Rachel Corrie: Unwilling “Comfort Woman” for Palestinians?
Long litany of Palestinian sexual assaults on other female activists suggests Corrie might have been raped.
by Bill Levinson
Did Rachel Corrie kneel in front of a bulldozer because she wanted to die after being sexually degraded by the people she came to help, and then told to keep quiet about it? This is impossible to prove one way or another but the experiences of other female activists show that it is quite likely that the Palestinians used Rachel Corrie for sexual gratification the same way they are known to have used other women. Note the phrase “routinely harassed and raped.”
- Two activists have exposed a disturbing phenomenon that they say is an open secret within the “peace camp”: female “peace” activists are routinely harassed and raped by the Arabs of Judea and Samaria with whom they have come to identify. They say the phenomenon has gotten worse lately and that many foreign women end up as wives of local Arabs against their will, but cannot escape their new homes.
- It turns out, she explains, that when female peace activists from Israel and abroad come out to Judea and Samaria and demonstrate against the Israeli “occupation,” they are assaulted sexually by the Arab men whom they have come to help. These are not isolated incidents, Aloni-Sedovnik stresses. Rather, this is an “ongoing and widespread” phenomenon that includes verbal and physical abuse. She accuses the ‘peace’ camp of purposely covering up the trend so as not to offend “the Palestinians and their heritage, which sees women as sexual objects.”
…”I was told of such rape cases by women who are not Jewish: a female European leftist activist, a female Red Cross volunteer and a young Arab woman from Yafo,” he says. He says that he met these women when he carried out IDF reserve duty, and met them afterward as well. “They told me what goes on there, in the Palestinian villages, far from any prying eye.”
This is far from the only news article that suggests that Rachel Corrie, a novelty to Palestinians with her blonde hair, might have been used as what the Imperial Japanese called a “comfort woman” during the Second World War–and with about the same amount of choice the Japanese gave the women they pressed into sexual servitude. “Humanitarian Activists” Trying To Bury Palestinian Rape Of One Of Their Own adds,
- One of the more prominent Umm Salmuna activists – a village south of Bethlehem, long entrenched in a battle against the West Bank separation fence – is suspected of the attempted rape of an American peace activist who had been residing in the village as part of her support of the local protest.
Omar Aladdin, who had been arrested three months ago over suspicions he had attempted to rape the U.S. citizen, was subsequently released after agreeing to apologize to the young woman. However, Haaretz had learned that representatives of both the popular protest movement and the PA have since applied pressure on the American peace activist as to prevent her from making the story public.
We suppose this is one “Aladdin and his magic lamp” tale the Arabs don’t want the world to hear. This takes us back to our educated guess that, if Palestinian men did in fact use Rachel Corrie as a comfort woman, she was then peer-pressured into not complaining. If so, it would not be surprising if she then decided to take her own life as a result of being betrayed and brutally degraded by the people she came to help, and then told by the same people to shut up about it lest it hurt their cause.
Female Palestinian Peace Activists Suffer Sexual Harassment, Rape From Palestinians adds,
- It won’t make the front page of the New York Times, but it seems that female peace activists in Israel who go to Arab villages are looked at as “piece” activists by the locals in the Arab villages. Women who go to these villages are sexually harassed, molested and in some cases raped. Haaretz, a very left wing Israeli newspaper reported as follows on one incident, which it made clear was not isolated but a part of a trend.
We will never know whether the Palestinians treated Rachel Corrie the way they treat other women but, if they did, it is quite likely that she was told to keep her mouth shut lest it hurt the Palestinian cause.
- One of the case discussed by Aloni-Sedovnik involved a rape which occurred several months ago in the village of Umm Salmona, near Bethlehem. The victim, an American activist, wanted to press charges but leftist activists put pressure on her not to do so, so as not to damage the struggle against the ‘occupation’.
If you are a young and idealistic American or European woman, you have doubtlessly received many lectures on women’s personal safety at your high school or college. If you are a college student or graduate, you are probably familiar with blue light emergency call stations you can use if for example a strange man begins to follow you. By now you should realize that Palestinian-controlled or Palestinian-occupied (inside Israel) regions are not safe for women, noting that less advanced Muslim societies regard women as chattel property like goats, camels, and other domestic animals. The barrier to rape is not the basic human rights of the woman but the property rights of her male “owner,” whether it be the father of an unmarried girl or the husband of a married one.
