Reply #7: Please don't apologize for . .

[msmcghee]

. . "deflecting from the lawsuit". The lawsuit is hardly as interesting as your post.

You compare the public reaction to the Diary of Anne Frank to the play about Rachel Corrie. Let's think about that for a minute. Your post starts with the implication that the two stories are comparable in terms of the human values that are being examined. But, is that true?

Anne Frank was an innocent child caught up in the vast cruelty of an ugly and militarily powerful racist state. She suffered terribly as her whole family disappeared and she was forced to live in a hole in the wall - until she was finally discovered and exterminated by that state. Her life spoke to the innocence of human life that we are all born to.

Rachel Corrie lived a privileged life by any standards. She voluntarily chose a political cause - that was aligned with political opposition to a foreign state that was under terrorist attack by the people she championed. She inserted herself into that deadly conflict knowingly.

I don't question Rachel Corrie's idealistic attachment to her cause - or her belief that she was on the side of justice and her enemies (Israel) was not. But this is a political and ethical question for which two sides disagree.

Rachel Corrie chose one particular side in that conflict of her own free will. Many ethical people - some of them in this forum - believe she chose the wrong side in that instance. She was well aware of the risks and she wrote about them. I think it's admirable when someone risks their life for a cause they believe in. I don't think it's so admirable when they risk others' lives for their cause - especially when those others do not ask to be placed at risk. Rachel was doing that too. The tunnels the IDF were destroying were being used to smuggle in the weapons and explosives that were being used to kill innocent Israeli civilians. In that sense Rachel was anything but innocent.

Anne Frank chose no cause. She was truly innocent and was a victim in the purest sense of the term. Rachel Corrie chose to be a warrior for her cause and willingly placed herself in harms way - as a means to publicize her beliefs - beliefs that directly placed others' lives at risk.

Rachel Corrie had many choices. Anne Frank had none. Perhaps that's why many people do not see quite the same equivalence between these two deaths as you do. In fact, I can only imagine why anyone would attempt to compare the two.

Finally, after your specious and absurd comparison - you then complain about freedom of expression - as if "the Jews" or maybe AIPAC - were suppressing the Rachel Corrie play. You say,

Thank you for that information that it is allowed to play in West Virginia. Interesting though that the Jewish community had the play barred from running on Broadway per the Balt Sun article below.

Your words reveal some serious logical errors. First, the play was not "allowed" to play in West Virginia. Any play is allowed to run anywhere in this country as per the first amendment. The Baltimore example shows only that the company planning to do the play changed their mind - after input from the community convinced them it would not be profitable for them to do it. There were no laws invoked by anyone. Part of free speech means that people are free to say - or not say - whatever they wish - for whatever reasons they choose to apply. You are free to raise money, go to Baltimore and run your own production of the play. No-one will stop you. No-one stopped the Baltimore theater company either. It was their own decision.

But, that's not as much fun as taking no risks yourself while typing from your keyboard that "the Jewish community" is stifling free speech in America. It's becoming a tiring mantra from one side in this conflict. When people reveal the many logical errors, the ethical and moral inconsistencies and untruths in your argument - they are now commonly accused of "suppressing" your views.

It's an interesting narrative that perhaps appeals to the many liberals out there who don't have the simplest understanding of the freedoms our country embraces in our Constitution and Bill of Rights - but I think you need more than that for a decent argument in this forum.