Another Double-Standard Story; Tears for Rachel Corrie,

[jbg]

There were rivers of tears, back in 2003, when Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israel tank she decided to block with her own body. Basically, she was a human shield for Arab "militants". How much are you going to hear about the slaughter, by one militant faction, of another Western "crusader" for "Palestinian justice"?

Gaza Killing of Italian Activist Deals a Blow to Hamas

(link, excerpts indented below, my commentary flush left)

By FARES AKRAM and ISABEL KERSHNER

GAZA — For Vittorio Arrigoni, an Italian pro-Palestinian activist who friends said fought peacefully for justice, the end was as violent as it was incongruous.

Police officers from Hamas, the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza, found his body in a house in Gaza City that was empty of furniture, except for the mattress on which the body was lying, according to witnesses. The doctor who performed the autopsy said Mr. Arrigoni’s killers had used a plastic cord to strangle him.

And after years of championing the Palestinian cause, the 36-year-old Mr. Arrigoni apparently died at the hands of a fringe group of Palestinians, inspired by Al Qaeda, that was seeking the release of a local Islamist leader.

**********************

The loss of Mr. Arrigoni was not the first for the International Solidarity Movement, an activist organization with foreign volunteers in the West Bank and Gaza. Rachel Corrie, who had also worked with the group, was killed in Gaza by an Israeli military bulldozer she tried to block in 2003, becoming a global symbol of the Palestinian struggle.

And how is Israel supposed to "negotiate" with leaders who allegedly have little control over their territory?

That raised embarrassing questions for Hamas about the security it says it has restored in the Palestinian coastal enclave since it ousted its secular rival, Fatah, in a short, factional war. It also raises the specter of a growing boldness on the part of more extreme, virulently anti-Western Islamic groups in Gaza, which would pose a challenge not only to Hamas but to foreign activists promoting the Palestinian cause.

And speaking of Rachel Corrie, some contemporaneous news coverage (link):

The Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, today praised Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old American woman who was crushed and killed Sunday as she knelt in front of an Israeli Army bulldozer preparing to tear down a Palestinian home in Rafah, in southern Gaza. Mr. Arafat, in Ramallah in the West Bank, called her ''our sister, the martyr Rachel Corrie.''

Ms. Corrie's colleagues said that she was in full view of the bulldozer driver, and that he ran her over intentionally. The Israeli military said the driver did not see her, and called it a ''very regrettable accident.''

The hypocrisy never ends. Israel is always wrong in some peoples' books.

[bloodyminded]

There were rivers of tears, back in 2003, when Rachel Corrie was killed by an Israel tank she decided to block with her own body. Basically, she was a human shield for Arab "militants". How much are you going to hear about the slaughter, by one militant faction, of another Western "crusader" for "Palestinian justice"?

Gaza Killing of Italian Activist Deals a Blow to Hamas

(link, excerpts indented below, my commentary flush left)

By FARES AKRAM and ISABEL KERSHNER

GAZA — For Vittorio Arrigoni, an Italian pro-Palestinian activist who friends said fought peacefully for justice, the end was as violent as it was incongruous.

Police officers from Hamas, the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza, found his body in a house in Gaza City that was empty of furniture, except for the mattress on which the body was lying, according to witnesses. The doctor who performed the autopsy said Mr. Arrigoni’s killers had used a plastic cord to strangle him.

And after years of championing the Palestinian cause, the 36-year-old Mr. Arrigoni apparently died at the hands of a fringe group of Palestinians, inspired by Al Qaeda, that was seeking the release of a local Islamist leader.

How is this a douyble standard? Corrie's death was not at thge hands of a "fringe group of [israelis], inspired by terrorists."

The two incidents are not at all the same.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not getting the comparison either; I'm not seeing where the hypocrisy and/or double standard lies.

[bloodyminded]

I'm not getting the comparison either; I'm not seeing where the hypocrisy and/or double standard lies.

Me either. I think some people have made a pretty decent case for certain double-standards; say, disproportionate ire aimed at Israel, considering what occurs eslewhere.

But this example doesn't make any case. We don't even know what "tears have been shed" for this particular activist, and no information is forthcoming. We don't know why Corrie's death is equal to the murder of a man who, by the article's own admission, appears to have been murdered by "fringe" (that's a quote) radicals well outside the Palestinian mainstream.

One of the reasons (though not the only one) for the utter intransigence of all Israel/Palestine debates is that everyone can, and does, selectively mine the media record for every single horrible thing that anybody does, and relates it outwards as symbolic.

