.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
Rachel Corrie sometime before, and after being killed by IDF bulldozer (photo: ISM/AP)On July 9th, three justices of the 9th circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from lawyers representing Rachel Corrie’s family and Caterpillar about the former’s lawsuit over their daughter’s 2003 death under the treads of an IDF operated bulldozer:
The family of a woman killed trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in 2003 asked a federal appeals court panel to reinstate its lawsuit against Caterpillar Inc., saying the company knew bulldozers it sold to the Israeli government were being used to commit human rights violations.
“Caterpillar sold this product knowing — or it should have known — it would cause exactly this harm,” one of the family’s lawyers, Duke University law professor Erwin Chemerinsky told the three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday.
A Tacoma federal judge had thrown out the case:
A U.S. District Court judge in Tacoma dismissed the lawsuit in 2005, agreeing with the company’s argument that it wasn’t responsible for how the Israeli army used its product.
Hey, I’m not an attorney, but I’d think product liability should apply in this case. If a product is being used to commit an act of violence (destroying a home) that COULD ALSO, and HAS killed people in the process–wouldn’t you think that the company would be liable for the way its product was used? Wouldn’t you think the company should at least be required to create guidelines or conditions under which the IDF would use its product so as to minimize possible injury or death??
I suppose it’s possible my theory of the case doesn’t work since the family’s lawyers have pursued a different legal tack:
Her parents, Cindy and Craig Corrie, sued Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar, which manufactured the bulldozer, seeking to hold the company civilly liable for aiding and abetting human rights violations — the destruction of civilian homes.
Unlike the courts in countries like Belgium and Spain, U.S. courts have been notoriously inhospitable to tort claims based on human rights violations. I’m hoping that this will change both with this case and others against multinational corporations accused of causing the deaths of U.S. citizens and foreign nationals.
I’m delighted that a human rights attorney as distinguished as Erwin Chemerinsky has taken on the case representing the Corries. He argued against the dismissal in the 9th circuit hearing:
Chemerinsky insisted that the [Tacoma] judge applied the wrong legal standard, and that as long as the company knew how the bulldozers were being used, it can be held liable under common law dating back centuries.
The arguments advanced by Caterpillar attorneys are predictable, though quite interesting in one respect:
But lawyers for Caterpillar and the U.S. Justice Department, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Caterpillar’s behalf, argued that letting the case proceed would require U.S. courts to improperly intervene in political issues reserved for the president and Congress. It would also require American judges to pass judgment on Israel’s practice of demolishing Palestinian homes — “you can’t aid and abet a legal activity,” Caterpillar attorney Robert Abrams told the judges.
It is quite provocative to claim that home demolition is legal under Israeli law. Of course, under international law home demolitions are a clear-cut violation. But I’d like to see Israeli legal code that would justify home demolitions.
Human rights groups note that the majority of cases the IDF claims a home was constructed without a building permit. Of course, it is impossible to get a building permit from the Israeli authorities so virtually every home built in the past 40 years or so is illegal. And one wonders whether illegal building by Israelis is pursued with the same zeal??
A Human Rights Watch report also questions the underlying rationale for such demolitions:
Based on extensive research in Rafah, Israel, and Egypt, it [the report] places many of the IDF’s justifications for the destruction, including smugglers’ tunnels and threats to its forces on the border, in serious doubt. The pattern of destruction, it concludes, is consistent with the goal of having a wide and empty border area to facilitate long-term control over the Gaza Strip. Such a goal would entail the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods, regardless of whether the homes in them pose a specific threat to the IDF, and would greatly exceed the IDF’s security needs. It is based on the assumption that every Palestinian is a potential suicide bomber and every home a potential base for attack. Such a mindset is incompatible with two of the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian law (IHL): the duty to distinguish combatants from civilians and the responsibility of an Occupying Power to protect the civilian population under its control.
I also found this colloquy instructive:
Judge Michael Hawkins asked Justice Department lawyer Robert Loeb to consider the hypothetical case of a U.S. oven manufacturer during World War II: If the company continued selling ovens to Germany, knowing they were being used to kill Jews, would there be legal grounds to go after the company?
Yes, Loeb replied — treason, for starters.
