On April 6, I attended the “Caterpillar Referendum Teach-In” event hosted by Princeton Committee on Palestine (PCP) and Students for Prison Education, Abolition, and Reform (SPEAR). As a Jew, I was appalled. Appalled by the false claims. Appalled by the proclamation of “From the river to the sea” (an explicit call to erase the only Jewish state) – by a professor and invited speaker, no less. Appalled that attendees burst out into chants of “Free Palestine” upon the meeting’s end.
President of PCP, Eric Periman ‘23, organized the event, bringing in Craig and Cindy Corrie, the parents of Rachel Corrie, who was killed by a Caterpillar bulldozer in Gaza in 2003, as well as Rutgers Theatre professor David Letwin. Both Periman and PCP have been embroiled in antisemitic controversy on campus.
Cindy Corrie began the event by sharing some of Rachel’s childhood writings on the beauty of nature in her hometown of Olympia, Washington. Because the event began with a mother grieving her deceased daughter, I want to emphasize that I make no attempt to diminish a mother’s grief at the loss of a child, no matter what the circumstances. I simply seek to temper the pacifist portrayal of Rachel provided at the event and debunk the false claims set forth as indisputable facts.
Cindy Corrie characterized the group her daughter worked for in Gaza, International Solidarity Movement (ISM), as peace-loving. She described ISM as “a voice” for “Palestinians” advocating for “only non-violent means of resistance.” In reality, the organization – called “pro-terrorist” by the Washington Post – has knowingly cooperated with representatives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, groups designated by the U.S. State Department as foreign terrorist organizations.
ISM co-founder Asam Shapiro also wrote that “Palestinians… should use any means necessary” to fight Israelis, saying that non-violence does not work “without a concurrent violent movement.” Moreover, ISM strongly supports Palestinians pelting stones at Israeli civilians, calling the acts “a foundation for Palestinian resistance.”
Cindy said that her daughter was killed in Rafah, where “she chose to go because it was where she thought the need was greatest.” However, Cindy failed to mention that Rafah is documented by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as a major site of ammunition storage facilities and tunnels used to smuggle arms from Egypt.
The IDF destroys such tunnels to prevent weapon smuggling into Gaza, which is why Caterpillar bulldozers are used. Rafah was deemed a closed active military zone, off-limits to civilians, and clearly marked off as such. Simply put: Rachel Corrie was not permitted to be there and thus placed her life at risk by entering the area.
Further, the claim during the event that the bulldozer’s operator saw Corrie is not as cut and dry as it was presented. Cindy claimed the bulldozer driver deliberately ran her daughter over. This rumor stemmed from a photo disseminated by the Associated Press, which showed Rachel standing atop a mound and holding a megaphone, making it seem impossible for the driver to have missed her (Figure 1).
Both CNN and The New York Times falsely claimed that this image “show[ed] the moments before she was killed.” In reality, the picture was taken hours before her death and even included a completely different bulldozer than the one that struck Rachel (Figure 2). According to testimony, Rachel was sitting on the ground, not standing, at the time of her death. Both publications later issued corrections following their misleading captions. After adjudication in Israeli courts, her death was deemed an accident.
Figure 1. Photo courtesy of ISM taken hours before Rachel’s death.
Figure 2. Photo courtesy of ISM that shows Rachel Corrie being helped moments after being hit by the bulldozer.
Cindy claimed Israel is an “apartheid” state, and Professor David Letwin, who joined the event via Zoom, echoed this sentiment, calling Israel an “apartheid regime.” ‘Apartheid’ was thrown around repeatedly over the hour, absent of any evidence. Moreover, the information sheet provided to everyone in attendance had a photo of “Anti-South African apartheid protests at Princeton,” drawing a clear parallel to ‘Apartheid’ South Africa.
The Biden administration categorically rejects the ‘apartheid’ claim, declaring, “It is not the view of this administration that Israel’s actions constitute apartheid.” Apartheid is defined as “a former policy of segregation and political, social, and economic discrimination against the nonwhite majority in the Republic of South Africa.”
In apartheid South Africa, non-whites were subjected to segregation in public facilities, stripped of voting rights, and denied access to work in government. It was a society of institutionalized racism, subjugation, and oppression. In Israel, every citizen has the right to vote, Arabs included. Moreover, Arabs not only belong to every major political party but have several of their own, participating in coalitions that constitute the Parliament. Arab Israelis serve on the Supreme Court, in the diplomatic corps, and in academia and volunteer for military service, some rising to the highest ranks.
