The topic of Rachel Corrie came up in this thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337036409/50#50

She was an American woman killed while protesting the bulldozing of homes in Palestine. There is disagreement over the exact circumstances, but let's stick with the 'Palestinian' version - she was deliberately run over by a bulldozer while standing in its path as a protest.

I pointed out that this woman is an example to all Palestinians - one that they are unfortunately very unlikely to follow. What followed was one of those intriguing cases where people who disagree with you prove your point. Falah started out by claiming that the only reason she received worldwide media attention was because she was a white American - it was a racist thing. He attempted to prove this by posting examples of Muslims doing the same thing and not getting the same level of media attention. The only problem is, they were not actually doing the same thing. Falah demonstrated that even for well-off Muslims on the other side of the world, it is impossible to distinguish what made Rachel Corrie so special.

So what makes her special? Basically, she defended the rights of others in a way that was not violent and did not threaten violence, but interfered with actions she considered to be wrong.

There are many iconic examples of non-violent civil disobedience that the rest of the world looks to. Examples include Jesus standing down soldiers who would save him, Ghandi making salt, Mandela rescuing South Africa from almost inevitable violence, the tank man of Tiananmen square man staring down the Chinese army, many of the eastern philosophers, right down to hippies chaining themselves to trees. You can see it for yourself when the leaders of obviously impassioned protestors plea for peaceful interactions with authorities. This is not to say that Ghandi and Mandela for example rejected violence outright. They acknowledged that the aggressor or oppressor can lower the bar and force the conflict 'down'. However today the internet and the prevalence of cameras and videos makes even the most hardened dictator nervous about public violence. It is just a shame that there are no photos or videos publicly available that show what actually happened to Corrie.

So why is this concept so alien to Muslims? I would like to suggest two reasons. They both boil down to a misunderstanding in the west of what Muslims actually want.

1) Martyrdom and virgins. I don't think you get your virgins unless you make at least a token effort at aggression. So instead of standing in front of a tank, the Palestinians throw rocks at it. From an Islamic perspective the outcome is better - you die a martyr. These martyrs become local heroes and inspire others to blow themselves up and do whatever they can. To the civilised world it is a PR disaster. Your death is wasted. Instead of a global outcry, people see your video on the internet, throwing rocks at armed soldiers, and think 'what a loser'. There was genuine outcry over Rachel Corrie. People even organised a boycott of Caterpillar (the manufacturer of the bulldozers) until they stopped selling to Israel. But these efforts keep fizzling out because Palestinians destroy them.

2) The Palestinians, and Muslims in general, do not want peace. Islam is a religion of power and oppression. It cannot cope with losing a war. It cannot cope with trying to make peace with the victors. It cannot cope with a Jewish homeland in land 'owned' by Islam. When Muslims say peace, they mean the peace that comes with military victory. What Muslims want is victory or death. What Islam permits for Muslims in victory would make the Israelis look like Ghandi. Fortunately they have been denied victory for a very long time (even when they greatly outnumbered Israel). So that only leaves them with the option of death. Would-be terrorists arrested in the UK are often the children of Muslim immigrants who left the middle east to escape the endless cycles of violence. Unfortunately many of their children are raised as good Muslims and feel compelled to import the endless violence from their ancestral homeland.

Muslims actually want the bloodshed to continue, because once it ends, it means they lost. If they keep the death toll rising, it is still not over, like Rocky on the ground, but not yet out for the count. You only have to see Abu and Falah talking about the great victory to come (not the peace) to get a feel for what they want.

Quote:


You mean, win back what was previously lost, by military conquest?

Quote:


Exactly. Thanks for proving my point Falah. Everyone else surrenders when they lose. Why are Muslims so keen to die?

Quote:


It is better than refusing to acknowledge you lost a war. Going to the toilet is not a praiseworthy act, but it sure beats crapping on the floor.

Quote:


See, the Jews can do it, even as second class citizens. But Muslims would rather die, apparently.

Quote:


Falah, what is the difference between refusing to surrender when you have lost so miserably, and not wanting the bloodshed to continue? Do you actually think the Palestinians are on the verge of some kind of victory?

No. I read the first bit of her wikipedia page.

Is there anything of particular interest in them?

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 6:39pm:


Yeah. Bastards. Apparently avram is one of them. Thing is he prolly doesnt know any different. Well he should now. Wonder if he will read the letters?

SOB

Why don't you read them and see?

Then don't.

You don't mind using Rachel's death as an "example to all Palestinians" but make no attempt to understand her motivation for being there.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 22^nd, 2012 at 7:55pm:


Annie she should not be there. You know that,