way her own Diary and the death she was subjected to were used as moral justifications for the actions of a state defined by blood and soil, and by the way her own popularity was buoyed by an ideology she would most probably have found repugnant and contrary to the lessons she herself had learned and the horror she experienced. I believe Anne Frank would have agreed with Rachel’s mother, Cindy, who – when asked if she thought Rachel should have moved away from the bulldozer –replied, “I don’t think that Rachel should have moved. I think we should all have been standing there with her.”

Jennifer Loewenstein is a faculty associate in Middle East Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She has lived and worked extensively in Lebanon, Israel, and occupied Palestine and has traveled throughout the Middle East. She is a human rights activist and a freelance journalist and can be reached at: [email protected]

About Jennifer Loewenstein

Jennifer Loewenstein is faculty associate of Middle East Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; LEAP project administrator (http://www.leapsummerprogram.org); freelance journalist; and founder of the Carol Chomsky Memorial Fund (www.chomskyfund.org) Currently on leave in Washington DC, Jennifer’s email is [email protected]

Other posts by .


Posted In:

145 Responses

  1. Mndwss
    September 1, 2012, 11:56 am

    How can you compare Nazi victims to zio victims?

    Do you think that all victims are created equal?

    Some of the dead are more important than others!!!

    ?

    • Annie Robbins
      September 1, 2012, 12:27 pm

      How can you compare Nazi victims to zio victims?

      scroll up and read. that’s how you can compare.

      Some of the dead are more important than others!!!

      how so?

      what does this tell us about the overall status and credibility of Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims trying to get their voices heard and their cases re-opened? How many Palestinian Rachels have left diaries that will never be read? What school will require its students to read the hundreds of personal accounts and records of the abuses their people have suffered at the hands of colonial and imperial powers and their supplicants over the last century?

      there will come a time when their voices are studied in schools. in our archives here we already have so many of these incredible voices. i shudder to think any of them would have to die for their voice to be heard. there will come a day when this tragedy of our time is over. remember at the time she was writing anne frank was not famous nor was she an unusual girl for her age. it is because her voice resonates with that of ordinary people, just like oneself and that stage in ones life, that brings us into her world. and the same for rachel who, had it not been palestine, would have been somewhere else in the world fighting for equality and human rights and defending the aggrieved. it is the universality of their voices and their calling coupled with nature of their deaths that make their stars rise.

      as loewenstein points out, the silencing of palestinian voices by those who oppress them must be ‘censored out of consciousness’ but we have a voice and we have archives and those oppressors are not writing the history now, palestinians are and we are and loewenstein is.

      • Mndwss
        September 1, 2012, 12:41 pm

        Sorry. i did not make my sarcasm clear enough*. :-(

        My point was: Why are not all victims created equal?

        *Like Krauss, the other day…

        Krauss says:
        August 29, 2012 at 5:49 pm

        Ah, the anti-Semite speaks.

        What next, warning us of the dangers of Apartheid? Ha!

        Oh, wait…

      • Annie Robbins
        September 1, 2012, 1:10 pm

        whoops! we should have a snark emoticon.

      • Mndwss
        September 1, 2012, 2:58 pm

        Pizza Annie :-)

      • Mndwss
        September 1, 2012, 3:06 pm

        With love…

      • piotr
        September 2, 2012, 4:22 am

        I recalled previous posts of Mndwss, and I thought that his snark is a bit too far. I mean, this is a sad topic, and opening comments with a snark post is not in my taste. Otherwise I like snark, and there should be snark emoticon, perhaps (^-)

  2. CitizenC
    September 1, 2012, 12:16 pm

    What does Fritz think about the comparison? Rachel has indeed attained the iconic status of Anne Frank, outside the US mainstream. Among friends of Palestine here and everywhere she is remembered in myriad ways.

    There is one difference. Anne was killed in the process of defending herself. Rachel was killed while defending others, far from her home and daily concerns, but close to her conscience.

    • American
      September 1, 2012, 12:57 pm

      ”There is one difference. Anne was killed in the process of defending herself. Rachel was killed while defending others, far from her home and daily concerns, but close to her conscience”

      True.
      But no Righteous Gentile Award for Rachel—–is there?

      • Citizen
        September 1, 2012, 2:00 pm

        Why would there be? Isn’t that award a matter of Zionist ethics? Or is it a matter of talmudic ethics? Or both?

    • mondonut
      September 1, 2012, 7:34 pm

      /CitizenC says: There is one difference. Anne was killed in the process of defending herself. Rachel was killed while defending others, far from her home and daily concerns, but close to her conscience./

      There is another difference. If Anne and her family could have survived the Nazis by simply taking 5 steps to the left or right, they would have done so.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 1, 2012, 11:58 pm

        If Anne and her family could have survived the Nazis by simply taking 5 steps to the left or right, they would have done so.

        knowing it would contribute to/empowered the nazi agenda? really? you cannot speak for the franks and corrie was not considered palestinian until after her death, she was an american, a globalcitizen. had there been a gentile there protecting franks family’s abode..had that person lost their life protecting/shielding them..would you then say it would have been better for them to step aside 5 steps to the left or right..after their death and sacrifice? or would you honor them and place them in the category of righteous gentile?

      • Philip Munger
        September 2, 2012, 12:43 am

        had that person lost their life protecting/shielding them..would you then say it would have been better for them to step aside 5 steps to the left or right..after their death and sacrifice? or would you honor them and place them in the category of righteous gentile?

        — excellent question, and one of the most remarkable comments at this post.

        mondonut?

      • mondonut
        September 2, 2012, 12:09 pm

        / Philip Munger says: – excellent question, and one of the most remarkable comments at this post. mondonut? /

        Unfortunately my reply did not make it past the censors. So this will have to go unanswered.

      • Mooser
        September 3, 2012, 7:20 pm

        “Unfortunately my reply did not make it past the censors.”

        The “censors” Sorry, you delightful dollop of self-pity, there are no “censors” here. You need to look up the word “censor” There are moderators here, whose job job, even if not suitably renumerated, is to determine whether or not a comment is suitable to publish.
        It’s not one of those inalienable rights like stealing land.

      • Blake
        September 2, 2012, 7:18 am

        Mondo is not Zion. You spell zionut as such.

      • mondonut
        September 2, 2012, 12:08 pm

        / Blake says: Mondo is not Zion. You spell zionut as such. /

        WTF?

      • Blake
        September 3, 2012, 2:43 pm

        Your moniker should be: “Zionut”, not “Mondonut”

      • mondonut
        September 3, 2012, 6:19 pm

        / Blake says: Your moniker should be: “Zionut”, not “Mondonut” /

        1. I am not a Zionist
        2. I am not Jewish
        3. It is pronounced Mon – donut
        4. It is none of your f-ing business

      • Annie Robbins
        September 3, 2012, 6:37 pm

        It is pronounced Mon – donut

        uh huh.

      • Cliff
        September 3, 2012, 7:54 pm

        Sure, Zionut, sure.

        You just post on an Israel-Palestine blog and incessantly defend Israeli crimes, including – but not limited to – the murder of an American citizen BY SLOW-MOVING BULLDOZER.

        But yea, you’re not a Zionist. Definitely not!

        You just think poor little Israel is facing nuclear extinction from evil Iran! Oh and your name is Mon-donut on Mondoweiss.

        Yep, LOL.

        Horrible troll is horrible.

      • Blake
        September 4, 2012, 9:03 pm

        I say it’s pronounced Zio-Nut.

  3. atime forpeace
    September 1, 2012, 12:56 pm

    Anne Frank hid from the evil power while she did what her conscience told her was right to do, while Rachel Corrie stood up to the criminal acts being commited against the Palestinians and tried to stem the tide.

    tides usually swallow up those who stand against it.

  4. Shlomo
    September 1, 2012, 1:30 pm

    How about a “Free Mandela”-like tee-shirt with Corrie’s face printed above “Remember Rachel!”

    It could start conversations.

    Maybe put Frank’s photo on the back, too, over “Remember Anne.”

    Adept media use is the way!

  5. eGuard
    September 1, 2012, 2:49 pm

    Frank vs Corry. Phil, are you being blackmailed?

  6. Walid
    September 1, 2012, 2:55 pm

    “Unlike Anne Frank, whose life has been immortalized by the circumstances of her death…” (J. Loewenstein)

    It was much more a question of Hollywood PR, countless plays, movies, TV dramas and documentaries that immortalized Anne Frank than the circumstances of her death. She was but one person out of 6 million and her death from typhus was less dramatic than what most concentration camp Jews experienced.

    Rachel Corrie is in a completely different category. She died defending the rights of oppressed people. She was a heroine in the true sense of the word without any need of of being propped up by any PR campaign or the conjuring up of any imaginary encounter between her and Anne Frank discussing diaries.

    Jennifer Loewenstein is a great writer; what she wrote about Rachel Corrie was good enough to stand alone. The added Anne Frank theatrics diluted the message.

    • marc b.
      September 1, 2012, 6:09 pm

      walid, i think it’s an extremely useful analogy to make. and if the analogy were perfect, there would be no point in making it. two young lives brutally cut short.

      i don’t recall if it has been done here before, but i would love to hear from someone with the background to give the rest of us a tutorial on the evolution of anne’s diary. (no, this most certainly is not an invitation to the ‘it’s a fake’ crowd.) i understand, from what little i know, that the diary read by most school children is not the complete diaries, and that many excerpts have been excised.

      one of the bands from my clubbing days in boston back in the day did a tribute to her.

      • Walid
        September 1, 2012, 11:45 pm

        marc b., I see that I was too harsh. Maybe it’s from being tired of seeing the big “H” being used à toutes les sauces and in this case to highlight the wrong done to RC. On reading it again, I see Jennifer’s family connection to the Anne Frank story and how it may have triggered the analogy. BTW, it was reading Jennifer Loewenstein a few years back that got me hooked on Gaza.

    • Izik
      September 2, 2012, 7:54 am

      “She was but one person out of 6 million and her death from typhus was less dramatic than what most concentration camp Jews experienced.”

