In March 2003, a 23-year-old American activist named Rachel Corrie died in Gaza during an Israeli military operation to clear terrorist tunnels. Within hours, anti-Israel groups transformed her death into a powerful propaganda weapon, painting Israel as a murderous regime that deliberately killed an innocent peace activist. For two decades, this narrative has persisted despite contrary evidence.
This pattern of distorted narratives against Israel continues today, with alarming intensity following Hamas’s October 7, 2023 massacre. The social media echo chamber and even respected news sources routinely downplay Hamas’s aggression while condemning Israel’s defensive actions. As in the Corrie incident, these narratives strip away crucial context and promote a fundamentally dishonest view of the conflict.
From Defense to Offense: Reimagining Hasbara
For decades, Israel has relied on traditional hasbara—literally “explaining”—to counter negative propaganda. This defensive approach assumes that if Israel just explains its actions clearly enough, the world will understand. But military psychological warfare experts tell us this approach is fundamentally flawed.
Colonel Paul Linebarger, in his influential work Psychological Warfare, explains that propaganda battles aren’t won by counter-propaganda: “Propaganda does not meet propaganda. Combat forces meet; Psychological Warfare forces pass one another in opposite directions.”
His research concluded that only two technical defenses exist against propaganda: either jamming the enemy’s transmitters or confiscating the audience’s receivers. Since neither option is viable in peacetime—and even in wartime, Linebarger notes, “Each is a measure of desperation; neither is considered effective”—we must find another strategy.
The Rachel Corrie incident provides the perfect case study for a more effective approach: instead of defending Israel’s actions, we should focus on exposing the credibility and motives of Israel’s accusers. Let’s examine what the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and their allies have revealed about themselves through their own words and actions.
Damning Evidence from Their Own Words
When somebody says a murder has been committed, it is a very bad idea to express a motive for wanting the decedent dead. Yet a Hamas activist did exactly that regarding Corrie: “Her death serves me more than it served her. Going in front of the tanks was heroic. Her death will bring more attention than the other 2,000 martyrs.”
He wasn’t alone. ISM activist Joseph Carr stated bluntly: “The spirit that she died for is worth a life. This idea of resistance, this spirit of resisting this brutal occupying force, is worth anything.”
Most damning of all, George Rishmawi, Director of the Solidarity Movement, admitted: “If some of these foreign volunteers get shot or even killed, then the international media will sit up and take notice.”
That’s three separate individuals from the anti-Israel camp expressing a clear public relations motive for wanting Rachel Corrie dead.
Corrie’s classmate Joseph Smith made another devastating admission. In Sandra Jordan’s “Making of a Martyr,” he stated: “We knew there was a risk, but we also knew it never happened in the two years that we (the ISM) have been working here. I knew we take lots of precautions so that it doesn’t happen, that if it did happen it would have to be an intentional act by a soldier, in which case it would bring a lot of publicity and significance to the cause.”
The Electronic Intifada further reported that Corrie had previously stood before bulldozers: “In the instance pictured, the bulldozer did not stop and Rachel was pinned between the scooped earth and the fence behind her. On this occasion, the driver stopped before seriously injuring her.”
By their own admission, the ISM knowingly engaged in dangerous confrontations with military equipment, understood the risks, experienced near-misses, yet continued these activities—with tragic consequences.
Perhaps most disturbing was a Palestinian journalist’s reaction: “If only they’d had a video camera. A film of the Israelis killing an American in cold blood would have ended the intifada.” He didn’t wish Corrie had survived; he wished her death had been recorded for propaganda purposes.
Israel supporter Lee Kaplan documented credible evidence that anti-Israel activists used doctored photos showing Corrie and another ISM activist interacting with a bulldozer. As Bernice Lipkin demonstrated, ISM activists told two contradictory stories about Corrie’s death—claiming both that she died at the scene and that she died in a Palestinian hospital. These mutually exclusive narratives prove definitively that someone is lying.
