Corrie's death ruled accidental

[Guest American Woman]

I didn't even know Rachel Corrie's death was still under investigation, but "a court in northern Israel ruled Tuesday that Israel and its military were not negligent in the 2003 death of a U.S. activist who was crushed by an army bulldozer." (link) Her death was truly tragic, and I admire her for standing up for her beliefs, and while I once believed the hype that she was deliberately run over, I can't imagine how anyone could still believe it today.

I think it's just as tragic as her death to misrepresent and outright falsely misrepresent it, as I believe it adds fuel to the fire, making things worse. Evidently people still believe it, though. The article points out that other activists were screaming at the man in the bulldozer to stop. I have to wonder why they didn't yell at Corrie to get out of the way; I know I would have real doubts as to whether someone in a bulldozer could hear my yells.

The Corrie family lawyer is urging them to take the case to the Israeli Supreme Court, but I can't imagine the outcome being any different. One takes a chance when going head to head within a nation's conflict, and sometimes the outcome is tragedy.

[j44]

If the bulldozer was the usual type they use it would be impossible for anyone inside to hear anything. They are armored to the point where they are basically tanks with a few small windows.

[Black Dog]

I think it's just as tragic as her death to misrepresent and outright falsely misrepresent it, as I believe it adds fuel to the fire, making things worse. Evidently people still believe it, though.

The United States has criticized Israel for failing to carry out a thorough, credible and transparent investigation, a criticism again leveled last week by the ambassador to Tel Aviv, Dan Shapiro.

Next week, fox court finds foxes not negligent in chicken coop raid.

[jbg]

Next week, fox court finds foxes not negligent in chicken coop raid.

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"?

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.

[bud]

Next week, fox court finds foxes not negligent in chicken coop raid.

hah.

this ruling, once again, demonstrates that israel cannot administer justice according to international standards.

This decision is yet more proof to the fact that the Israeli courts are but another arm of the occupation and apartheid regime, which fortifies oppression instead of striving for justice. In a press conference with Rachel's family and lawyer held after the hearing, Cindy Corrie, her mother, said "This is a sad day, not only to us, as a family. This is a sad day for Israel, a sad day for human right activists, a sad day for international law, a sad day for justice."

by leehee rothschild, mondoweiss

[bud]

the impunity that the israeli, so-called justice system gives to the IDF in the occupied territories is nothing new. however, what sets this incident apart from the many previous bs verdicts is that an american citizen is involved. this verdict will hurt the zionist movement as the drive and passion for those who seek justice will increase.

omar barghouti, one of the most respected leaders in the non-violent palestinian movement issued an eloquent and perfectly worded response to the verdict:

It's a sad day for humanity, for the Corries, for Palestinians, for all people of conscience around the world ...

Cindy and Craig, we share your hurt. We share your indignation at this Israeli mockery of justice which is typical of this unjust system.

This latest and widely expected Israeli court whitewash underlines what the UN Goldstone Report had proven after the Israeli massacre in Gaza in 2008-09. Referring to “structural flaws” in the so-called Israeli justice system, the report concluded that Israel cannot be trusted to administer justice according to international standards.[Goldstone Report, paragraph 1756]

Precisely! In too many cases to enumerate here, Israel's courts have rarely sentenced Jewish-Israeli criminals for killing or injuring Palestinians or wantonly destroying their property. According to Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din,

"... 91% of investigations [by Israeli police in the OPT] into crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and their property are closed without indictments being served. 84% of the investigation files are closed because of the investigators' failure to locate suspects and evidence. ... Indictments were served in less than 3% of these cases."

Even as early as 1996, at the height of the so-called "peace process," an Israeli settler fatally pistol-whipped 11-year-old Palestinian child Hilmi Shusha near Bethlehem for no apparent reason. An Israeli judge first acquitted the murderer, saying the child "died on his own as a result of emotional pressure., After numerous appeals and under pressure from the Supreme Court, which termed the act "light killing," the judge reconsidered and, as the Intifada was raging, sentenced the killer to six months of community service and a fine of a few thousand dollars. The boy’s father accused the court of issuing a "license to kill." [Reuters, January 22, 2001; Phil Reeves, "Fury as court frees settler, The Independent, January 22, 2001]

Gideon Levy of Haaretz eloquently described the fine at the time as the "end-of-the-season" clearance price on Palestinian children’s lives, referring to the findings of B’tselem, Israel’s leading human rights organization, which documented dozens of similar cases in which perpetrators were either acquitted or received a slap on the wrist. [Gideon Levy, Haaretz, January 28, 2001]

Adding insult to injury, the complicit Israeli judge in this case implied that Rachel was not a "thinking person" because of her heroic nonviolent attempt to stand against an indisputable war crime.