But Israel is a U.S. ally, and “a U.S. court would have to opine on what really happened in Gaza and the West Bank,” Loeb said. “This is a prime example of where the court should decline to extend its common-law jurisdiction. … The financing and the sale of this equipment have been approved by the United States. (The plaintiffs) want to have a court second-guess the judgment of the government.”
This is of course a provocative question which overstates the relevance of the Holocaust to this case. But it is nonetheless suggestive that if it would be illegal for a U.S. corporation to participate in a project that killed Jews, why would it be much different for a company to allow its products to be used to destroy the homes and livelihoods of Palestinian civilians? I’m not arguing as some might that those who participate in the Occupation are engaging in genocide, an argument I find a stretch.
Isn’t it interesting that Caterpillar’s attorney finds it legally problematic for a U.S. court to “opine” on the Occupation when the U.S. government has already made quite clear that it opposes the settlement policy which is one of the pillars of the Occupation. The U.S.’ avowed policies oppose, in large part, the Occupation. So why would it be problematic for a judge to rule in accordance with announced government policy opposing Israeli home demolitions?
Chemerinsky and another Corrie attorney, Gwynne Skinner of the International Human Rights Clinic at Seattle University School of Law, …wondered aloud how the U.S. could finance Israel’s acquisition of bulldozers while simultaneously decrying the demolition of civilian homes in the occupied territories.
Let’s hope the judges see the logic of this summary of the plaintiff’s claims:
“This is a case about direct commercial sales,” Chemerinsky said. “It’s about holding corporations liable when they aid and abet violations of human rights.”
The national media have as usual failed the test in ignoring this story. Happy to say my local Seattle papers have covered it along with the AP. Even Fox News covered it though only in order to make fun of the case.
For further resources on this subject, check out:
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
Center for Constitutional Rights summary of case
Corrie family statement
Rabbis for Human Rights housing rights initiative
Related posts:
- Koret Foundation Flays San Francisco Jewish Film Festival Over Corrie Documentary
- Family of Injured American Activist Demands Israeli Investigation
- Some in Clemmons Family Did Right Thing
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Tags: 9th-circuit-court-of-appeals, corrie-family-lawsuit-against-caterpillar, erwin-chemerinsky, palestinian-home-demolitions-violate-international-law
Too bad the Corries can’t sue the IDF or the Israeli government. Caterpillar seems a poor second best.
Zhu Bajie
Wow, the author and readership have gone nuts.
It makes no sense to sue Caterpillar.
Rachel was (sadly) responsible for her own death, for knowingly getting in the way of a bulldozer.
She was a misguided young liberal, who due to this unfortunate accident, didn’t get a chance to outgrow it !!
The IDF, the bulldozer driver, and Caterpillar all acted correctly.
The only ones who didn’t act correctly is Rachel and the Palestinian terrorists who necessitated the demolitions.
The comparison with death chambers and such is stupid, as their only purpose is to break international law. A bulldozer, on the other hand, has a legitimate use and cannot be made safe for people who willingly commit suicide by getting in its way. Furthermore, this bulldozer was being used properly in a demolition — that’s what bulldozers do.
fyi: The IDF demolishes homes for two reasons:
1. To punish terrorists
2. To clear away buildings used by terrorists
There’s a real world out there, folks.
- Lint
What I continually find amazing about commenters here like Lint is that they neglect to follow the links I provide which would completely refute and undermine the very basis of their comments. The Human Rights Watch link in particular proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the IDF does NOT only demolish homes for the reasons Lint lists. In fact, it rarely does so. In addition, IDF demolitions almost always violate international law which provides for destruction of private property only when it causes danger to troops during actual combat operations.
One of the stupider comments made here in some time. You mean to tell me that if the IDF truly cared about whether or not it killed protesters like Corrie it couldn’t do more to prevent such accidents? Of course it could. To say she commited suicide is an ugly, detestable statement. She was protesting the Israeli Occupation and had no more need to die than I would at a demonstration against the Israeli Occupation here in the States.
And you think yours is the “real world?” Gimme a break. Yours is the world as it is presented to you by the Israeli government, the IDF, & Israel’s security services–with perhaps a bit of Little Green Footballs or Frontpagemagazine thrown in.