On a related note, Americans are all dying of rotten healthcare, and Canadians live in terror of Human Rights tribunals.

And I can "prove" it.

Edited April 16, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

The only comparison I can see between these two deaths is that two good people lost their lives fighting for causes that they believe in; both were actively trying to make the world a better place and they weren't causing anyone else harm in the process. That's were the similarity ends as far as I can see. One met a tragic accidental death while the other was brutally murdered.

There are double standards that have been well documented, as you pointed out, but I sure don't see any double standard in this story.

I agree with you regarding the heated feelings regarding the Israel/Palestine situation, but I think another reason for the intransigence is that too many people (I don't see it as "everyone" doing this or that) are putting forth misrepresentations, as well as outright, deliberate falsehoods. Too many people are twisting the truth, taking things our of context, selectively quoting/misquoting, or outright making incidents out to be something they are not, even if they have to literally/physically alter the facts on the internet to present it that way. This angers people and results in their digging in their heels regarding their beliefs even more fiercely. I, for one, resent the disproportionate ire aimed at Israel. I don't think it's doing Palestine's cause any ultimate good.

[bloodyminded]

The only comparison I can see between these two deaths is that two good people lost their lives fighting for causes that they believe in; both were actively trying to make the world a better place and they weren't causing anyone else harm in the process. That's were the similarity ends as far as I can see. One met a tragic accidental death while the other was brutally murdered.

There are double standards that have been well documented, as you pointed out, but I sure don't see any double standard in this story.

I agree with you regarding the heated feelings regarding the Israel/Palestine situation, but I think another reason for the intransigence is that too many people (I don't see it as "everyone" doing this or that) are putting forth misrepresentations, as well as outright, deliberate falsehoods. Too many people are twisting the truth, taking things our of context, selectively quoting/misquoting, or outright making incidents out to be something they are not, even if they have to literally/physically alter the facts on the internet to present it that way. This angers people and results in their digging in their heels regarding their beliefs even more fiercely.

I think this sums it up quite well.

[Bob]

I'm not getting the comparison either; I'm not seeing where the hypocrisy and/or double standard lies.

The double-standard is exposed in the sense that there was outrage and condemnation of Israel for the death of Rachel Corrie, as it was argued that her death was at the hands of the IDF - and now with the recent story of Vittorio Arrigoni, he was kidnapped and murdered by a group of Islamists (political/terrorist group) that wanted to pressure Hamas to release one of their leaders, and also to protest what they view as a soft approach Hamas has taken towards Israel. Will we see similar outrage against the Palestinians as we saw against Israel?

Either way, Rachel Corrie caused her own death obstructing a military operation to support "homes" that were in reality cover for terrorists who shot at Israeli border officers from protected positions. Vittorio Arrigoni, on the other hand, intentionally placed himself in an unruly (top put it lightly) place in order to do something he was committed to. As much as people like Rachel and Vittorio are reprehensible, at least for their views and what they worked towards, it brought me no pleasure to read of Vittorio's death. I remember when the story of his kidnapping first broke... and then, literally hours later, the headline changed to his murder. My heart sank a little when I read it, even though I hate everything he and his organization (the ISM) represent.

[Bob]

The only comparison I can see between these two deaths is that two good people lost their lives fighting for causes that they believe in; both were actively trying to make the world a better place and they weren't causing anyone else harm in the process. That's were the similarity ends as far as I can see. One met a tragic accidental death while the other was brutally murdered.

There are double standards that have been well documented, as you pointed out, but I sure don't see any double standard in this story.

I agree with you regarding the heated feelings regarding the Israel/Palestine situation, but I think another reason for the intransigence is that too many people (I don't see it as "everyone" doing this or that) are putting forth misrepresentations, as well as outright, deliberate falsehoods. Too many people are twisting the truth, taking things our of context, selectively quoting/misquoting, or outright making incidents out to be something they are not, even if they have to literally/physically alter the facts on the internet to present it that way. This angers people and results in their digging in their heels regarding their beliefs even more fiercely. I, for one, resent the disproportionate ire aimed at Israel. I don't think it's doing Palestine's cause any ultimate good.

