What happened to David Forman in Olympia?
It’s been a while now since Rabbi David Forman published his May 25th critique of The Rachel Corrie Foundation as a guest op-ed on the Jerusalem Post website. Someone somewhere coined the phrase “publishing at the speed of thought” with regards to the ease of disseminating words and ideas online. I think they meant it as a good thing. While I’m an eager promoter of all things online and tech, I have often kept in mind a bit of advice I read elsewhere about blogging, which suggests giving an idea a week or so to process before publishing it all over World Wide Tarnation.
Forman’s written attack on the foundation was nearly tick-box typical of most criticism out there, and wouldn’t warrant much thought if he hadn’t been the founder of Rabbis for Human Rights, an organization that I hold in some great esteem. So, when he wrote that every shop in Olympia carried huge posters of Rachel Corrie and that, upon looking at the website, “by pure syllogistic reasoning, the foundation supports genocide in Darfur, brutal Hamas killings and indiscriminate assaults on Israel’s civilian population,” I took some notice. In his piece, he accuses the foundation, through its website, of “propagating bigotry – in the form of pure anti-Semitic propaganda. He says “it is also found on the Web site’s homepage, which features an article, entitled: ‘Who will stop the AIPAC Jews before it is too late?’ ”
I would expect better than syllogistic reasoning from Forman, or at least the correct application of it. According to his logic, because some people don’t mention the genocide in Darfur are in favor of it, the fact that he didn’t find any mention of the Darfur genocide on the Rachel Corrie Foundation website means foundation is in favor of the Darfur genocide. Interesting, that Jen Marlowe would be a regular participant in foundation activities. Jen is the author of Darfur Diaries: Stories of Survival (Nation Books) and a documentary filmmaker of Rebuilding Hope, about South Sudan, and Darfur Diaries: Message from Home. By Forman’s syllogistic reasoning, she would apparently be tarred with the same brush.
As a web developer who has worked with the foundation for some time, as someone who has worked with the Olympia+Rafah Sister City Project’s drive for official status, and as a former Olympia resident, a lot of what Forman wrote hit me a bit personally at first. What were we up to? Why organizations like the International Trauma Treatment Program, which works with war and torture victims in Africa, the Middle East and throughout the world, be so eager to partner with a group that allegedly espoused support for the status quo in Sudan? But wait. Hold the phone just a minute, I’m just now doing a search of the website Rabbis for Human Rights.
The time is now 10:34 am GMT and the date is Thursday, June 11th, 2009. As of this time on this date that website has no entries on Tibet or the repression of Tibetans. I type “Burma” and (just to be safe) “Myanmar” and, and get — worse than nothing — “India and Burma also gained independence from Britain about 60 years ago, yet their people don’t fret over their continued existence.” Tell that to the different ethnic communities living in Burma who routinely face the soldiers’ rifles. Moving on, Chechnya: nothing, Chiapas: zip, “The British National Party”: nada. According to Forman’s logic, Rabbis for Human Rights is in tacit support of the dictatorship in Burma, the shabby treatment of Mexico’s indigenous tribes, the slaughter of Chechen civilians and the UK’s answer to Nazis getting two seats in the European parliament.
Obviously, I don’t think Rabbis for Human Rights carries those positions. Might it be that the group has a focus on a particular issue for a specific reason? Given its lofty goals, the “rabbinic voice of conscience in Israel” seems to have a focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Would you really expect anything else? No. And now I’ll quote Rabbi Brian Walt, Executive Director of Rabbis for Human Rights – North America, who, with much more eloquence than I can muster, makes the point:
“Two of the many totally unfounded claims that Rabbi Forman makes in his article are:
“…..the foundation supports genocide in Darfur, brutal Hamas killings and indiscriminate assaults on Israel’s civilian population.”
How does Rabbi Forman know this? Because the Foundation focuses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on the suffering in Gaza! How surprising! Rachel was killed in Gaza.