At least you didn’t defend the Caterpillar lawsuit. ;-)
It’s a total abuse of the courts, and an attempt at extortion by their lawyers.
This case has become a rallying point for pro-terrorist groups; the Corries’ own website includes links to several intifada groups.
I don’t mean to perpetuate the discussion, but yes, I do think that the IDF cares about Rachel’s life.
The difference between you protesting in the US and what she was doing is clear — she was interfering with a soldier who was under orders.
I’m fairly certain that this is how it happened:
She repeatedly got in the bulldozer’s way.
The soldier tried yelling at her and throwing sand at her to get her out of the way.
He grew increasingly desperate as he was under orders, and could not reasonably report back that an unarmed girl had prevented him from completing the demolition.
He tried scaring her away by moving forward with the bulldozer … both sides moved back and forth as they feinted against each other … in a moment of confusion, she was crushed.
It’s wrong to call this a murder, or to fault the IDF.
Israel as a policy never purposely harms civilians, and there have been very few incidents of rogue soldiers violating that; this wasn’t one of them.
- Lint
I have always thought it odd that Rachel Corrie is referred to as a “peace activist”. I would have thought that a “peace activist” is someone who encourages diaglogue among enemies. There is an infamous photo of her burning an American flag with a crazed look in her eyes surrounded by Arab children. How doing that is “increasing understanding between nations” is beyond me.
It is good to know that this Rachel Corrie murder thing has been cleared up once and for all. I didn’t realize that Rachel’s murderer was under orders. That clearly makes it an accident. I shall never bring up the matter again. I am not going to mention the British peace worker that was shot in the head (and eventually died) one month later while trying rescue Palestinian children caught in a crossfire between the IDF and Palestinian freedom fighters either. There the IDF murderer apparently wasn’t under orders because I think he may have been prosecuted. I am glad your commentator cleared this up for me Richard.
Of course LIberal White Boy & I defend the Caterpillar lawsuit & it certainly is a perfectly reasonable exercise of American justice. Do you think as distinguished an attorney as Erwin Chemerinsky would’ve accepted this case if it wasn’t. This is a man who has often argued before the Supreme Court after all.
You say the IDF cares about Rachel Corrie’s life. If it cared it wouldn’t have killed her.
And your fantasy about what happened leading up to the accident/murder is just that. It belongs in a novel, rather than being seen as a statement of fact. Besides, the picture above taken moments before her death clearly shows the driver securely ensconced within his bulldozer cab & making no attempt whatsoever to warn her of her impending death.
Since your IP address emanates from the Google campus, you clearly have a certain degree of intelligence. But this statement certainly doesn’t display any. Where in the world would you get the idea that Israel isn’t knowingly willing to harm civilians? The instances in which this has happened are myriad: literally hundreds if not thousands of cases, a good number documented here at this blog with credible journalistic sourcing. Before you spout such nonsense why don’t you do a Google search on this site on search terms like “killing Palestinian civilians” or something similar & then tell me you continue to maintain yr previous level of ignorance on the subject.
I note you claim w. certainly that the Corrie death was not a case of the IDF knowingly harming a civilian. Yet you have presented no proof other than yr own fantasy to attest to yr view. Is that the standard of proof that’s operative in the halls of Google??
It has already been well documented on the web that the above picture was not taken “just moments before her death”. Just look at the different positioning of the headlights. Also Rachel did not die right away, she died in a Gaza hospital. Maybe her parents should sue the ISM.
It’s what she considered herself & what most of the rest of the world considers her. God forbid, if you died for something you believed in, would you want the rest of the world to deny your association with the very thing you died for???
I’m not one who’s much for burning flags or other such incendiary behavior & I don’t approve of what she did if she did, as alleged, burn a hand-drawn American flag (& I’d like to see proof that this image is genuine before conceding that she did). But neither of us are 23 yrs old. Plus, if we were living through days of great Jewish oppression who knows what we might do with the flag of the nation we viewed as our oppressor.
“Well-documented” & “the web” are oxymorons like “military justice.” In other words, prove it. Who’s proven the photo isn’t legitimate & how did they do so? The credibility or lack thereof of your sources will tell us whether yr claim is legitimiate or not. And pls. don’t use stock right-wing or Palestinophobic sites as “proof” of anything.
