Rachel Corey in Gaza: it takes an American death.....

Great Debates
101

And as someone previously mentioned in this thread, MC, someone on the ground can’t simply judge a driver’s visibility from the ground. It may look like he can see someone ahead but it might not be so. The driver was some 15 feet in the air, behind a huge 10+ foot blade. He has a huge blindspot in the front.

And I don’t see what listening to a human shield in Gaza will do. They’ll obviously stretch the truth as much as they can to make the “enemy” look as bad as possible. I’m not implying that they are, but they’re likely to.

102

Oh, you didn’t specifically mention that the witness was a human shield or protestor so I’m sorry if I assumed incorrectly.

103

Would any witnesses to this event TRULY be objective? They would either be other protesters or Palestinians who probably don’t care for Isreal.

104

Easyphil

I don’t know if this woman was run over on purpose or not, but don’t attribute too much to the fact that she was killed by the blade and not the treads. If the operator didn’t know she was there (which could happen more easily than you might think, I’ve driven something as small as a forklift, and just the mast posts on those cut out a good bit of your forward vision arc) he’d be trying to keep the blade fairly level to the ground as he advanced, moving it up and down, which could explain her getting hit by it. I think it would actually be harder to get under the treads than it would the blade.

I’m not trying to say that this was an accident, just that it’s possible that it was. Driving a machine like that isn’t the same as driving a car, it requires a lot of concentration and it’d be easy to miss a person who was standing in front of one if they were in the right (or wrong, I suppose) spot.

Either way, it sucks.

105

The witness was attending a memorial on the spot that Rachel was killed. He phoned the IDF in advance to let them know that they would be there. When they got there, first of all a tank came up to them and released carbon monoxide on the mourners, then a couple more IDF vehiciles arrived; an APC and Bulldozer 94, the one that killed Rachel. The bulldozer performed a few maneovoures where it swerved to miss a couple of mourners at the last second (apparently so fast that one of the doors swung open and a soldier nearly fell out), which apart from the fact they my friend said it was clear anyway that the bulldozer did have good visibilty, showed that thy could clearly see what was infront of them. Then a few sound bombs and tear gas were thrown at the crowd (by now a few Palestinians had joined the mourners) before the mourners left for a nearby house (I assume the doctor’s house).

106

How? In the same way that I release carbon monoxide on people waiting at a bus stop when I drive by?

107

Well the tank reversed up to them and released a thick cloud of carbon monoxide. I don’t know much about modern tanks but I assume they don’t have an open exhaust and that the driver vents the exhaust by flicking a switch.

108

Well the tank reversed up to them and released a thick cloud of carbon monoxide. I don’t know much about modern tanks but I assume they don’t have an open exhaust and that the driver vents the exhaust by flicking a switch.

109

Of course they have an open exhaust- do you think the exhaust is vented into the cabin? :rolleyes: Now, some tanks can vent their exhaust through something like a snorkel when fording rivers, but it still goes out.

So a tank drives up, and the engine is running, thus exhaust comes out. Only someone who has absolutely no shred of objectivity, whose mind is completely closed to anything like a “fact”, and who is trying to use a tragic accident to futher their own political aims- would call this an attempt to poison mourners with carbon monoxide. :rolleyes:

In no way did she “deserve” to die. But she was stupid, in the “I’m American, I’m invulnerable” way that too many Americans get when we go overseas & meddle in somebody elses internal politics. She “played chicken” with a bulldozer, figuring she could dodge out of the way. But she tripped and fell. A tragic accident,-but entirely her fault. Then, rather than truly mourn this accident, some have decided to use her death to forward their political agenda.

MC- you know very well that that area is part of Isreal. They have every legal (perhaps not a “moral” right, I’ll concede) right to bulldoze anything they want. It is no more “occupied territory” than the entireity of Isreal is- or to stretch things a bit further, than 99% of the USA which is “occupied” by the “white man” from the “native americans”. There is nothing in the “Geneva convention” that stops a Soveriegn nation from bulldozing homes- if that were so, the whole of the San Jose Redevelopement Agency would be sitting in the docket of the Hague, in chains. However, I’d be interested to see the a link to an indictment for War Crimes… but I know I won’t.