Given that Israel's courts, like their South African counterparts during apartheid, have systematically and consistently been a reliable pillar of Israeli occupation, colonialism and apartheid, Israel's war crimes and crimes against humanity ought to be prosecuted in international courts where justice has a chance to see the day of light.

This should also convince anyone who still needed to be convinced that without effective BDS against Israel it will never comply with international law. This is the lesson of South Africa.

link

it certainly is a sad day for people of conscience.

[Guest American Woman]

If the bulldozer was the usual type they use it would be impossible for anyone inside to hear anything. They are armored to the point where they are basically tanks with a few small windows.

It sounds as if that were indeed the case. Why anyone would 'play chicken' with such a vehicle in a conflict zone is difficult to figure - especially in light of the fact that even ordinary citizens driving the family vehicle sometimes tragically run over and kill people that they didn't see. Vision can be obscured even under ordinary conditions.

What seems a paradox to me is the expectation from those who claim Israelis would deliberately run over a person such as Rachel Corrie was for the bulldozer to stop. If I thought someone was cruel and heartless and uncaring enough to be able run me over in cold blood, I sure wouldn't stand in front of it as others screamed at it to stop, expecting it to stop. Makes no sense to me.

The only 'proof' of guilt that those condemning Israel and the driver have is their claim that the driver could see her, which they have no clue of the reality - and of course, the evilness of Israel.

As I said, I respect her desire to stand up for what she believed in, but conflict zones are dangerous places, and she willingly took the risk.

[jbg]

hah.

this ruling, once again, demonstrates that israel cannot administer justice according to international standards.

This decision is yet more proof to the fact that the Israeli courts are but another arm of the occupation and apartheid regime, which fortifies oppression instead of striving for justice. In a press conference with Rachel's family and lawyer held after the hearing, Cindy Corrie, her mother, said "This is a sad day, not only to us, as a family. This is a sad day for Israel, a sad day for human right activists, a sad day for international law, a sad day for justice."

by leehee rothschild, mondoweiss

Virulence in the use of language is not a substitute for reason. Anyone can curse (which you didn't do here) or use very strong language and still not make a point.

I know you feel strongly that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state. What else are you proving?

Rachel Corrie chose to put herself in the way of a bulldozer in order to halt an Israeli operation. The unilateral decision to halt a military operation has a proper name; combat. And Rachel Corrie has a proper description; a human shield.

the impunity that the israeli, so-called justice system gives to the IDF in the occupied territories is nothing new. however, what sets this incident apart from the many previous bs verdicts is that an american citizen is involved. this verdict will hurt the zionist movement as the drive and passion for those who seek justice will increase.

And she had what business, as an American citizen, in attempting to manually block an Israeli operation?

omar barghouti, one of the most respected leaders in the non-violent palestinian movement issued an eloquent and perfectly worded response to the verdict:

It's a sad day for humanity, for the Corries, for Palestinians, for all people of conscience around the world ...

Cindy and Craig, we share your hurt. We share your indignation at this Israeli mockery of justice which is typical of this unjust system.

And you're saying this is a "mockery of justice" compared with Syrian butchery of hundreds of women and children?

This latest and widely expected Israeli court whitewash underlines what the UN Goldstone Report had proven after the Israeli massacre in Gaza in 2008-09. Referring to “structural flaws” in the so-called Israeli justice system, the report concluded that Israel cannot be trusted to administer justice according to international standards.[Goldstone Report, paragraph 1756][/b]

Which Goldstone himself largely retracted?

Precisely! In too many cases to enumerate here, Israel's courts have rarely sentenced Jewish-Israeli criminals for killing or injuring Palestinians or wantonly destroying their property. According to Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din,

"... 91% of investigations [by Israeli police in the OPT] into crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and their property are closed without indictments being served. 84% of the investigation files are closed because of the investigators' failure to locate suspects and evidence. ... Indictments were served in less than 3% of these cases."

