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

[Linty_Fresh]

*Originally posted by errata *
**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. **

Sigh, just set up the strawmen, errata, and we’ll keep knocking them down. No one is arguing this. No one is arguing anything within a mile of this. Do you know that you’re building strawmen, or is this just cognitive dissonance?

If George Bush comes to your development site and stands underneath your bulldozer armed with only a megaphone and flourescent jacket knowing that you’re about to demolish the building that’s right behind him, and you accidentally run over him, then you’ll be exonerated–after an investigation accompanied with the voices of millions of neoconservatives baying for your blood and screaming that you meant to do it, and that George was standing underneath your bulldozer for a better tomorrow.

Maybe George found out that the building was going to be a rent-controlled apartment, so he decided to take a stand and show up with the latest safety technology: a megaphone and a flourescent jacket. Of course, the evil liberals (of which you are certainly one, because, hey, you ran over the guy) oppressed him by chasing him away from his spot in front of the moving cement mixer, so he decided to take a stand in front of your bulldozer. Never mind that they don’t offer Bulldozer Safety 101 at Yale. Never mind that he was totally unprepared for the situation. He died because he believed in what was right and was viciously killed by you, the vicious liberal bulldozer driver.

Oh, and all the comsimp, Saddam-luvin’ liberals who keep whining about how hard it is to see out of one of those things and how noisy things tend to get behind the wheels of a bulldozer? They’re making excuses for the death of this hero who–far from dying through his own stupidity–was making a statement.

Does this clear things up for you, Errata? Or did I miss something the first thee or four times you said it?

[Guinastasia]

comsimp, Saddam-luvin’ liberals

Was that really necessary? Talk about strawmans.

:rolleyes:

[Shodan]

The UNSC has twice issued resolutions demanding that Israel comply with it’s obligations under the fourth Geneva convention.

Not quite. The resolutions in question demand that both sides comply with their obligations.

Personal POV usually determines who blames who for violations.

Same thing seems to happen when a naive idealist plays chicken with heavy equipment and loses.

Regards,
Shodan

[Linty_Fresh]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**Was that really necessary? Talk about strawmans.

:rolleyes: **

I wasn’t serious, for crying out loud. Did you read the two paragraphs above that statement?

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

So DrDerth because I dare to suggest that the Bullldozer bares any responsibilty for her death, I am furthering my own political agenda? Even though I back this up with evidence, something that you have completly failed to do.
These are just the first few quotes concerning house demolitions while googling:

The UN envoy also noted that such demolitions constitute a breach of Israel’s obligations as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention. He called on the Government of Israel to stop further demolitions, including those carried out in connection with the construction of a security wall in the northern West Bank

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030122/2003012228.html

http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/c7ca0eaf6c79faae852567af003c69ca/856c7a9f4b6417c785256c0c00502859?OpenDocument

UNCHR noted that “the widespread destruction of homes along settlement roads cannot, in the opinion of [UNCHR], be seen as proportionate in the circumstances,” adding that Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from destroying private property “except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”

Amnesty International today condemned the demolition of dozens of homes in Rafah, in the south of the Gaza Strip, as an act of collective punishment and a grave breach of international humanitarian law.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2002/israel01142002.html

http://www.refugees.org/world/articles/israel_rr01_7.htm

From UNSC 1435 (Sept. 4th 2002)

Reiterating the need for respect in all circumstances of international
humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection
of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949,

1. Reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all acts of violence,
   including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction;
2. Demands that Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah
   including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure;

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/601/58/PDF/N0260158.pdf?OpenElement

(This is just the latest of several)

Do your own research in future and also learn at least a little about international law, there are no such thing as ‘Geneva inspectors’ it is the duty of the UN and the high signatouries to enforce the Geneva convention.

Note: Any form of protest from the mourners was passive.

[tclouie]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**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? **

Presumably the train can be stopped in time if it’s going slowly enough. I only slightly remember the video of the incident, but the train wasn’t going that fast. It’s even possible that it started up within view of the protesters. I don’t think they would have been there in the first place if the train were going full throttle and impossible to stop. They were at the train depot on the base. They were probably trying to keep it from MOVING.

And there is no excuse whatsoever for accelerating.

[Guinastasia]

Well, then, Linty, I appologize. :o

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**Not quite. The resolutions in question demand that both sides comply with their obligations.

Personal POV usually determines who blames who for violations.

Same thing seems to happen when a naive idealist plays chicken with heavy equipment and loses.

Regards,
Shodan **

But they mention specific violations of Israel, including house demolitions.

[errata]

*Originally posted by Linty Fresh *
**Sigh, just set up the strawmen, errata, and we’ll keep knocking them down. No one is arguing this. No one is arguing anything within a mile of this.