I don't think Rachel Corrie or Vittorio Arrigoni can be described as good people. Perhaps in their minds they thought they were making the world a better place, but that certainly wasn't the case. I think, simply, that these two people were empty and needed a cause to give meaning to their lives. So they plunge in head-over-heels into something they don't understand and willingly (or ignorantly, to give them the benefit of the doubt) become instruments of propaganda for organizations such as Hamas. If you like, there are plenty of photos of Vittorio all smiles with Khaled Mashal (head of Hamas) and other Hamas officials. He's also written in support of Hamas, without telling the truth about how they operate - although perhaps he had to be careful about what he said/wrote about Hamas, lest he be murdered. He made comparisons between Israeli policies and Nazi policies. He likened Israel to apartheid. He supported the "resistance" (terrorism). He blatantly misrepresented Israel, either ignorantly and/or maliciously, deceiving anyone who may have read his tripe. So again, although I'm sure he sincerely believed in what he was doing, that doesn't make him a good person. I'm sure I don't need to provide more prominent of bad people who sincerely believed in the "good" of their actions.

[jbg]

How is this a double standard? Corrie's death was not at the hands of a "fringe group of [israelis], inspired by terrorists." (typos fixed)

The two incidents are not at all the same.

I'm not getting the comparison either; I'm not seeing where the hypocrisy and/or double standard lies.

The "double standard" is the rivers of ink that the Rachel Corrie incident drew, compared with the one news story, then forgotten treatment this story will likely get. And the situations are similar. Israel does its fighting through armies, not faceless, nameless, anonymous murderers.

[Bob]

The "double standard" is the rivers of ink that the Rachel Corrie incident drew, compared with the one news story, then forgotten treatment this story will likely get. And the situations are similar. Israel does its fighting through armies, not faceless, nameless, anonymous murderers.

It's not news worthy because they can hide behind this murder being the work of "a fringe group", and not representative of the Palestinian people - despite the endless examples of horrifying behaviour that comes out of their society. Arbitrary arrests, kidnappings, torture, and killings/executions of political opponents. Glorification of suicide bombers and other terrorists in the form of massive posters on buildings, naming streets and buildings after them, offering scholarships and awards in their name, etc. Training would children to identify with and support terrorism through indoctrination camps/classes, media, etc... Despite this kind of thing not being surprising in the least to those in-the-know, it will be forgotten and written off as some isolated incident that is completely disconnected from, and not the product of, serious problems in Palestinian culture and society.

[jbg]

Despite this kind of thing not being surprising in the least to those in-the-know, it will be forgotten and written off as some isolated incident that is completely disconnected from, and not the product of, serious problems in Palestinian culture and society.

Imagine "negotiating" a peace treaty with this kind of society?

[Bob]

Imagine "negotiating" a peace treaty with this kind of society?

Of course that's impossible right now for so many reasons. It's sad, but that's the world we live in.

[bloodyminded]

The double-standard is exposed in the sense that there was outrage and condemnation of Israel for the death of Rachel Corrie, as it was argued that her death was at the hands of the IDF - and now with the recent story of Vittorio Arrigoni, he was kidnapped and murdered by a group of Islamists (political/terrorist group) that wanted to pressure Hamas to release one of their leaders, and also to protest what they view as a soft approach Hamas has taken towards Israel. Will we see similar outrage against the Palestinians as we saw against Israel?

It would be a similar situation only if it weren't a fringe group of radicals who killed Vittorio, and if the Palestinians were trying to justify his death. It's not anything like the Corrie incident.

[jbg]

It would be a similar situation only if it weren't a fringe group of radicals who killed Vittorio, and if the Palestinians were trying to justify his death. It's not anything like the Corrie incident.

It is similar in the sense that for better or worse the IDF acknowledges its role and doesn't try to say that the tank operator "went rogue".

[bloodyminded]

It is similar in the sense that for better or worse the IDF acknowledges its role and doesn't try to say that the tank operator "went rogue".

But I don't think I'm wilfully defending Hamas' honour--a distasteful exercise in which I wouldn't indulge--to point out that the killers were, by all accounts, an anti-Hamas band of extremist radicals. A "fringe" group even according to your own link.

Hamas, much less Paletinians generally, are not playing the PR game to distance themselves from the murderers. That distance is genuine, in that Palestinians would have preferred Vittorio to be alive.

Your post, complete with the scare quotes, seems to imply a cover-up or at least a PR deception...which is belied by the information you yourself have supplied us.