Rape is therefore not a crime against the woman but rather against her father or husband, much like stealing his goat or camel. Since women from the United States and Europe have no male “owners,” what Palestinians call Islam makes them into common property (like a stray and unclaimed goat or camel) that any man is free to appropriate and use as he pleases. The bottom line is that “Palestine” is not a safe place for women.
Furthermore, the fact that women who are raped by Palestinians are peer-pressured into keeping quiet about it shows that the male activists who may accompany you are not what the United States and Europe once called gentlemen. A gentleman would have pulled Rachel Corrie out of the bulldozer’s path or, even better, counseled her against this dangerous form of protest in the first place. Rachel died because there was not a single gentleman present among her fellow activists. If you (female peace activist) do go to Gaza and the West Bank, you will do so in the presence of stronger “men” who do not share your mainstream society’s values about how a man is supposed to behave, and you will find yourself interacting with other men who regard you as little more than a love doll on which to gratify their most primitive sexual urges.
Stay home. Stay safe. Find a different way to protest “Israeli imperialism” or, even better, find a worthy cause to which to devote an important part of your life.
dweller Said:
Perhaps you are undereacting as you state:
dweller Said:
I think we are also angry(please re-look at posters comments) that someone who is aiding jew killers, and libeling Jews, is being treated as a martyr by many. By treated as a martyr, as explained in my earlier posts I mean ascribing humanitarian behavior, and intentions, to the actions of the Corries as Curio did. There is more to communication than the denotation of the exact words used. Furthermore, there is no evidence that she even had good intentions to explain her aiding jew killers. I expect that my use of the phrase jew killers is considered to be an overreaction.
In the case of Curio there is evidence of being disingenuous which is a form of dishonesty which usually has a motive.
After, claiming to have no opinion:
Bernard Ross Said:
(Note the positive descriptions of noble, honorable and the the not so negative desription ofmisplaced sympathy or just plain stupid, do these choices tell you anything?)
He clearly states his own opinion:
CuriousAmerican Said:
IN your quotation you left out the first bold sentence which clearly ascribes that it is Curios opinion.
He clearly states she was NOT aiding terrorism this is HIS opinion not hers. A “misguided do-gooder states that her intentions were to do good even if she were misguided. This means he is ascribing something “good” to her intentions. Why does he assume her intentions were good? Because his agenda is to paint the Corries in a good light(martyrs?). I do not need the exact statement calling her a martyr when words such as honorable, noble, misguided are used as a description of her behavior and intentions. His opinion is clear to me. If someone is choking me while telling me they love me shuld I believe the words or the behavior?
YOu miss the bigger picture which is not about selections of phrases but the totality of the conversation and what it communicates. Curios total conversation exhibited a certain perspective lying behind the supposedly objective, bystander appearance he wished to convey: the most negative trait ascribed to her is that she was misguided or stupid, Curio had no reaction to the number of Israeli Rachel’s slaughtered,Curio was outraged at the possible smearing of Corrie but not at the smears,lies, slanders, libels facilitated by the 3 Corries alliance with Jew killers. For Curio, Rachel Corrie and her parents are good and this should be obvious to anyone who is not fooled by the transparent attempt to hide behind a clever use of words. For me, the emperors clothes are transparent but perhaps it is a matter of perspective. Ones perspective is always determined by the station point of the observer. The station point chosen is indicative of a choice made by the observer. All of Curios supposedly objective observations are skewed towards positive viepoints of the Corries. Here is my perspective, which I have stated prior:
ALL those who ally with, support, aid, facilitate, aid and abet the Jew killers are themselves Jew killers The Corries slander and lie about Israel and the Jews and such lies are the seeds of incitement to genocide as proven over a 2000 year period. Aiding and abetting the narrative of those who libel the Jews is facilitating the libels.