Perhaps you’d like to clarify Splanky’s position which reads:“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.”
This seems to me to say that the driver’s intentions and awareness are besides the point and Rachel was completely responsible for her own death by giving him the opportunity to kill her.
Let’s also look at what Shodan says "Same thing seems to happen when a naive idealist plays chicken with heavy equipment and loses. "
As if said equipment was not being operated by a human driver also capable of making risk assessment and reasonable choices.

If I drove a bulldozer into a peaceful protest I would not be surprised if I ran someone over, nor would I be surprised if I faced murder charges afterward. And if all my lawyer could say was “They should have gotten out of the way, bulldozers have low visibility” I would fire my lawyer.

Does this clear things up for you, Errata? Or did I miss something the first thee or four times you said it?

Not at all. First 3 or 4 times I said what?

[Linty_Fresh]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**Well, then, Linty, I appologize. :o **

Aayyyy, fahgeddaboudit

[Linty_Fresh]

*Originally posted by errata *
If I drove a bulldozer into a peaceful protest I would not be surprised if I ran someone over, nor would I be surprised if I faced murder charges afterward.

What I’m trying to explain to you is that the bulldozer did not drive into a peaceful protest. A peaceful protester leaped in front of the bulldozer, stayed there, tripped, and was killed. I’m not saying that this wasn’t a tragedy. It was a tragedy, in the same way a kid leaping in front of a car going 55 on the highway and getting killed is a tragedy. That doesn’t make the driver of the car a murderer, and it doesn’t mean he should go to jail for life. I don’t want to put words in the mouths of Splanky and Shodan, but as far as I can tell, they’re saying the same thing.

I’ll say it again. Bulldozers are dangerous things to screw with. Forget the megaphone and flourescent jacket; I wouldn’t get in front of one of those things with a week’s supply of Roman Candles and a marching band. That’s because I know how hard it is to see out of a bulldozer. It’s because I know the environment. Rachel didn’t die of her beliefs. She died because of her stupidity. And this makes the accident more tragic, not less.

**First 3 or 4 times I said what? **

Oh, pretty much the same thing you said in this post.

[errata]

*Originally posted by Linty Fresh *
**What I’m trying to explain to you is that the bulldozer did not drive into a peaceful protest. A peaceful protester leaped in front of the bulldozer, stayed there, tripped, and was killed.

It sounds like you believe the Israeli military account which is your prerogative.
I however believe the protestors account which states that she was already in front of the house well ahead of the bulldozer. There was no running or leaping involved.
The protestors had already been on the scene for hours. They did not appear from nowhere. The operators decided to keep operating under unsafe conditions, a decision I find highly questionable.

[DrDeth]

Well, here I’ll admit that from those links it would seem that under certain circumstances the Geneva Convention does apply, and that various Red Cross & UN officials are “concerned about possible violations”. So, it looks like I was wrong, to some extent. And, in at least one case, one group has got the Isreali Supreme Court to rule against this practice- not because the practice itself was illegal, but as some planned demolitions had not followed Isreali law in a technical sense, ie they failed to go through due process. Just like the “San Jose Redevelopement Agency” I have mentioned- Isreal is expected to follow it’s own rules for “due process”.

From reading your links (and every link to to a rather biased group, not the Red Cross or UN itself, mind you, so let’s get out the salt shaker before we swallow all of this whole, especially the rhetoric which comes along with it), it seems like Isreal is not supposed to destroy homes “just because”. They have to show that they have some just cause, use THEIR OWN “due process” and it can’t be “collective punishment”. However, the postulated item that even if the owner of the house is a terrorist, the house can’t be destroyed as some of the residents may not be guilty is not what is meant by a prohibition on “collective punishment”. It means that if one sniper shoots a soldier, they can’t line up everyone in the village & shoot them- only the sniper himself. Even over here in the USA, we can take a drug dealers home from him, even if his kids aren’t drug dealers themselves. But certainly Isreal is allowed to destroy some homes, just that they do have to come up with a reasonable justification for such action- ie “due process”. So, if they arrest the homeower, or accuse him, that would seem to be enough to allow them to bulldoze the house, but only if they file the right paperwork first- which in one case they failed to do, so the Court stopped it. Just like here in the USA (as I said) all they need is “due process”- not that such bulldozing has to be “right” or “moral”.

Now, of course these pro-PLO groups will never agree that at any time the IDF has gone thru “due process”.

But note also- there is a big difference between a Red Cross or UN Official “being concerned” about “possible violations” and either organization actually ruling that a given act was definately illegal. So far, that hasn’t happened.

