…etc…
I don’t support his “shoot on sight” recommendation…and his post includes many other recommendations that Dopers on both sides of the argument may regard as impractical, if not crazy…
But nevertheless, I would like to thank YogSosoth for attempting to drag this discussion into the future. 
And he was ignored by those who prefer to debate what happened in 1948. Neither denounced nor supported. Cruel, fickle boards!!!
I have it on good authority that never happens. 
Please don’t ask me to defend Hamas. I’m pro-Palestinian rights, but look elsewhere for the uncritical Kool-aid drinker who would back that movement.
Is Mother Jones considered that left-wing anymore? They fired Michael Moore after all…
Anyway, I will concede the possibility (but not certainty) that the dozer driver did not see Corrie. Which brings up several other issues: the Wikipedia article on the incident claims that normally, a bulldozer would have an IDF escort precisely because it’s hard to see out of those things. But the dozer didn’t have an escort that day because of the danger of Palestinian snipers. OK, fair enough. So, then, why did the dozer have to be out working that day, with the danger of snipers and such??? Even if you remove the possibility of malice, this was a monstrous cock-up.
The wikipedia article also seems to give further support to the accounts of Corrie’s friends, including the possibility that she was looking right into the cab (and therefore, into the driver’s eyes).
The Mother Jones article you cited also lambastes the Israeli government for its utter lack of remorse for the incident.
I object very strenuously to the characterization of Corrie as a dumbass who essentially killed herself. “Playing chicken with IDF bulldozers”…hmmm…well, what about playing chicken with billy clubs and armed police? That’s what a couple of “morons” named Gandhi and King did, but they were fortunate enough to survive.
Putting yourself into harm’s way as a form of protest has an old and honourable history, and it is often an effective tactic. Its practitioners should be lauded for their courage and moral stance, not derided as stupid. Now, of course, a bulldozer (or a tank) is a lot different from a line of cops with riot shields and clubs, but maybe Corrie and her friends weren’t used to facing off against bulldozers. Maybe they were more used to confronting troops and cops. But they felt the urgent need to do something right away, because for all they knew a pharmacist’s house was about to be demolished.
How about the guy who stood in front of a Chinese tank? Want to nominate him for a Darwin Award? Or almost-award, since he survived. 
gee, on that day, I dunno.
Why should an army go to work any day against terrorists?
Maybe the whole army should take the day off from work every time they see an enemy sniper.
Or maybe the guy who goes to work could be well enough shielded in his specially designed vehicle to get his job* done despite the snipers.
'Cause, believe it or not, some countries like to bring their soldiers home alive.
And if Ms Corrie wants to go to work on a day when there are terrorist snipers supporting her, maybe she should realize that she’s chosen a pretty dangerous profession.
Doesn’t answer my question. Why send a bulldozer driver out there and not the army??
That could give the false impression that Israel’s dozer drivers have more guts for working in dangerous conditions than their soldiers…or that the dozer drivers are more expendable than the soldiers…or that Israel’s material resources were stupidly misallocated to provide shielding for dozers instead of for APV’s. Which one of those scenarios is least offensive to the “Corrie was stupid” crowd?
Also, please provide a cite to show that there were terrorist snipers operating in the area on that day. As well as a cite to show that the pharmacist, whose house Corrie was protecting, was a terrorist.
Next time you face a sniper please call us so we can watch and Monday morning quarterback later.
He wasn’t. The houses were being demolished because they were too close to the Egyptian border/the road that goes to the checkpoint. They were being demolished as a protective measure.
What, are snipers unionized or something? They’ve collectively bargained for days off?
This is not an answer. I repeat: where were the troops, who normally provide safeguards for demolition work, that day?
This is a good answer, although I strongly disagree with the rationale that destroys people’s homes in the name of security.
This is an attempt to avoid giving an answer by being flippant and irrelevant. Let me rephrase: was there an actual threat from snipers that day, and if so why was there a bulldozer out there without an IDF escort?
Come on, Dopers – only one out of three serious answers?? You can do better than that.
I daresay if snipers had been known or suspected to be in the area any time over the previous few months, that constitutes a threat, and given that snipers move around, IDF escorts have to be mobile too and it’s impossible to cover everybody, so the guy in the armored bulldozer will have to get by with his established not-ineffective shielding.
I don’t why “that day” is so significant, the whole point of sniping is defeated if it’s that predictable.
Better answer. Thank you. Still think the tragedy was caused by negligence.
Well, that, and somebody lying down in front of a bulldozer.
Crouching at one point, but never lying down, according to one witness in the MJ article cited by Shodan. The Wikipedia article quotes several witnesses who state that she had climbed to the top of the pile of earth, and that her head and shoulders were visible above the blade, so the driver should have seen her. The activists apparently thought the driver would stop, based on previous incidents: “They always stopped before.”