Lipkin raises a disturbing but logical question: “Given the ruthlessness of her handlers and the creative ability of the Palestinian Arabs to set up hoaxes which are not exposed by the media who witness them, another scenario is possible. They are so good at sniffing out propaganda opportunities, I wonder whether Rachel became the involuntary star of a snuff film, one that gave her everlasting fame as a martyr to the cause.”
To summarize what ISM and its associates have admitted:
- Three people on their side expressed public relations motives for wanting Corrie dead
- They knew the risks of playing “chicken” with military construction equipment but continued anyway
- A Palestinian wished he could have filmed her death for propaganda value
- They told contradictory stories about her death’s circumstances
With these facts established by the accusers themselves, the court of public opinion can draw its own conclusions about who truly bears responsibility for Rachel Corrie’s tragic death.
Today’s Media Distortions: The Same Playbook
The tactics used in the Rachel Corrie case mirror today’s distorted media narratives about Israel’s conflict with Hamas. Just as the ISM highlighted Corrie’s death while obscuring their dangerous provocations, today’s media frequently focuses on the consequences of Israel’s defensive operations while minimizing or entirely omitting Hamas’s role as the aggressor.
A recent “60 Minutes” segment titled “The Gaza Policy” exemplifies this approach, heavily emphasizing Israel’s counter-terrorism operations while barely acknowledging Hamas’s brutal hostage-taking or its use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes.
The ISM orchestrated emotional narratives around Corrie’s death that overpowered factual analysis. Similarly, social media today amplifies emotionally charged content without context. As U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew observed, “America has been fed a media coverage of this war” that Hamas has effectively controlled, with coverage that presents Hamas reports as facts while treating IDF statements with skepticism.
The ISM openly admitted that they viewed Corrie’s death as valuable for their cause. Today, Hamas continues this cynical approach by deliberately using civilian areas for military purposes, knowing that civilian casualties will generate global outrage directed not at them, but at Israel. Hamas understands that Western media will often accept and amplify their narrative without scrutiny.
The contradictory stories told about Corrie’s death were never reconciled by her supporters, who demanded accountability only from Israel. Today, we see prestigious outlets like The Lancet publishing casualty figures that exceed even Hamas’s claims, while Hamas’s abuse of Palestinian civilians—including the diversion of humanitarian aid and the use of hospitals as military bases—receives minimal coverage.
Moving Beyond Defense to Truth
The Rachel Corrie incident from 2003 offers crucial lessons for addressing today’s false accusations against Israel. As Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League stated regarding biased coverage, “Major media outlets all need to do better.” But waiting for media fairness is insufficient. Israel and its supporters must shift from defensive explanations to offensive truth-telling.
When faced with accusations that Israel is committing “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing”—claims that are demonstrably false given Israel’s unprecedented efforts to minimize civilian casualties—we should not merely defend. Instead, we must immediately expose the credibility and motives of those making such claims.
Consider that Hamas continues to endanger Palestinian civilians by operating from hospitals and humanitarian zones, hoards international aid meant for civilians, and has repeatedly violated ceasefires. These facts aren’t merely defensive points—they completely undermine the moral authority of Israel’s accusers.
Just as in the Corrie case, where ISM’s own words revealed their exploitation of her death, today’s anti-Israel narratives collapse when we examine who benefits from civilian suffering and who works to prevent it. Israel has established humanitarian corridors, warning systems for civilians, and precision targeting protocols, while Hamas deliberately embeds among civilians to maximize casualties for propaganda purposes.
The lesson is clear: Rather than explaining or justifying Israel’s defensive actions, we must expose the true nature of Israel’s accusers and the dishonesty of their narratives. When presented with the full context and the words of the accusers themselves, fair-minded people will recognize where the responsibility truly lies—both for Rachel Corrie’s death and for the current suffering in Gaza.
This article was adapted from work by Bill Levinson, author of numerous articles and books on manufacturing, quality, and industrial productivity, and a diligent student of history and psychological warfare. Levinson played a role in exposing anti-Semitic and other hate speech at MoveOn.org in 2006, and previously questionable activities by the original Million Mom March in 2000.