Well since he’s argued before the SC before than that means its a “legit” suit?
Smith and Wesson has avoided suits for making guns but Caterpillar can be sued for making Bulldozers….? yeah, makes good sense
It’s simple tort law 101 by the way… but since it supports your point of view and a “lawyer took the case”……… (no lawyer jokes needed) well…. than it’s a good solid case then.
Another very solid legal argument there…. brilliantly put as well.. Perhaps that would be the distinguished summation before the SC?
That last statement is further evidence of this gentleeman’s incredibly weak argument… “clearly shows”… really?
Note, the picture posted all over the world… is from over an hour prior to her death… it was with a different bulldozer and different driver… And there was testimony that she slipped climbing a large mound that was being bulldozed forward…. that part was supported by other witnesses there…. the bulldozer driven by a new driver just on shift then moved the mound forward crushing her and then rode over her under the mound…. the driver had no clue anyone was climbing the mound… nor would anyone want to climb a huge mound a bulldozer is approaching…
So legally, yes it was a tragedy regardless of what anyone thinks of her and what she was doing… but according to Richard “the driver clearly knew what he was doing and didn’t warn her”… and since she died the Israelis didn’t care about her death….
What does that mean? He works at Google so he’s smart? Or he works at Google and he’s more than likely very left of center, and surprisingly is so vehemently disagreeing with you?
“Thousands”…..? Ignorance?
And here is Mr. Silverstein’s Summation –
Caterpillar is being sued you have to prove their “negligence”.. not the other way around….
As opposed to Mr. Silverstein’s logic -
Are you really questioning the authenticity of the picture now as well? Rather amazing… it’s not like there already hasn’t been documented cases of the PLO and Hezbollah doctoring pictures or using pictures from 5 years ago? But now you’re questioning the Corrie picture as well? Perhaps the flag burning picture, taken by PA stringers was a photoshop… by a PA double agent? and the bulldozer picture was a photoshop as well?
You seem to have all the inside tracks on information and what’s legit… if its written by the Jerusalem Post well than it’s most likely a fake picture too… but from EU, AP or Reuters photogs who are often paid PA stringers… well those are usually reliable?
Are you really that obvious in your bias?
Ah, it looks like we’ve been joined by the professional Corrie basher contingent. So tell me Jimmy Collins, how many disgusting St. Pancake jokes have you told today?? Or perhaps Caterpillar has hired some PR flacks to deflect blame fr. itself by seeking out blogs like mine which don’t take its pt of view regarding this case.
Are you arguing that it was legitimate for a Congress bought & paid for by the gun industry & the NRA to immunize gunmakers from product liability lawsuits?? I certainly hope not since that position has no moral standing whatsoever. And as for why Caterpillar isn’t immune fr. such lawsuits? Maybe they should start an NRA clone group and donate tens of millions to Congress, then they could be immunized too.
What is? Is this an argument? And if so for what?
Lint said in his comment/fantasy that the driver had exited his cab to remonstrate with Corrie to get out of his way. The image clearly shows that the driver is NOT outside his cab doing anything of the sort that Lint claimed. Hence his claim is bogus & fantasy.
I’m dying to know what reputable website all this information comes from. I’d ask my readers to note that so far not a single commenter disparaging Corrie or my arguments has provided a single documentary source at all; let alone a credible one.
“Testimony?” From whom? Evidence please.
I was arguing with Lint regarding his claim that the IDF doesn’t knowingly kill civilians. That particular part of my argument with him had nothing to do with Caterpillar’s negligence. It was solely regarding IDF callous disregard for Palestinian civilian life.
As for proving Caterpillar’s negligence, that shouldn’t be very hard. They sold Israel armored bulldozers to be used to destroy the homes of Palestinian civilians. Those products have killed both residents of the homes which were destroyed by said bulldozers AND civilians protesting the destruction. I’d say a product with a history of killing/murdering (depending on yr perspective) people would be legitimate grounds for a liability lawsuit though based on what the article says I’m not even sure the plaintiffs are using this strategy since they mention the product’s violation of human rights.