Again, far better than the Arab record with regard to apprehending and punishing terrorists. Also, it is rare that an Israeli would butcher a pregnant woman and kill her infant son in cold blood.

Even as early as 1996, at the height of the so-called "peace process," an Israeli settler fatally pistol-whipped 11-year-old Palestinian child Hilmi Shusha near Bethlehem for no apparent reason. An Israeli judge first acquitted the murderer, saying the child "died on his own as a result of emotional pressure., After numerous appeals and under pressure from the Supreme Court, which termed the act "light killing," the judge reconsidered and, as the Intifada was raging, sentenced the killer to six months of community service and a fine of a few thousand dollars. The boy’s father accused the court of issuing a "license to kill." [Reuters, January 22, 2001; Phil Reeves, "Fury as court frees settler, The Independent, January 22, 2001]

Gideon Levy of Haaretz eloquently described the fine at the time as the "end-of-the-season" clearance price on Palestinian children’s lives, referring to the findings of B’tselem, Israel’s leading human rights organization, which documented dozens of similar cases in which perpetrators were either acquitted or received a slap on the wrist. [Gideon Levy, Haaretz, January 28, 2001]

Adding insult to injury, the complicit Israeli judge in this case implied that Rachel was not a "thinking person" because of her heroic nonviolent attempt to stand against an indisputable war crime.

Given that Israel's courts, like their South African counterparts during apartheid, have systematically and consistently been a reliable pillar of Israeli occupation, colonialism and apartheid, Israel's war crimes and crimes against humanity ought to be prosecuted in international courts where justice has a chance to see the day of light.

This should also convince anyone who still needed to be convinced that without effective BDS against Israel it will never comply with international law. This is the lesson of South Africa.[/b]

link

it certainly is a sad day for people of conscience.

Sounds horrible. Even if true, certainly a rare event. Edited August 29, 2012 by jbg

[bud]

I know you feel strongly that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state. What else are you proving?

you are simply pathetic. if you accuse me and try to defame me one more time without any proof to back it up, i have no choice but to report you. i will no longer try to defend myself because of your baseless accusations.

Rachel Corrie chose to put herself in the way of a bulldozer in order to halt an Israeli operation. The unilateral decision to halt a military operation has a proper name; combat. And Rachel Corrie has a proper description; a human shield.

bulldozing homes is a violation of international law. this is not my opinion, but the opinion of several israeli and international human rights organizations. bulldozing homes has been used repeatedly as collective punishment.

And she had what business, as an American citizen, in attempting to manually block an Israeli operation?

she was defending human rights against a foreign occupier who was demolishing the homes of families. bulldozers are supposed to stop and these demolitions are supposed to be halted in order to protect the lives of civilians.

And you're saying this is a "mockery of justice" compared with Syrian butchery of hundreds of women and children?

i'm not saying that or comparing it to syria. do you seriously think that people don't look at your comments and not notice how you're trying to deflect attention from israel's decades of human rights violations by bringing up something else? seriously?

can you for once try not to respond to criticism of israel with the anti-semite card or by bringing up another, unrelated incident to try to downplay what is happening? seriously.

Which Goldstone himself largely retracted?

more repetition by another hasbara bot. i know you're not interested in facts, but if anyone else is, this is what jbg is bs'ing about:

What exactly did Goldstone 'retract' from his report on Gaza?

The findings of the committee headed by New York Judge Mary McGowan Davis, which tracked the implementation of the recommendations in the Goldstone report, were published last month. According to Goldstone, the McGowan Davis report findings indicate that Israel did not have an explicit policy of causing intentional harm to civilians. This is the "retraction" everyone is rejoicing over.

However, reading the final UN report reveals that the committee didn't come anywhere near that conclusion. On the contrary. The committee states repeatedly that according to the information presented to it, "Israel does not appear to have conducted a general review of doctrine regarding military targets" (i.e. Israel did not discuss at all on which targets it is legitimate to open fire and on which it is not ).