      Walid, should Anne Frank’s relatives apologize for not having a more “dramatic death”?! What kind of twisted person puts grades on the deaths of innocent people?

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 2, 2012, 8:45 am

        Wow, Izik, you really do need to learn reading comprehension. Walid was commenting on the author’s statement that the circumstances of her death was what immortalized her. She was wrong and Walid was correct. What immortalized her were her age and the circumstances of her life before her seizure by the Nazis.

      • Walid
        September 2, 2012, 9:09 am

        Izik, don’t put words in my mouth, I wasn’t rating anything. I objected to the parallel being drawn with someone that was assassinated by Zionists and one that died of typhus in a concentration camp and subsequently became the subject of a massive Zionist PR campaign along with other Holocaust issues. As Woody mentioned above, my rumble was how Anne Frank became famous. I’ve read about worse deaths suffered by Jews in the camps than typhus.

      • Izik
        September 2, 2012, 9:48 am

        “subsequently became the subject of a massive Zionist PR campaign”.

        The story of Anne Frank isn’t a “Zionist PR campaign” – it’s a story about a human being, who happened to be Jewish. It has nothing to do with the “Zionists”.

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 2, 2012, 12:00 pm

        Izik, if you to deny that the zionists have used the story of this European girl, and used the story of the Holocaust, to further their claims to the Palestinians’ land, you are fooling yourself. Anne Frank’s story should simply be a story of a human being who suffered at the hands of an unjust and brutal occupation. But it has not been permitted to simply be that, by zionists who cite to Frank’s story as a justification for their unjust and brutal occupation of Palestinian land and attacks on Palestinians.

        I note that there is a story up about a boy about the age Frank was in 1945, who was assaulted, beaten and spat upon by israeli occupation forces. It is striking that you’ve taken so much time arguing with Walid because Walid has the audacity to hold his own opinion, but you can’t seem to take a moment to post a simple note of condemnation for the beasts who assaulted this boy, who appeared to suffered simply because he “happened to be” Palestinian.

  7. Citizen
    September 1, 2012, 3:20 pm

    I think American says it all: “But no Righteous Gentile Award for Rachel—–is there?”

    It shows that their are two different sets of ethics going on here. It’s amazing to me that Rachel Corrie is not touted as a hero by America-and France (Joan of Arc, the terrorist).

    I think it is a testament to the power of the six corporations that own US mainstream media that nobody I meet has ever heard of Rachel Corrie. But they all know about Anne Frank, a foreigner who died how many years ago? And, as to appreciation of the fine arts as a way of humanizing souls, we all know what happened to the play about Rachel, and the one about Anne, don’t we?

  8. tear-stained uzi
    September 1, 2012, 3:45 pm

    Judge Oded Gershon was inadvertently correct that Rachel Corrie was at fault: she was guilty of trusting the bulldozer driver to have a tiny shred of humanity, an iota of compassion, a nanoparticle of goodness in his withered, Ziofascist, black-hole soul.

    Thanks to Rachel — and the countless other victims, before and since her murder — we know there are no limits to the Zionist State’s depravity.

    BTW: … a state defined by blood and soil … is a great line in a strong essay. Thank you, Jennifer Loewenstein (& mondoweiss!)

  9. DICKERSON3870
    September 1, 2012, 4:00 pm

    RE: “Fritz recalls his own, personal anti-Hitler campaign: washing the swastikas off the door of his father’s clinic each morning. That was in the spring of 1937 as it grew increasingly difficult for Jews to leave Germany.” ~ Jennifer Loewenstein

    ALSO SEE: “Bibi and the Yo-Yos”, by Uri Avnery, Antiwar.com, 05/26/11:

    [EXCERPT] It was all rather disgusting.
    There they were, the members of the highest legislative bodies of the world’s only superpower, flying up and down like so many yo-yos, applauding wildly, every few minutes or seconds, the most outrageous lies and distortions of Binyamin Netanyahu.

    It was worse than the Syrian parliament during a speech by Bashar Assad, where anyone not applauding could find himself in prison. Or Stalin’s Supreme Soviet, when showing less than sufficient respect could have meant death.
    What the American Senators and Congressmen feared was a fate worse than death. Anyone remaining seated or not applauding wildly enough could have been caught on camera – and that amounts to political suicide. It was enough for one single congressman to rise and applaud, and all the others had to follow suit. Who would dare not to?
    The sight of these hundreds of parliamentarians jumping up and clapping their hands, again and again and again and again, with the Leader graciously acknowledging with a movement of his hand, was reminiscent of other regimes. Only this time it was not the local dictator who compelled this adulation, but a foreign one.
    The most depressing part of it was that there was not a single lawmaker – Republican or Democrat – who dared to resist. When I was a 9 year old boy in Germany, I dared to leave my right arm hanging by my side when all my schoolmates raised theirs in the Nazi salute and sang Hitler’s anthem. Is there no one in Washington DC who has that simple courage? . . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to original.antiwar.com

  10. DICKERSON3870
    September 1, 2012, 4:07 pm

    RE: “The violent context of the Second Intifada exacerbated the most racist and sanctimonious assertions by those who claimed Israel was defending itself against terrorist-infidels and that Sharon’s crusade was a necessary and vital component of the United States’ battle against Evil.” ~ Jennifer Loewenstein

    SEE: “The Dogs of War: The Next Intifada”, By Uri Avnery, Counterpunch, 9/03/11

    [EXCERPT] . . . The second (“al-Aqsa”) intifada started after the breakdown of the 2000 Camp David conference and Ariel Sharon’s deliberately provocative “visit” to the Temple Mount. The Palestinians held non-violent mass demonstrations. The army responded with selective killings. A sharpshooter accompanied by an officer would take position in the path of the protest, and the officer would point out selected targets – protesters who looked like “ringleaders”. They were killed.
    This was highly effective. Soon the non-violent demonstrations ceased and were replaced by very violent (“terrorist”) actions. With those the army was back on familiar ground. . .

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to counterpunch.org

  11. gingershot
    September 1, 2012, 7:21 pm

    The sad legacy of this poor little girl and the monsters who have used her in justifying their own crimes and ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

    Rachel Corrie is her real legacy – Anne Frank would surely be standing with Rachel rather than driving the Israeli Apartheid bulldozer

    Without question…

  12. Philip Munger
    September 1, 2012, 8:55 pm

    I read Jennifer Lowenstein’s article yesterday at Counterpunch, and am glad to see it re-posted here, where the community can comment.

    From time to time since the summer of 2003, I’ve looked for ways to compare Rachel Corrie to Ann Frank. In an early version of this 2004 essay, I did that, but edited it out for the final version, which was initially given as a speech to people very critical of my art honoring Corrie:

    link to xferstoothers.blogspot.com

    That speech may have been the origin of the “The Other Rachels” meme.

    In that same summer, I made t-shirts with an image of the young Chinese Tienanmen Square protester facing the tank above an image of Corrie facing the bulldozer. Caption for the upper image: GOOD BOY. Caption for the lower one: BAD GIRL

    Over the nine-plus years since, I’ve been asked many times to compare Corrie to Frank. Lowenstein’s article does a far better job than I ever have.

    The way the message of Anne Frank got out to the world was probably more from the play made about her, The Diary of Anne Frank, than from the book. When I grew up in the 60s, there was hardly a high school or college in white America that didn’t produce the play at least once. Having acted in that play and having seen My Name Is Rachel Corrie in its first version in London, I can say they are comparable in some ways, different in several others.

    The play about Frank is a family drama, with several actors, and good dynamics in the script about their fears and cloistered interaction. The play about Corrie is a monodrama, for a solo actress. They’ve both been acclaimed critically, and deservedly so.

    I don’t think any university in the USA has yet produced My Name is Rachel Corrie, let alone a high school. I’ve corresponded with a few American college drama departments about possibly producing MNIRC. None are interested.

    I think people should approach Katharine Viner and Alan Rickman about finding ways to get MNIRC onto film (it is not). And her story is ripe for some playwright to create a drama that could do the same in public schools for Rachel Corrie as The Diary of Anne Frank did for the latter.

    When MNIRC first came out, it was resisted ferociously by Zionist groups. It is still resisted, but the scores of productions now, in several languages are usually accompanied by panel discussions and dueling op-eds in local media that force people to confront issues usually hidden from view.

    Anne Frank and the Frank family survived by being hidden from view. When that ended, she was imprisoned, and died in March 1945, of typhus. But her story came to life within ten years, with the play’s opening at the beginning of the 1955 Broadway season.

    So, it took ten years for Frank’s story to make it to Broadway’s first rank. Perhaps the nine and a half years it has taken since Corrie perished for her story to become more widely known isn’t so very long after all.

  13. dbroncos
    September 1, 2012, 9:55 pm

    Wow. Thank you, Jennifer Loewenstein. Such clear, incisive language. I hope you send a copy of this excellent piece to the WH, State Deoartment, and to every Representative. It would be telling to feature your plea together with the generic, computer generated, auto-response letters you would get in reply: “We are also concerned about the ongoing unpleasantness in the ME…”

  14. Izik
    September 2, 2012, 7:53 am

    You guys are warped.
    How can you compare the death of Anne Frank, who was hunted down like an animal for belonging to an “inferior and dangerous race” to the accidental death of Rachel Corrie?

    • Woody Tanaka
      September 2, 2012, 8:55 am

      You’re warped, Izik, by your zionist pathology, which accounts for your ability to believe in the lie that the death was accidental.

      But you’re right, in a sense. It’s an imperfect comparison. Frank was passive, trying to hide, to survive. The real comparison is between Rachel Corrie and the Dutch, like Miep Gies, who risked everything, including her life, to protect innocent people from the ravages of a brutal, illegal, unjust and immoral occupation.

      And had Miep Gies, like Corrie, been murdered for aiding the victims of oppression, no doubt you and your fellow travelers like Mondonut and this odious supposed-judge, Gershon, would be castigating her and mocking her for her death.

