Jimmy Carter Calls Corrie Case Ruling ‘Unacceptable’

And, how tragic that not one official voice (in either this or previous administration) has been raised (AFAIK) in protest of this horrific killing.

and please ad the unlawful death of palestinians at the hands of Israeli security forces to your outrage. Americans aren't the only lives that count.

All lives in region need to count, not just those of Israelis, who also count.

If an Israeli is murdered, we should mourn, as well as an Arab or Christian, or anyone that is murdered in the region through sectarian and political violence.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

It just showcases how the courts have an agenda.

The incident was an accident so the ruling appropriate.

... to University of Georgia students in 1974, Jimmy Carter began his speech with these words ...

"I'm not qualified to talk to you about law" ...

I see Mr Carter was then, and still is today, speaking the truth.

nt

For allowing their daughter to vacation in a war zone.

Imagine parents allowing their kid to vacation in Damascus this summer.

Same thing.

can I ask do have kids? I do 3 of whom are adults

I get it that you disagree with what she was doing, but do you have to disrespect a young woman who died standing up for what she believed in?

Stop the spite and contempt already. Rachel doesn't deserve it.

The disrespectful are those pushing her as some kind of martyr

Not worth it at all .

Her actions are not above criticism .

She seemed to hate everything about the USA too having burned the flag in public.

She never deserved to die but she foolishly went into a war zone adopting another people's cause and died for nothing.

Her parents now guilt ridden are looking for someone else to blame ,For this accident in a war zone .

belonged too is using her death for its own purposes.

Home demolitions were totally unjustifiable, they do NOTHING to stop terrorism, and the home she died trying to save belonged to a pharmacist who had nothing to do with violence.

(on edit...am deleting this part of the post because I can't verify it as of now).

Her parents have nothing to feel guilty about...she was an adult and they didn't have the power to keep her from going to Palestine. Don't disrespect them in their grief.

She died to stop an injustice.

Can you please stop spewing contempt? Or, at least, can you do something other than just repeating "the line"? Use your own words.

There were people on the outside of the cab banging on the doors and windows begging the guy to stop.

there is no way they could have climbed up on military D9 while its was moving, furthur more even getting close to it would have caused the support group to fire warning shots (ever see a moving military D9?)

BUT.....as you would write: "what good would it do.......... to "write the truth-(my addition).

Do not accuse me of lying.

And what she was protecting when she died was the house of a pharmacist...not the Hamas infrastructure. Rachel wasn't a Hamas supporter, for God's sake.

no one gets next to the cab of a moving D9 military bulldozer on an operation....PEROID.

tunnel entrances as i understand was within the house, that makes it part of the hamas/pa infrastructure in a war zone.

you can define her support anyway you like, she chose to support the govt that was using tunnels to import weapons to try to kill israelis...

that means among other things, supporting the local govt

It would have been enough to block the tunnels with concrete(assuming they actually existed).

Rachel was not a Hamas supporter and you don't need to accuse her of that.

those that attempt to protect the infrastructure that is used to try to kill me, are not innocent (naive, dumb maybe but no longer innocent). Since the tunnels at the time were owned by hamas, that puts her in the "protecting hamas" category. I dont know and u dont know if the owner of the house was a tunnel investor (huge profits) if he was coerced or volunteered.

nor we do know if corrie even new who and what hamas is, for all we know she though she was protecting some innocent pharmacist.....or maybe she was an ardent hamas supporter (spare me the mind reading, or are you going to claim you can read the minds of dead people now?).

its not that relevent, its a shame and a waste, but she was playing a deadly game in a war zone.....where she shouldn't have been.

You can't hold everybody in Gaza responsible for Hamas, for God's sake.

And what I can't understand...please help me here...is why you can't see that destroying people's homes might actually drive people who weren't terrorists into BECOMING terrorists. Doesn't that even strike you as a possibility? Do you ever run a cost-benefit analysis in your own mind as to whether the negative effects caused by things like home demolition(I understand your superiors order less of that these days...if that's correct I congratulate them on the decision)might possibly outweigh the brief, short-term good that's done(assuming any good is done at all)?