The obscenity is not just in supporting the “goodness” of the Corries but expecting Jews to empathize with that perspective. This is arrogance and unexplained by ignorance alone. If you must have the exact phrase where he calls her a martyr then our station points of perspective are clearly different.
@ dweller:
Then you seem to be a minority of 1
Birds of a feather? or christian supporting christian?
@ dweller:
You are projecting your views and christian willingness to give the benefit of your doubt to the most undeserving.
based on all that we know about her it is as reasonable as not to believe that her motives were nefarious then to believe she was just a misguided Do-gooder . Or, she just got off on schtupping Arabs. Probably do to her strict and sexually repressive Christian upbringing:, .. She was a real schtupper.
You are a real credit to Torah with that thought.
And you are the soul of integrity.</sarcasm>
dweller is a nice guy.
@ Bernard Ross:
Ah, yes, everything is relative.
Except that statement
— which was absolute.
”
Yes, I get that. So set the “many” straight, and be done with it.
Or keep doing it, if it seems warranted.
But don’t allow yourself to get excited about the setting-straight
— and, plesase, don’t be hockin’-me-a’tchynik over “why shouldn’t we get excited?! etc., blah, blah…”).
Because the real problem with excitement (positive OR negative) is that instead of underscoring the evil it earnestly intends to target
the excitement always winds up drawing attention instead to ITSELF, not to the evil of its focus. That’s the nature of excitement. (In a candid moment, ask any woman who ever got the attention of a guy. . . . about excitement.)
It may feel good to VENT all that sturm & drang — but that’s sheer self-indulgence (the personal ego clearly gets off on it) — but it never gets the real job done.
And that’s the bottom line. In the end, excitement (notwthstanding the sensation of forward movement) always turns out counter-productive.
Quite so; agreed.
What would qualify for such in your estimation?
Among others.
You & I may regard them as Jew-killers, but naive creatures like her might not have arrived yet at that understanding. (What pathology about them, or their personal history, as might have kept the awareness at-bay, is another issue.)
What the remark tells me is that he’s still at sea over the matter. That’s a good thing, to my way of thinking — because when he settles on something solid, I want it to be clear that he arrived at it on his own, not because I or you (or the opposition) pressured or manipulated him onto it.
As for the list itself, come on, Bernard, would you feel better if he had included “slimy,” “vicious,” or “hateful” as part of it?
Only because I had already addressed it in my previous post [#48]. Re-read it. I’d responded by saying she might not have aided terrorism intentionally.
That’s not as clear to me as it apparently is to you. And frankly, I’ve noticed other occasions on which he’s not as clear in print as even HE might assume he was.
We all think in our own, tailor-made, mental shorthand (which by its nature, differs from that of everybody else).
The art of writing entails putting yourself in the shoes of a multiplicity of readers and translating your own mental shorthand into something easily decipherable to them.
Reading, OTOH, is like asking for directions in a strange neighborhood or city from somebody who’s lived there all his life. If he doesn’t put himself in your shoes BEFORE he starts giving you directions, he’s going to be giving you those directions in his own (unconscious), mental shorthand
— and probably end up his little directional recitation with, “You can’t miss it.!” (Yeah, right.)
What he means is that HE himself can’t miss it. He’s been over the terrain so many times, that HE doesn’t have to think about getting there & back. HE could damed-well get there in his sleep. But HE aint you.
Anyway, why don’t we just simply ask Curio for directions.
— What’s the story, Curio?: Did you mean to say that Rachel Corrie was not objectively aiding terrorism?
Or, rather, that she just didn’t think she was?
Wouldn’t want it come as a shock to you, fella, but frankly, sexual smearing of women crosses a line with me too.
I don’t like it when posters do that to women posters on this site either.
(I make an exception with female entertainment personalities & other women who deliberately use their sexuality to court the limlight.)
Guess that’s just not as ‘obvious’ to me at this point, Bernard. Maybe it will be in time, but not at present. If I were a betting man (I’m not, but if I were), I’d say he’s still learning. Whether he’s displaying what he’s learning at this point, or not, is beside the point.
Perhaps they are different, Bernard.
Then too, it might be useful to get Curio’s — as well as your — definition of the word, “martyr.”