      • Izik
        September 2, 2012, 9:52 am

        What is exactly a Zionist “pathology”? You seem to be projecting.

        And no one’s mocking Corrie’s death. It was a terrible accident and tragedy. But no one assassinated her.

        All these holocaust comparisons are vulgar – nothing here is similar. The Palestinians aren’t being killed in the millions – they aren’t being killed or targeted.

        How is it that Syria’s murder of its civilians, by far a more brutal repression and murder of the Syrian people – does not get the “holocaust treatment”? You guys seem eager to depict the Jews living in Israel as the new Nazis, that’s warped.

      • American
        September 2, 2012, 5:56 pm

        Izik says:

        What is exactly a Zionist “pathology”? You seem to be projecting.

        And no one’s mocking Corrie’s death. It was a terrible accident and tragedy. But no one assassinated her.

        All these holocaust comparisons are vulgar—nothing here is similar. The Palestinians aren’t being killed in the millions – they aren’t being killed or targeted. >>>>>>

        You’re vulgar and a liar. We’ve all seen how Palestines are targeted and killed.

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 3, 2012, 7:53 am

        “What is exactly a Zionist ‘pathology’?”

        It’s the pathology that pretends that anything bad suffered by Jews is the worst thing ever in the history of the world, and uses that fiction to justify current, pervasive and ongoing discrimination against and oppression of Palestinians.

        “And no one’s mocking Corrie’s death.”

        False. Zionists regularly do. Indeed, blaming her for her own death is a mockery, both of Corrie and the truth.

        “All these holocaust comparisons are vulgar – nothing here is similar. ”

        False. But you like to pretend so, don’t you. Because then you get to do as the zionists have done since 1945 — use what happened in Europe as a justification for stealing Palestinian land and oppressing Palestinian people.

        The fact that you deny there is no similarities between the oppression which occurred in two separate occupations, I would suggest it is because, this time, the oppressors are Jews. That is the only way that you can not see a comparison; if you don’t see the Holocaust as a human crime and tragedy, but an exclusively Jewish one. And that view is not only very unhistoric, it is hugely insulting to fully half of the victims of the Holocaust and is very foolish — vulgar one might say — in its attempt to paint the Jews as forever the victims.

        “The Palestinians aren’t being killed in the millions – they aren’t being killed or targeted. ”

        No, they’re not being killed in the millions, but that does not make a comparison between Miep Gies and Rachel Corrie “vulgar.” Miep Gies wasn’t trying to save millions of people, either. She was trying to save a few. Just like Corrie.

        And if you don’t think Palestinians are being killed and targeted by israelis, you aren’t paying attention.

        “How is it that Syria’s murder of its civilians, by far a more brutal repression and murder of the Syrian people – does not get the ‘holocaust treatment’?”

        Syria did not have, as a founding ideology, that the state and land is exclusively the preserve of a single ethno-religious group — a group which does not include the majority of the native inhabitants. The Syrian government does not pick its victims based on their ethno-religious group. israel does.

        “You guys seem eager to depict the Jews living in Israel as the new Nazis, that’s warped.”

        Nope. They’re not Nazis. They’re simply racist thugs. More like the KKK, with kippas and nukes. They act like Nazis sometimes, though.

      • kapok
        September 3, 2012, 1:48 pm

        Oh Izik, you’re such a card. Gassing en masse is so 1940’s. Today the preferred method of eliminating the inconvenient is to slowly turn the screws, and when the victim strikes back, you shoot him, accidently of course.

      • Mooser
        September 3, 2012, 7:24 pm

        “And no one’s mocking Corrie’s death.”

        Oh, no! There isn’t a single comment or article containing things like “pancake Corrie” and “Frisbee” jokes. No sir, no ZIonist mocked Corri’es death.
        Why don’t you do a Google search on “Rachel Corrie pancake”?
        Ziocaine amnesia strikes again.

    • Walid
      September 2, 2012, 9:18 am

      “How can you compare the death of Anne Frank, who was hunted down like an animal for belonging to an “inferior and dangerous race…?”

      Isn’t that what the Zionists have been doing to the Palestinians for over 60 years? Those guys learned those lessons very well and some even referred to Palestinians as “savages”.

      • Izik
        September 2, 2012, 9:56 am

        Walid – if Israel had been “hunting down” Palestinians, don’t you think the death toll would be far higher than 15,000 over a period of 63 years, a figure which includes combatant deaths as well. This is a far smaller death toll than most national conflicts in the history of the 20’th century.

        Assad has killed far more of his own – yet no one is considering that he’s a Nazi. The death toll of the Syrian uprising is 19,000 in a period of just a year and half.

      • dbroncos
        September 3, 2012, 10:21 am

        Izik,

        During Israel’s invasion of Lebannon (June -Sept. ’82) more than 17,000 were killed – almost all of them civilians.

      • kapok
        September 3, 2012, 1:52 pm

        Which reminds me: other nations in the area are generously establishing camps for refugees from the fighting. Except for one notable exception.

      • Djinn
        September 4, 2012, 1:36 am

        Good point kapok, considering the utterly genuine concern expressed by many Zionists about Assad’s brutality you’d think they’d be the first to offer asylum.

      • seafoid
        September 2, 2012, 12:37 pm

        “How can you compare the death of Anne Frank, who was hunted down like an animal for belonging to an “inferior and dangerous race…?”

        Just look at Geller’s bus ad.

        link to huffingtonpost.com

        “In the battle between the civilised man and the savage…..” . The bots believe the people of Gaza are savages. That goes for everyone indoctrinated into the IDF. What is the difference between “savages” and “inferior and dangerous races” ? Answers on the back of a California bus, please .

      • Danaa
        September 2, 2012, 4:11 pm

        Walid, notice Izik’s pivot to Syria, almost in an instant – check the timeline contortion – from “terrible accident (tsek-tsek)” to “vulgar Holocaust comparisons” to “Palestinians not killed in the millions (implied – only thousands? tens of thousands?)” to “what about Syria”?

        Straight from the hasbara playbook – my paraphrase of the great 4 pillars: 1. Oh, how sad! (acknowledge pain) 2. We had it much much worse (Holocause reigns supreme) 3. Hey, not really so bad for palestinians (ie, could be worse cf. Holocaust) 4. What about XYZ (put in favorite headline grabbing conflict – Darfur, Tibet, American Indians, Kurds, hamas, Syria)?

        Then note the linguistic casualties: terrible (whatever incident happened), vulgar (compare to Holocause and/or Nazis and/or Warsaw ghetto), murder (someone else – rip from headlines).

        To me it Izik looks a bit like a belly dancer without a belly button.

      • Walid
        September 3, 2012, 1:52 pm

        “Walid, notice Izik’s pivot to Syria, almost in an instant ”

        I noticed it, Danaa, but decided to pass on it to avoid turning it into a Syria thread. The number of killed in Syria is closer to 50,000 because the regime hasn’t been keeping count of casualties on its side and Assad is being called worse than what Isik is proposing, but none of this has anything to do with Rachel Corrie.

      • Citizen
        September 3, 2012, 6:24 pm

        @Walid
        Yeah. Also notice hasbarabots did not try to divert to what’s happening to the rebels in Bahrain–SA sent military forces there–not even mentioned in the US mainstream news.

      • Walid
        September 4, 2012, 6:55 am

        Citizen, there’s ongoing talk of Bahrain teaming up with Saudi Arabia in a federation of some sort and that’s got the Shia natives very worried.

        link to topics.nytimes.com

        Bahrain was also discussed in the US press last week because of its free-trade deal with the US that was sponsored by Paul Ryan in 2005. It seems that Bahrain did not live up to the terms of the agreement on labour relations and human rights and this is now causing a stir in the US.

        link to huffingtonpost.com

    • ColinWright
      September 2, 2012, 1:38 pm

      Izik says: “You guys are warped.
      How can you compare the death of Anne Frank, who was hunted down like an animal for belonging to an “inferior and dangerous race” to the accidental death of Rachel Corrie?”

      I suppose you have a point. Rachel Corrie was intentionally crushed to death by an Israeli soldier who could see her perfectly well, whilst technically, Anne Frank died of typhus. In my view, both were murders carried out by Nazi states, but if you want to nitpick, it’s your right.

    • pjdude
      September 4, 2012, 9:57 pm

      for something to be accidental there needs to be a lack on intent. there was certainly intent with racheal corrie’s death.

  15. mthunlan
    September 2, 2012, 9:03 am

    You all should never invite me to a coffe dinner. With your ability of comparing Israel with the Nazi regime you will find it hard to differ a Sacher Tart from a cow poo:
    link to allmystery.de
    link to lebensmittel-warenkunde.de

    • Woody Tanaka
      September 2, 2012, 9:22 am

      I’m sure no want would want your company in any context.

      • Blake
        September 2, 2012, 11:56 am

        Lol Woody. I second that.

      • seafoid
        September 2, 2012, 4:04 pm

        The question is how many Israel supporters and Jewish Israelis think like that.

        At what point does a “Jewish ” State built around such nihilism become ridiculous ?

      • Mooser
        September 3, 2012, 7:29 pm

        “At what point does a “Jewish ” State built around such nihilism become ridiculous ?”

        I consider the antics of all the conscience striken Zionists who keep on trying to establish a date before which Israel was a beautiful thing, to be about the height of ludicrousness. They go crazy talking bad about the occupation and Judea and Samaria, and then they go ‘back when I was a Zionist (remember Vilkerson, it was just after the Nakba, wasn’t it?) we were pure but now it’s all tref)’

    • Walid
      September 2, 2012, 10:13 am

      “With your ability of comparing Israel with the Nazi regime ”

      mthunlan, you have Israel to thank for that; everytime we forget that analogy, Israel goes out of its way to jolt us back to the reality of what’s at the root of Zionist ideology. We got such a jolt this week with the verdict absolving Israel of any responsabilty on Rachel Corrie. You can put all the lipstick you want on Israel, you know the rest. Chassez le naturel, il revient au galop.

  16. wes
    September 2, 2012, 9:09 am

    Anne frank died because she was jewish

    Rachel corrie died because she choose to

    They have nothing in common

    • Woody Tanaka
      September 2, 2012, 9:21 am

      For you to say that this woman died because “she chose to” demonstrates the evil that is in you and your ideology.

    • eljay
      September 2, 2012, 10:00 am

      >> They have nothing in common

      Sure they do: Each was a victim of the actions of a supremacist state.

    • seafoid
      September 2, 2012, 12:20 pm

      Judaism was never ever about the dissemination of hatred. No religion can survive such nihilism.

      Rachel corrie was very similar in her decency to Sophie Scholl

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      That judge who presided over the Corrie case reminded me of Roland Freisler

      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • Polly
      September 2, 2012, 12:30 pm

      “Anne frank died because she was jewish

      Rachel corrie died because she choose to

      They have nothing in common”

      Wow! That is COLD Wes!

    • Marlene
      September 4, 2012, 6:13 pm

      And thousands of Palestinians have died, thousands of Palestinian homes have been demolished, about 750,000 Palestinains were ethnically cleansed from their lands in 1948, many more have lost ther lands and homes since that tme, millions of Palestinians live under a brutal and oppressive occupation, and all because they are NOT Jewish!

      Why should Israel not be compared to a Nazi state? Its very Law of Return as it applies to the definition of Jews is actually taken from the Nazi Nuremberg Laws of 1935 and how they defined Jews. The only difference is that the Nazi Nuremberg Laws were used to deprive Jews of their rights, while Israel’s Nazi Law is to give Jews privileged rights over others and deny others their rights. Same crap, different era, only with the roles played out somewhat differently.

  17. CitizenC
    September 2, 2012, 11:18 am

    Op-ed in Haaaretz by Hussein Abu Hussein, Corrie family lawyer in Israel

    link to haaretz.com

  18. asherpat
    September 2, 2012, 11:56 am

    More than 2000 words but still no logical connection between Anne Frank and Rachel Corrie except that both were:

    1. females; and
    2. killed by military

    The writer uses the above irrelevant similarities and the fact that one of her ancestors had some connection to Anne Frank and she herself is Jewish to pour anti-Israeli vitriol and denigration. Not a single factual argument to refute the Israeli judge’s verdict, just plain old Israel hatred.

    • Woody Tanaka
      September 2, 2012, 1:19 pm

      “2. killed murdered by military”

      Fixed it for you.

      And the other thing they have in common is Frank’s story tells what happens when a brutal military fueled by an evil ideology attacks. Corey’s story tells what happens when a brutal military fueled by an evil ideology attacks and one tries to stop it.

      “Not a single factual argument to refute the Israeli judge’s verdict,”

      Judge Freisler’s verdict has been refuted on many occasions. Do you think that one more recitation of the truth will sway the likes of you?

      • asherpat
        September 2, 2012, 3:28 pm

        Recitation of truth will sway me. The “truth” includes the admission of the Corries’ court expert that the bulldozer driver may not have seen Corrie. The “truth” includes the fact that photos of Corrie standing in front of A bulldozer are not relevant cos it was shot before the incident.
        The “truth” includes the fact that the court was open and transparent, even if you dont agree with the verdict. Truth includes the fact that there will be appeals. The “truth” includes the fact that in the past Israeli soldiers were convicted and jailed for war crimes by Israeli courts.

        What is your “truth”?

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 3, 2012, 7:38 am

        asherpat,

        That’s not truth you’re reciting, that’s justification. It’s an old lawyer trick that pretty much only fools fall for. (It works because the audience [in this case, you] is too foolish, stupid, uneducated, biased or uncaring to note that it is one, giant Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.] When someone says, “X” the lawyer say, “but isn’t it possible that it was ‘Y'”? The expert, being fair minded (unlike the lawyer), says, “it’s possible but it’s really highly unlikely because A, B, C, D, and E reasons. But there is one chance in a billion that it was ‘Y’ so I guess it’s possible” and then along comes a moron saying, “See, he said it was possible!!!” That’s truth….

        And the photo is very relevant because it demonstrates what was happening at the time. Any paid fool can say “I didn’t see the girl who I killed” but you can’t excuse a photo.

        “The “truth” includes the fact that the court was open and transparent, even if you dont agree with the verdict. ”

        No, the truth is that the decision was handed down by a zionist judge in the employ of the defendant. It’s like asking Sonny Corleone to be the judge of whether the family of one of Luca Brasi’s victims should be compensated by Vito Corleone.

        ” The “truth” includes the fact that in the past Israeli soldiers were convicted and jailed for war crimes by Israeli courts.”

        Please. They just gave 45 days for shooting two women holding white flags, but regularly hold Palestinians for years on end without charge. Don’t feed me that bs.

      • Citizen
        September 3, 2012, 8:31 am

        @ asherat
        What is your “truth” given the fact Israeli soldiers were allowed to face their accusers and testify against their case from from behind a screen? link to rachelcorriefoundation.org

      • American
        September 3, 2012, 2:27 pm

        “What is your “truth”?…..asherpat

        ROTFLMAO….you can’t handle the truth.
        Cause the Truth is no one cares if this particular incident was an ‘accident’ or not.
        You’re evil enough and guilty enough ‘of enough’ that condemning Israel on ‘general principles’ is a acceptable moral position.
        Get use to it. It aint gonna change.

      • Mooser
        September 3, 2012, 7:38 pm

        “Recitation of truth will sway me.”

        Anybody who wants to determine exactly what kinds of “truth” sways asherpat to belief simply have to click on his name and look at his comment archive. It’s all there for you in blak-and-white. Just cause they get ziocaine amnesia and write in the same stupid things, including the idea that they are some kind of a normal person with a judgment of decent behavior, doesn’t mean everybody else has to catch it from them.

        Look at his comment archive, and you can easily decide how much time you want to spend appealing to asherpat’s ideas of “truth”.

      • ColinWright
        September 5, 2012, 3:32 am

        asherpat says: “Recitation of truth will sway me. The “truth” includes the admission of the Corries’ court expert that the bulldozer driver may not have seen Corrie.”

        How would you operate a bulldozer if you couldn’t see in front of you? Rachel Corrie was standing directly in front of the bulldozer wearing a fluorescent orange vest.

        Only in Israel would the claim such as ‘the driver may not have seen Corrie’ be advanced. Obviously, he expected her to jump out of the way — but she didn’t. That doesn’t confer on him the right to run her over.

        You can try this at home. The next time you see a jaywalker, drive straight for him. If he doesn’t jump out of the way, tell me what the cops have to say about it.

        Edit: well maybe you live in Israel. Try it with a Jewish pedestrian and see what the cops have to say about it. A Palestinian, you probably could run down.

      • asherpat
        September 5, 2012, 2:34 pm

        @ColinWright “How would you operate a bulldozer if you couldn’t see in front of you? Rachel Corrie was standing directly in front of the bulldozer wearing a fluorescent orange vest. ”

        It is not the problem of the bulldozer, it is a problem of whoever ingores warnings and willfully stands in front of it.

      • Mndwss
        September 5, 2012, 5:57 pm

        It is not the problem of the Nazis, it is a problem of whoever ignores warnings and willfully stands in front of it.

        asherpat. Now i understand your ideology……

        It is possible to compare it to something else…

      • ColinWright
        September 7, 2012, 7:03 pm

        asherpat says: “It is not the problem of the bulldozer, it is a problem of whoever ingores warnings and willfully stands in front of it.”

        Great idea! Let me try that defense the next time a pedestrian steps in front of my car.

        I’ll just say he wouldn’t get out of the way — so I ran him over. Why do I have a feeling my lawyer is going to suggest another line of defense? But then — I don’t live in Israel.

      • ColinWright
        September 7, 2012, 7:09 pm

        Shriek. Mndwss compared Zionism to Naziism.

  19. seafoid
    September 2, 2012, 12:18 pm

    “In another age, Rachel’s diary, Let Me Stand Alone, would be the iconic classic of a young woman living a great adventure; determined to survive and fight for what she believed was right. ”

    That was before the bots took over the religion .

    • Mooser
      September 3, 2012, 7:41 pm

      “That was before the bots took over the religion.”

      In this Century, States are more powerful than religion. Nobody “took over” anything. They handed it to ‘em on a silver platter. Hopefully, they’ll exhibit the hypocrisy religions are known for, and refuse to go down with the state. You can count on religion to stab you in the back that way.

  20. Elliot
    September 2, 2012, 2:06 pm

    The Holocaust holds an oversized place in the American – and American Jewish – imagination. The silencing of Palestinian diaries and the fate of international solidarity workers is more egregious because of the dominance of the Holocaust. That is the heart of Lowenstein’s piece.

    But the actual stories, as opposed to their reception, are quite different. To state the obvious, Anne Frank was a victim; Rachel Corrie was a human rights activist. Anne was a child, Rachel was an adult. Who knows if Anne Frank would have been stronger (or weaker) as an adult.
    Anne Frank’s family tried to hide from the Nazis. Rachel literally put herself in harm’s way.
    Anne Frank died despite trying to hide. Rachel Corrie died because she stood up to the Israeli military.
    Anne wanted to disappear from Nazi view. Rachel’s mission was to be visible to the Israelis as a human shield, in particular, to the driver of the militarized bulldozer who killed her.

    On a separate note:
    David marveled at what an iconic figure Anne Frank has become.
    I grew up in Orthodox Jewish Israel where I received double helpings of Holocaust education but I remember very little about Anne Frank. My secular Israeli friends may have had a different experience, but to me, the iconic status of Anne Frank, like Eli Wiesel, is an American phenomenon.

    • notatall
      September 3, 2012, 6:52 am

      Right. The coupling is specious: Anne Frank was a victim, not a martyr.

      • piotr
        September 4, 2012, 6:45 am

        Victims of organized injustice are often called “martyrs” regardless of their actions. Both young women were killed legally, as results of orders through proper chains of command, and following laws of the respective states. Both were used as symbols. Both were reviled, Anne Frank as fictitious, Rachel Corrie as “idiot”, “pancake” etc.

        On separate note: wes mentions that “Rachel was on the same side as suicide bombers”. This is worth separate analysis in my opinion. This is a frequent vision of the world, particularly during wars or what is believed to be “permanent war”, like Cold War, Israeli/Palestinian conflict etc. which is divided into two sides. “Sons of Light” are innocent victims and perpetrators of just retribution. “Sons of Darkness” are the enemy, whatever they perpetrate is vile, whatever shit happens to them is just.

        During the Intifadas a lot of Palestinians were killed, not in suicide attacks but a lot more, a lot of homes flattened, etc. etc.. and all of that was just. As a part of Cold War, 500,000 Indonesian Communists (or anyone who could be labeled so) were killed in 1965 and many more imprisons in concentration camps for decades, and it was in the name of Freedom, hence just. When four American nuns were killed in 1980 in El Salvador, it was discovered by American government that they were on the wrong side:

        “I don’t think the government (of El Salvador) was responsible. The nuns were not just nuns; the nuns were political activists. We ought to be a little more clear-cut about this than we usually are. They were political activists on behalf of the Frente (the guerrillas) and somebody who is using violence to oppose the Frente killed them.” (Jean Kirkpatrick wrote it shortly before being recruited to Reagan Administration.)

  21. Walid
    September 2, 2012, 2:54 pm

    It’s regrettable how the zios succeeded in degenerating this thread into one about Anne Frank and other holocaust issues when the subject is really about Rachel Corrie. Like the verdict out of Israel, it was expected.

    • Danaa
      September 2, 2012, 4:27 pm

      The trick is not to react directly (oblique is OK though, if one must) – that will be taken as permission to go on with the show. I mean we know Izik and ilk are not here to debate, learn or even teach. They are here to divert, provoke and let off steam – like the Haaretz comment bots (at least under haaretz’s new comment regime). The Itziks etc are Hasbara’s minions – the foot soldiers. Like the Borg, they are expendable – cannon fodder, to TPTB – there to sap energy and waste time. The leaders are dispatched to the newspapers and MSM channels, there to throw sand into the eyes of the larger audience, with no retort possible.

      One day – not too long from now, the “audience’ will rub its collective eyes and realize it’s been in blinding pain all along. And then it’ll react as people do when the pain killers effect wears off,

      • wes
        September 2, 2012, 8:22 pm

        dear danaa
        i am here to debate learn and teach
        i see things from a different perspective -does that make me a hasbara minion-no
        look at my post on the suicide bombings
        all i am trying to point out is that the war between the israelis and arabs has been running for generations and people like rachel corrie ,who want to support ther palestinian cause are better off working for a charity or similar organization than ISM

      • Shmuel
        September 3, 2012, 2:43 am

        wes,

        Your comment on “suicide bombings” (one suicide bombing, actually, if I’m not mistaken) and your remark that “the war between the israelis and arabs has been running for generations” are, in fact, perfect illustrations of Danaa’s analysis.

        If you are looking for the “context” of Rachel Corrie’s death, look at the Israeli policy of indiscriminate destruction of homes and agricultural land in Gaza, addressed by B’tselem in a document published in February 2002. B’tselem concludes that the policy cannot be viewed as anything other than collective punishment, prohibited by the GC. Rachel Corrie, like other “internationals”, was in Gaza to help protect Gazans from arbitrary violence and collective punishment. In March, 2003, it was the policy of massive destruction of homes and crops that posed the greatest threat to the civilian population of Gaza, and that is where ISM and Rachel Corrie decided to act.

        B’tselem on the “Policy of Destruction” (in Hebrew): link to btselem.org

        people like rachel corrie ,who want to support ther palestinian cause are better off working for a charity or similar organization than ISM

        How offensively condescending of you.

  22. Sherri Munnerlyn
    September 2, 2012, 4:48 pm

    I see Rachel Corrie as walking in the footsteps of people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and even Jesus Christ. The legacy she leaves us with is far greater than that of Anne Frank, there is no comparison whatsoever.

    She is the face of standing up to oppression with nonviolent resistance, and she lives on in the hearts of all Palestinians who struggle for freedom, basic human rights and human dignity, and in the hearts of all who struggle against such oppression in any time and in any place. She shows us there is another way besides violence to respond to injustice, and the cost of lives lost in this way will always be worth it. I cannot imagine or envision a better way to die. She will never be forgotten. Hope springs forth from lives lived, as she lived hers.

  23. wes
    September 2, 2012, 4:56 pm

    there ARE 3 martyrs not two
    one has to look at the big picture and hamas stratergy at the time
    on march the 5 2003 there was a suicide bombing
    11 days later
    on march the 16 2003 rachel corrie was sent by ISM to stand in front of that bulldozer

    The attack

    The attack occurred on March 5, 2003, when a suicide bomber from Hebron detonated a bomb hidden underneath his clothes on a bus carrying many children and teenagers on their way home from school.[2] The bus exploded on Moriah Boulevard, near the neighborhood of Carmeliya in Haifa. Seventeen people were killed and 53 were wounded.[3] Police said the bomb, strapped to the bomber’s body, was laden with metal shrapnel in order to maximize the number of injuries.[4]
    Fatalities

    Miriam Atar, 27, from Haifa
    Anatoly Biryakov, 20, from Haifa
    Smadar Firstatter, 17, from Haifa
    Daniel Harush, 16, from Safed
    Motti Hershko, 41, from Haifa
    Tom Hershko, 16, from Haifa
    Meital Katav, 20, from Haifa
    Elizabeth (Liz) Katzman, 17, from Haifa
    Tal Kehrmann, 17, from Haifa

    Kmer Abu Khamed, 12, from Daliyat al Karmel
    St.-Stg. Eliyahu Laham, 22, from Haifa
    Abigail Litle, 14, from Haifa
    Yuval Mendelevitch, 13, from Haifa
    Be’eri Ovad, 21, from Rosh Pina
    Moran Shushan, 20, from Haifa
    Mark Takash, 54, from Haifa
    Asaf Tzur, 16, from Haifa

    • thankgodimatheist
      September 3, 2012, 7:17 am

      Wes
      Let me see if I can manage to be as callous as you are. That attack on the bus was an accident.

    • talknic
      September 3, 2012, 9:41 am

      wes September 2, 2012 at 4:56 pm

      What has your post to do with Rachel Corrie?

      • wes
        September 3, 2012, 6:40 pm

        talknic you ask a good question

        what has my post got to do with rachel

        rachel joined ISM a palestinian organization to assist them in their fight against israel-she was on the same side as the suicide bomber

        in the big picture so to speak you go to the schoolyard

        a fight breaks out between 2 people-
        the big guy steps in and says break it up and pushes the two sides apart or you get the little guy that runs in ,takes sides,and throws a punch

        the big guy was britain but instead of breaking them apart, let them fight on -jack straw admitted it was a mistake

        the only way that this war between arab and israeli will be settled will be by the big guy stepping in and breaking them apart and in my mind the only organization i can think off is the UN which is already involved on the northern border with lebanon ,the eastern border with syria and must now be deployed to the southern border with egypt-that is what need to happen

        gaza needs to be seperated from israel by a UN enforced buffer zone

        the fight will not be settled by the little guys who takes sides like ISM or the author of this article

      • Walid
        September 4, 2012, 7:45 am

        “… the only organization i can think off is the UN which is already involved on the northern border with lebanon ,the eastern border with syria and must now be deployed to the southern border with egypt-that is what need to happen
        gaza needs to be seperated from israel by a UN enforced buffer zone…”

        Of course, Wes, the buffer zones where the UN would be stationed would be located on the Gaza side of the border and the Sinai side, as in Lebanon, so that Israel would not lose an inch of land in the process. That way the UN would be responsible for policing Israel’s borders for it on the Gaza and Sinai side and Israel could continue enjoying the fruits of its thefts while the UN watches its borders for it.

        Wes, you probably haven’t heard, but Nasrallah promised that the next big battle would take place in downtown TA. Israel’s joyride is about to hit a brick wall.

      • eljay
        September 4, 2012, 10:08 am

        >> rachel joined ISM a palestinian organization to assist them in their fight against israel-she was on the same side as the suicide bomber

        Omigod, that’s so true! I mean, sure, she may have been participating in peaceful protests against an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” that was engaged in illegal and immoral activities outside of its borders, but you can see it in her eyes that she was just itching to wipe Israel off the map and push it into the sea!

        What a clown.

        >> the only way that this war between arab and israeli will be settled will be by the big guy stepping in and breaking them apart

        It’s funny how, for Zio-supremacists, resolving the I-P conflict never seems to require any accountability from the “Jewish State” for its past terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and for its 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder.

      • wes
        September 4, 2012, 10:10 am

        Walid
        The reality is that the buffer zone is already there awaiting the u n

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 4, 2012, 10:37 am

        “she was on the same side as the suicide bomber”

        LMAO. Yeah, in the same exact way you are on the same side as Baruch Goldstein.

        “the only way that this war between arab and israeli will be settled will be by the big guy stepping in and breaking them apart and in my mind the only organization i can think off is the UN which is already involved on the northern border with lebanon ,the eastern border with syria and must now be deployed to the southern border with egypt-that is what need to happen”

        Only if you also get them to come in and secure the 1967 greenline border between israel and Palestine, and secure the Palestinians’ freedom to control their air and sea, to Arab East Jerusalem, their defenses, and foreign policy (and forcing all the settlers to scurry back to the west) and you’d get a hearty approval for the UN mission from the Palestinians.

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 4, 2012, 11:17 am

        “The reality is that the buffer zone is already there awaiting the u n”

        How convenient… the black hat terrorists from the i’d’f drive the Palestinian refugees and civilians further into the open air prison, and you have the gall to call it a “buffer zone.”

        So do you expect the UN to continue the villains’ illegal blockade, too?

      • Walid
        September 4, 2012, 11:43 am

        “The reality is that the buffer zone is already there awaiting the u n” (Wes)

        Is that the zone in Gaza inside which Israeli snipers kill Palestinian children?