The foundation propogates “bigotry – in the form of pure anti-Semitic propaganda”
How does Rabbi Forman know this?
Because there is an article about the AIPAC convention by Medea Benjamin, an American Jewish activist, on their website. The article originally appeared on Common Dreams.”
– Brian Walt’s blog
If Forman wants to see so much more content about these other injustices posted online, why does he flog it off as the responsibility of others when he has so many outlets to do so himself? The argument, “why don’t you talk about INSERT TOPIC HERE? wears very thin, and has an easy, instant response: “You seem very concerned about INSERT TOPIC HERE why don’t you do something about it?”
Forman goes on to attack efforts of people in Olympia to establish a sister city with people in Rafah, an entirely successful endeavor among the participants that only lacks official recognition by the city itself, posters of Rachel hung in various shops around town, The Corrie’s visit to Gaza that failed to include a corresponding visit to a South Israel community, and the alleged Palestinian exploitation of Rachel’s story.
Addressing all of this appropriately would take ages, but I’d like to look briefly at the last point. Everyone I know who does and has worked with the foundation has taken great strides to point out that Israelis are a diverse collection of people with an incredibly diverse set of opinions on everything from religion to the occupation to which is the best album by The Pixies. Regularly does the foundation point out the peace- and justice-promoting work carried out by Israeli activists along side with international and Palestinian participants. How readily does Forman suddenly lump Palestinians into a monolithic pile when he states “The Palestinians exploit such stories as Rachel Corrie’s for their own public relations advantage.”
If so, it’s been a disastrous scheme, as I haven’t seen a single shred of evidence that shows that these narratives have closed a single West Bank settlement or have led to the dismantling of a checkpoint around Nablus. I’ve not seen it lead to a recognition of the Palestinian right to exist by the Israeli government. But it’s not really a tactic. Rachel’s story, Tom Hurndall’s story, the story of Ezra Nawi, the story of Bassem Abu Rahme and the countless experiences faced daily by Palestinians speak for themselves. That he says “The Palestinians” are doing this or that, lumps together a diverse group of people in an ethnic-wide conspiratorial context that is rightfully challenged whenever anyone attempts the same slander of “the Jews.”
I remember a few years back — 2005 — sitting in the ISM media office in Ramallah late one night, getting a phone call from a hushed voice of a Rabbis for Human Rights participant who, along with some ISM volunteers, had been helping rebuild some demolished Palestinian homes in a village outside Bethlehem. He called our office to say that he and everyone he was with were being taken to a Border Police station for arrest by IDF soldiers. The reason: they had been camping next to the construction project to ward off the settlers who wanted to destroy it. For whom does this story exist to be exploited? Is it for the Palestinians (and thus the internationals and Israelis were rubes for helping them)? Is it for the Rabbis, to tout about later as they talk about their human rights work? Is it for the IDF? Either way, as these activists were instructed by soldiers to follow the army vehicle to the police station, I didn’t hear peep about anyone suddenly adopting an “us” and “them” attitude. The soldiers later left them in route, told them they had to attend to something else. Some of the group headed back to the village to see out the rest of the night.
I would assert the event exists for no one in particular. It happened. Some people destroyed some other people’s houses because they thought the land had been somehow ordained to them by a higher power. Some other people didn’t think likewise and set about putting them back. We’ve got a couple of groups in this scenario; which one is yours?
There is no parity in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, so there’s no reason to pretend like otherwise. That the Corries didn’t visit a corresponding Israeli town to match their last visit to Rafah should be no shock. How should it have gone otherwise? Should they have compared the percentage of deaths in each place and then they can visit each in proportion? Since they visited Rafah with their whole bodies, should they have stuck a toe in Southern Israel? Or should it be measured in terms of time spent in each place? Should have someone brought a stopwatch?
Or should they have simply gone to where they were obviously called to go? The place where their daughter was killed and found so much to be inspired about and take risks for, as described in her writing? it’s your kid now. Where would you go?
