March 30, 2003

The apathy of the US media in reporting the cold-blooded murder of peace and human rights activist, Rachel Corrie, has left many with the stark realization that they have let Israel get away with the murder of one of their own

A FEW years ago, a journalist friend of mine was offered a job by a well-reputed mainstream American newspaper. He turned the offer down without even a second thought. Bemused, I had asked him the reason. He replied that he refuses to work for a media and be part of a group of journalists that are dictated and blackmailed by their government and controlled by lobbyists.

Slightly taken aback at his vehemence, I had thought perhaps he was exaggerating a bit, at least where the US print media is concerned. But today, I am reminded of that conversation as I scan US newspapers for some comments on the circumstances surrounding the death of Rachel Corrie. There doesn’t even seem to be an editorial paying homage to Rachel’s courage and beliefs, far less an in-depth analysis of how such a tragedy could occur in the first place.

On Sunday, March 16, 2003, 22-year-old student, Rachel Corrie, was protesting the demolition of Palestinians’ houses in the Gaza Strip by sitting in front of an advancing Israeli bulldozer. Horrifyingly, the driver did not even seem to pause before it rolled over this young woman. Unfortunately, for the bulldozer operator, she happened to be an American citizen rather than a mere Palestinian, which is why this story probably got reported at all, and the Israelis had a few moments of embarrassment.

I first read about Rachel Corrie in Dawn’s editorial published on March 18, 2003. I was a little surprised at myself for missing the story in The Washington Post. But since I presumed that the incident must have been reported in the US, I waited the next day to read the outrage in American newspapers. I waited to hear someone say in the American media that if this is the way Israeli forces are treating Americans or other foreign nationals protesting in an absolutely peaceful manner, what must they be doing to the Palestinians. Instead, I was faced with this strange eerie silence. Yes, the incident got reported, but it was just that, a news item reported mainly in the international pages rather than the national ones. Had this happened in Iraq or North Korea — just to mention two countries among countless others — the whole of America would have been in a hysterical rhetoric by now, and rightfully so. But because this was done in Israel, as usual, there is no sense of anything intentionally wrong having been done. I told myself that maybe I missed the stories somehow with my hectic schedule of college and raising twins. So I asked my husband, who watches the news everyday and reads the paper as much or little as the next person.

His response: “Rachel, who?”

I then called up my Canadian friend who listens to the National Public Radio (NPR), watches the news and reads the paper more aggressively than most people. Her response was the same: “Rachel, who?”

So I did a search on all major newspapers and channels originating in the US. The Washington Post, in their report of the incident, quoted Capt Jacob Dallal, an Israeli military spokesman, as saying, “This was a very regrettable incident. We’re dealing with a group of protesters acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger — the Palestinians, themselves and our forces.”

This logic sounded uncannily like what President Bush said on March 17 in his eight-minute speech to the nation, that the US does not want war or casualties in Iraq, and therefore it is the responsibility of the Iraqi military to lay down its arms and surrender so that the US can advance in a peaceful manner and destroy what needs to be destroyed. Which means that when thousands of Iraqis get killed in this unnecessary and barbaric war, the Bush administration is going to simply refuse to take any responsibility and blame it on the Iraqi military of forcing the US military to kill.

Rachel tried to scramble out of the bulldozer’s way when she realized that the operator was not going to stop, but she fell and got caught under its blade and was dragged under. At least four other protesters tried to stop the driver by gesturing to him, but he continued to move onwards.

Capt Jacob Dallal’s statement added: “An initial inquiry indicates that an Israeli bulldozer apparently accidentally ran over a protester. The windows of the bullet-proof bulldozer are very small and the visibility is very limited, and the bulldozer operator did not see the woman.”

The New York Times, in their news item on Rachel, quoted a fellow protester, Mr Dale, who said, “At the time Ms Corrie was run over, she was in an open area in front of the house. The bulldozer came from some distance away, and there was nothing to obscure the driver’s view.”

The head of the organization that was leading the protests said that perhaps the protesters were not as disciplined as they should have been. This entire incident has left me speechless. Instead of blaming the callousness of the Israeli army, the protesters and Rachel herself are being blamed for her death. Even if by some chance the operator did not see her, was he so oblivious that he did not feel her come underneath the blade and then the main body of the bulldozer, and did not see the jumping protesters trying to get him to stop?

The Associated Press did a similar news story about her. I could not find anything related to her on CNN. I am hoping that perhaps it was my mistake and I did not use the search engine well, because surely they must have at least done a news item on her.

