Response to NYT’s ‘Rachel Corrie’ in London: Requiem for an Idealist
After ignoring the event of March 22nd, the New York Times now reviews the actual play in a style and with a political bias which are familiar to us.
Tom Wallace responds to Matt Wolf’s review.
Mr. Wolf begins by noting that “My Name Is Rachel Corrie” is a eulogy not a play. He then makes a disengenuous attempt to link Rachel Corrie to Yasir Arafat. But, it is when he gets to the paragraph below that he crosses the line of any sort of feigned objectivity. He is not reviewing the play, he is taking a political side and turning a false accusation into a statement of fact.
Ms. Corrie’s affiliation with the International Solidarity Movement, an organization that has recruited Americans and Europeans to serve as human shields, turned her death into the stuff of ideological football.
It was the bulldozer driver who killed Rachel, an American, thus creating a public relations nightmare for the Israeli Public Relations machine. Her brutal killing awoke many Americans’ curiosity, ultimately raising questions about what exactly was happening in the Occupied Territory. If this is what happens to an American who is non-violently protesting, one could only imagine what was happening to Palestinians. The pro-Israel lobby then kicked into high gear, smearing the victim (Rachel) thus creating the political football that Mr. Wolf refers to. It was precisely the same smear campaign which ultimately and successfully led to the “postponement” of the play by the New York Theater Workshop? His use of this line is a continuation of that smear.
Mr. Wolf continues:
If this play doesn’t exactly sanctify its subject, it still functions as a staged requiem that can’t help but be both partial and partisan. One could take issue with Rachel’s comment late on that the Palestinians are for the most part “engaging in Gandhian nonviolent resistance.
Mr. Wolf is apprarently taking issue but again uses phraseology that attempts to shield himself from accountability. The fact is that the vast majority of resistance practiced by the Palestinian people on a daily basis is non violent Gandhian resistance. In the occupied territories, especially Gaza at the moment, buying a loaf of bread qualifies as resistance.
I would like to extend an invitation to Mr. Wolf to visit the occupied West Bank and Gaza. I invite him to learn firsthand what “occupation” means and then what “non-violent resistance” means.
Finally Mr. Wolf introduces his own subtle smear of Rachel:
But the actress subtly moves from a shining-faced earnestness to something darker and more dangerous, as the fire in Ms. Corrie’s belly builds into a conflagration. (One can only imagine what a young Vanessa Redgrave might have made of the role.)
“Darker and more dangerous?” Is it possible that she’s just getting angry at what she sees being done with American money to a people who, like herself, are sweet, kind and generous, despite the brutal oppression of an occupying army?
RachelsWords.org encourages people to compare this review to reviews from Britain where the public has actually been allowed to see and experience the play for themselves. We also encourage people to simply read Rachel’s Words and decide for yourself who she was.
Related reviews
Guardian Arts 4 out of 5 stars
Financial Times 4 out of 5 stars
Whatsonstage 4 out of 5 stars
‘My Name Is Rachel Corrie’
Matt Wolf’s review in the New York Times
Feel free to write letters to the editor and the ombudsman for the NYT after reading this response to the review. As always, be polite.
General letters: letters@nytimes.com
NYT Ombudsman: public@nytimes.com