[WIP]

The double-standard is exposed in the sense that there was outrage and condemnation of Israel for the death of Rachel Corrie, as it was argued that her death was at the hands of the IDF -

Rachel Corrie's death was not an accident; but instead a cover-up of a case of clear criminal negligence. The Israeli Government exonerated the two man crew of the armoured bulldozer, closed the case, and refused to release the complete report of the military investigation to U.S. authorities....which begs the question 'why is Israel the exception' when it comes to deaths of its citizens in foreign lands? If this was Egypt, Iraq, Libya or Mexico, the U.S. State Dept. would be demanding the results of any investigations.

and now with the recent story of Vittorio Arrigoni, he was kidnapped and murdered by a group of Islamists (political/terrorist group) that wanted to pressure Hamas to release one of their leaders, and also to protest what they view as a soft approach Hamas has taken towards Israel. Will we see similar outrage against the Palestinians as we saw against Israel?

Except that no one is asking us to support Hamas, but we are being dragged deeper and deeper into becoming kneejerk backers of whatever policies the Israeli regime carries out within its borders and beyond, to our own detriment. It would be one thing if we at least had some capacity to criticize Israeli policies, but that will not happen as long as we have a Harper Conservative Government!

Vittorio Arrigoni may be a casualty of a fight between Hamas and Fatah on the West Bank. Previously there was a Palestinian peace activist who ran a theatre company in Jenin, who was assassinated, likely by Hamas, but I don't believe anyone started a thread here lamenting his death...I guess it is the pattern of the Israeli war hawks and their likeminded supporters that a dead Palestinian is the only good Palestinian, regardless of his activities!

[jbg]

Rachel Corrie's death was not an accident; but instead a cover-up of a case of clear criminal negligence.

Does everything come to a stop when a human shield intervenes?

Except that no one is asking us to support Hamas, but we are being dragged deeper and deeper into becoming kneejerk backers of whatever policies the Israeli regime carries out within its borders and beyond, to our own detriment.

Why shouldn't we support a Western country like ours? Or are we condemning anyone pro-Western to condemnation?

[Guest American Woman]

Rachel Corrie's death was not an accident; but instead a cover-up of a case of clear criminal negligence. The Israeli Government exonerated the two man crew of the armoured bulldozer, closed the case, and refused to release the complete report of the military investigation to U.S. authorities....which begs the question 'why is Israel the exception' when it comes to deaths of its citizens in foreign lands? If this was Egypt, Iraq, Libya or Mexico, the U.S. State Dept. would be demanding the results of any investigations.

Perhaps if this weren't an incident involving the Israeli military the U.S. would feel differently. As for myself, I have seen so much doctored evidence from the 'Rachel Corrie was murdered' camp that I no longer believe it was intentional. Why the need to produce falsified pictures if it's a clear case of criminal neglect? Furthermore, lie to me once, and your credibility is gone. I'm not referring to you, I want to make that absolutely clear, but the 'information' being pushed on the web.

I really admire Rachel Corrie for standing up for her beliefs, for trying to help innocent Palestinians, for going half way around the world to do something about it. But she was interfering in a military operation. She willingly put herself in that position in a nation that's actively engaged in a conflict. I can't imagine going to any country and standing firm in front of a military operation and not realizing that my actions were putting my life in danger. I would guess this is how the U.S. government sees it; no one targeted her. She put herself in harm's way.

People have speculated that the driver of the bulldozer could see her. No one knows. It's as simple as that. Personally I can't understand why the driver would run her over if he could see her, perhaps he expected that her common sense would result in her moving if he did know she was there, but I do know this: if someone is going to in effect play chicken with a bulldozer, chances are pretty good that they are going to be on the losing end.

Does that make it "criminal negligence?" What about the negligence of her actions? ie: Why isn't it expected that she get herself out of harm's way? Why was only one side required/expected to act reasonably? She was putting herself in the middle of a nation's conflict; interfering in a military operation.

Edited April 17, 2011 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Why shouldn't we support a Western country like ours?

One shouldn't support a country because it's Western, or pro-Western, or is an ally. We should try to the best of our abilities to ascertain what is going on; what is the truth, what is false, what is a difficult combination of both; and do what we sincerely believe is right. Western, or political allies to one's nation, shouldn't even be the faintest consideration.

Or are we condemning anyone pro-Western to condemnation?

Of course not.