Goldstone's op-ed seems to imply that the committee of experts, as opposed to his commission, was afforded the cooperation of the Israeli authorities. It turns out this is untrue. The American judge was not treated any differently by Israel and she even complains of this in the report. She notes that because of this she had to rely solely on public government reports, which relied on human rights organizations.

She also stresses that the committee did not succeed in ascertaining whether Israel has indeed investigated all 36 of the incidents discussed in the Goldstone report. This, she says, exemplifies the vagueness of the information put at her disposal. And as if this were not enough, the report also points to flaws in a series of investigations concerning civilian deaths, among them women and children.

In the best case, those who are rejoicing over Goldstone's op-ed have not bothered to read the UN reports. In the worst case, they have read the reports and have chosen to keep them out of the public eye. Both UN reports state that despite 36 Israel Defense Forces investigations of the grave incidents mentioned in the Goldstone report, only one indictment has been filed. Moreover, both reports reach the conclusion that "given the seriousness of the allegations, the military investigations thus far appear to have produced very little."

link

Again, far better than the Arab record with regard to apprehending and punishing terrorists.

really now? you see what your defense mechanism is doing to criticism of israel?

#1 - if you have so much contempt for the arabs and how they handle justice, then why is it whenever a criticism of israel comes up, all you can do is compare it to arabs.

#2 - can you show me some stats in regards to the palestinian's record in apprehending and punishing crimes? are you saying that the arabs are worse than:

"... 91% of investigations [by Israeli police in the OPT] into crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and their property are closed without indictments being served. 84% of the investigation files are closed because of the investigators' failure to locate suspects and evidence. ... Indictments were served in less than 3% of these cases."

Also, it is rare that an Israeli would butcher a pregnant woman and kill her infant son in cold blood.

you mean it's common for arabs to butcher a pregnant woman and kill her infant son in cold blood? your bs meter is off the charts.

Sounds horrible. Even if true, certainly a rare event.

how is it a rare event when:

91% of investigations [by Israeli police in the OPT] into crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and their property are closed without indictments being served.

stay focused jbg.

Edited August 30, 2012 by bud

[bud]

Her death was truly tragic, and I admire her for standing up for her beliefs, and while I once believed the hype that she was deliberately run over, I can't imagine how anyone could still believe it today.

i guess you will take the israeli kangaroo court words over your own country's words:

Oded Gershon, the judge in the civil lawsuit brought by the Corrie family, ruled that the military police investigation into Corrie’s death, which found no evidence of wrongdoing, had been “properly conducted.” However the U.S. government position, communicated to the Corries in writing, has been that Israel did not keep its promise to conduct a “thorough, credible and transparent” investigation.

link

this says a lot about you.

allowing israel to investigate its own crimes.

allowing the fox to investigate the killings in the henhouse.

allowing iran to investigate abuse in evin prison.

allowing the US to investigate torture at abu ghraib and guantanamo.

justice is never an option.

Edited September 1, 2012 by bud

[Guest American Woman]

i guess you will take the israeli kangaroo court words over your own country's words:

Good to know that you put so much stock in what the U.S. has to say! - I will surely remember this.

this says a lot about you.

allowing israel to investigate its own crimes.

allowing the fox to investigate the killings in the henhouse.

I see. So "allowing Israel to investigate it's own crime" is a bad thing - but taking what the U.S. says about an incident that happened to an American as gospel is a good thing. Good to know. I will surely remember this.

allowing iran to investigate abuse in evin prison.

allowing the US to investigate torture at abu ghraib and guantanamo.

But... but... you just chastised me for not taking my own country's words.

justice is never an option.

Methinks your definition of "justice" leaves a lot to be desired.

[bud]

I see. So "allowing Israel to investigate it's own crime" is a bad thing - but taking what the U.S. says about an incident that happened to an American as gospel is a good thing. Good to know. I will surely remember this.

what the u.s. official said was that the military investigation was not as "thorough, credible or transparent" as it should have been. they obviously found fault in how the investigation was conducted.

this is a continuous theme with israel and its investigation of its own military in the occupied territories. there is a lot of evidence showing how israel cannot be trusted in investigating itself. when you have 91% of investigations into crimes committed by israelis against palestinians and their property are closed without indictments being served, and you have organization after organization AND you have the united states who rarely goes against israel say that israel is not credible and transparent in its investigations, then you really have to question them. so sit back and try to digest some truth about israel, sweetie:

1) According to Yesh Din's annual datasheet summarizing its monitoring of hundreds of investigation files handled by the Samaria and Judea police district, 91% of investigations into crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and their property are closed without indictments being served. 84% of the investigation files are closed because of the investigators' failure to locate suspects and evidence.