How would you take it if a Palestinian rolled a D-9 Cat over YOUR home in your comfortable suburb? I'm guessing you wouldn't be driven to moderation by that event. It's entirely possible that you'd react in a way that some people might consider "terroristic"-and I'm not sure that many people would blame you.

Would a person have to be a bigot to be filled with rage and a desire for vengeance against someone else who did that to their home? Isn't it fairly likely that a person would act on that rage? Wouldn't any self-control pretty much be totally lost at that point?

It's probably that home demolitions gave Hamas, or those crazier than Hamas, a lot of new recruits. That SHOULD concern you, if you want to keep yourself and your comrades-in-arms, most of whom I'd probably like(even you, perhaps, if we met in person and had a beer sometime, you never know)unharmed.

The one good thing in all of this is that,, in response to Rachel's death(and perhaps to other unnecessary deaths) the IDF has changed its policies on how it handles home demolitions to at least make some effort at protecting innocent people.

"How would you take it if a Palestinian rolled a D-9 Cat over YOUR home in your comfortable suburb?"

I'm almost certain no one in my "comfortable suburb" is using their home to launch rocket attacks on the neighbouring suburb. I could be wrong however.

people in his neighborhood are responsible for the deaths of Palestinians...not all of whom are terrorists, and all of whom, whatever sort of people they were, are mourned just as deeply and sincerely as are the Israelis who are killed in the war, even if the particular Israelis in question(as is at least sometimes the case)were killed in self-defense.

And let's expand the question further...the children of the poster I was referring to are not members of the violent organization in which he serves...nor do they have any control over the fact that their father is a member of that organization(he doesn't either, but then again, we don't know that everyone in the violent organizations that poster's violent organization fights against joined those organizations by choice, in fact it's quite possible that at least some were forced to join against their will). We would all agree that it would be an injustice if those children were to have their home demolished and were thus left homeless and exposed to the elements.

People subjected to something like that would be likely to adopt extreme, vindictive attitudes and to make extreme, vindictive choices. Some don't(and I commend their restraint, whichever side these people might be on in this struggle, and there have been such people on both sides, for the record)but nobody is going to be shocked if they do. I would entirely understand if the poster I was referring to were to go in that direction in response to such an event.

It's exactly that way with the children and spouses(and perhaps the elderly parents) of those whose homes were and are demolished in the West Bank(and at one time, Gaza). They had no control over whether the man of the family(as was usually the case)joined a violent organization OR whether or not there was "infrastructure" in or under the home(In fact, it's doubtful that the organizations in question politely asked the families in question whether or not they would be willing to have "infrastructure" in their homes. So this also adds to the injustice involved and explains the rage and (unfortunately)the terrorist recruits that home demolitions caused.

It doesn't make that "ok", it simply makes it understandable and to be expected.

Question to anyone who knows:

Did the Israelis ever build new homes for Palestinians who'd had their homes destroyed for "security" reasons? Did they at least do this if it turned out that the homes had been destroyed in error? Or that the families involved honestly didn't know of the "infrastructure" or had no power to prevent it being created?

The family that lived in that home were not part of Hamas.
its one of those options you like to choose even if they dont really exist
(we all know you have no knowledge of this family......their political beliefs, their kids, their second cousin who lived with them....)

___________

now on to your question of home demolition...does it work to stop terrorism...i dont know. i've never seen any real info on it.....hence i can't make a judgement on it.

some homes were demolished for clearing fields of fire, others for making a security fence (egyptian/gaza border) others as punishment......