Edited April 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Rachel Corrie is wholly responsible for her own death. She was interfering with a military operation. The bulldozer cannot simply yield because a person has chosen to become a human shield. The military operation of destroying the building SAVES LIVES. By interfering with that operation, Rachel Corrie was placing Israeli lives at risk. She was attempting to preserve a building that is used for terrorist snipers. Perhaps she believed the lies that Hamas had told her, that these buildings were exclusively used for innocent purposes. Either way, she was interfering with a military operation that was being conducted in the interests of Israeli security. The bulldozer driver cannot exit the vehicle to apprehend her, lest he expose himself to being shot. There are reasons why the bulldozers used by the IDF are so heavily armed.

The bottom line - the military operation of destroying the buildings is entirely justifiable, Rachel Corrie willingly interfered with this military operation, and she was killed as a result of her own negligence. Sadly, her memory continues to perpetuate the dishonest movement she was a part of (the ISM). I have no doubt that in her heart of hearts she believed in what she was doing and perhaps thought she was doing noble and moral work. Her own perceptions, however, were deeply flawed.

[jbg]

Does that make it "criminal negligence?" What about the negligence of her actions? ie: Why isn't it expected that she get herself out of harm's way? Why was only one side required/expected to act reasonably? She was putting herself in the middle of a nation's conflict; interfering in a military operation.

AW, you just summed up in a nutshell Israel's dilemna in the Middle East "peace process"; Israel is expected to act reasonably but there are no such matching expectations for the other side. No one really expects the other side to stop fighting if Israel returns most of the West Bank, and Gaza, to Arab control.

[WIP]

Perhaps if this weren't an incident involving the Israeli military the U.S. would feel differently. As for myself, I have seen so much doctored evidence from the 'Rachel Corrie was murdered' camp that I no longer believe it was intentional. Why the need to produce falsified pictures if it's a clear case of criminal neglect? Furthermore, lie to me once, and your credibility is gone. I'm not referring to you, I want to make that absolutely clear, but the 'information' being pushed on the web.

I really admire Rachel Corrie for standing up for her beliefs, for trying to help innocent Palestinians, for going half way around the world to do something about it. But she was interfering in a military operation. She willingly put herself in that position in a nation that's actively engaged in a conflict. I can't imagine going to any country and standing firm in front of a military operation and not realizing that my actions were putting my life in danger. I would guess this is how the U.S. government sees it; no one targeted her. She put herself in harm's way.

I never payed more than passing interest to the story of Rachel Corrie; what I am sick of, is listening to the Israel-does-no-wrong crowd trash her today because of her work as a peace activist. And from what I've read, there isn't any thematic tie-in with the Italian journalist who was killed recently, since he was executed by a Islamist splinter group, which has been condemned by Hamas and all of the major Palestinian organizations. He is being honoured as a hero.....so where is the double standard?

People have speculated that the driver of the bulldozer could see her. No one knows. It's as simple as that. Personally I can't understand why the driver would run her over if he could see her, perhaps he expected that her common sense would result in her moving if he did know she was there, but I do know this: if someone is going to in effect play chicken with a bulldozer, chances are pretty good that they are going to be on the losing end.

Does that make it "criminal negligence?" What about the negligence of her actions? ie: Why isn't it expected that she get herself out of harm's way? Why was only one side required/expected to act reasonably? She was putting herself in the middle of a nation's conflict; interfering in a military operation.

Funny how that tank driver in the famous Tien An Mien Square video was able to avoid running over a lone protester who kept refusing to move for the tank. A somewhat similar incident happened in the 80's, during that brief period that the U.S. put peacekeepers in Lebanon, after the Israeli Invasion. The circumstances behind his actions weren't exactly clear, but a pistol-wielding U.S. Marine captain stepped in front of three Israeli tanks that tried to run through his checkpoint, and demanded that they stop their advance....and he didn't get run over either. All I know is that if you have the ability to stop your car, you can still get charged if you go ahead and run into some jaywalker who steps in front of you. The negligence of the jaywalker isn't the only determining factor.

[Bob]

I never payed more than passing interest to the story of Rachel Corrie; what I am sick of, is listening to the Israel-does-no-wrong crowd trash her today because of her work as a peace activist. And from what I've read, there isn't any thematic tie-in with the Italian journalist who was killed recently, since he was executed by a Islamist splinter group, which has been condemned by Hamas and all of the major Palestinian organizations. He is being honoured as a hero.....so where is the double standard?