2) Human Rights Watch said the ruling contravened international law, which is intended to protect non-combatants in war zones, and set "a dangerous precedent". "The idea that there can be no fault for killing civilians in a combat operation flatly contradicts Israel's international legal obligations to spare civilians from harm during armed conflict and to credibly investigate and punish violations by its forces," said Bill van Esveld, a senior Middle East researcher at HRW.

3) Israel’s investigation into the death of American activist Rachel Corrie was not satisfactory, and wasn’t as thorough, credible or transparent as it should have been, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro told the Corrie family this week.

Shapiro responded: “For seven years, we have pressed the government of Israel at the highest levels to conduct a thorough, transparent and credible investigation of the circumstances of her death. The government of Israel has responded that it considers this case closed and does not plan on reinvestigating the incident.”

4) Shawan Jabarin, director of the Palestinian human rights organisation, Al Haq, said: "Israel has claimed that it is not responsible for the death of a civilian in armed conflict. However, this flatly ignores international law, which stipulates that Israel is under an obligation to take all measures to ensure that no civilians will be harmed during hostilities, and must at all times distinguish between military targets and civilians.

of course, there is more. way more proof and statements from officials and organizations showing israel's so-called justice system failing to credibly investigate its own military.

Edited September 2, 2012 by bud

[jbg]

what the u.s. official said was that the military investigation was not as "thorough, credible or transparent" as it should have been. they obviously found fault in how the investigation was conducted.

this is a continuous theme with israel and its investigation of its own military in the occupied territories. there is a lot of evidence showing how israel cannot be trusted in investigating itself. when you have 91% of investigations into crimes committed by israelis against palestinians and their property are closed without indictments being served, and you have organization after organization AND you have the united states who rarely goes against israel say that israel is not credible and transparent in its investigations, then you really have to question them. so sit back and try to digest some truth about israel, sweetie:

And can you "sit back and try to digest some truth about" the surrounding countries? Or are you fixated on insisting on perfection from more civilized countries, so the barbarians can pick us to pieces?

[Rue]

Next week, fox court finds foxes not negligent in chicken coop raid.

Tee hee hee. Giggle. Hee hee hee.

[Rue]

Well what would today be without Bud and the usual anti Israel thread

and the giggle inducing comments of Black Dog expert on anything politically

acceptable.

Well now Black dog next year in the Gay Pride parade you can make sure to

march and protest this verdict not to mention next year at Al Quds day you can

stand at Queen's Park and scream out what an injustice it is.

In fact, the decision was rendered at the The Haifa District Court. It has not gone to the Supreme Court of Israel. Whetehr it does or not depends on whether leave to appeal will be granted for an error of law. Oh by the way, Israel's standards

for findings of negligence are identical to those of the US,the UK and Canada but hey why let facts get in the way of

a good opportunity to Israel bash or the fact that there are no courts in Arab countries that have ever followed the

standard of law Israel does for negligence.

There are of course two sides to the story but in the world of Bud adn Black Dog there is one-their story.

The legal principle that was in fact invoked by the Judge (Oded Gershon) is of course a principle neiother legal experts Bud or Black Dog are aware of and that is the COMBATANT ACTIVITIES EXCEPTION.

Th legal principle which is the equivalent of a legal principle used by the UK with the IRA or the US with Afghanistan and Iraq states that since the IDF forces had been attacked in the very area Corrie decided to place herself just hours earlier, she is deemed to have knowingly placed herself in a war zone or in layman's terms using the standard of negligence here in Canada, she knew the place she decided to stand was in an area of hihgest risk to her life.

Of course Bud and Balck Dog speak Hebrew and read the 62-page decision so they know what his analysis of the incident was.

Here is what both sides agreed on:

Corrie placed herself directly in front of a bulldozer. She did so deliberately. She knowingly placed herself in a situation of peril. A reasonable person does not stand in front of an on-going bull-dozer for any reason no matter how righteous they think they are being.

The Judge stated the IDF placed three entry bans to the site Corrie decided to enter and stand on. It is also is a fact Corrie knew the site was a war zone in a current state of hostility. She was also aware of a US advisory issued to its citizens and an Israel travel advisory both warning people from the US and other countries not to enter the Gaza or West Bank because their safety could not be guaranteed,.

Now I am sure Black Dog thinks he and Bud and Corrie can simply prance in any country they want and demand things. They come and came from a world of privilege where they take their rights for granted.

Corrie died because she felt she was entitled to stand wherever she wanted. Its what the Black Dogs of the world do. They take their freedom of speech for granted. They demand everyone tolerate its displays.

So if someone like Corrie chooses to deliberately engage herself in a war zone engaging in political protest activities, Israel is supposed to accommodate because she says so and her Mama says so and her Papa says so.

The real world does not work like that. In the real world Corrie chose to join a human rights organization she knew was anti Israeli and supported Palestinian terrorism. Her organization shielded terrorists from Israeli soldiers. when I say terrorists I do not mean children or innocent civilians, but in fact armed terrorists engaged in attacks on the IDF.

Of course that part is ignored by Bud and Bleeding Heart. Corrie was Mother Theresa just standing her ground with her righteous hair blowing in the wind, there was no on-going context from which you placed herself.

No one wanted this girl to die. No one. The Judge said it was regrettable. No one wants anyone to die. The fact is where does Corrie's responsibility for her own death begin and end?

Where does Bud and Black dog decide that she can be oblivious to reality and the perils she places herself directly in front of?

Was this even a case for strict liability? I doubt either Black Dog or Bud even know what strict liability is, and when that standard is used but it is not used in situations where someone deliberately places themselves in harms way and knowing does something negligent and could have prevented the harm. This is not a product liability case. This is not a civilian airline crash. This is not a case where a tire blows out on a bus. This was a foreseeable event of peril that could have been prevented by Corrie.

In fact Corrie was not just negligent but stupid. She knew the bulldozer had limited vision. She could clearly see the driver would not see her. She thought because he could not see her he would just stop. What she did not know was if he even saw her in the first place.

The geniuses like Black Dog and Bud have supposed the bulldozer driver saw her and so should have stopped. The facts show otherwise, that he never saw her. Therein lies the tragedy. Her own stupidity killed her.

But hey, in our world Black Dog and Bud decide who is to blame for what and who is a martyr an which actions and causes are acceptable and which ones are not. Facts have nothing to do with it.

The court did not applaud her death. they called it a "regrettable accident". The finding did not state its good to bulldoze people. It in fact stated but said the state was not responsible for the cause of Corrie's death because the incident had occurred during what he termed a war-time situation where she knowingly placed herself in situation of direct peril to her life.

what is also interesting is that Corrie's mother,the American representing her legal interests, Al Jazeera, Mya Giarnieri, Joseph Dana and Max Blumenthal all flooded the air waves critizing the decision before it was even rendered.

The anti Israel political rhetoric as to the verdict is that it condones the IDF committing violence on Palestinian civilians. It ignores the actual facts. It assumes that Corrie was allowed to do whatever she wanted and anyone can do whatever they want in a war zone and Israel can do nothing to defend itself from anyone.

The bottom line is simple. No one wants violence. No one wants anyone on either side dying or subject to war or protracted terror. No one.

Corrie chose to play martyr in the wrong place and wrong time. She did so because she grew up in a world of privilege where no one said no to her.

Instead of denying the role of her own actions in her death, her parents fueled by anti Israeli agitators will misunderstand the cause of her death and her death will be used by the Balck Dogs and Buds of the world as a pretext for their own rhetoric.

Oh look another martyr to throw about.

[bleeding heart]

Of course that part is ignored by Bud and Bleeding Heart.

????

What the hell?

I haven't even been part of this discussion. Ever.

Try to distinguish between the various people that you despise so much. We're not all the same guy, you know. Your hatred is making you fumble around in error.

[Guest American Woman]

what the u.s. official said was that the military investigation was not as "thorough, credible or transparent" as it should have been. they obviously found fault in how the investigation was conducted.

How did "the u.s. official" turn into "they" within the span of one paragraph?