There seem to be broad cultural differences over this, even within the West.
(Considering the Islamic notion of shihadeh, I’ve long thought a good clearing the air over such things was well-overdue; though this might not be the most suitable opportunity to pursue it.)
@ yamit82:
So?
Wouldn’t be the first time.
Should I tremble?
Two cheap shots for the price of one; such a deal!
Best you can do?
@ CuriousAmerican:
Okay, Mom, you shouldn’t have paid him so much.
(Candidly, I have little use for “nice.”
Too often it turns out to be a self-conscious substitute for good.
All the same, though, the vote of confidence is not unwelcome. My thanks.)
“You are a real credit to Torah with that thought.”
You’re just like Rachel Corrie: you get your rocks off excoriating Jews. And this from an adherent of a religion [Christianity] whose verbose perpetuity can be imputed entirely to its transmogrification and emasculation of the Jewish teachings of the Torah. You have no way of knowing this, and Jews are at a loss (after millennia) at trying to convince you of this, but you (and your religion) are totally unqualified to judge what is and what is not “a real credit to Torah.” As for Rachel Corrie’s violent end, the circumstances leading up to it remind me of a poster a Jewish friend sent me not long ago, which showed a row of Israeli fighter jets making ready on the tarmac. Below was the inscription, “Jews: not so easy to fuck with any more.”
If you idiots want to love your enemies, go right ahead. But when you love the enemies of the Jewish people and the State of Israel, you should not be surprised when Jews mock those enemies.
“And you are the soul of integrity.”
My rebuttal to the first quotation applies to this unctuous blather too. Like I said, you are not qualified to instruct a Jew, any Jew, about integrity. The murders of six million Jewish men, women and children have disesteemed you and your fellow religious from ever making such lofty judgements. I therefore find it difficult to comprehend your unmitigated effrontery.
Your behaviour here is example of why so many Jews distrust Gentiles (myself included), why they perceive such well-disguised anti-Semitism as being synonymous with Christians and Christianity.
@ Bernard Ross:
[This went into the ozone. Probably too long. So I'm going to segment it & try again.]
Ah, yes, “everything is relative.”
Except that statement
— which was absolute.
Yes, I get that. So set the “many” straight, and be done with it.
Or keep doing it, if it seems warranted.
But don’t allow yourself to get excited about the setting-straight
— and, plesase, don’t be hockin’-me-a’tchynik over “why shouldn’t we get excited?! etc., blah, blah…”).
Because the real problem with excitement (positive OR negative) is that instead of underscoring the evil it earnestly intends to target
the excitement always winds up drawing attention instead to ITSELF, not to the evil of its focus. That’s the nature of excitement. (In a candid moment, ask any woman who ever got the attention of a guy. . . . about excitement.)
It may feel good to VENT all that sound & fury — but it’s sheer self-indulgence (the personal ego clearly gets off on it) — and it never gets the real job done.
And that’s the bottom line. In the end, excitement (notwthstanding the sensation of forward movement) always turns out counter-productive.
Quite so; agreed.
What would qualify for such in your estimation?
You & I may regard them as Jew-killers even without having actually seen them in action, but naive creatures like her might not have arrived yet at that understanding, sight-unseen. (What pathology about such useful idiots, or their personal history, as might have kept the awareness at-bay, is another issue.)
What the remark tells me is that Curio’s still at sea over the matter. That’s a good thing, to my way of thinking — because when he settles on something solid, I want it to be clear that he arrived at it on his own, not because I or you (or the opposition) pressured or manipulated him onto it.
As for the list itself, come on, Bernard, would you feel better if he had included “slimy,” “vicious,” or “hateful” as part of it?
@ yamit82:
The truth always comes out
— in its own good time.
I have no problem standing back & letting it DO precisely that.
And, for the record, Jews were quite good at it LONG before there were such things as ‘Christians.’
You have issues. See a Psychiatrist.
I do not love the enemies of Israel. I have NO love of fundamentalist Islam.
However, I do not fall into the trap of thinking every criticism of Israel means that someone is a Islamic Genocidal Nazi.