        “… On Sunday, 4 October 2009, it was reported in the media that a Palestinian child had been shot on his family’s farm in the north of the Gaza Strip, near the border with Israel. It is reported that the child was shot in the spine and is now recovering in hospital, having first been denied access to medical care.

        Israel has established a so called ‘buffer zone’ inside Gaza, a closed military zone which runs the entire length of the border. Since the end of the Israeli offensive in January 2009, this ‘no go’ area has been extended 300 metres into Gaza, although the killing of civilians has been reported up to one kilometer from the border.

        The UN estimates that the buffer zone consumes approximately 30 percent of Gaza’s arable farmland, at a time when there is a near-total Israeli blockade of the territory. With limited options, farmers and their families are compelled to risk their lives in order to gather food from their lands in and around this killing zone.

        The event on Sunday is by no means an isolated incident. On 4 September 2009, 12 year-old Ghazi al-Za’aneen was killed on his family’s land near the border in Beit Hanoun. According to first information gathered by DCI-Palestine, Ghazi was with his family and friends, including eight other children, collecting figs about 700 metres away from the border, when they were fired upon by Israeli soldiers.

        Since the end of Operation Cast Lead in January 2009, DCI-Palestine can confirm that at least seven Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli Military, inside Gaza.”

        link to justiceforpalestine.org

      • wes
        September 4, 2012, 5:01 pm

        Walid
        The un will be in place by 2016 on the southern border gaza will be under egyptian control
        You will still be saying this but they will be doing that

        Once the borders are secured the one state solution will become a reality and final negioations will begin

      • ColinWright
        September 5, 2012, 3:51 am

        wes says: “…in the big picture so to speak you go to the schoolyard

        a fight breaks out between 2 people-
        the big guy steps in and says break it up and pushes the two sides apart or you get the little guy that runs in ,takes sides,and throws a punch…”

        Gotta love it. Works — except that in this case, of the two ‘little guys’ one is a sixth grader with a baseball bat, and the other is a kindergartener.

        The ‘fight’ consists of the sixth grader beating the kindergartener to a pulp, and taking another swing whenever the kindergartener tries to get to his feet — or just when the spirit moves him.

        the ‘big guy’ meanwhile, usually urges the kindergartener to quit trying to stand up — and reassures the sixth-grader of his continuing support.

        Yes, it’s a sickening image. So is Israel.

    • straightline
      September 3, 2012, 11:05 am

      The trouble with this kind of hasbara is that you’re always going to find you lose on the numbers game. Of course the real losers are the people who are killed and their families – on both sides.

      From wikipedia – apologies for not going to more authoritative reports but there are links there to the original sources.

      “According to the Defence of Children International (DCI),[18] of the “595 children killed [29 September 2000 to 30 June 2004], 383, or 64.4%, died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, during assassination attempts, or when Israeli soldiers opened fire randomly” and “212 children, or 35.6%, died as a result of injuries sustained during clashes with Israeli military forces”.”

    • kapok
      September 3, 2012, 1:56 pm

      “metal shrapnel”, so unlike Israeli ordnance which doesn’t even hurt. The dead float away to their just rewards with nary a whimper.

    • ColinWright
      September 5, 2012, 3:46 am

      wes says: “there ARE 3 martyrs not two
      one has to look at the big picture and hamas stratergy at the time
      on march the 5 2003 there was a suicide bombing
      11 days later
      on march the 16 2003 rachel corrie was sent by ISM to stand in front of that bulldozer…

      Barf.

      So Israel’s murder of Rachel Corrie was justified by a Palestinian suicide bombing 11 days earlier?

      In the opening pages of Ordinary Men, the commander of German Order Police Battalion 501 explains to his men that ‘the Jews’ have been killing their wives and children in the bombing back in Germany — so now they are going to go kill the Jews in Josefow.

      Your logic is exactly the same.

      …and people seriously get outraged when I compare Zionists to Nazis. Why shouldn’t I? They are Nazis. Note that you even make the same spurious equation between unrelated parties that the Nazis did — and to the same end.

      To justify murder.

  24. CitizenC
    September 2, 2012, 8:55 pm

    There are no victims but Jewish victims…

    except that the first “suicide bomber” was Jewish—Baruch Goldstein, who killed 29 worshipers at the Ibrahimi mosque in Hebron. After 40 days, the Muslim mourning period, when the Rabin administration could have whisked the settlers out of Hebron in one day, but instead chose to punish the Hebronites in order for the settlers to stay, Hamas conducted its first martyr operation.

    And so on, down to Israel’s breaking of a cease-fire to elicit a pretext for Cast Lead. Many Israeli commentators have pointed out this pattern.

    Since Mondo’s great purge, which took out Blankfort and Martillo, among the critical commentators, and Witty, on the Zio side, the critics seems to have become more bland, but the Zios have not missed a beat. Just my impression, I am not a compulsive follower.

    • Izik
      September 3, 2012, 2:38 pm

      Palestinian terror existed before and after 1948 – totally unrelated to Baruch Goldstein. In event, suicide attacks also occurred years before Goldstein’s attack, while the first “proper” suicide bombing occurred in April 16’th 1993, about a year before the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, so your assertion is false.

      Citation: link to en.wikipedia.org

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 3, 2012, 4:54 pm

        “Palestinian terror existed before and after 1948 – totally unrelated to Baruch Goldstein.”

        BFD. Jewish terrorism existed before and after 1948, too. It was started by in the 19th Centrury by Hertzl and his fellow zio criminals in their plan to steal Palestine from its rightful owners and continues to this day. The world’s largest and oldest continuous criminal enterprise.

      • CitizenC
        September 3, 2012, 7:27 pm

        “Proper” suicide bombing, what a bizarre locution. This was in the occupied Jordan Valley, in the parking lot of a settlement, and the target was a military bus. 1 Palestinian working for the settlement was killed and eight soldiers were injured.

        The article cited by Wiki says that “suicide attacks were common against Israeli troops in southern Lebanon in the mid-1980s but have been virtually unheard of in the occupied territories or Israel.” In other words it was a miltary attack, not an attack on civilians. Attacks on civilians began only after the Ibrahimi mosque massacre by Baruch Goldstein.

      • Izik
        September 5, 2012, 1:59 am

        “Attacks on civilians began only after the Ibrahimi mosque massacre by Baruch Goldstein.”

        An easily refutable falsification:
        1970 – link to en.wikipedia.org – 9 children murdered
        1971 – link to en.wikipedia.org
        1956 – link to en.wikipedia.org – Eilat bus ambush

        That’s the tip of the iceberg. Just Google “list of terror attacks in Israel” for the full details.

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 5, 2012, 8:30 am

        “That’s the tip of the iceberg. Just Google ‘list of terror attacks in Israel’ for the full details.”

        And more importantly, don’t forget the list of terror attacks and the Palestinian children killed by the i’d’f and its predecessors starting in the 19th c. when the zionist movement declared war on the Palestinian people up to the present day and the terrorism of the occupation. (Of course, zios often excuse away their terrorism by claiming nonsense like “collateral damages” and nonsense like that.) If the zionists didn’t want to suffer when the Palestinians defended themselves, they shouldn’t have started the war.

      • CitizenC
        September 5, 2012, 7:13 pm

        Indefatigable Izik. We were talking of the suicide bombings, martyr operations in Hamas terms, which are as objectionable (and effectual) as Indians scalping white settlers on the frontier.

        Otherwise, attacks on civilians by Palestinians have followed some provocation or initiation by Israel. The PLO’s operations were first directed against military targets. That changed when Israel began attacking the refugee camps where the fedayeen were based.

        What else happened in 1955-6 Izik? What happened in 1948? Why did Arabs revolt and riot in the 1930s, in 1929, in 1919-20 etc. Israel always operates in a vacuum of innocence for you.

        Why did I succumb to this…

      • Izik
        September 6, 2012, 5:16 am

        “What else happened in 1955-6 Izik? What happened in 1948? Why did Arabs revolt and riot in the 1930s, in 1929, in 1919-20 etc. Israel always operates in a vacuum of innocence for you. ”

        Is there ever a justification for attacking civilians? You seem to suggest that in some cases – attacking civilians is OK, or understandable. For me, it is always a form of evil – regardless of the perpetrator.

      • CitizenC
        September 6, 2012, 7:15 pm

        “Is there ever a justification for attacking civilians? You seem to suggest that in some cases – attacking civilians is OK, or understandable. For me, it is always a form of evil – regardless of the perpetrator.”

        Izik old buddy, you started this thread on the premise that the Palestinians attack Israeli civilians. I have merely pointed out that it has been tit for tat since day one, which began when Zionists arrived to acquire what did not belong to them.

        Zionism is the aggressor, not the indigenous people. That is the basic moral question. The Zionists came to take someone else’s land, and have never stopped.

      • Izik
        September 7, 2012, 3:08 am

        “I have merely pointed out that it has been tit for tat since day one, which began when Zionists arrived to acquire what did not belong to them. ”

        And what I said – is that there is no “tit for tat” when it comes to civilians. Civilians should never be part of a military/violent strategy. You seem to accept that targeting civilians is somehow OK or understandable.

        As for your “tit for tat” claim. Let’s put it into the test. Let’s go back to the 1929 Hebron Massacre. What’s the justification for the murder of 67 Jews?
        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • eljay
        September 7, 2012, 8:12 am

        >> Izik: Is there ever a justification for attacking civilians? You seem to suggest that in some cases – attacking civilians is OK, or understandable. For me, it is always a form of evil – regardless of the perpetrator.

        And, yet…

        >> Izik: “I think Cast-Lead was necessary … ”
        >> Izik: “Israel is targeting those who commit war crimes by firing at its cities. What problem does that pose?”
        >> Izik: “The responsibility of civilian deaths by the hands of the IDF lies primarily with the Hamas … ”

        So, attacking civilians “is always a form of evil – regardless of the perpetrator” unless:
        – the “Jewish State” deems “a form of evil” to be “necessary”;
        – the “Jewish State” commits “a form of evil” in retaliation or retribution; and
        – the “Jewish State” – the perpetrator of “a form of evil” – can hold someone else responsible for its actions.