But I'll ask you again. Should I believe what one U.S. official says regarding everything in this conflict? Is that what you will be doing? You will be determining the truth, the facts, on what one U.S. official says?

Good to know! I can't wait to see how much your views change from here on out. Sweetie.

[jbg]

Try to distinguish between the various people that you despise so much. We're not all the same guy, you know. Your hatred is making you fumble around in error.

At least we agree on something.

[Black Dog]

????

What the hell?

I haven't even been part of this discussion. Ever.

Try to distinguish between the various people that you despise so much. We're not all the same guy, you know. Your hatred is making you fumble around in error.

It's not hatred, it's just lunacy.

[GostHacked]

Now I am sure Black Dog thinks he and Bud and Corrie can simply prance in any country they want and demand things. They come and came from a world of privilege where they take their rights for granted.

I am sure there is some irony in that statement.

[GostHacked]

Dude who stops tanks in Tienanmen Square is good. Standing in front of a bulldozer bad.

The driver of the bulldozer would be exonerated because he was simply following orders right? State Sanctioned Murder.

Some selective outrage by the one and only Rue. Only ever makes an appearance to these kinds of threads, otherwise Rue does not participate in any other threads. But I am sure I will be called an anti-semite and a jew hater ect. Very predictable.

[Guest American Woman]

Dude who stops tanks in Tienanmen Square is good. Standing in front of a bulldozer bad.

There's a bit of a difference - the guy standing in front of the tank was part of a major protest, and that's why the tank was there. He wasn't interfering in another country's war zone. Obviously, too, the soldier in the tank saw him, perhaps from a distance, as the protester had been standing there as the tank was approaching. Different circumstances.

If the tank hadn't stopped, do you think the protester would have jumped out of the way? At any rate, a lot of protesters were killed that day. Some of the soldiers in the tanks were pulled out and killed by the protesters, too. It was a terrible, sad day, and they weren't all as fortunate as the protester who stood his ground in front of the tank - and I'm not so sure that his actions have been hailed as "good" so much as "brave" for standing up to his government during their student protest.

As I've repeatedly said, I give Rachel Corrie credit for standing up for her beliefs, but she took a risk. That's a fact. Sometimes taking a risk turns out good, sometimes not so good, and sometimes it's with very tragic results. She knew the risks, as did the group she was involved with. From what I've read, they had decided to take a more involved, direct stand against Israel that day - in a known closed military zone.

There is absolutely no evidence that the driver of the bulldozer saw her. As I already said, people driving ordinary vehicles have accidently run over people whom they were unable to see.

The driver of the bulldozer would be exonerated because he was simply following orders right? State Sanctioned Murder.

This is simply you writing history the way you think it went down. You have absolutely no information to determine that the driver of the bulldozer saw her and deliberately ran her over. He was not "exonerated," it was determined that he was telling the truth when he said he didn't see her.

I am sure I will be called an anti-semite and a jew hater ect. Very predictable.

You're certainly coming across that way with your insinuations of the driver "being exonerated" for "following orders" to run her over, and accusations of "state sanctioned murder."

[dre]

It sounds as if that were indeed the case. Why anyone would 'play chicken' with such a vehicle in a conflict zone is difficult to figure - especially in light of the fact that even ordinary citizens driving the family vehicle sometimes tragically run over and kill people that they didn't see. Vision can be obscured even under ordinary conditions.

What seems a paradox to me is the expectation from those who claim Israelis would deliberately run over a person such as Rachel Corrie was for the bulldozer to stop. If I thought someone was cruel and heartless and uncaring enough to be able run me over in cold blood, I sure wouldn't stand in front of it as others screamed at it to stop, expecting it to stop. Makes no sense to me.

The only 'proof' of guilt that those condemning Israel and the driver have is their claim that the driver could see her, which they have no clue of the reality - and of course, the evilness of Israel.

As I said, I respect her desire to stand up for what she believed in, but conflict zones are dangerous places, and she willingly took the risk.