Look, dudes who have no “dog in this fight” and know a lot about heavy equiptment have come in, and said clearly that the incident was very likely an accident, given the situation. The SF Chronicle, which is pretty damn liberal, and very anti-war, has said that she tripped, and it was an accident. So only those whose minds are closed to the facts can continue to use this young & foolish girls death to further their own agenda.

110

I did not say the driver was attempting to posison them, he was however delibrately trying to cause them quite a degree of discomfort, without any provocation.

All the witnesses on the scene say she was murdered, though I now believe that is was most probably gross negligence on the part of the driver. There was no way he could not of known she was thre, just before she had climbed into the cab to try an persuade him to stop, just because she was in his wayot give him the right to kill her

I’m sorry learn a few things about the conflict first before commentin on it:

The area is not part of Israel, they do not have the legal right to destroy civilian property as the Geneva Convention is in operation there (this has been confirmed by the UNSC and a meeting of the high signatouries of the Geneva Convention). Israel for it’s part has never annexed any parts of it except East Jerusalem (not that that would make any difference to the legal status of the OTs).

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War:

Article 33:

Article 53:

111

OK, I’ve taken a loooong deep breath and feel I can talk about this a little more rationally now.
** DrDeth**
Interesting that you focused on the carbon monoxide and ignored the mere fact that they needed tanks and tear gas to cope with a peaceful mourning ceremony.

There are no people without dogs in this fight. Change the circumstances of the incident even slightly and I think you will see people change their feelings about this very quickly. There are many protests that have taken place here in the US that have involved blocking the path of heavy machinery. Does the driver keep trying to do his job? No. The protestors have to be removed from the scene first.

I think it comes down to the fact of whether or not you think the bulldozer was doing important enough work to warrant not stopping and inversely whether or not the bulldozer was worth stopping. This is where I think Cowgirl wanted this discussion to head.

I brought up the geneva convention when someone called it an act of war. If this is a domestic bulldozing then clearly more precautions should have been taken.

I think this whole vein of maybe he couldn’t see her even when the activists felt he could doesn’t work either. Because that’s not what the Israeli military is claiming, they claim she ran in front of the bulldozer at the last minute.

After reviewing the ISM’s tactics, I believe that the use of a megaphone was sufficient in and of itself for the driver to know of her presence. If the drivers hadn’t responded to them before, I’m sure they would have just left the megaphones behind. The protestor’s descriptions imply that Rachel was well in front of any blind spot before the driver closed in on her and shouting at him (presumably through the megaphone we see her holding in front of bulldozer in the picture)from very close range up to the last second. The group then heard her scream when the driver backed over her without lifting the blade.

If you believe the protestors, it is very hard to fabricate a good explanation for the driver’s behavior. Maybe if an expert could recreate the whole scene and give an account of the how the protestor’s story could be true whilst exonerating the driver, then a reasonable doubt might be created. However, absent any defense from the military (other than completely contradicting the whole account), we either must believe the military or the protestors. This of course, will tend to show your bias.

112

You know, the more I think and read about this, the more I just want to cry. Especially after reading some of the posts here.

I haven’t been back here since my OP. Too depressed. War coming. More death. More murder.

I hate to imply that SDMB isn’t the best-informed message
board out there, but, well, it isn’t. Over at the second link of my OP, there is a spirited discussion going on between the pro- and anti-Rachel people. That thread is more profane and insulting than anything that would be allowed on SDMB, but it is also a better-informed thread when it comes to things like UN resolutions, the Geneva Convention, the illegality of home demolitions, etc. SDMB threads on Israel tend to lapse into propaganda, emotion and even occasional racism.

I’m not sure about the legal questions here. Is a driver entitled to run over someone who is blocking his path? What does the law say about that in America or Israel? I know that some states have a “pedestrian right-of-way” law.

The ethics of human shield tactics are a legitimate topic for debate, even within the peace activist community. The Indian word for a sit-in is “dhurna.” Traditionally, it means squatting on your enemy’s doorstep waiting to die so that your ghost will come back to haunt him. Practically, it means a sit-in. I believe there was a case, during Gandhi’s Quit India movement, where a protester sat in the driveway of a British collaborator so that he couldn’t take his vehicle out. The collaborator deliberately ran over the protester, who died. I am not sure if the collaborator was legally entitled to do this under British or Indian law, or if there were any legal consequences for him.

