The other Rachel

Michael Booth

Excellent piece Fraser - the more sunlight we can shine of hypocracy the better!

Neil Turner

Well done Fraser - Great article. I commend you for swimming against the fierce current of Media anti-Semitism

Al Wood

I remember reading this article when it was first published. Bravo for giving it a timely and necessary re-airing.

PuppetMaster

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, given the similarities between Isalm and socialism, both being totalitarian ideologies that believe in forcing people to change their ways to suit their ideological world view.
The thing that I don't understand is why somebody with a bit of cash hasn't started a think tank to really expose the dismal nature of these twin ideologies. Countering the propaganda is crucial, but it doesn't seem to be being done very well.

adrian drummond

Fraser, you say that Rachel Corrie was 'accidentally killed' when offering herself as a human shield in Gaza but I believe Isreali soldiers deliberately targeted her. As was London TV producer, Daniel Edge who was also killed/murdered by Isreali soldiers in 2003 whilst holding a white flag.

To me, both sides are as bad as each other.

strapworld

I suppose, Mr Nelson, it is all part of the massive guilt complex in this country of ours. Let us face it. We let the Arabs down quite disgracefully in the First World War. T.H. Lawrence, of Arabia fame, certainly highlighted the treachery of our leaders in that disgraceful episode.

Then, of course, there is the small issue of the Jews in Israel killing many of our fine men in the army and the Palestine Police Force.

That said, I have great sympathy with Israel. I admire a country that certainly stands up for itself and can well understand why they have this blockade.

The Palestinians certainly do not do themselves any favours. Where the Jewish made gardens from desert, grew crops etc. Just what have the Palestinians done to better themselves? You would have thought their rather wealthy Arab friends would have stepped in to assist them create a vibrant country. Perhaps that way people would be far too busy making money to bother about fighting their neighbours!

But all leftie pilgrimages get far more publicity than others. Cannot understand why, but it is either what I said at the beginning or a possibility that most journalists are left of centre?

But it is the people that go on these 'aid' boats that always seem to come from the CND/Rent a Mob/Professional Campaigner class. Where do they get their money from? If it is, benefits, as I suspect then they should be stopped.

Rant over. Time for tea!

Chuck Unsworth

"Thaler is by no means the only Jewish Rachel whose violent death has been entirely ignored by the British media."

Right. So it's the fact that she was Jewish, rather than a British Citizen, which is of prime importance?

Why?

Ginette Thaler (Rachel's mother) is quoted by Tom Gross (article dated 22 October 2005) as saying “Not a single British journalist has ever interviewed me or mentioned Rachel’s death,”.

Is it mandatory? And does she not understand that telling her story to Mr Gross negates both of those points?

I know something of Jewish Mothers. These comments merely confirm my (astoundingly biased) perceptions.

davidk

I deplore the tone of this piece, Mr Nelson. You cant be using life and death to score some ridiculous propaganda point.

This is a disgrace.

Naomi Muse

Not sure you have it right, Fraser.

There is fear on both sides.

There is anti-Israeli feeling largely because the Israeli reactions and proactive actions are a step too far.

If we just look at the barricading of aid to Gaza, it has been all through the UN. Each shipment is checked before it leaves the port of origin and even then Israel will not allow aid to be delivered direct to Gaza, despite a UN resolution to say that it must.

That is a step too far.

Both sides are wrong in many ways and the 'Quartet' is, I believe, an ill-constituted entity for the UN plus 3 others should not be acting in the UN's name.

Respect and tolerance by both sides is the only way forward and Israel will not have the right or the moral high ground until it leaves the policing of the aid shipments to others. Any direct interference by Israel, such as boarding aid supply ships, insisting they go to Israeli ports, and interfering with goods, will be regarded as wrong, because it is wrong. To then also deport the protesters from Israel, rather than letting them continue to Gaza is also wrong.

Rick Evans

Chuck Unsworth and davidk: possibly the two stupidest comments I've seen posted on any blog. Ever.

Jack R

An excellent, timely article, Mr. Nelson. Presumably some MSM 'journalists' have now been reminded of these facts. Will they start writing the truth about these Rachels, or simply clear their throats and keep their heads down?

Mycroft

The trouble lies in the ineradicable human tendency to regard complicated situations as a morality play in which one side must be entirely right and good and the other wrong and bad. The people responsible for this Corrie play (and much of the Corrie publicity) are so much wedded to one narrative that they do not even realize, for the most part, thay they are engaged in a propaganda exercise. On the other side, people think the Israeli can do no wrong and the Palestinians are just a bunch of terrorists. Thus Melanie Phillips, even though she has made many good points about this episode, refers to the vessels involved as terror vessels, in the face of such hyperbole, no dialogue is developed with those who are not automatic supporters of Israel. How rare it is to find any objective and non-partisan analysis.

Incidentally, why is pro-Israel prejudice regarded as being 'right wing' and pro-Palestinian prejudice as being 'left wing'? Things do seem to follow that pattern although it is by no means obvious why they should. And it is a complete mystery to me why so-called progressive left-wingers should so often ally themselves with reactioanry and obscurantist Islamists who look down on women, despise democracy and would willingly peresecute homosexuals.

Austin Barry

The estimable Mark Steyn says it all:

"This ship is merely the latest memorial to Miss Corrie, a foolish young American killed while enjoying the frisson of vacationing in someone else's despair."

Fergus Pickering

What is a disgrace, David K? Do you mean Mr Nelson's article? Life and death are the very building blocks of propaganda, which I think is Fraser Nelson's point. Arab states are awash with oil money but it has to be said that rich Arabs do sweet fanny adams for poor arabs, or indeed anybody else at all, addicted as they are to expensive shopping.

Greg

"Respect and tolerance by both sides is the only way forward"

Motherhood and apple pie. The Palestinians (at least the ones in power) and their supporters (whether they be the Iranian government, other Muslims or Western anti-Zionists) want to destroy Israel; and Israel wants to survive.

Talk of respect and tolerance is meaningless until the Palestinians recognise Israel's right to exist and instruct their followers to do likewise.

ajs

Mr Drummond
Of course one respects your "belief", but one may also ask: " What evidence do you have?".

Linda Smith

Naomi Muse opined " Respect and tolerance by both sides is the only way forward and Israel will not have the right or the moral high ground until it leaves the policing of the aid shipments to others."

Jews learned long ago that leaving policing to others leaves them dead. Go and visit Auschwitz.

adrian drummond

Attn ajs

It's a fair question you ask but difficult to answer in concrete terms. My belief is based on my experience working in the Middle East and with conversations I have had with the Bureau chief of a well known international News agency based in Tel Aviv. I've also served in the military and am conscious of how young soldiers act under pressure in such environments.

At the end of the day, it is difficult to ascertain the exact facts because of Israeli intransigence and obstruction in cause of death enquiries.

Perhaps if Israel was more open with examining the deaths of journalists and aid workers by their soldiers then there would be less suspicion on my part.

Besides, if they are so innocent, what have they to lose?

Chuck Unsworth

@ Rick Evans

So, instead of gratuitous and moronic garbage, put up your counterpoint.

You see, unless you can do that, your comments mean nothing. But you knew that, of course.

strapworld

Well, after that last one from chuck unsworth, I rather think Rick Evans has won hands down!

I once knew an American called Chuck. he was a prat!

Butt Mullet

Chuck. Well said. Rise up.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Strapworld

You seem to misunderstand - so much.

Just put up your counter-argument - if you have one. But that might require some thought, might it not?

David Smith

This country has an almost limitless tolerance for dead Jews. Alaways has and it always will.

davidk
June 6th, 2010 11:06am

I like the tone of the article but I deplore your tone. It's seems to be malevolent. I guess it wasn't Jew hating enough for you?

@Unsworth .. explain your comment. I detect a nasty malignant subtext which you haven't the guts to articulate. Though I could be wrong given your obtuseness.

TGF UKIP

Well done, Fraser, you do, occasionally, restore my faith in the Speccie.

Just a pity it can't afford to be as robust in matters nearer home.

Rick Evans

Chuck - to take just two points:

1. The whole premise of the article is to contrast the difference between the reportage of of actions/consequences by each of the 'sides' in the conflict. The opening line of 'Dead Jews aren't news' alone should make this clear, and the conditional 'even if...' does not ascribe a 'prime importance' to either her Jewishness or Britishness. Therefore, your first paragraph is utterly meaningless and suggests that you haven't understood, despite going on to post a withering comment.

2. I make the above 'counterpoint' out of decency. A decency which your 'I know something of Jewish Mothers' comment does not merit.

Mark

At last a chance to read the other side of the story. The BBC and almost all of the UK media are relentlessly anti Israel and at first it seems strange indeed to hear a dissenting voice.

jon dee

Despite the tragic plight of the people of Gaza, I find it difficult not to feel sympathy for Israel.

As your post and the original story so well amplifies, there seems a destructive imbalance in some media coverage, which may in fact hinder a solution.

The current BBC campaign,appearing anti-Israeli on all points, clearly solves it for many, but it will I suggest offend the more moderate, who wish to see the continuing survival of a democratic Israel.

Frank Sutton

@ Chuck Unsworth...
I know something of Jewish Mothers.

Well, what do you know, Chuck? Won't you share it with us?

davidk

@ David Smith

"I like the tone of the article but I deplore your tone. It's seems to be malevolent. I guess it wasn't Jew hating enough for you?"

____________________________

Utter tripe. I try and take an even handed approach to all people and not elevate the suffering of one group over that experienced by another. You might care to try it instead of injecting your venom into a thread of this nature.

And what a stupid debate this is: whipped up by FN because he sees fit to dredge up a bitter, 5 year old article to make the points he presumably finds it hard to make himself.

kennybhoy

Fraser,

Many thanks for this post.

God bless,

Kenny

adrian drummond

davidk

It a great shame that it is almost impossible to be seen as even handed in these posts. No matter how reasonable your comments try to be you are invaribly castigated as being anti Jewish etc. In short, if you are not with us your are against us. There is seldom any sense of contrition and it is always the other sides fault. Just judging the comments made by contributors on Melanie Philips' blog suggests how polarised the debate is and nothing you or any one else thinks will make much difference.

Edward Sutherland

Well done indeed, Fraser. When on occasions such as this you refuse slavishly to follow the MSM, you restore my faith in the Spectator. Keep up the good work.

Tankus

@ A drummond ..."To me, both sides are as bad as each other."

Me too !

Augustus

Toda raba!

Augustus

For centuries Jews and Christians who lived under Muslim rule suffered persecution subjugation. Existence under Muslim rule for
non-Muslims as second-class citizens was not a happy time for them. Because Muslims never live in peace and harmony with others
once they are in the majority, whether it is
a ghetto somewhere in Europe, or a theocratic regime elsewhere.

Hughie

My word I can't believe my eyes .. a version of the argument that is out of kilter with the media.

What's needed is for those who can to get on the telly & make this case.

The BBC woman Susanna Reid was indignant and almost foaming at the mouth with outrage when she grilled the Israeli guy.

We've all (well some anyway) been duped by the climate change fiasco, Israel, the financial collapse, Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc. I reckon the public at large must either be thick or they just don't care that their opinions are being managed.

It's still as in '1984' where the Proles have their warm beer, fictitious news and victory parades, today in Blighty we have most of the same..

Hughie

Austin Barry

Targetted by a bulldozer? This is as likely as being savaged by Denis Healey's dead sheep.

Beer Moth

Chuck Unsworth

"Right. So it's the fact that she was Jewish, rather than a British Citizen, which is of prime importance?"

Well no. What's of prime importance is the dreadfully one-sided attention paid in the reporting on this situation. Rachel Thaler was a British citizen who happened to be Jewish, and as such, her death was not considered to be on the same level as that of Rachel Corrie. Just one more example of the bias which guides reporting.

And what of all the other Rachels mentioned above? All of them murdered. Is that acceptable to you?

I too would like to hear what it is you 'know of Jewish mothers'.

Verity

Austin Barry - for something to be funny, it has to have some connection to the punch line. Rachel Corrie was not "targetted" by a bulldozer. The driver of the bulldozer was tearing down illegal settlement buildings. He did not target a human being. Rachel Corrie, in that self-aggrandizing way that those on the left adopt, evidently thought it would make great TV for this lone American woman all rigged up like a muslim, to have a dramatic confrontation with a bulldozer.

The poor man driving the bulldozer swerved as best he could, but Rachel ended up very, very flat.

She did it to herself.

I don't have an opinion one way or another on the settlements - although they do seem to be illegal - but these hysterical, self-serving demonstrators in any cause sometimes get their just desserts. It's always the self-righteous left who go in for hysteria.

The nearest to an actual demonstration I have ever seen on the right was when the Women's Institute gave Tony Blair the slow hand clap.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Rick Evans

Thanks for a slightly more sensible comment. Your view as to the contrast in standpoints of reports would have been more pertinent were it not for the fact that there has been but one 'report' (I use that term in its broadest sense) of the death of Rachel Thaler - and of her mother's (understandable) grief. I do not think it rational to take this one report (and instance) and assume that exactly the same circumstances surround each and every other such incident.

However, you are right to indicate that most - if not all - reports from both sides of the debate are, maybe inevitably, biased.

My point, which clearly you failed to understand, was that the Mother complained that the British Press had not covered the story, but provided no explanation as to why the British Press was/is so obliged. Is the British Press required to report deaths of British people or, for that matter, British Jews? Let me emphasise - she was not complaining of bias, inaccurate or poor reporting, she complained that there had been no reporting. However and as we know, there was a report - from Gross - and her complaint formed part of it.

My further point is this. It is remarkable that the fact of Rachel Thaler's religion was, apparently, of greater importance than her nationality or even her sex. If that stance is taken by Gross - and clearly it was - one has to wonder why this might be. Is it, by any chance, something to do with a predisposition on his part? I suggest that it is, and hence it is clear that the story is itself biased (as is its author) in favour of Jews. Note, I say Jews - not Israelis. That bias, in itself, serves to perpetuate the whole religious conflict.

I do not see the same slavish attention to the religion of, for example, Protestants or Catholics who are killed in similar circumstances. However I look forward to reading the Tom Gross reports on the deaths of James Miller and Tom Hurndall and the wounded Tristan Anderson. Perhaps he'll major on their religions, too.

Don't misunderstand (or misrepresent) me. I am not an apologist for the Palestinians nor for the Israelis. But I am seriously concerned by the naked and irrational bias of some news reporting - yet even more concerned by the blind intolerance on both sides which has been so cynically and outrageously manipulated by soi-disant 'political leaders'.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Beer Moth

You're (deliberately?) misrepresenting my position. I have not said that any such murders are 'acceptable', have I? Or do you insist that such a condemnation is a prerequsite to debate?

There has been but one report - that which Tom Gross authored. Bias? In my view, yes. He seems to have made little effort to produce a balanced picture. The circumstances of death of the two Rachels are entirely different, as you might recognise - the only linkage there can be is that of the victim's religion - yet he would seem to wish to equate one with the other. Is that a logical position to adopt? What does he want us to believe? That these others are also victims of some sort? Well, of course they are, that is self evident. But that's a pretty superficial view of events, is it not? Both of these young women are great losses to their families. One family deals with it one way, another in a different way.

Let's understand, reporting is seldom if ever unbiased. Gross has produced an interesting story, with tenuous links, and which is distinctly one-sided. I don't object to that, but I read his work with his journalistic weakness in mind.

As to Jewish Mothers (note the capitals) - read what the Jews themselves say of their mothers. Google is your friend. Suffice to say, I too have suffered. Shalom!

Beer Moth

The main thrust of Fraser's excellent article, sets out that the vast majority of reporting on matters Israeli, leaps to an initial position of Israeli guilt as a given; and the deaths of Jews seem to have little currency in this atmosphere.

Rachel Thaler's mother was right - Gross was the only one to show up with any interest. Perhaps not mandatory for the press to express such, but the general trend is very telling don't you think?

The 'Jewish Mothers' thing, still has me lost I'm afraid. Perhaps a quip too far?

Davieboy

Thank you Fraser for this timely post, reminding us of the tragic deaths of ordinary Israelis going about their business, ruthlessly targeted by savages.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Beer Moth

Thanks. We'll probably simply have to disagree in some areas. Rachel Thaler's mother was not right. It's really silly to think that the job of newspapers is to report facts, however (un)biased, or tell the whole truth, however unvarnished. Their job is simply to sell as many copies as they can humanly print. (Thus each edition is a failure, of course - machine capacity being what it is.)

I'm not sure I'd agree that there is a general trend. I'd certainly accept that some journals are almost entirely predictable in the stance of their articles - but that is merely sound repeat business on their part.