The only 'proof' of guilt that those condemning Israel and the driver have is their claim that the driver could see her, which they have no clue of the reality

Not at all. The only proof of guilt required is not even disputed. And that is that Israel runs over homes on land that doesnt belong to them with armored bulldozers

[bud]

How did "the u.s. official" turn into "they" within the span of one paragraph?

not sure how many times the link to haaretz and quotes from the article has been posted to respond to you and jbg, so i hope you stop wasting my time and pay attention to the following so it doesn't need to be posted. this is 'they':

Sen. John Kerry asked Shapiro what steps the embassy, under his administration, would take that would be in keeping with the remarks of State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. On June 30, 2010 Crowley had said, “We continue to stress to the government of Israel at the highest levels, to continue a thorough, transparent and credible investigation of the circumstances concerning [Corrie’s] death.”

Shapiro responded: “For seven years, we have pressed the government of Israel at the highest levels to conduct a thorough, transparent and credible investigation of the circumstances of her death. The government of Israel has responded that it considers this case closed and does not plan on reinvestigating the incident.”

But I'll ask you again.

so your next question or point is moot since it was the u.s. administration's position about israel's investigation which they found to not be credible and transparent.

i also like how you pick and choose what to respond to. i understand that facts and the truth do not mesh well with the image ou want to give of israel. your inability to acknowledge the truth cements the label of hasbara bot. there is ample evidence of the israeli 3rd world justice system when it comes to investigations in the palestinian territory. the statistics is just one of them:

"... 91% of investigations [by Israeli police in the OPT] into crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and their property are closed without indictments being served. 84% of the investigation files are closed because of the investigators' failure to locate suspects and evidence. ... Indictments were served in less than 3% of these cases."

[Rue]

Bleeding Heart I will explain./

You have repeatedly advocated on Bud's behalf. As well you made it clear in another thread about Israel arming nukes, thread 27 to be exact, last paragraph that you will criticize "Western Democracy" terrorism but not be so quick to do the same with others. You said that not I. So don't feign I was referring to what you said in this thread. I was referring to your position and the positions of Bud, Black dog, et al, on the Israel-Palestinian conflict which I do not remove from these conversations as isolated-I consider them all inter-related and part of the on-going dialogue on the same subject.

They are the same opinions time and time again that selectively criticize Israel or for that matter the US using a different standard than Hamas or other terrorists.

I already told you what I think of JBG's positions.

That is why I mentioned you. Be flattered you are on my mind.In fact it means I actually give a damn about what you think more than the others.,

Now you said:

"Try to distinguish between the various people that you despise so much. We're not all the same guy, you know. Your hatred is making you fumble around in error."

Y'all sound the same to me...and since you mentioned it I find you Black Dog and Bud interchangeable on Israel but unlike them I do believe you despise terrorism from Hamas on Israelis and your criticism of excessive Israel Defence force on civilians is not something I would hide from in this discussion which is what is being skirted.

By the way the policy of bull dozing homes as being the last quadrants of a terrorist attack-no I do not like it and I think it polarizes civilians against the IDF yes. Of course its inhumane and unfair. You and your politically correct ones know that. What you skip however is the fact that it is equally as dispicable for Hamas and other terrorist cells to use these civilian homes as bases for engaging in war against Israel.

Palestinian civilians are deliberately placed in harm's way by terrorists as a deliberate political tool designed to kill innocent civilians to polarize sentiment against Israel. I personally do not see bulldozing these homes as having been a deterrent against civilian colaboration. For the most part the civilians can not stop Hamas from using their homes.

It is also the shock and resulting polarization from bulldozing the homes that manipulates naive elitist sheltered do gooders like the unfortunate Rachel Corrie to prance about and kill themselves. They do not see the world in anything but extreme blacks and whites with bad guys and victims. They can not see

the enemy is neither Israeli or Palestinian but terrorists and geniuses like you, JBG, Bud, Black dog who pronounce what is right and wrong.

None of you have seen the filth and death but you talk about it like arm chair geniuses spewing out what SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.

I argue the IDF has to explore psychological approaches of warfare that empower Palestinians who act positively and not simply focus on the negative deterrrent approach.That dialogue is going on within the IDF.

I claim to understand but one thing-none of us understand the reality of Israelis or Palestinians or the soldiers faced with having to keep them seperated and deal with the terrorists. I know enough of them to know I do not and can never walk their shoes and will never presume to speak for them.

Don't confuse my contempt for arm chair genius pillow talk with hatred. . Hatred is the same emotion as love. I have neither. Love and hatred is for soap operas.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Rue