The overuse of these metaphors is akin to crying “Wolf”
So many minor critics of Israel have been called Nazis that when a real Nazi comes along and you scream “Nazi.” no one is going to listen.
Corrie was NOT a suicide bomber. She was not smuggling weapons. She was a misguided do-gooder.
The house she was trying to save was that of a pharmacist NOT a militant.
The world is full of “useful idiots” but that does NOT make them Nazis.
dweller Said:
Whose “earnest intentions”? I have no intention to engage or convince Curio. As stated prior my intention is focused on waking up Jews to the hypocrisies, double standards and outright lies which CONTINUE to provide the seeds and basis for Jew killing and Jew swindling. The example of the Corries provided such an opportunity. The Jews have a ghetto mentality which still prevails and prevents them from achieving their due. The damage done to the Jews by the Corries and their ilk in spreading the libels about Israel, and the Jews, is directly related to the attacks on Jews in Europe. Jews need to view the covert, clandestine, facilitators of this evil as enemies intent on killing Jews rather than “misguided do-gooders” just out expressing themselves. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” but I see no good intentions in the undertakings of these de facto Jews killers and the intentions are irrelevant to the damage. “known or should have known” is the guiding principle and those who abet this Jew killing decide not to know. I see enemies who run alongside the mob shouting “kill the Jews”, who although not shooting and although shouting “justice for the Pals”, are carrying the mobs ammunition and cheering them on. The ignorance of the Jews to the evil confronting them is enormous. A Jew who empathizes with the Corries narrative, in my opinion, is in the clutches of the ghetto mentality. The Jews that went to the “showers” believing it, are still here in spite of all evidence to the contrary. You made a post identifying Winston Churchill as the creator of Jordan which illustrates my point: Churchill is considered great by many Jews and yet he participated in one of the greatest swindles of the Jews. Jews remain in ignorance and this is the main obstacle.dweller Said:
The intentions are irrelevant to me, I only refer to them because there are those who embrace its relevance in the same way as those who said “HItler kissed babies, loved dogs and built the autobahn”. I have seen nothing in the articles to warrant an assumption of “good intentions” and being an ally of the ISM automatically signals, for me, bad intentions.
dweller Said:
As stated prior, our goals are different: your goal is convincing Curio through rational argument whereas my goal is revealing to Jews the techniques of delegitimization and the true motives of pretenders. I thnk you are interested in the elgance of arguments but as someone said “..lives are at stake..”; Jewish lives. Frankly, I believe your goal is unattainable, do you still believe that his statement painting Corries as a “misguided do gooder” is not his own opinion? Read his latest quote:
For Curio one must pull the trigger to be guilty. I do not agree.dweller Said:
My feelings are irrelevant but it appears obvious that the inclusion of such words would at least show that he was not engaged in an agenda of martyrdom. Those words are the words I would use and I own my belief that these “activists” are covert jew killers and should be treated as overt jew killers.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Disagree. The use of metaphors is necessary to convince Jews of the deception perpetrated upon them and the extent of the EVIL currently in motion. It is important to see what I see: the misguided do-gooder activist is a red herring myth that has fool jews thinking it is all just a misunderstanding. These activists are fully aware of the lies that they spread and that these lies are resulting in the attacks on Jews in Europe and elsewhere. The activists do not pull the trigger but they carry the ammunition and spread the lies. For you this is not important but it is important for Jews to realistically assess their true situation.
CuriousAmerican Said:
Who is no one, you? It is the Jews in their ghetto mentality who need to be bludgeoned with the truth. Even after marching with their soap to the showers a short while ago they still believe that history is not repeating itself and that the Europeans are just ignorantly listening to the wrong narrative, that Obamas 20 year sojourn with the jew killer Wright doesn’t mean anything, etc. The Europeans are doing what they have always done, it is covert now because they need to see themselves as “good” people but when they have finished their rationalizations and feel convinced it will be full steam ahead again with more “solutions”. The Europeans are the macrocosm of Rachel Corrie, are they “misguided do gooders”?
CuriousAmerican Said:
On the contrary: a useful idiot is a nazi when you remove the semantics.