So, these demolitions are not “clearly illegal”, they seem in fact be legal (mostly), and this one demolition might have been one of the legal ones. The line is a fine one, and so far the IDF has managed to get away with “warnings”, and “concerns about possible violations” and the “violations” are mostly “technical”, anyway. We aren’t going to see these guys at the Hague in chains anytime soon.

[DrDeth]

*Originally posted by errata *
The operators decided to keep operating under unsafe conditions, a decision I find highly questionable. **

Granted, their decision wasn’t a perfect one, but we aren’t living in a perfect world. But let’s turn that around: “the demonstrators decided to keep operating under unsafe conditions” a decision I “find highly questionable”.

[catsix]

Bulldozers are dangerous things to screw with. Forget the megaphone and flourescent jacket; I wouldn’t get in front of one of those things with a week’s supply of Roman Candles and a marching band.

For all the time I worked around them, I didn’t like it. I wouldn’t go head to head with one of those fifty-ton bulldozers if I was in a tandem axle dump truck with a heavy metal concert in the back.

Getting in the path of a bulldozer is, you’re quite right, a very very stupid move.

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

Look DrDerth, how many times do have to say it these demolitions are almost entirely illegal under international law. I see you floundering to support an assertation that you made on a subject you demostrably no nothing about. The various arms of the UN have several times reaffirmed that the Israeli policy of house demolitions is illegal

It’s not a case of due process under Israeli law (something that has also been lacking), it’s that you can’t collectively punish people (quite often the suspect whose house the Israelis demolish is already dead or in custody) or destroy their property without good reason.

[errata]

*Originally posted by DrDeth *
**Granted, their decision wasn’t a perfect one, but we aren’t living in a perfect world. But let’s turn that around: “the demonstrators decided to keep operating under unsafe conditions” a decision I “find highly questionable”. **

Well yes but even if you turn it around the worst crime the protestors could be charged with is suicide. They were risking their own lives not somebody elses.

Calling the driver’s decision less than perfect is a heck of an understatement. But at least you recognize that the driver was making one.

[Splanky]

I don’t know if I can say Rachel Corey completely responsible for her death and I don’t believe I ever said that. What I do know is that if she had any regard for her safety she wouldn’t have been run over by the bulldozer. This was no accident, all right- she blatantly stood in front of a moving pice of machinery. I don’t think it’s fair to make a judgement on the driver since all witnesses are either Palestinians or human shields. There are people like MC Master of Cermonies going “Of course he murdered her- just go to this raging liberal web site. This raging anti-Israel protestor even said he did it on purpose.”

I’ve never tried to argue for the driver’s innocence. Only that Rachel needs to be given some responsibility.

The operators decided to keep operating under unsafe conditions, a decision I find highly questionable.

When you enter a construction zone, it is your responsibility to wear a hard hat, watch out for falling debris or mechanical devices. It was Rachel Corey who put herself in an unsafe position.

MC Master of Cermonies, I believe that the demolitions are actually legal under international law. They in fact were built without permits. They were not given permits because building the houses would violate zoning laws. The Palestinians should be grateful they’re allowed to live there at all. Israel takes advantage of this illegality to destroy homes that are occupied by terrorists and used to plot terrorist acts or develop bombs.

If a man loses his life’s savings on gambling, his family loses their home. That’s how it is in most US states. Israel destroys havens for terrorists. They give ample warning before doing it, too.

[Splanky]

“They” were built without permits refers to the Palestinian homes.

[DrDeth]

Deth, not Derth- for the second time. Next time, I’ll mention it to the Mods, OK?

Again- even your cites & links don’t have anything which shows that the UN AS AN ORGANIZATION, has declared these specific actions to be illegal. Like your own cites show- some officials “are concerned” about “possible violations”, which is way different from the UN making a ruling that Isreal is breaking the law. Don’t go giving us one Official expressing “concerns over possible violations” and blowing that up into the UN as a whole declaring Isreal is a criminal nation. Sure, it does show some potential problems, but we all know the UN is pretty darn anti-Isreal.

And, indeed you certainly can. Like I said, right here in the good old US of A, the guvmint can take your house away if you are a drug dealer, even if the rest of your family is innocent.

Of course, one way to make sure your family is not made homeless by IDF bulldozers is to not be a freaken PLO terrorist in the first place, but then it’d be too much to ask dudes to take some personal responsibility. Heck, it’s not THEIR fault they are terrorists, right? :rolleyes:

And that’s the whole issue here. I don’t deny the IDF could have been more careful, but let’s see the demonstrators take some smidgen of responsibility for the very stupid idea of “playing chicken” with bulldozers, OK? :rolleyes: