There is no evidence that the ISM is “a viciously anti-Israel organization that calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.” What the ISM calls for is using non-violent resistance against the occupation and an end to violence on both sides. Nor does the “Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice” promote anti-Israeli views,but inclusive views based on mutual understanding and non-violence. That JWeekly is so willing to distort the views of two organizations promoting non-violent responses to such an intractable conflict is sad indeed.

See Muzzlewatch for an insightful critique of this article and the attack on Cindy Corrie:

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2009/07/20/more-controversy-about-rachel-corries-mother-at-san-franciscos-jewish-film-fest/

Dan, you either don’t know the meaning of the word “sequestered”, or you are trying to deliberately mislead people.  So those suicide bombers showed up at an ISM office.  So what? This is called “guilt by association” and it’s one of the classic logical fallacies.  If YOU showed up at their office and had tea, would that make the ISM Zionists?  Even the Israeli government’s official page on the subject says that the people the suicide bombers made contact with were “unwitting.”
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2003/Details+of+April+30-+2003+Tel+Aviv+suicide+bombing.htm

The rest of your comment is more of the same.

1. The ISM is a nonviolent organization: http://palsolidarity.org/about

2. The policies and activities of Israel in regard to Palestine hurt not only Palestinians, but Israelis as well. To oppose Israeli militarism, violence, and settlement activities in Palestinian Territories, is the most true form of support for both the people of Israel and Palestine.

I stand with Cindy Corrie, who I know, and who I believe to be without a single hateful bone in her entire body.

I think that the author(s) of this editorial deserve to re-think their position against the appearance of Cindy Corrie. Cindy Corrie is not an “Israel-basher.” - Really. Opposition to the violence of the State of Israel is not the same as opposition to the State of Israel.

If there is want for a true peace, then it will require real confrontations, and it will require strong intention and volition to extinguish the violence that exists on all sides of this issue. There is no better place to start than conversation. Build respectful relationships with all people, even those with whom there may be disagreement.

If Cindy is an Israel-basher, then there is truly very little hope for peace. Fortunately, the truth of the matter is that Cindy is not an Israel-basher, but instead, is a hard-working and compassionate advocate for true and sustainable peace and justice for all.

As someone who has spoken with both Craig and Cindy Corrie and heard them speak many times, I can attest to the fact that I have NEVER heard them utter any word against Jews or the State of Israel, but only to condemn certain Israeli policies.

The Corries have consistently worked for peace in the region for all people there, both Palestinian and Israeli.  Those of us who have worked with them, Jewish, non-Jewish, Israeli, non-Israeli have the greatest respect for their fortitude and steadfastness in their fight for peace and justice despite having lost a daughter and unwarranted attacks such as this editorial.

Misinformation can never be acceptable, especially by a well respected journal in the community.

A Jewish film festival should explore all the political, social, cultural, religious, and sexual issues that affect Jews in Israel and here in the Diaspora. Who is JWeekly to try to determine what is, or is not, appropriate? Aside from this, many Jewish and Christian peacemakers like Corrie’s daughter have the well-being of both Jews and Palestinans at heart.

Dear Advocates of “Rachel”:  It will be more incumbent upon a leading Jewish film festival to screen a one-sided, biased anti-Israel propaganda film like “Rachel” and to then add insult to injury by inviting her bereaved mother to manipulate the audience afterwards, when Arab American film festivals see fit to screen “Obsession” and to invite a speaker like Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch to offer his “valuable” insights afterwards unopposed or perhaps a handpicked 9/11 widow or one of the innumerable bereaved mothers of an Israeli terror attack, a number of whom are American citizens. 

So, how fairly and open-mindedly did the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) receive the film “Obsession”?  In a complaint filed with the Federal Elections Commission, CAIR alleged: “According to the “Obsession” website, Rabbi Raphael Shore is the founder and producer of “Obsession”. Sources have reported that Rabbi Raphael Shore is an Israeli citizen who lives in Jerusalem and was employed as an executive director with Aish HaTorah International. Gregory Ross has been identified as Clarion Fund’s spokesman and communications director. According to the FEC candidate contributions database, Gregory Ross is a fundraiser for Aish HaTorah International. It was reported that distributors of “Obsession” asked viewers to register for a screening of “Obsession” by visiting an Aish HaTorah website.  It appears that the funding for the production, marketing and distribution of “Obsession” may have originated from Israel-based Aish HaTorah International.” 

I ask all of you tolerant, fair-minded peace advocates, is it, perhaps, somewhat bigoted to impugn the merits and factual validity of a documentary based largely upon the ethnic heritage of the film maker?  Will “Obession” be welcomed at Arab film festivals to offer an “alternative perspective”?  Will all of you supporters of Rachel crusade for this cause next?  Please tell!

Would you be honored to fight tooth and nail to ensure that your upcoming local Arab or Muslim themed film festival would screen “Submission”?  Perhaps you may recall that its creator, the Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, was brutally assassinated on a public street after he dared to produce a short film critical of Islamic Sharia law.  Here’s how Wikipedia describes his gruesome fate:

Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in the early morning of 2 November 2004, in Amsterdam, in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor) on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat while he was bicycling to work.  Bouyeri shot van Gogh eight times with an HS 2000 handgun, and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri then cut Van Gogh’s throat, nearly decapitating him, and stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one attaching a five-page note to his body. The note (Text) threatened Western governments, Jews and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding). The note also contained references to the ideologies of the Egyptian organization Takfir wal-Hijra.

Surely, all of you dispassionate advocates of artistic free speech and the airing of “all sides of an issue” must have been up and arms and militating day and night to ensure that Submission has a place of honor in your upcoming Arab film festival.  No doubt you did.  Because, we all know that you are NOT duplicitious, insidious little bastards who masqerade as peace activists, but rather genuninely fairminded advocates of “peace, justice and equality for all peoples.”  I salute you all…

Koret Foundation Flays San Francisco Jewish Film Festival Over Corrie Documentary
Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam
July 22nd, 2009

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/07/22/koret-foundation-flays-san-francisco-jewish-film-festival-over-corrie-documentary/

There is something ugly and absurd in the battle against the truth conducted by some Jewish organizations and individuals. Particularly distasteful is a reversal by which those fighting unarmed against Israeli depredations are painted as the agressors. 
Typical is your description of the occasion of Rachel’s death in Rafah as “an aggressive protest during which ISM members stood in front of Israeli bulldozers involved in home demolitions”  (editorial of July 24). Where was the agression, I ask, in the destruction of thousands of homes in Rafah? or in risking one’s life unarmed to try and stop a Palestinian family from becoming homeless, or at least to be a witness to Israeli brutality toward Palestinian civilians?
A Human Rights Watch report (“Razing Rafah”; October 2004) describes the demolition of thousands of homes in the absence of military necessity. Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of the Watch, stated: “The IDF has a series of sophisticated arguments to justify the destruction in Rafah. But these arguments crumble under scrutiny, revealing a pattern of unjustified abuse and destruction.”
Similarly, you claimed that ISM, a strictly nonviolent organization, called for the destruction of the Jewish state, which it never did. And you describe Rachel Corrie’s opinions as “repulsive” without mentioning a single word she said or wrote: no wonder, you would have had trouble finding anything but lucidity, compassion, and courage in her writings or statements to the press.
How long will mainstream Jewish organizations disgrace themselves by dismissing the findings of practically every human rights organization? Every lie prolongs the agony of Palestinians and the misery of the Israelis responsible for it.