The Israelis and the Arabs occupy entrenched positions. The remarkable aspect in all of this is how entrenched are the positions of their supporters, and I include many journalists in that category. It is that support which ultimately is doing the damage - in my view. But a man's got to put bread on his family table, I suppose.

Beer Moth

Chuck Unsworth

My assertion that Rachel Thaler's mother was right, is given in the sense that she was correct in her description of the activity - or lack of - on the part of reporters.

I take you point on the function of newspapers, but to describe the process of journalism and commentary as being nothing other than a kind of bums-on-seats pandering to cynically gauged readerships, would seem to deny the genuine flow of ideas which passes and which has at least to give a semblance of dissemination.

But anyway, all this is to digress from the basic point made here, of systemic imbalance in the stance of media reporting on Israel, which is there everyday for all to see.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Beer Moth

Again, you attribute views to me which I have not put forward. I have not said that newspapers do 'nothing other' than servicing their readership. I have said that their job is to sell copies.

Equally it is not the job of newspapers and journalists to provide moral and social guidance to their readership. True they will frequently express opinions (in editorial and, obliquely, in articles)which - fortunately for their coffers - may coincide with their readership's perceptions and interests.

In the light of the above, Ginette Thaler's expectations of journalistic interest were unreasonable and irrational. She clearly failed to understand the basic mechanics. Journalism is much less pro-active than many would have us believe - witness the tremendous growth of the 'PR' industry and the rise of such magnates as Max Clifford.

As but one example, when the Israelis entered Lebanon in 1982 the Palestinians were ill-prepared for the PR War. They did not repeat that mistake, and by the 2006 Lebanese conflict were remarkably well versed in the ways of the media - actively controlling 'news' flow and content. I suggest that the Israelis are in the same game - but not doing it very well, if your view is correct.

You say that there is systemic imbalance. One might ask - what system? I don't regard newspapers and most media as providing a traffic of ideas. But I'm immensely pleased that the Internet - blogs in particular - has provided great opportunities for dialogue. Whether such debate is of any real value is another matter altogether.

David Bouvier

Chuck - it is a little odd, don't you think, that so little seems to have been said about a violent death of a British girl in a terrorist attack overseas.

The article contrasts the treatment of two Western girls, on a activist supporting one side, another a girl on holiday with some religious/cultural connection with the other side.

Note the immediate attention to the British contingent of the victims of any overseas incident. Why? Because that is interesting to the readers of a British paper, and hence commercially wise of the papers)

Now it is possibly that the parents of Rachel 1 colluded in a propoganda campaign to push their version of the story, which chimed with a political narrative convenient to the bien pensant left. And it is possibly that Rachel 2's parents actively cut themselves off the from media. But I am not sure this explains the whole disparity.

Chuck Unsworth

@ David Bouvier

Odd? Possibly, but newspapers make their own decisions as to content and style. You say disparity, I say disinterest. As I have asked above, what's in it for the newspapers?

Let's also consider what other stories (advisedly!) were being published around that time, eh? Here's the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/sitemaparchive/day_20020216.html

For contrast, here's the Socialist Worker:

http://www.socialistworker.org.uk/issue.php?issue_id=349

And this may also be of interest to Spectator readers:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/The+Spectator/publications.aspx?date=200202&pageNumber=1

a22250

RE: The other Rachel / Fraser Nelson~~~

Splendid account Mr. Nelson. I am sitting here scratching my head as to why Rachel Corrie "offered herself as a human shield" in Gaza! What naievte... As PT Barnum said, "A Sucker is Born Every Minute." Be that as it may. Thank you for getting "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" OUT!

ndm

This is a depraved piece of apology for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people.

simon

It was in the Guardian on November 4th, 2005.

Jewish Mother

Hey, Chuck the Shmuck, I was fascinated to read that you 'know' Jewish mothers. Seeing the Biblical 'to know' is a delicate way of saying 'to have sex', please inform us in which way YOU meant 'know'. I hope it's not the Biblical way as any Jewish mother who has anything to do with a Shmuck like you must be so lacking in husbandly duties, or suitors, that she would consider taking a Shmuck like Chuck seriously to see a movie, play, restaurant, art show....!

jamsel

Well researched and corageous, rare piece of journalism these days. Thanks.