As far as pissing off the son/dad/mom/ when their home gets destroyed, of course, i can see that happening i also witnessed some home owners stand up to hamas and refuse to let them shoot from their fields after having lost half of their grove to an IDF D9 bulldozer. (They later planted strawberries, since they grow close to the ground and cant be used by hamas for cover)

what is your preference: rockets that terrorize people or preserving an orange grove so that the hamasnik can shoot under cover....(sorry i cant think of a third option that you would stop the kassams, a priority of mine)

shooting people pisses them off, putting their kids/brothers in jail pisses them off, raiding their homes at night gets them really mad....but getting terrorized by random rockets any time day or night in my book is worse....its a judgement call.

but we do have proof that NOT demolishing house does not affect the the attempts to kill us: you'll notice that we left gaza, stopped bulldozing their homes and the rockets just kept on coming but at a faster rate.

hmmm....so maybe demolishing the homes did infact save some israeli lives but restricting the rockets, that rocket that was destined to fall on the school gym while the kids were all there, never appeared because the tunnel that was bringing it in was demolished by a D9 bulldozer-now thats a 3rd option....


btw i do not know of any IDF policy change in home demolitions in gaza...and one of my friends used to drive one of those beasts, spotters were still not allowed and the rules of engagement was not changed...she died a useless death making no change as did the other westerners who came to protect the gazans not knowing who they really were "protecting."

but there was policy change...the ISM people decided to give the D9 bulldozers a bit more room and not get so close to them-smart move.

Do you actually have evidence that he WAS, in fact, part of Hamas? If so, present it and I'll consider it. I'm open to reconsideration-or are you saying that, even if this family had nothing to do with terrorism themselves, that fact somehow doesn't matter?

(BTW...can you give the "options" discussion a rest? There's no good reason to bring that up again. You conducted it as if you were an interrogator and as if you were entitled to harass me about it until I, essentially, signed a confession(which, like pretty much all coerced confessions, would have been false). It would make no difference to anything affecting you at all for me to accept your options. It wouldn't make the Middle East any more stable. It wouldn't make you or your kids any safer. it wouldn't lead to an end of the I/P dispute. It wouldn't achieve anything, other than making me give up my humanity, and I' sorry, but I don't do that for anyone. Stop demanding that I accept that degrees of injustice are worth choosing from. Stop demanding that I agree with you-which is what you're really after here. Just stop. Your options are not the only options simply because you happen to assert that they are. And embracing secular dictatorship in the short-term is the same thing as opposing democracy forever. End. Of. Discussion.)

The people who shot it out with Hamas are insanely courageous...but it's not as if you have a right to simply expect that of everybody in Gaza. They don't owe it to you to put themselves at that kind of risks.

It's not just about pissing people off...it's about driving previously non-terrorist people TO terrorism. The tactics your side uses in this often have that effect...as the tactics Britain used in Northern Ireland during "The Troubles" often drove people who had previously been nonviolent into joining the IRA or crazier groups. That is a consequence that should matter to you, since it puts the lives of you, your fellow soldiers, and Israeli civilians into as much danger as the home demolitions were meant to reduce. Do you really not care that this tactic, in the end, gave aid and comfort to the worst of your enemies?

And, I'm sorry, but your army doesn't have carte blanche to destroy a family's orchards or groves and leave them with no means of support. No army has that right anywhere on the planet. People who are themselves innocent of wrongdoing should have the right to expect that they won't suffer in the conflict.

The family that lived in that home were not part of Hamas.

please cite where you received this information from as i would like to confirm it

You sounded as if you knew something I didn't. Are you saying that you don't think it matters whether they were complicit or not?

did you not claim that?.....hence obviously you have more information about the family than i do, and i would like to confirm it, so please cite where you got your information from

Still, I've learned something...it apparently doesn't matter to you whether individual Palestinians have actually done anything to DESERVE having their homes destroyed.

just because someone is a member of hamas, in my opinion, doesnt mean his house should be destroyed....i think thats you making up stuff again....

http://www.icahd.org/node/419

"Sending IDF American-made Caterpillar bulldozers to demolish Palestinian homes in Gaza or anywhere in the Occupied Territories is a war crime, especially since, in the case of the Nasrallah family home that Rachel was protecting, the army itself admits they were merely innocent civilians who should have been protected rather than attacked."