You will see a lot of Zionists oppose Rachel Corrie and demonize her because her endeavours directly delegitimized Israel and Jewish national rights. Her actions, statements, and affiliations illustrated how anti-Israel she was. I know I speak for many other when I reject labels describing her as a "peace activist". Whether or not she realized it, and whether or not wanted to accept it, her actions went towards supporting terrorism. Opposing military operations in Gaza where buildings are destroyed that provide cover for terrorist snipers to shoot at Israeli border officers is not peace activism, even if she never physically attacked anyone. The same is true for Vittorio Arrigoni - he is no peace activist. They are both part of the ISM, which is a virulently anti-Israel and dishonest organization. The sad thing is, I suspect, is that these people often sincerely believe in their cause and their statements, even if they do necessarily need to practise some self-deception. Since these two and thousands of other like them directly advocate on behalf of persons that murder us, and support policies that would endanger Jewish/Israeli lives and Jewish national rights in Israel, people like myself feel animosity towards people like Arrigoni and Corrie. They're not peace activists, and they're not heroes. At best, they were deeply misguided and committed individuals. At worst, they were knowingly engaging in dishonest propaganda campaigns to undermine Jewish security and national rights in Israel in order to fill some emptiness in their lives.

Funny how that tank driver in the famous Tien An Mien Square video was able to avoid running over a lone protester who kept refusing to move for the tank. A somewhat similar incident happened in the 80's, during that brief period that the U.S. put peacekeepers in Lebanon, after the Israeli Invasion. The circumstances behind his actions weren't exactly clear, but a pistol-wielding U.S. Marine captain stepped in front of three Israeli tanks that tried to run through his checkpoint, and demanded that they stop their advance....and he didn't get run over either. All I know is that if you have the ability to stop your car, you can still get charged if you go ahead and run into some jaywalker who steps in front of you. The negligence of the jaywalker isn't the only determining factor.

Look, an armored bulldozer in the midst of a Gaza building-demolition is a much different scenario that the tank in Tianenmen Square. Either way, the bulldozer cannot and should stop for Corrie even had he saw her. What is he supposed to do, allow the building to continue standing and place Israeli officers are greater risk? Is he supposed to step out of the vehicle and expose himself to sniper fire or other violence? She was given ample warning, and the bulldozer certainly doesn't move too quickly. Her death is absolutely unequivocally 100% her fault. She stood in front of a bulldozer and killed herself. Full stop.

[eyeball]

Look, an armored bulldozer in the midst of a Gaza building-demolition is a much different scenario that the tank in Tianenmen Square.

I often wonder what happened to the crew or commander of that tank in Tianenmen Square. Were they arrested and sent to prison or shot for cowardice in the face of the enemy?

What about the bulldozer crew that drove over Rachel Corrie, were they given an award for valour by any chance?

[Guest American Woman]

I never payed more than passing interest to the story of Rachel Corrie; what I am sick of, is listening to the Israel-does-no-wrong crowd trash her today because of her work as a peace activist. And from what I've read, there isn't any thematic tie-in with the Italian journalist who was killed recently, since he was executed by a Islamist splinter group, which has been condemned by Hamas and all of the major Palestinian organizations. He is being honoured as a hero.....so where is the double standard?

Who trashed her here? There's been admiration expressed for her along with people questioning where the double standard is.

Funny how that tank driver in the famous Tien An Mien Square video was able to avoid running over a lone protester who kept refusing to move for the tank.

You do realize how many tanks didn't stop that day and how many protesters were killed, right?

A somewhat similar incident happened in the 80's, during that brief period that the U.S. put peacekeepers in Lebanon, after the Israeli Invasion. The circumstances behind his actions weren't exactly clear, but a pistol-wielding U.S. Marine captain stepped in front of three Israeli tanks that tried to run through his checkpoint, and demanded that they stop their advance....and he didn't get run over either.

So Israelis don't purposely run over protesters. Three tanks stopped for him. Seems to me that sort of refutes the 'bad Israelis run over innocent protesters' idea. Clearly they saw him in this instance and didn't run him over.

All I know is that if you have the ability to stop your car, you can still get charged if you go ahead and run into some jaywalker who steps in front of you. The negligence of the jaywalker isn't the only determining factor.

What does a jaywalker have to do with someone purposely putting them self in harm's way? She didn't jay walk. She purposely stood still in front of a tractor, not knowing if the driver could see her or not. That's not reasonable behavior. The idea that the driver of the tractor is the only one who should have conducted himself reasonably is difficult to understand. But who's to say that he saw her? The fact is, you have no idea if he saw her or not, yet you condemn him. I don't understand that.