I don’t know what happened to David Forman on his trip to Olympia in May that inspired his hit piece. The old Olympia Brewing Co. used to tout “It’s the Water” back when they were in operation. Maybe there is something in the water, making him see Rachel absolutely everywhere, or as he says, “In virtually every store I entered in this small picturesque town overlooking Puget Sound, there was a portrait of Rachel Corrie.” Really? Every store? you hit all four of them and saw nothing in between? Unless something drastic has happened in the years since I was last there, it’s a circuitous route in downtown Olympia one would have to travel in order to see no other business than the ones that would have her image posted. One that involves keeping a blindfold on a good amount of the way.
Maybe it was the water. He says “The Web site creates the clear impression that there is an official relationship between Olympia and Rafah.” It doesn’t. There’s scant information on ORSCP on the site at all, and nothing to indicate that the city council voted any other way than it did. He questions whether the foundation lives up to its stated goal, to “foster connections between people that build understanding and respect. “The people involved in it do their best to. Maybe it’s not connections with the people that David Forman wants them to build connections with. maybe it’s not in the exact way that he wishes they would do it. he’s entitled to that opinion. I write these words on behalf of no one but myself. I also don’t confuse Rabbi Forman’s views with those of Rabbis for Human Rights. All our opinions are our own. However, fault can be found in what has been passed off as fact, as history, as logical critique. And that is where his Jerusalem Post article fails him most.
And now, let me wrap up by scoring two rabbis in a single pull quote by citing Walt’s blog one more time:
“There are many reasons why the attack on the Corrie Foundation made me so angry. I have been on the West Bank and I know that one of the realities that enables the Occupation to continue is that there are so few who stand in solidarity with the Palestinians. All the courageous Israelis and internationals who stand in solidarity with the Palestinians, are the eyes and ears of the Occupation. The Israeli government doesn’t want the internationals on the West Bank as they can report on what they see. In March, an American activist with the International Solidarity Movement, Tristan Andersen, was critically injured in the continuing non-violent protest in Bilin. He is still in hospital. In May a Palestinian man was killed.
Now the Israeli government is about to imprison a courageous Israeli who like Rachel stood in front of a bulldozer in South Hebron Hills about to demolish the home of an innocent human being.
Rabbi Arik Ascherman, Executive Director of Rabbis for Human Rights in Israel has written the following about Ezra:”
“Let me tell you about Ezra. Ezra doesn’t get paid like I do. He volunteers. In fact, he has more or less sacrificed his own livelihood and most of his savings because he just isn’t capable of standing idly by and watch how the power of the State is directed at some of the most defenseless people imaginable. Being exposed to this made him so upset that he overturned his quiet world to dedicate his entire self to extending a helping hand. If Palestinians in the S. Hebron Hills get attacked by settlers or soldiers at 3:00 am they know they can call Ezra and he will be there in a flash. If there are people who have some need he will dig into his own pocket (and hit up RHR as well, if he can.) Somebody from our legal staff needs to a ride to meet a client on some dusty hilltop off the beaten path? Call Ezra. Need translation or some information about the area? Call Ezra. On many occasions he has watched my back, as I hope that I have watched his. Is Ezra a little uncontrollable sometimes? Yes. I wish all of us would be as filled with anger when we see people with guns bullying people living in caves and bulldozing tin shacks.”
— Brian Walt’s blog
Ezra, Rachel, Tristan, Bassem, et al. who have decided to take the actions they did, didn’t do so out of “naïve intentions,” or blindly, as the Jerusalem Post piece asserts. They knew what they were getting into, understood it and took the risk.
“Every year the international financial system kills more people than World War II, but at least Hitler was mad, you know.”
