The recent announcement that Malala Yousafzai had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize has widely been well received. Earlier this week, she announced to have her prize money donated to the rebuilding of 65 UN schools in Gaza that were destroyed in the Israeli led war this past summer. Known for her firm and brave stand for women’s education in Pakistan, despite being constantly threatened by the Taliban, Malala has become an iconic symbol of hope for many.
Nevertheless, her critics include those who see her celebrity to be nothing more than a crutch for western governments to continue their bombardment of Muslim nations from Somalia to Pakistan.
It is perhaps harsh to criticize a teenage girl who was almost killed in a life threatening attack by the notorious Taliban organization, of being anything less than courageous. However, it is not without merit that had Malala been a victim of western aggression or her allies, the 17 year old’s celebrity would have endured a shorter lifespan.
The case of Rachel Corrie
On March 16th 2003, Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israeli bulldozer, who had been protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes in the West Bank. According to several reports, the driver was unable to see her, leading to Corrie being caught beneath the bulldozer, killing her instantly.
Deeply moved by the Palestinian cause, Corrie had flown to the West Bank from her native America to work as part of the International Solidarity (ISM), striving to bring awareness to deteriorating conditions of the Palestinians; in particular to protest the routine demolition of their homes. After her untimely death, Corrie was hailed as a daughter by the Palestinian people, and was showered with numerous accolades.
Unsurprisingly, the Israeli government went on a full PR campaign to dissolve its armed forces of any blame. The then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered a full investigation but no credible examination took place. Corrie’s own government remained mum on the incident and continued to remain disinterested.
Why Not Corrie?
It has been evident now for several decades that the every US government has been an ardent supporter of Israel. The fact that the Jewish state remains the number one recipient of US aid sheds some light on the previously made claim.
Much of this aid, as documented extensively, is for military purposes which also include dozens of bulldozers that are often held responsible for the flattening of homes, and that ultimately led to the tragic demise of Corrie.
It is hence not surprising that successive US governments have bypassed the opportunity to highlight the injustice even to their own citizens. The American media, liberal and conservative alike, had hardly cast any attention on the Corrie incident, pretending to be aloof during the whole episode.
In August 2012, as an Israeli court declared no wrong doing in the Corrie’s death, describing the incident as an accident. In response to the verdict, right wing analysts claimed the decision now made clear that Corrie was no peace activist. Jonathan Tobin writing in Commentary Magazine mockingly said that “Her death was as unnecessary as the intifada itself” and that ultimately she was at fault.
Yet few in the America addressed the statement of then and current US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, an ardent defender of Israel, admitted that the investigation into Corrie’s death had not been credible or transparent.
Malala’s story on the other hand, is devoid of much controversy for western government alike, and their 24/7 news cycle. Being the victim of the nihilistic Taliban regime, the teenage Malala has become the perfect justification for many pro-western authors, politicians and journalists to rationalize wars in Muslim nations.
As the war on terror intensifies with the likes of ISIS and Boko Haram, the outspokenness of a daring Muslim teenage girl like Malala enhances the moral authority of western governments to somewhat exaggerate the threat that Islamic terror groups pose to world “civilization”.
At the peak of the Boko Haram kidnapping scandal of over a hundred Nigerian school girls last July, Malala’s plea and condemnation of the group made rounds in the mainstream media which showed her lending a hand to the #Bringbackourgirls campaign. Sooner than expected, when the story was past its prime, Malala’s onscreen presence quietly took a back seat.
In addition to her activism, Corrie’s opposition to her country’s own detrimental policies would alone be enough to stifle her case for ever being recognized by a mainstream organization such as the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.
In letters she wrote to her parents published online, Corrie referred to former President George Bush as a “tool” and had opposed the former president overtures in Iraq; condemning the dire situation of the Iraqi children who had suffered immensely under a decade of sanctions.
She had also been well aware of the damaging effect of American foreign policy in the war torn Middle East. In one of her last emails to her mother Corrie wrote;
“I think freedom for Palestine could be an incredible source of hope to people struggling all over the world. I think it could also be an incredible inspiration to Arab people in the Middle East, who are struggling under undemocratic regimes which the US supports…”
She also expressed her satisfaction and encouragement of groups back home which organized protests in support of the Palestinians in her home state of Washington.
Malala too has courageously condemned US aggression for example in her native Pakistan, reiterating that US drone attacks in Pakistan are only fueling extremism, not curbing it. In a recent show on a mainstream news channel, she reiterated the need to give books than sell weapons to war torn areas.
Nevertheless, her criticisms towards US and European foreign policy have remained rather generic and hardly specific.