As for the situation with Palestinians in the West Bank, Israel has offered almost total withdrawal from the area on multiple occasions, the last of which was in 2008, to no avail. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Omert offered Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas all but 6.3 percent of the West Bank and promised to recompense this loss by compensating the remaining few percent to the PA in another area: namely, the land linking the West Bank to Gaza. The Palestinians rejected the plan. Israel was open to peace; the Palestinians were the ones who refused to come to the table.
Moreover, the Palestinians held Gaza and the West Bank until 1967. Did they make an effort to establish a Palestinian state then? The answer is a resounding no. If they were so keen on self-determination, then what was stopping them?
The fact remains that the offers were rejected; instead of negotiating, the Palestinian leadership resorted to suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. One of the most shocking moments – and that is saying something considering that I had my pick at Tuesday’s event – was when Craig offhandedly remarked that “when Rachel was killed, there were still suicide bombings going on,” the very real implication being that suicide bombing are no longer a reality. Craig, I really wish that were the case. I do. But the facts speak for themselves.
In 2008, Lyubov Razdolskaya was killed, and 38 others were wounded in a suicide bombing at a Dimona shopping center. In 2016, Hamas claimed responsibility for Abdul Hamid Abu Srour’s suicide attack on a bus in Jerusalem, wounding 20. In 2019, 17-year-old Rina Shnerb was killed in a suicide bombing attack while hiking with her father and brother. Those are but a few in the ongoing litany of infamy.
Because the threat of violence clearly remains – despite the Corries’ attempt to deny it – Israel has in place checkpoints and roadblocks to ensure its citizenry’s safety. Cindy referred to “Jewish only roads” in the West Bank. Such roads do not exist.
Yes, there are roadblocks to keep terrorists from killing Israeli civilians – Christians, Jews, and Arabs alike – but there are no roads confined to only Jews. Most West Bank’s roads are open to everyone – Muslim, Jewish, and Christian citizens, foreigners, and Palestinians. A few select roads surrounding Israeli communities do prohibit Palestinians, but not all Arabs; Arab-Israeli citizens are free to travel as they wish. And let it be noted that Israelis are prohibited from traveling on roads in the Palestinian-controlled area of the West Bank.
Continuing to construct the baseless ‘Apartheid’ narrative, Cindy Corrie criticized “the Apartheid wall, an illegal wall on Palestinian land.” The barrier she referred to – less than 3 percent of which is truly a wall, the rest being a small fence – was built as a counter-terrorism measure by Israel in 2003 following a devastating year of terrorist attacks (over 5,301). There is no natural barrier along the demarcation line with West Bank, so to stop the devastating wave of terror, the country exercised its legitimate authority to erect an obstacle. Doing otherwise, leaving itself wide-open to those interested in destroying Israel, and neglecting to stop homicide bombers would be tantamount to suicide, something no nation is obliged to do.
The Corries were not the only ones conveying falsehood. Letwin claimed that the Jewish state is “dependent on ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of human beings.” According to the U.N., ethnic cleansing is defined as “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.”
One in five Israeli citizens is a member of an ethnic group not Jewish; if ‘ethnic cleansing’ were indeed the goal, then Israel has failed. On the contrary, Israel offers Arab-Israeli citizens – and Muslim, Christian, Druze, Armenians, and many others – rights and opportunities typically exceeding those in neighboring countries. Moreover, Israel has repeatedly shown that it is willing to cede land to the Palestinians to arrive at a permanent conclusion to the conflict. Look no further than the compromise offers preferred in 2000 and 2008.
Israel is not a ‘colonial state’ founded upon the principles of ethnic cleansing. The fence – inappropriately referred to as the ‘Apartheid’ wall – was built for the safety of Israeli citizens. The checkpoints were constructed for the protection of Israeli citizens. Israel does not fire rockets at Gaza out of colonial ambition. It does so because rockets are shot at them first. And it has absolutely no ambition for the territory, having relinquished de facto and de jure control to its inhabitants.
Letwin dismissed the term’ terrorism’ as a designation for Palestinian groups like Hamas, saying that “terrorism is a word that was…simply invented to dismiss resistance of people in the face of power.” He went even further, calling the entire State of Israel a terrorist entity. “Who are the terrorists? If you come to a land and ethnically cleanse it and set up an apartheid regime, is that not an act of terror?” he asked.
If random stabbings, incendiary balloons launched into civilian areas, or mass homicide bombings that instantaneously murder or dismember unsuspecting mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters are not acts of terror, then what is? I genuinely want to know.
The above is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.