Rachel Corrie's foolish choice

Rachel Corrie took a stand for what she thought was a righteous cause. Maybe it was.

If Corrie had a significant concern, her response was not only self-destructive but also ineffective, a danger to others, a disruption of military operations and utter disregard for the rules of her host country.

Corrie was fatally injured seven years ago when she tried to block an Israel Defense Forces bulldozer from razing a home in Rafah near the Gaza/Egyptian border. She belonged to an organization called the International Solidarity Movement, which consisted mainly of Americans and Europeans devoted to helping Arabs in Israel’s territories.

Her death is the focus of a civil lawsuit which her family brought against the Israeli government for either intentionally killing her or taking negligent actions that contributed to her death. Court proceedings, which began in a Haifa courtroom on March 10, reflect seven years of rationalizing by her parents. They persist in ignoring that much responsibility for this tragedy must be attributed to their own daughter and her organization.

Maybe Israel was mistaken to level Arab homes in Gaza and the West Bank, but Corrie picked the wrong means of protesting the policy. The solution: Fight City Hall.

Corrie, of Olympia, Wash., was fortunate to grow up in a country with a democratic process that can lead to policy changes if a person takes advantage of the system. In turn, the United States can influence a democratic ally such as Israel to consider altering a questionable policy.

Israel’s practice of bulldozing Arab homes was often confusing. Sometimes it sounded necessary, sometimes not. Israel cited two prime reasons. First, the entry points for arms-smuggling tunnels were built under these homes. Secondly, Israel razed the homes of terrorists regardless if any family members were involved. The concern at least merited further inquiry.

The most serious concerns for Israeli policies in 2003 were the construction of settlements in hostile areas and questionable military operations.

Corrie and her friends could have challenged Israel’s demolition practice without leaving home, almost. They could have organized politically and lobbied the federal government. That would have meant forming an organization, collecting petitions, holding rallies, writing the president and members of Congress, and aligning themselves with diverse groups of people.

Many Jews might have joined such a drive then because common ground could be found between reasonable critics of Israel and mainstream supporters of the Jewish state. There were Jews who felt uncomfortable with both the right and the left, and probably would have participated in a centrist organization.

Perhaps such an initiative would have succeeded, but members of ISM flew to Israel and injected themselves into perilous activities. The bulldozer that targeted the house in Gaza was in a vicinity that was, for all practical purposes, a war zone.

When ISM members attempt to block military actions, they endanger the lives of others and themselves. Corrie jeopardized her own life by placing herself in front of the bulldozer. The driver was forced to react, and he claimed he did not see her, according to the military.

What actually happened may never be known. The prospect that Israel did anything wrong in this instance cannot be casually dismissed, but Corrie still put herself in harm’s way.

ISM members might argue that taking political action back home would have failed because of the influence of AIPAC, the premier pro-Israel lobbying organization, and the hawkish slant of the Bush administration. It would have been harder than today, but they would never know without trying.

Among current examples of lobbying, the Obama administration possibly influenced Israel to allow three Americans and a Briton to testify during the court proceedings, according to The Guardian of London. They have all been denied re-entry to Israel until now.

The witnesses, then ISM members, have been expected to testify that Israeli soldiers saw Corrie and other activists at the scene, and could have arrested or removed her before she risked her life, the Guardian reported.

Also, a left-leaning lobby called J Street has proven to be a player in Washington, D.C. J Street could have accommodated Corrie’s cause had the group existed seven years ago. The need for a J Street has diminished because Israeli policies have moderated, and J Street’s current positions are too rigid.

The Israeli military exonerated its troops and the bulldozer driver, but accused Corrie and the ISM of conduct that was “illegal, irresponsible and dangerous.” They were right. Corrie and friends could have been working toward the same goal in a manner that was legal, responsible and safe.

Bruce S. Ticker is a Philadelphia freelance journalist. He can be contacted Bticker@comcast.net.