I even went and did a search for her on the Internet, confining myself to the US. I found about 22 pages, but only three items related to the Rachel Corrie I was hunting for. Again, these were news items and one about the mourning of her death in her hometown among family and friends.

ABC News Channel in their 6’O clock news on March 18, did a short news item on her, showing her memorial service planned by her friends and relatives in D.C., outside the Israeli embassy. Incidentally, a foreign journalist friend of mine told me that the memorial was tear-gassed by a few individuals who thought that Rachel was trying to protect terrorists. I could not confirm this since it again was not reported.

As far as I can tell, where the US media is concerned, there have been till now no editorials or comments in opinion columns about her, and definitely none denouncing the Israeli government. It seems as if it was all just an unfortunate accident. The tone being: silly girl, sitting in front of a bulldozer wearing a bright orange jacket, protecting hoodlums, what could she have been thinking?

This mentality is shown most expressively through a cartoon published in the University of Maryland’s newspaper, Diamondback. On Tuesday, March 19, 2003, the editorial cartoon of this paper showed Rachel Corrie sitting cross-legged in front of an advancing bulldozer. The caption read: “From the American Heritage Dictionary. Stu-pid-i-ty: (P) (pronunciation stoo-pid-ite, pl. stupidities).” The next line said: 1- The quality or condition of being stupid; 2- A stupid act, remark, or idea; 3- Sitting in front of a bulldozer to protect a gang of terrorists.

Fortunately, for Rachel, appalled at this hideous insensitivity, the Muslim students on the campus galvanized into action and sent the cartoon everywhere they could through mass e-mails. I myself received it from a friend who had received it in Islamabad. The good news is that at the time when I responded about the cartoon to the newspaper in question, they had already received 2,000 e-mails worldwide, and had about 60 protesters in front of their office demanding an apology.

In the March 20, 2003, paper edition, the editor was forced to justify the paper’s decision to print this cartoon by saying that the newspaper felt that the cartoonist had the right to express his views, and also that they felt the need to shake up their apathetic campus. In addition, the editorial said that they checked with their legal department to make sure that they were not libel for printing the cartoon. They then wrote that they were in fact very concerned because of the threats that the newspaper had received in response to this cartoon.

As I read on, I could sense that now the story was going to go off on a tangent of the threats made by these fundamentalist Muslims. I wanted to say that it is this kind of insensitive journalism and total lack of understanding of history and a cause that turns perfectly sane people crazy with rage. Incidentally, when I called up the paper to get permission to reproduce this cartoon in Dawn, I was categorically told that the newspaper has refused to give any other newspaper the permission to reprint it.

But what has really concerned me about the above incident is that out of 35,000 thousand students currently enrolled in UMD, only 60 protested. And what pictures I could see of the protesters show that almost all of them are either Arab descent or from other Muslim countries. Very few what one would call ‘non-Muslim Americans’. I can also bet that most of the 2,000 e-mails probably came from Muslim countries. I am reminded of a statement that Diane Rehm of the Diane Rehm Show at NPR once made, which roughly said that the unfortunate thing about NPR and PBS is that people who usually tune in to them are the ones who have the least need to be further educated. The masses that need to hear the other point-of-view tune in to channels like Fox News.

Interestingly, Nation News, an independent magazine, in their March 31, 2003 issue, had the following to say about an advertisement for Fox News. “Look at the ad again and really read it. ‘Real journalism’ it says. ‘Fair and balanced’. Are you laughing yet? Catch the quote: ‘America guarantees a free press...Freedom relies on a fair press...’ Whom are they quoting? Voltaire? Jefferson? No, Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News. That’s the Roger Ailes who is former chief strategist for Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush I. Mr Ailes, you see, comes from a good Republican background, not a good journalistic background. His boss, owner of Fox News, among many other properties, is Rupert Murdoch. Interesting fact: Everyone of the papers owned by Murdoch’s News Associates is solidly in favour of war on Iraq.”

The only reference I found on the plight of the Palestinians was in The New York Times where they said: “In her e-mailed dispatch from Rafah, Corrie painted a picture of the perilous life of a human shield.”

“We can only imagine what it is like for Palestinians living here, most of them once-or-twice refugees already, for whom this is not a nightmare,” Corrie wrote, “but a continuous reality from which international privilege cannot protect them, and from which they have no economic means to escape.”

The US media, collectively it seems, have let Israel get away with murdering one of their own.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)