To be fair, the mainstream media has chosen to be often selective of her views while omitting many valid assertions that the Pakistani activist has previously made on issues like poverty.
Malala should be celebrated and serve as a reminder for all as to how deprived today’s children are of basic human rights such as education. The point however is to consider that if Malala’s home was in the occupied West Bank or Gaza, or in the drone bombarded villages of Yemen, would she have been invited to the White House? Would her struggle make her a global icon?
The chances would be slim, and few in the corridors of power would want to take notice.
Had Corrie been alive, there is little doubt that she and Malala would have been friends; the latter’s gesture to donate her $50,000 prize money to the children of Gazan would have been deeply touched Corrie, as it has others.
Yet the trajectory of their struggles success would have been far different. Malala makes most governments in the west feel that she speaks their language, especially against a sworn enemy; celebrating her achievements comes with little controversy.
Corrie’s efforts exposed the blatant double standards in western foreign policy including that of her country. Vouching for her to win one of the most prestigious, albeit controversial awards would only mean the acceptance of their disastrous policies, an admission unlikely to be committed anytime soon.
Malala herself is little more than a child, and therefore does not deserve criticism, especially as she has suffered so much. Her parents, however, definitely do. Why were they encouraging their child to be an ‘activist’ in a war zone? She wrote a blog about life under the Taliban for the BBC when she was only about 12. Other parents refused to let their daughters do the same, because of the obvious dangers. Yet Malala’s politician father agreed to put his daughter at risk, with near fatal results. If Palestinian children made a political figure out of their 12 year old daughter, and that child ended up getting shot by the IDF, we’d hear the usual complaints about how Palestinians don’t care for their kids and use them for cynical political ends etc. Yet nobody questions why it was OK for Malala’s parents to make her a public figure in a war zone.
Malala should not have been given the Nobel Prize. She’s much too young and has not achieved anything of note, other than simply surviving a bullet. She should be allowed to grow up as normally as is possible in her circumstances, and if she chooses, as an adult, to be an activist, she will be free to do so. Instead, she is being paraded around the world like a trained monkey. I thought her ‘thing’ was education for girls? Shouldn’t she be allowed to complete her own education?
Point taken.
Congratulations to Malala ~ her gesture toward the people of Gaza is beautiful.
Rachel Corrie, RIP. Her spirit continues to inspire.
In the minds of westerners, Malala is a worthy native female who must be saved from the savage native males.
Never mind how westerners contributed in making the native males savage in the first place.
“However, it is not without merit that had Malala been a victim of western aggression or her allies, the 17 year olds celebrity would have endured a shorter lifespan.”
I don’t know that she would have lived a shorter life. But the Rachel Corrie comparison suggests that she would not have been celebrated as a peacenik by the Nobel committee.
As matters stand in Europe, Israel is regarded as a well-behaved nation which can bomb and over-fly its neighbors w/o being blamed by EU nations, can murder folks on boats such as Gaza fishing boats and bigger boats (Mavi Marmara comes to mind) w/o being blamed by EU nations, can carpet-bomb Gaza (ditto), etc. In short Israel is not (yet) in the dog house (as, for instance, Iran is to an extent, and therefore subjected to sanctions). Of course, various non-state actors, especially if they can be tarred with the brush of “terrorism”, can be and regularly are regarded as not-well-behaved, and in-the-dog-house. Taliban, al-Qaida, ISIS all come to mind in this connection.,
Terrorism can be erased! No-one today mentions the pre-state terrorism of Israel, its terrorist PMs (Begin, Shamir, Sharon). And, of course it is the warm-and-comfortable fashion among the rich and powerful states not to apply the word “terrorist” to any state; at worst, as with Afghanistan or Syria or Iran, it may be said to support terrorism. (Were this not so, the external-criminal arms of the states, like the USA’s CIA and Israel’s Mossad might themselves be branded — oh! no! — as terrorists.
As long as this is so, no one who opposes Israel can be blessed with an official designation as a “peacenik”
Malala’s story WAS devoid of controversy. No more. She is very influential and a lot of people respect her. And I don’t know if I’m thinking she is more clever than she is, but a definitive statement in support of Palestinian civilians had to wait until after her Nobel, or she never would have got it…so she just held her tongue until the opportune moment.
I just wonder how the usual suspects will go after her. Will she get the Tutu treatment where they call her a Nazi and antisemite? Maybe they will say this is proof that no Muslim can be trusted…or they may say she had brain damage by the bullet she survived…My guess, though, is all her phony admirers in government and the media will just ignore the f–k out of her.