        Funny how the Palestinians are not entitled to these exceptions to the hard-and-fast rule that attacks against civilians are “always a form of evil – regardless of the perpetrator”.

      • Izik
        September 7, 2012, 8:42 am

        Israel does not target civilians, and those who do are tried and brought to justice.

      • Woody Tanaka
        September 7, 2012, 11:12 am

        “Israel does not target civilians,”

        So it’s okey-dokey with you to KILL civilians, not just to consciously and deliberately TARGET them. So when israel acts with craven indifference to the fact that its act will certainly kill innocent people, but it subjectively doesn’t specifically target them — even though those people are still going to be most assuredly dead — then that’s fine and dandy with you?

        So if Hamas says, “we’re only targeting government offices in Ashkelon” but they don’t have the ability to control where the missles go, then you would be fine and dandy with any dead israeli civilians because there was no “intent” or “targeting” of them????

        “and those who do are tried and brought to justice.”

        LMAO. Yeah, like those two cold blooded murderers who shot the women waving the white flag and got a whole 45-day sentence. There’s your “justice” in the “Jewish state.”

      • Cliff
        September 7, 2012, 11:19 am

        Israel regularly targets civilians and civilian infrastructure.

        Those Israeli soldiers who murder/butcher Palestinian civilians usually get away with it or get a slap on the wrist.

        You are a liar and an apologist for terrorism, Izik. Shame on you.

      • Citizen
        September 7, 2012, 11:34 am

        Justification? No. Explanation, yes:
        The Shaw Commission addressed two aspects of the disturbances, the immediate nature of the riots and the causes behind them. In the words of Naomi Cohen:-
        “Delving beneath the immediate causes – i.e., the Western Wall dispute, inflammatory publications on both sides, the enlargement of the Jewish Agency, inadequate forces to maintain order, the report called attention to the underlying causes of friction in England’s wartime pledges and in the anti-Jewish hostility that had resulted from the political and economic frustrations of the Arabs. It went on to criticise the immigration and land-purchase policies that, it said, gave Jews unfair advantages. The commission also recommended that the British take greater care in protecting the rights and understanding the aspirations of the Arabs. The Shaw report was a blow to Zionists everywhere.”

        The key targets for murder were the Ashkenazi Yeshiva students from places like America and Canada.

      • CitizenC
        September 7, 2012, 5:22 pm

        What was the justification for the Balfour Declaration and the incorporation of its text into the San Remo protocol which defined the British Mandate? Rioters killing Jews is retail violence against civilians. Zionist lobbying and scheming at the top of the British government to take over a country is violence against millions of civilians, mass violence against an entire people.

      • Citizen
        September 8, 2012, 3:20 pm

        @ CitizenC

        You hit the nail on the head; beyond the obvious (International Jewish Banking power, always needed, and certainly before and during WW1–Rothschild set the modern principle post agrarian/barter age) here’s a glimpse:

        In a memorandum marked in his own handwriting “Private & Confidential” to Lord Peel and other members of the Royal Commission on Palestine in 1936, James Malcolm wrote:

        I have always been convinced that until the Jewish question was more or less satisfactorily settled there could be no real or permanent peace in the world, and that the solution lay in Palestine. This was one of the two main considerations which impelled me, in the autumn of 1916, to initiate the negotiations which led eventually to the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine. The other, of course, was to bring America into the War.
        For generations Jews and Gentiles alike have assumed in error that the cause of Anti-Semitism was in the main religious. Indeed, the Jews in the hope of obtaining relief from intolerance, engaged in the intensive and subversive propagation of materialistic doctrines productive of ”Liberalism,” Socialism, and Irreligion, resulting in de-Christianisation. On the other hand, the more materialistic the Gentiles became, the more aware they were subconsciously made of the cause of Anti-Semitism, which at bottom was, and remains to this day, primarily an economic one. A French writer — Vicomte de Poncins — has remarked that in some respects Anti-Semitism is largely a form of self-defence against Jewish economic aggression. In my opinion, however, neither the Jews nor the Gentiles bear the sole responsibility for this.
        As I have already said, I had a part in initiating the negotiations in the early autumn of 1916 between the British and French Governments and the Zionist leaders, which led to the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine.
        The first object, of course, was to enlist the very considerable and necessary influence of the Jews, and especially of the Zionist or Nationalist Jews, to help us bring America into the War at the most critical period of the hostilities. This was publicly acknowledged by Mr. Lloyd George during a recent debate in the House of Commons.
        Our second object was to enable and induce Jews all the world over to envisage constructive work as their proper field, and to take their minds off destructive and subversive schemes which, owing to their general Sense of insecurity and homelessness, even in the periods preceding the French Revolution, had provoked so much trouble and unrest in various countries, until their ever-increasing violence culminated in the Third International and the Russian Communist Revolution. But to achieve this end it was necessary to promise them Palestine in consideration of their help, as already explained, and not as a mere humanitarian experiment or enterprise, as represented in certain quarters.”
        _______

        “Malcolm’s belief in the Balfour Declaration as a means of bringing the United States into the war was confirmed by Samuel Landman, secretary to the Zionist leaders Weizmann and Sokolow, and later secretary of the World Zionist Organization. As
        the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the war was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret “gentlemens’ ” agreement of 1916, made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence, and or approval of the Arabs, and of the British, and of the French and other Allied governments, and not merely a voluntary, altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill-will would represent or rather misrepresent … ” Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine (London, 1936), pp. 4-5, New Zionist Press.
        _________

        Speaking in the House of Commons on 4 July 1922, Winston Churchill asked rhetorically,
        “Are we to keep our pledge to the Zionists made in 1917…? Pledges and promises were made during the war, and they were made, not only on the merits, though I think the merits are considerable. They were made because it was considered they would be of value to us in our struggle to win the war. It was considered that the support which the Jews could give us all over the world, and particularly in the United States, and also in Russia, would be a definite palpable advantage. I was not responsible at that time for the giving of those pledges, nor for the conduct of the war of which they were, when given, an integral part. But like other members I supported the policy of the War Cabinet. Like other members, I accepted and was proud to accept a share in those great transactions, which left us with terrible losses, with formidable obligations, but nevertheless with unchallengeable victory.”

        __________

        Writing to The Times on 2 November 1949, Malcolm Thomson, the official biographer of Lloyd George, noted that “…. this was the thirty-second anniversary of the Balfour Declaration and it seemed a
        suitable occasion for stating briefly certain facts about its origin which have recently been incorrectly recorded.
        When writing the official biography of Lloyd George, I was able to study the original documents bearing on this question. From these it was clear that although certain members of the Cabinets of 1916 and 1917 sympathized with Zionist aspirations, the efforts of Zionist leaders to win any promise of support from the British Government had proved quite ineffectual, and the secret Sykes-Picot agreement with the French for partition of spheres of interest in the Middle East seemed to doom Zionist aims. A change of attitude was, however, brought about through the initiative of Mr. James A. Malcolm, who pressed on Sir Mark Sykes, then Under-Secretary to the War Cabinet, the thesis that an allied offer to restore Palestine to the Jews would swing over from the German to the allied side the very powerful influence of American Jews, including Judge Brandeis, the friend and adviser of President Wilson. Sykes was interested, and at his request Malcolm introduced him to Dr. Weizmann and the other Zionist leaders, and negotiations were opened which culminated in the Balfour Declaration.
        These facts have at one time or another been mentioned in various books and articles, and are set out by Dr. Adolf Boehm in his monumental history of Zionism, “Die Zionistische Bewegung,” Vol. 1, p.656. It therefore surprised me to find in Dr. Weizmann’s autobiography, “Trial and Error,” that he makes no mention of Mr. Malcolm’s crucially important intervention, and even attributes his own introduction to Sir Mark Sykes to the late Dr. Caster. As future historians might not unnaturally suppose Dr. Weizmann’s account to be authentic, I have communicated with Mr. Malcolm, who not only confirms the account I have given, but holds a letter written to him by Dr. Weizmann on March 5, 1941, saying: “You will be interested to hear that some time ago I had occasion to write to Mr. Lloyd George about your useful and timely initiative in 1916 to bring about the negotiations between myself and my Zionist colleagues and Sir Mark Sykes and others about Palestine and Zionist support of the allied cause in America and elsewhere.”
        No doubt a complexity of motives lay behind the Balfour Declaration, including strategic and diplomatic considerations and, on the part of Balfour, Lloyd George, and Smuts, a genuine sympathy with Zionist aims. But the determining factor was the intervention of Mr Malcolm with his scheme for engaging by some such concession the support of American Zionists for the allied cause in the first world war.
        Yours, & c.,
        MALCOLM THOMSON”

        ______

        According to Lloyd George’s Memoirs of the Peace Conference, where, as planned many years before, the Zionists were strongly represented,
        There is no better proof of the value of the Balfour Declaration as a military move than the fact that Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an endeavor to provide an alternative scheme which would appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V.J.O.D., [HH] was formed, and in January 1918, Talaat, the Turkish Grand Vizier, at the instigation of the Germans, gave vague promises of legislation by means of which “all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to meet their fulfillment.”
        Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the Allies of the policy of the Declaration lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognised as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.
        It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.
        George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, p. 726.

      • Izik
        September 8, 2012, 4:45 pm

        “You are a liar and an apologist for terrorism, Izik. Shame on you.”

        You are projecting.

        “Israel regularly targets civilians and civilian infrastructure.”

        False. Israel does not target civilians.

      • Izik
        September 8, 2012, 4:47 pm

        Since 1937, Zionists aspired to establish a two-state solution as proposed by the peel commission. This idea was rejected by Palestinian leadership.

      • CitizenC
        September 9, 2012, 5:53 am

        “False. Israel does not target civilians.”

        Izik, Zionism and Israel certainly did and o target civilians, like all colonial-settler undertakings—notably ours. The bloody evidence is overwhelming.