Greatest probability: negligence (based on the IDF’s absence from the scene), with a lesser probability of malice (depending on whether the driver could see her, whether his head was turned backward as attested by some, etc.).
It’s still a pretty dumb assumption to make. You’re standing in front of a 70 ton machine that can’t exactly stop on a dime.
Don’t play chicken with a bulldozer.
Still hoping to get some reactions to YogSosoth’s recommendations. Remember, my OP specifically asked for recommendations for the future. So far YS is the one who has answered that call the most. Not that I agree with everything he said, but I think he was trying to be even-handed, and I would like to jump-start a more optimistic conversation.
Agreed, I guess. Nearly everyone’s land belonged to someone else, and the method of transfer wasn’t always legitimate. But we civilized residents of the 21st century no longer need to steal anyone’s land…right???
How about monetary compensation? Perhaps underwritten by the US, as Israel’s staunchest backer. Or how about resettling them in the West Bank? (Not Gaza though, too crowded.)
Um…remove the settlements, but be humane about it. The Gaza settlers got therapists when they had to leave, and I wouldn’t object to that for former West Bank settlers.
I very much agree that economic development is key to resolving this conflict. But I see it as more of an international effort.
This is the most daring recommendation, and it would be very difficult for the Israeli public and government to swallow. But you know what? I think it may be worth a try, and would pay off in the long run. It would be taking the supreme risk for peace.
Agreed, except for the last sentence. There are ways to stop the terrorist bombings without a wall. The Green Line will be an international border after all.
Disagree. Corruption within the Palestinian authority has exacerbated the problem. And Fatah has already proven quite adept at arresting and sometimes killing Hamas members. I hate Hamas, but I think the best way to combat religious extremism is with honest, good government, economic development, and a law enforcement apparatus that is honest, even-handed, ever vigilant and technologically up to snuff. Here is where the Western nations could help. This would sow seeds of hope among the young, hope that they too often find these days in apocalyptic religiosity.
A little extreme. Placate the Palestinians and show sincerity by restoring normality to the routines of life, going extended periods without military action and allowing free movement within Palestine.
Unworkable and psychologically impossible. But I agree that Israel as the more powerful party should shoulder greater responsibility for restoring peace and justice.
See above, psychologically impossible. All people need a history. But it would help to get rid of all school curriculum and media that demonizes Jews.
Yes, a Palestinian state would have to have self-defense capability, but I’m not sure the Israelis are the ones who should ensure that.
Basically, a lot of these recommendations are for Israel to do stuff, whereas I think it’s Israel’s patron, the US, that should provide major support for a Palestinian state.
As a product of mixed-race ancestry, I wholeheartedly agree that all the world’s peoples should make love, not war.
So…what do you think?
I think his recommendations weren’t practical, and were probably tongue in cheek. Here’s my reccomendation.
Israel withdraws from the West Bank and forcibly removes all settlements, with the exception of Ariel, Efrat, Gush Etzion, Betar Ilit, and Ma’ale Edumim, which are to be annexed to Israel, along with such territory required to make the land contiguous. The rest of the security fence is constructed along the new border.
No right of return, although, possibly, compensation to be offered to those who can prove that they or their immediate ancestors owned land in what is now Israel.
The Palestinian government recognizes Israel’s right to exist, renounces violence, and takes immediate police or military action against any terrorist or millitant group. Palestinian textbooks and media to be censored to prevent anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic propaganda.
An international committee, including representatives from the US, the EU, the Arab World, Israel, and the Palestinian state established to monitor compliance with the terms of the treaty.
Why make these exceptions?
Different situations call for different measures.
Facing off against a riot cop is one thing. Playing chicken with a bulldozer is another.
In my professional work, I’ve dealt with coroner jury proceedings concerning construction site accidents. What I learned from that is one simple lesson - don’t assume that the guy driving heavy equipment can see you. Intentionally putting yourself in the way of heavy equipment is more stupid than heroic since your death, should it happen, is likely meaningless - given that by its very nature it can’t necessarily be assigned to the “enemy” you are seeking to frustrate (in that it is unlikely, except in the clearest of cases, to be proven to be an act of malice on their part).
To provide an example: say you disagree with some policies of a particular government. To protest, you decide to lie on some railway tracks on which supplies are shipped by that government. The train can’t stop in time even if it sees you, and you die. What exactly have you proved? Is your sacrifice the equivalent of MLK peacefully protesting for voter rights? I’d say not - the main difference is that the guy wielding a billy club is clearly acting with knowledge of what he’s doing. Their reaction is an example of what MLK was fighting against. The guy driving the train is in no different situation if he’s delivering death camp inmates than if he’s delivering Christmas packages to orphans - in neither case can he stop.