I asked for someone to provide the original source of this image to verify its authenticity. A perfectly reasonable request in this day & age of precisely the type of photoshopping you so clearly decry from the “Islamofascists” side. Clearly, you can’t do that but still wish to land some propaganda pts in yr war against my views.
Since you’ve posted 3 comments within 15 minutes today pls limit yourself to a single comment in any one thread in a single day.
What continually amazes me about apologists for Rachel Corrie’s murder is how brazenly (and seemingly un-self-consciously) they betray their true symphathies. These apologists for Israeli war crimes clearly don’t care about Americans or the American people. I don’t think they have any idea how their callousness comes across to average Americans who don’t share their peculiar prejudices. If these Likudniks were smarter and more PR-savvy, they would just wring their hands and sorrowfully state that her killing, the slaughter of this young American woman, was a terrible tragedy, and stop at that. Their seeming pathological necessity to defame her really hurts their cause, I’m afraid, in the eyes of objective, neutral observers. So I say, keep it coming, Israel Firsters, keep showing your true colors to all the rest of us Americans. If you had any idea how you come across… woww!!
I didn’t say the photo was not legitimate. I said the caption was. The picture was not likely taken immediately before the accident, and some have suggested that the pictures are two different models, according to the size of the windows. I don’t know about that but both the CNN and the NYTimes made corrections to there captions (or are they too Palestinophobic for you). Is electronicintifada too Palestiniphobic for you? They give at least 45 minutes between the 2 pictures (relying on an ISM handout) Sources:http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/1248
The CNN clarification (which I admit, isn’t clear enough.) – http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/16/rafah.death/index.html
The NYTimes quote: requires registration: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/26/pageoneplus/corrections.html?ex=1184817600&en=d489b13c6e6dba6a&ei=5070
I went back to March 17 but the NYT doesn’t save photos on their web site. So I can’t be absolutely certain that it is the exact same picture. But it is the same tactic. Immediately after the incident the ISM disseminated pictures “proving” that the soldier saw Rachel and the MSM swallowed it up only to have to make corrections later. That’s because the MSM is all to happy to print anything that makes israel or the IDF look bad (man bites dog). And now, 4 years after even the ISM has stopped claiming the pcture was taken moments before (as is evident in the ISM handout referred to at electronicintifada) your keeping the libel alive.
The picture of Rachel Corrie burning a picture of the US flag is on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie
Look at the image of feigned anguish in her face.
This is an activist poser. There were many like her in my campus, and they grew out of it.
Sure, she didn’t deserve to die for what she did. But she put herself at extreme risk, and an accident occurred.
‘Murder’ is a fairly specific word, implying intent to kill, etc. The IDF isn’t responsible for her death.
Warren, I agree that her death was a terrible tragedy. But once charges of murder or ‘war crimes’ start getting thrown around, it’s important to illustrate Rachel’s responsibility and carelessness. We shouldn’t water down or abuse extreme notions like those. It’s patently dishonest and illustrates *your* bias against Israel and/or the US.
Nice try, Lint, but that’s just not good enough. Pretty much all of the direct eyewitnesses to the event state they saw that the bulldozer driver had seen where Rachel Corrie was and he nevertheless kept moving forward. I call that murder; it’s certainly *at least* manslaughter. Trying to claim that I am biased against the US is truly pathetic. You’re just desperately attempting to mitigate my charge that you don’t care about Americans. I wearily understand why you feel compelled to do so, but you’re spitting into the wind. Rachel Corrie was an idealistic young American woman who was actively working for peace and justice. You may disagree with her politics and perspective, but her heart was in the right place. She was killed by an IDF soldier. So, let’s lay out a basic opposition here: young, idealistic American peace activist killed by an Israeli soldier. Whose side are you on, plain and simple? If you can’t see that your efforts to demonize this young American will backfire in the eyes of most Americans, then I’m sorry, but you’re delusional. Again, I don’t think the demonize-Rachel Corrie-crowd has any idea how they come across to average Americans who don’t share their particular alliances and prejudices.
Richard, from my experience in the jewish american community, i can tell you that you are an aberration, a breath of fresh air. I date a jewish girl and go out socially with jewish americans and i’ve yet to find anyone of them who shares your views…i absolutely enjoy reading your observations on the abuses against the palestinians, they are clearly viewed through the eyes of a human being in search of justice with dignity for all involved in that crisis.
kudos to you for your position.