The difference between Rabbis for Human Rights and the Rachel Corrie Foundation is that the former acknowledges that both innocent Israelis and Palestinians are suffering from the conflict, while the latter endorses the one-sided view that ONLY Palestinians are suffering. There is a difference between an organization claiming that they are universally concerned about human rights and presenting both sides to a conflict (like RFHR) versus claiming to be universally concerned about human rights and presenting a one-sided view to a conflict (Rachel Corrie Foundation). It is the right of Mr. and Mrs. Corrie and anyone else to take the Palestinian side to the conflict, but to claim to be concerned about human rights for ALL, while ignoring the Israeli victims of terrorism by Hamas, Hizbullah, Fatah, etc. is NOT being concerned with human rights for all, but ONLY for a select people.
Thanks Mitchell. I appreciate the perspective or RfHR and have worked with them as well as the foundation at times in the past. In my experience, that’s not really the case with the foundation or the Corries themselves, who I think have been pretty clear, and have worked with Israeli human rights groups on numerous occasions. I haven’t see anything that’s supportive of any sort of military aggression to Israelis that they’ve ever said. In talks I’ve seen that they’ve maintained that the situation also poses a threat to Israeli security. However, I think what comes off as different here is the avoidance of implying parity in the conflict, of which there isn’t any when you have an occupying force that can and does control every aspect of life in the occupied lands, which Gaza is still part of until it has actual autonomy. I would also point out that while that seems to be the view of David Forman, both Rabbi Arik Ascherman, Executive Director of Rabbis for Human Rights in Israel, and Rabbi Brian Walt, Executive Director of Rabbis for Human Rights in North America, disagree with Forman’s assessment of the foundation.
[Quote]However, I think what comes off as different here is the avoidance of implying parity in the conflict, of which there isn’t any when you have an occupying force that can and does control every aspect of life in the occupied lands, which Gaza is still part of until it has actual autonomy.[Quote]
I’m sorry, but by the above statement, one can see that the Corrie Foundation and their supporters have a snapshot understanding of the Middle East Conflict. Here are some facts that also need to be considered if one wants to view the conflict in FULL perspective and, hence, TRULY be concerned with human rights for all:
1)that in November 1947, Israel accepted the UN Partition Plan which would have created a Palestinian Arab state alongside the State of Israel that following the British withdrawal, Israel was invaded in 1948 by its surrounding Arab neighbors with the support of the Palestinian Arab leadership, and that the invading nations, primarily Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, promised–even boasted–that they would commit a genocide of all Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.
2)that the Palestinians refugee problem created by this war, therefore, Rachel Corrie may not have known that in the aftermath of this war, many Arab Muslim countries across North Africa and Arabia forcibly expelled entire Jewish populations from their ancestral homes, and these refugees were offered sanctuary by only one country: Israel, and that in fact, these refugees and their descendants now account for over half the population of Israel.
3)that after the Six-Day War in June 1967, which was provoked by Egypt closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, expelling the UN peacekeeping observers from the Sinai, and by both Egypt and Syria massing troops aggressively on Israel’s borders, Israel offered to immediately return the territories it captured in exchange for peace and diplomatic recognition.
4)that even before the Six-Day War, when Israel did not occupy any of the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, Israel was subjected to terrorist attacks against its civilians by Palestinians that Israel has made repeated overtures for peace, and that these have been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian leadership, whose stated goals, even today, is the genocidal massacre of Jewish Israelis.
To be sure, being concerned with innocent Palestians suffering from this conflict is a valid concern (as being concerned with innocent Israelis suffereing from this conflict should be), but this conflict is not as black and white as the Corrie Foundation makes it out to be (and, with all due respect, you in your above statement make it out to be).
Well I think it’s apparent that we have different views on the history of this, specifically regarding the UN Partition Plan and everything that happened up through 67.
I don’t think the people at the foundation have a snapshot view of it at all. Having taken the time to pore through several volumes of history on the topic, from Friedman, to Hirst, Fisk, Pappe and Segev, etc., I’ve absorbed the narrative from a few perspectives out there. Again, I haven’t made any statement and neither, to my knowledge has anyone with the foundation, that we should not be concerned with violence against civilians anywhere. There are ample places out there detailing every bit of violence that anyone in Israel has suffered. It’s a fairly easy thing to find. And when we see these websites and publications going to great pains to show how Israelis have suffered, I’ve not seen too much public outcry for them to show a proportionate amount of attention to the Palestinian side of the issue, or at least have some parity. No one is calling on Israel to renounce violence or recognize the right of an independent sovergn Palestinian state to exist. No calls for it to actually admit is has borders.