        Of course 2-state was rejected by the Palestinians in 1937, when Jews were less than 30% of the population. Rejected after 1945 for the same reason. You seem to forget that the Zionists rejected partition in 1937 also. The Palestinians were willing to let Jews live as minority in the state, with Hebrew language services and a share of administration where they were numerous.

        You also forget my question about the Balfour Declaration above. Lobbying at the top of the British govt to take over another country was violence against millions of civilians, mass violence against an entire people.

      • Citizen
        September 9, 2012, 6:05 pm

        @ CitizenC
        Izik is either ignorant or a moron or a simple hasbara liar. At the very first Zionist conference, if memory serves, three years before the turn of the 20th century, Zionists themselves proclaimed they were engaged in a “colonial project.” As things turned out, this was clouded by the Shoah, but it no longer is. Time for all gentiles to be fair, to be for universal justice. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Kant’s ethics, not Zionist ethics.

      • Izik
        September 10, 2012, 1:29 am

        “Izik is either ignorant or a moron or a simple hasbara liar.”

        You seem incapable of having a civil debate.

  25. Andreas Schlueter
    September 3, 2012, 6:06 am

    This article is an important reflection on two outstanding human fates! Though they cann´t really be compared, one a child unvoluntarily thrown into a terrible situation created by the barbaric German Nazi regime, the other one voluntarily and in human solidarity siding with a terribly suppressed community, in a way they are two opposite sides of the same coin.
    After the Second World War for humanist & leftist people The six million murdered European Jews were the “Tip of the Eisberg”, under the deep dark waters of covered history they knew the millions more murdered with racist vigor (like the 8 to 10 million Congolese butchered alone during the time of Leopold´s “private” colonialism – described in Adam Hochschild´s “King Leopld´s Ghost” – & the 20 million victims of the Nazi invasion in Sowjet Union), imperial medias have managed to convert the Holocaust victims into victims of deeds which “legitimitely” could only be done to black, brown, yellow and East European people, thus declaring the terrible atrocities on the Jews to be (almost) the only examples of racism. Thus we face a medial situation where millions of “Non European” victims don´t count anymore, a Eurocentric view well to be compared with the views in the second half of the 19th Century, giving the perspective of more to come in the future!
    Andreas Schlüter
    Berlin, Germany

    • Eva Smagacz
      September 3, 2012, 2:45 pm

      Thank you, Andreas.

      Just few days ago someone told me they thought I was Jewish as I previously mentioned that I have lost many family members in Auschwitz. This is the power of propaganda: important dead and worthless dead. Those who must be remembered (OR ELSE!) and those whom world can safely forget as they have lesser ethnicity/race/colour/faith.

      When killing will start (rounding up is almost complete), how many Jews will hide Palestinian Ann Frank?

      • Citizen
        September 9, 2012, 6:09 pm

        @ Eva S
        As many as now or then support Rachel Corrie?

      • Citizen
        September 9, 2012, 6:53 pm

        The woman chiefly responsible, along with her hubby, for saving Anne Frank up till she was caught by the Nazis, and completely responsible for saving Anne’s Diary, was a born and bread Austrian lower middle class individual (same as AH). Here she is, speaking about herself and Anne: link to teacher.scholastic.com

  26. Marlene
    September 3, 2012, 7:07 pm

    I read the Diary of Anne Frank just about a few years after its first publication which left a huge impression on me as a young child coming to the realization that the world was not what I perceived it to be because of my own surroundings in New York City where I lived in freedom and essentially had a carefree childhood. The Holocaust at that time was not an open subject…no one really spoke about it (not until Zionists decided to use it as a political tool to defend Israel’s crimes). It would be about 12 years after I read that book amd also saw the movie that Anne Frank would become very, very real to me because of my own personal experiences in Israel when I lived there for a short while and crossed a divide that I didn’t even know existed.

    What I think is extremely important is the focus on the people who helped to hide the Frank family, and that was was Miep Gies. Anne could not defend herself. She, like so many others, had absolutely no choice in these matters. However, the family who helped hide her were the ones who did have a choice, and they chose to defend the Frank family by helping to keep them hidden with grave consequences to their own lives if discovered. Rachel Corrie also made a choice. She made a choice to leave the comfortable and secure surroundings of her own country to defend people who had absoltely no protection from anyone, nor from any rule of law that does exist today which did not exist in Anne’s time on this earth.

    And so the Court blames Rachel for her own demise. Yet, had Anne Frank been discovered (which later she and her family were) the Gies family would have been put to death. Should they have been been blamed for their own demise if that would have happened? Yes, the Nazis would have done that. Should the three Civil Rights workers who came from New York City to particpate in the civil rights movement and killed by the KKK also be blamed for their own murders? Yes, the KKK would have done that. Or Sophie Scholl and other members of The White Rose who wrote pamphlets against the Nazis and were sent to their deaths after being discovered. All of these people could have simply minded their own business and gone on with their lives, but according to the “logic” of the Israeli court, they were all responsible for their own deaths. According to Israel, et ano, “righteous gentiles” do not help Palestinians.

    • MLE
      September 4, 2012, 12:10 am

      The KKK did blame the three people for Their death. The point was to scare off more young adults from the North to come and participate in the Civil Rights movement, the attitude was, we are handling it our own way, don’t come and interfere with our way of life.

    • Citizen
      September 4, 2012, 11:42 pm

      @ Marlene

      Exactly, and well said. “Never Again!”
      Barauch Goldstein, a born, baked, and privileged American Jew, had his version of this take away from the Nuremberg Trials following the horror of WW2 (trip-wired by Versailles after WW1), and Rachel Corrie, a fellow born, baked, and privileged American Gentile, had her version.
      It appears one had a specialized view of “Never Again!” and one had a universal view of that moral and ethical mandate.

  27. GibsonBlock
    September 3, 2012, 10:41 pm

    Anne Frank and Rachel Corrie have nothing obvious in common. But Lowenstein wants to exploit a famous name so she pulls Anne, with obvious illogic, into an article that has nothing to do with her.

    • Bing Bong
      September 6, 2012, 7:31 am

      And then, as a result of frantically shoehorning in Anne Frank to make some laboured comparison of Israel with the Nazis, and Anne Frank with someone who thought standing in front of a bulldozer (and an Israeli one at that, wasn’t she herself, like most of the Mondoweiss commentators, aware that the Israelis would without question, murder her with it in that situation?) in a combat zone was an intelligent and effective act. you get people complaining that the thread is diverging into Holocaust issues!

      Corrie should be compared to the Israeli soldier who was run over by a tank recently. And even then I wouldn’t want to tar him with the same brush as someone acting so recklessly as Rachel Corrie without knowing the facts of his accidental death. Or was that murder too?

      If (for your own selfish and cynical ends) you can’t stomach the thought of millions of Jews being murdered and being addressed on Mondoweiss don’t invite the spurious Holocaust comparison in the first place. Isn’t ‘harking back to the Holocaust’ just the kind of thing usually complained about round here?

      • eljay
        September 6, 2012, 8:23 am

        >> Isn’t ‘harking back to the Holocaust’ just the kind of thing usually complained about round here?

        While I agree that the comparison of Ms. Corrie to Ms. Frank was imperfect and unnecessary, what’s usually complained about around here is the use of the Holocaust by Zio-supremacists as justification for the illegal and immoral actions – past and on-going – of the “Jewish State” in Palestine and against Palestinians.

      • Bing Bong
        September 6, 2012, 10:32 am

        It was a rhetorical question to underline how using the Holocaust in whatever over-engineered and tenuous way possible to auger in a comparison with the Nazis isn’t complained about when its the result of someone stepping in front of a bulldozer in a combat zone.

  28. Mooser
    September 4, 2012, 11:07 am

    “Anne Frank and Rachel Corrie have nothing obvious in common. But Lowenstein wants to exploit a famous name so she pulls Anne, with obvious illogic, into an article that has nothing to do with her.”

    So then why did you rush over here to tell us that, you schlump? And what’s even funnier is your attitude. Do they tell you in Hasbara class to always burst in with a definitive statement, that if you assume the pretensions of a moral arbiter you will automatically be afforded them?
    They just amaze me. They seem to have no idea that there is a comment archive, and all anybody has to do is click on your name, and your entire trove of rhetorical drek will be exposed.
    They get ziocaine amnesia, so they expect the rest of the world to get it to. There’s an ugly name for that kind of thinking, but my therapist won’t tell me what it is until I catch up on my bill some.
    I’ve noticed this seems to work. Remind readers that every one of these schlemiels has a comment archive, and they evaporate. It might be amusing to confront them with their own comments, so they can deny they said such a thing.

    • Mooser
      September 4, 2012, 11:16 am

      BTW, Hasbaratchniks take warning by Yonah Fredman alias “Wondering Jew”. He came here to “learn and debate”, too. And he’s “not a Zionist” either. Or something, who knows, but the point is, he thought he was immune, but reading Mondoweiss gave him a nervous breakdown, and he disappeared, and is most probably presently residing at the Bonnie Brae, which is not a booby hatch in the conventional sense of the word. But what a burst of synapsual short circuits before he left! Go to his comment archive and search “pastrami sandwich” or better still “pilpul”. Alas, poor Yonah, if you get my drift.

      • Polly
        September 4, 2012, 5:50 pm

        BTW, Hasbaratchniks take warning by Yonah Fredman alias “Wondering Jew”. He came here to “learn and debate”, too. And he’s “not a Zionist” either. Or something, who knows, but the point is, he thought he was immune, but reading Mondoweiss gave him a nervous breakdown, and he disappeared, and is most probably presently residing at the Bonnie Brae, which is not a booby hatch in the conventional sense of the word. But what a burst of synapsual short circuits before he left! Go to his comment archive and search “pastrami sandwich” or better still “pilpul”. Alas, poor Yonah, if you get my drift.

        Remember “Sword Of Gideon”? His body of work was unmatched – way beyond Hasbara into just plain nasty – even Witty was more reasonable, though less readable.

Leave a Reply