Amir: If what troubles you is that people accuse the IDF bulldozer driver of having seen Corrie & deliberately run her over & you’re disputing that, there is no possible way you can prove definitively that he did NOT see her. Similarly, one of the ISM eyewitness accounts seems to indicate the driver would’ve seen her & one indicates he might not have. So I cannot prove definitively that the driver DID see her.
But whether or not that specific driver saw her the IDF still engaged in gross negligence in 2 important ways. First of all, it has designed the bulldozer for maximum protection of the driver & minimal ability to actually see where he’s going. So first, the fact that a driver does not have a clear line of site in the cabin is grossly negligent. Second, Wikipedia indicates that IDF policy specifies that the D9 bulldozer requires a spotter to work with it to guide it in order to avoid precisely the predicaments this driver faced & failed to negotiate successfully. The IDF, according to Wikipedia indicated there was no spotter working with the bulldozer that day. There were no IDF troops removing protestors fr. the bulldozer’s path as there usually were. Again, another pt. of gross negligence.
So even if the driver did NOT see her (and I’m not conceding that he did not), the IDF still performed abysmally in this instance.
Further, you have not defended or explained the killing of Palestinians who remain in their homes during demolitions. How is it possible that the IDF has done this??
You are priceless. The poor girl is dead and you still attempt to steal from her her sincerity. You’re almost as bad as a gravedigger except you try to rob her dignity from her instead of her body. You should be ashamed. Perhaps a similar tragic fate might befall you some day. I hope no one does violence to yr principles or sincerity as you have done to her.
Protesters regularly attempt to stop home demolitions. This is a process the IDF faces & knows about. If it cannot figure out a way not to kill people when they protest legitimately against an act they find repugnant, immoral and illegal, then it should hardly call itself an army that respects human life. Well, of course it respects Israeli human life. But not Palestinian or Arab lives or those of their foreign supporters.
Great. Now apply any of those standards to Hamas, the PA, or any other substantial movement among their population.
Most fatal accidents could be prevented. And that’s what we have here is a fatal accident, like those that happen all over the world all the time. The Israeli army shold have had them arrested and deported but israel is too liberal of a country and unfortunately allows foreigners on “tourist” visas to abuse their visit. But the primary responsbility lies with Rachel herself and the ISM who understood all too well the dangers they were putting themselves in.
(from the Guardian, March 23, 2003). So you see, for them its a win-win situation. That’s the kind of sick immoral people that are part of the ISM. From the same article.
Well, that lie has already been exposed. So not only are they immoral creeps they are also liars, and their testimony is highly dubious since they are obviously trying to milk her death for all its propaganda value (and now, with your help, I may add). (If he were telling the truth, and he watched it happen, don’t you think he would have tried to stop it from happening instead of just stand there and take pictures).
amir, you are obfuscating – there is no need to “milk her death for it’s propaganda value” – these demolitions constitute war crimes – Rachel Corrie, whose father is Jewish, felt enough of a connection to Israel to stand in front of the bulldozer in an attempt to prevent one of these demolitions which take place frequently:
Please explain, amir – actually, we’ll let B’tselem explain:
Tangentlama – That excerpt from btselem is about “punitive” house demolitions. They are not relevant to what was happening in Rafiah at the time. You must know that Hamas and other terrorists had dug tunnels across the Egyptian border into civilian homes for the purpose of smuggling explosives for the production of rockets to fire at civilians living in Sderot and other communities outside of the Gaza strip (among other things).
Amir – the smuggling tunnels existed alright, but the IDF exaggerated their number and usage – they claimed to have found 90 tunnels, but these turned out to be egresses (exit/entry shafts) and not tunnels – 90 egresses is not 90 tunnels, however one looks at the situation – the methods use to seal-off the tunnels is ludicrous – demolishing a whole house to seal an egress? The tunnels, of which there are an estimated 10-15 in total (not 90) were used to smuggle goods in to a beseiged REFUGEE CAMP. The more demolishings over egresses/shafts, the more incentive there is to smuggle in weapons to retaliate – really, the IDF has a hand in creating conflict and suffering, and compounding suffering of an already malnutrioned, unemployed and victimised refugee camp population. In all honesty, if the boot were on the other foot, Amir, would you not also be a part of the resistance to the curfews/blockades/incursions? Note also that “the tunnels weren’t big before the Intifada when people could work in Israel”
Razing Rafah – Mass Home Demolitions in the Gaza Strip – IV: The Security Situation in Rafah
From the CNN link above -
Further, the NY Times correction support the idea that the picture immediately sent out to the world press by the PLO machine was not the bulldozer or driver that killed her…..