Mahatma Gandhi was on record as denouncing the “barbaric dhurna,” but I don’t know if he took this position out of concern for the physical well-being of his followers. He certainly didn’t view his followers’ tactics as “barbaric” when they willingly stepped forward to be viciously clubbed at the Salt Marches.

In the 1980’s, a Bay Area anti-war veteran named Brian Willson tried to stop a train at Fort Ord that was transporting weapons to Central America. The train ran him over and he lost both his legs. He got a couple of artificial legs and today you would hardly be able to tell. He is still active in the peace movement, most recently appearing with Daniel Ellsberg.

The train engineers, standing in front and outside the cab, definitely saw Willson. Witnesses at the scene said the train actually accelerated as it approached him. (Naturally, the witnesses were biased and unreliable, right?) I do not think the engineers had to pay any legal penalty for their actions, but they did sue Willson for causing them “mental distress.”

Personally, I hope they go to hell when they die.

A footnote: I heard that one day later, the protesters returned to the scene and tore up the damn train tracks. Maybe that’s what they should have done in the first place.

I believe protesters in the Sixties did try to stop troop trains, but I don’t know if any of them got hurt.

Another thing: people in these threads often bemoan the Palestinian people’s failure to peacefully protest. You know the argument – “We can’t give the Palestinians independence as long as they’re bombing and shooting us.”

Well, Rachel Corrie and the rest of the International Solidarity Movement were trying to teach the Palestinians non-violent protest tactics. So, if people start blocking bulldozers instead of blowing themselves up, everybody should be happy – right???

Or is it just that any opposition to Israel, peaceful or violent, is what hacks these people off? Resist violently, and you’re a terrorist. Resist peacefully, and you’re covering for terrorists. It seems the Palestinian people just can’t win, no matter what they do.

It makes no sense to advocate the suppression of non-violent protests in Israel, because the country’s future depends on the possibility of non-violent change. “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable” – John Kennedy.

In the coming days, weeks, months or years, depending on how events unfold, I myself may burn a flag or two, just like Rachel. No big loss there – the American flag is supposed to symbolize liberty and justice. If the country represented by that flag no longer exalts liberty and justice – well, hey, it’s just a piece of cloth to me. (There is also a tongue-in-cheek online petition to send the Statue of Liberty back to those bastard Frenchies. “No liberty in the USA!”)

I may even try to stop a train, jeep or tank myself. Possibly, I may pay the ultimate price, just like Rachel. So, yeah, gimme that Darwin award. If I am lucky enough to go to the same place as Rachel, I’ll share it with her. I’ll also share it with St. Maximilianus, the Confederate Quakers, and everyone else who was stupid enough to prefer risking their lives to acquiescing in evil. In other words, too stupid to live.

:frowning:

113

The exhaust HAS to come out. No “deliberately causing them quite a degree of discomfort”.

No, not ALL the witnesses. The IDF says otherwise. All the Pro-PLO witnesses sure. I’ll admit that neither side was unbiased.

“Realpolitik” says otherwise. Whether or not the UN cares to recognize the reality of Isreali control over that area is not relevant. The reality asks: “whose tanks are parked there”? As we know the answer is “Isreal’s”, thus- it is their territory, like it or no.

I’ll also point out that the fire bombing of Dresden, and the nuking of Hiroshima was legally “absolutely nessesary by military operations”. If the Allies can destroy an entire fucking city for gods sake, then the Isreali’s can bulldoze a house. I am sure that if the question was raised (which it won’t be, for reasons that no one likes being laughed at), then the IDF could certainly claim “military nessesity”. You might disagree, but until you have an army to back it up, your opinion is meaningless on a world wide political scale. However, let us see the link to the indictment in the Hague for the what would now be thousands of violations of the Geneva Convention by the IDF. Got Link? I thought not. You know, just saying “it’s against the Geneva Convestion” or “international law” doesn’t cut it. Nor is posting a few out of context code sections. Let’s see the indictments. Don’t have them? Then no crimes. Sorry.

Now, of course they had the right to protest. But even in the USA, the tactics they used can get you arrested & convicted. Even here, the Police will break up an illegal demonstration- with teargas if nessesary.

And, yes- the IDF had no right to “deliberately” run her over- but they didn’t.

114

It has been reaffirmed time after time by the UN and human rights groups that the house demolitions are illegal. You are saying because there is no indictment there is no crime, I’m sorry that’s circular logic. The UNSC has twice issued resolutions demanding that Israel comply with it’s obligations under the fourth Geneva convention.

The words are “absolute military necessity”, yes the IDF could claim it, but it certainly is not an absolute military necessity.

‘Pro-PLO witnesses’, that’s just garbage. I know some members of ISM have met Arafat but few would support him.

Israel has control of the area, but it doesn’t mean it can do exactly what it likes or ignore the Geneva Convention.

I don’t see the US army going to memorial services in the US and tear gassing the crowd.

Your arguments can be condensed to a simple “might is right”, sorry, but I just don’t buy that.

115

Negligence on the driver? I find it absurd that you ignore the fact that Ms. Corey stood in front of a moving bulldozer. Forget what the driver was up to. You obviously don’t know the facts and neither do I. Only the driver knows the truth of what happened. What we can conclude from this is that Ms. Corey was negligent on her own behalf. If you stand in front of a bulldozer you put yourself at risk. It doesn’t matter if it’s a construction site or a Palestinian neigborhood. Standing in front of a bulldozer is negligent, and I think that is pretty much all we can conclude from this situation.

116

Splanky, there was no way that the driver could not of known she was there, yet he still kept going. He doesn’t just get absolved of all blame because she choose to stand there.

117

FYI: here on Conn. Ave near the White House in D.C., I just walked by a small protest outside a Caterpillar lobbying office. Lots of cops, not much happening. Apparently they are protesting the fact that Caterpillar sells bulldozers to the Israeli govt., which is sort of a strange thing to be upset about, in the grand scheme of things. I imagine there must be protesters at there are more protesters. My opinion is that the whole thing is sad. Seeing the pictures of the girl burning a U.S. flag do not lessen my sympathy for her, but they do make me question whether it’s accurate to call her a peace activist. Palestinian nationalist activist seems more correct.

118

The next time GW comes to town, I should go see him whilst driving a bulldozer, since apparently it’s low visibility gives me the right to run over whom I wish and requires others to get out of the way as fast as they can.

119

Ok, if that area comes under the Geneva Convention- where are the “Geneva men”, ie the Swiss/Geneva Inspectors? Let’s see a link to the complaints the GENEVA Inspectors have filed. Note that during WWII, they even filed complaints against the Allies for technical violations of the Convention, and we several times conceded the violation & fixed things at our POW camps. So Links? Cites? But you don’t have any- and you know why- because the Geneva Inspectors are not there- because they don’t consider that a “war zone”. Thus- there are no “violations of the Geneva Convention”. If what some call “Palestine” really is a “war zone”, then Isreal has every right to round up every armed PLO member, including Arafat, and have them shot. See- dudes that aren’t members of an “armed force” aren’t allowed to bear arms in a war zone. You are allowed to shoot insurgents. The Germans shot quite a few without nary a Geneva protest. In fact, we shot some ourselves. (Not that there weren’t some disputed incidents & complaints on this subject, of course)

Now true, AFAIK, the UN has never officially recognized that territory as part of Isreal, and even the Isreali’s agree that they might concede that land- someday. I have even seen several UN “resolutions” that condemn Isreal- but they aren’t backed by anything. I’d be interested in seeing these UN Security Comm ruling you so freely bandy about. I know the US vetoes some anti-semitic propaganda “resolution” every so often.

Indeed, some “memorials” in the USA have turned into riots, and many times the police have dispersed such illegal demonstrations- and they have used teargas quite freely. Sure, we don’t usually call in the military, but still.

And- at the time the bulldozer was going forward- she wasn’t in the direct path. She tripped & fell into the direct path. Thus, yes, he certainly knew “she was there”, if by “there” you mean somewhere in the area. But he likely didn’t see her directly in front of him. Remember also this was not just one girl standing once in front of one bulldozer. This was quite a few demonstrators- illegally “playing chicken” by standing in front, or just to the sides of the bulldozers, and then moving out of the way- for hours & hours. While screaming at them through bullhorns. Play this stupid game long enough, and someone is bound to get hurt. Someone did. Some few dudes are using this tragic accident to futher their own policital agenda. Some of them are posting right here.

120

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it pretty damn hard to stop a train in time if someone is on the tracks?