I think that in the main, Rabbis for Human Rights does a good job at walking its talk, and as you no doubt noticed above, in no way does Forman speak for the organization, which is made up of many people with different views. I think we essentially agree that the issue is hardly black and white, but we may have different ideas on where the grey actually is.
[Quote]I don’t think the people at the foundation have a snapshot view of it at all. Having taken the time to pore through several volumes of history on the topic, from Friedman, to Hirst, Fisk, Pappe and Segev, etc., I’ve absorbed the narrative from a few perspectives out there.[Quote]
With all due respect (and I sincerely don’t mean this in a derogatory way), this is a bit of an insult to my intelligence. This would be like a member of AIPAC saying they have absorbed several volumes of history on the topic and then listing Joan Peters, Daniel Piper, Joseph Farah, Charles Krauthammer, and Alan Dershowitz.
However, now to the crux of the matter:
[Quote]There are ample places out there detailing every bit of violence that anyone in Israel has suffered. It’s a fairly easy thing to find. And when we see these websites and publications going to great pains to show how Israelis have suffered, I’ve not seen too much public outcry for them to show a proportionate amount of attention to the Palestinian side of the issue, or at least have some parity.[Quote]
This is true, of course. I consider myself quite internet savvy and am hardly at a challenge to find site addressing the Israeli perspective of the conflict and emphathizing with the innocent Israeli victims of Arab terrorism. That is not the point. Of course, I wouldn’t expect organizations like VAT (Victims of Arab Terrorsim) or ISM to show parity on their sites. Those sites are parachoial and have specific agendas (right or wrong). However, the following is from Rachel Corrie Foundation’s site:
[Quote]The Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice continues the work that Rachel Corrie began and hoped to accomplish, and carries out that work with her vision, spirit, and creative energy in mind. We conduct and support programs that foster connections between people, that build understanding, respect, and appreciation for differences, and that promote cooperation within and between local and global communities. The foundation encourages and supports grassroots efforts in pursuit of human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice, which we view as pre-requisites for world peace.[Quote]
The above indicates that the foundation is concerned with mutual understanding and respect for all, as well as being GLOBALLY concerned with human rights.
Also from the site:
[Quote]1)We believe that injustice must be challenged and that human rights and resistance to oppression “must be included in the way we define ourselves as a community.”
2)We believe that education for justice and peace is a basic skill that must be universally nurtured.
3)While supporting the advancement of human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice for all, we will emphasize efforts to alleviate the burden on women and children, who too often suffer the most.
4)We are committed to the principles and practice of non-violence and to their advancement as means of effecting change.
5)We view art, the written word, and other forms of creative expression as valuable tools for building understanding, respect and appreciation for differences and cooperation between peoples.
6)We value and seek creative, and even unconventional, approaches to problems.
7)We agree with Rachel that it is important to make commitments to people and places. We will continue the commitment to Rafah that she initiated and intended to maintain.[Quote]
Aside from the fact that, except for #7, the statement above do NOT indicate any parachoial agenda, here are some other concerns:
Regarding #2, what about the continued education of Hamas and Fatah toward the younger generation with the goal of hatred of not only Israel, but Jews?
Regarding #3, what about the cynical use of Hamas of women and children as shields (and there has been comprehensive documentation of this) and sending out children to fight battles, both of which are against International Law of War and Combat?
Regarding #4, what about the deliberate attempt to aim rockets at kindergartens, parks, hospitals, houses of worship, etc. from kindergartens, parks, hospitals, houses of worship, etc. as well as ramming bulldozers into people, sending suicide bombers to blow up women and children, etc. etc.? Furthermore, what about the “honor killings” of Palestinians by Palestinians of those who are suspected of callaborating with Israel or even of women who are suspected of cheating because they speak with a man other than their husband in public.