This you would think would make one more suspicious of the initial accounts pushed out to the media by the PLO than less…. I mean even if you are prone, as some are on this site, to accuse and impugn the IDF, if you use the Cui Bono “theory” often thrown at the Israelis like in the Harriri assassination… you would ask how much this media event benefitted the PLO and hurt the Israelis…. and how the PLO would seem to cynically utilize situations like this for their benefit… Hezbollah’s media manipulation is another example of this and there have been quite a few documented cases of the PLO and the Palestinians doing this as well….
However, this does not mean the IDF does not commit criminal acts (we could debate which are and arent) however, it also indicates that the PLO and Palestinians cynically utilize and have been caught posing for media. And in this case as in the Mohammed Al Durrah case, in my estimation, cynically if not disgustingly manipulate and aggrandize tragic events to score media points.
Incidentally in the case of the British reporter that was shot if I remember correctly that soldier was in fact charged based on testimony of other IDF soldiers… Further, just for the record that soldier was an Israeli Arab serving in the IDF as a good number in fact do, particularly in the most dangerous zones, such as Rafah.
What’s amazing is that a few ISM witnesses apparently gave the first quote. Considering the ISM is likely predisposed to give an “account” that would be harshly critical of the IDF particularly in this case.
Second, there were other reports that confirmed this particular house was uninhabited and used for transporting drugs, prostitutes and bullets… all of which are highly profitable to sell…
You have adduced no evidence to prove that this was an accident though it certainly was “fatal.” If this accident WAS like those that happen all over the world then there would be no lawsuit in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, no websites both in Corrie’s honor and to smear her, and no hit play in London last yr. which will now tour the world over. This is no typical fatal accident & nothing you can say will magically turn it into just an everyday nasty little happenstance.
What a laugh. Israel arrests & deports ISM activists regularly. What further proof do you wish to proffer of Israel’s sterling liberal reputation??
No, he said they took many precautions to prevent an ACCIDENT and that the only way a death would occur was by an INTENTIONAL act on the part of the IDF. This has nothing to do with sickness or immorality. This has to do with a grassroots campaign against an immoral Occupation and acts clearly illegal under international law for which they have every right to protest. And certainly if the IDF DID commit an intentional act in this case then it deserves whatever bad publicity it gets and the protest movement deserves whatever sympathy it gets. Next time, tell the IDF to think twice before it mixes a DP armored bulldozer with a 23 year old woman. It’s the law of physics: the bulldozer always wins–or loses in moral terms in Israel’s case.
And you know how far away he stood from her precisely how??? Look at the pictures. They are not shot anywhere near Corrie. And if he was using a telefoto lens they couldn’t been shot even farther away than they appear. If he stood that far away and there were others nearer and he carried a camera and he was attempting to document the event, his reaction would’ve been perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. I love how people second guess others when they weren’t there, don’t know what really happened, & merely display their own prejudices in their “judgments.”
You are little more than a propagandist in that you enter into the record only that which supports yr argument but conveniently omit anything that damages yr argument. The one that demolishes yours is that the officer charged with killing Tom Hurndall (who was a FILMMAKER, not a reporter as you inaccurately wrote) was EXONERATED as virtually any IDF soldier is who faces similar charges. So give the IDF one credit for soldiers willing to testify against one of their own and subtract 100 for an inability to hold anyone accountable for a clearly criminal action against an unarmed, defenseless British filmmaker.
Another major error of yours is that the officer who shot Hurndall was NOT an Israeli Arab. Arabs do not serve in the IDF both because they choose not to and because the army views them as a security risk & would refuse to allow them if they did attempt to join. The solider was a Druze, which is a completely distinct ethnic group from Israeli Arabs.
Which reports? Proof, pls.