Regarding #5, what about the censorship that takes place in Gaza by the Palestinian authorities, while in Israel there are those who side with Israel’s avowed enemies serving in the Knesset?
To be sure, if the foundation was called “Rachel Corrie Foundation for Palestinian Rights”, then I wouldn’t even be batting an eyelash. However the title of the foundation and the stated goals of the organization (with the exception of statement #7) make one believe that this organization if concerned with human rights for all and evenhanded. This is VERY misleading.
Any sort of insult was not intended, but let’s not overstate things.
The authors you’ve cited don’t actually research anything, possibly short of Dershowitz who looks up enough to plagiarise from. I’m not citing any far-left conspiracy theorists here. And also, this is from my own collection. I do know that a few people in the foundation have copies of some of these, as well as others that I don’t.
Thomeas Friedman, the pro-free market journalist who wrote from Beirut to Jerusalem is hardly to be considered a lefty pro-Palestine cause head. He’s a journalist of the establishment. And while I didn’t come away from his book subscribing to his interpretation of everything, I give him the credit of being an honest, well-researched journalist who has a fair amount of first-hand reporting over the years and does know his facts. David Hirst is a journalist who has been kicked out of many countries throughout the Middle East for his reporting. His book, the Gun and the Olive Branch was banned in many of them because of its clear analysis of their brutal regimes, treatment of factions within Palestinian political leadership as well as the Israeli occupation. Ilan Pappe is an Israeli professor of history, and Tom Segev is a journalist for Haaratz and writes from an Israeli vantage point. As for Robert Fisk, he’s heaped much critical writing on just about every government and political faction in the Middle East over several decades, and is, again, no close alley of any Palestinian faction as well as not being enjoyed by the Israeli establishment.
As for the crux of the matter, I think we’re likely to continue having a different point of view on this, and that’s fine. I don’t know much about VAT, but personally, I don’t find the foundation, or ISM (the Palestinian-led movement of internationals) parochial. But that’s fine. The thing about putting stuff out there is that people are going to read it and come up with a lot of different conclusions about it. It’s just part of the deal. I personally don’t think the statements you point out mean that the foundation necessarily rule out concentrating on the occupation. And I also look at what it does in light of the phrase The Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice continues the work that Rachel Corrie began and hoped to accomplish…” Perhaps the wording does need some clarification. There’s always room for improvement.
Also note, that in the guiding principles it says pretty clearly, “We will continue the commitment to Rafah that she initiated and intended to maintain.” Under its statement about supporting sister city development, the focus is also quite clear: “The foundation works to strengthen people-to-people connections between the US and Palestine (and particularly Rafah in the Gaza Strip).” The sites rebuilding project also lays out fairly clearly where it sees its work: “This effort lends support to Palestinian families as they rebuild their homes during continuing occupation and siege. It connects the local Palestinian community, supportive Israelis, and people around the world in grassroots rebuilding efforts.”
The topics you cite have various other groups pointing them out. If you think they need more attention, form an organization that does it. Most likely you’ll hear from people saying you’re ignoring something else.
The foundation itself is not an old organization. Its “first peace works conference focused on Israel and Palestine. Its 2005 event was around bringing “Voices of a People’s History” to Olympia, which did have a more universal theme. It’s also brought to Olympia a film about the situation in Darfur. It’s very much an organization still finding its way. I don’t claim to have a a crystal ball to determine where the foundation is heading, or claim to speak for it, but it is populated by people who have connections to Rachel and the occupation, and it’s fairly logical that the current focus isn’t all that unexpected or out of line. I think the inclusion of Rachel’s name in the title makes it crystal clear for people very quickly where the focus is and should be, as the two Rabbis for Human Rights directors quoted in the post above have also said.
ttfn