Are you of the opinion that Israelis (or Jews for that matter) think and act collectively -- like a monolithic hive?

Believe it or not, Israelis, and Jews for that matter, actually have a wide-range of opinion and thought. I question your familiarity with either Israelis or Jews if you're unfamiliar with just how diverse opinions can be with these groups.

That being said, I doubt ICAHD represents a significant portion of Israelis (or Jews for that matter) when it's co-founder and director, Jeff Halper, repeatedly espouses sentiments like "I think it is impossible to have a Jewish state." He is entitled to his opinion, as are all of us. Fortunately for Israel, the opinions of he and his cohorts are not representative of the majority.

My point was that they weren't outsiders...that they weren't, say, college kids in the Pacific Northwest or Europeans or anything like that.

I've now amended the post title to read "some Israelis"...does that remove your objection to the title as posted?

And whatever Halper said about the concept of Zionism, he is an Israeli citizen and a resident of the country. He faces the same physical risks that anyone else there would face from the ideas he espouses.

The salient point of the ICAHD post I quoted was that the IDF itself admitted the family whose home Rachel died trying to protect were innocent bystanders...including the head of that family himself, Dr. Nusrallah the pharmacist.

What do you think of the statement that I didn't quote from that link, a statement that immediately follows the quote I posted, in which the IDF commander who oversaw the demolitions in question stated that "there ARE no civilians in military conflicts"? Does that statement disturb you in any way? Is that the sort of statement that commanders in the armed forces of a modern, civilized country should EVER make?

and this statement as far as i know is factually wrong:
Nasrallah family home that Rachel was protecting, the army itself admits they were merely innocent civilians who should have been protected rather than attacked

we have here two statements: they were innocent and were attacked.
first i have no reason not to believe the first as i have no alternative info and in fact its really irrelevant to me if there were or were not members of hamas secretly or publicly. The IDF was after the house, not the family. The second part is false.

so we have credibility problem with your source. But like i wrote, its good enough for me, as you found a source, so congrats.

_____

why is it irrelevant their membership?..because kassams are terror weapons and they come from the tunnels that corrie was protecting. Houses are just things, stopping people from being terrorized are more important then things: people like corrie were far more right wing/capitalistic than left wing and progressive, attempting to protect a "thing" vs letting people be terrorized day and night.

Having all of your belongings destroyed is an attack. Being made homeless by a bulldozer when you've done nothing wrong IS an attack. Agreed? Whether they were injured physically is beside the point. Undeserved suffering was inflicted on them.

My point about referencing the Israeli source of the quote I posted was that it can't be dismissed as the words of outsiders who are not themselves facing any physical risks. And I changed the phrase in the thread title to "some fellow Israelis" to remove the inadvertent suggestion(totally unintended on my part, as you would have to agree)that everybody IN Israel supports the ICAHD or would endorse that particular statement.

What do you make of the assertion by the IDF commander overseeing this incident, which was quoted below in the link I excerpted from, "There ARE no civilians in military conflicts". This statement contravenes, among other things, the Geneva Convention. Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Does it disturb you at all that the commander would say something like that? Does it not concern you that there is only a difference in degree between that statement and the Hamas rationale for rocket attacks on Israeli civilians?

if you believe that destroying a "thing" (a house) is the same as attacking a human being, then I would suggest you are in the wrong place.

I dont agree with what that commander said, in its simplistic form...so? i dont agree with what many soldiers, politicians and members of the DU say.

However, if he was referring to Corrie and friends, who chose to take an active side in the conflict and participate, then in fact i do agree, they lost their neutral civilian credentials when they physically tried to stop a military operation. During Corries operation, they were no longer civilians. Protecting a weapons source is not innocent.

now your turn: why do you apparently believe that a structure (house) is more important than the terrorism that the house supported? Do you believe that israel should leave all the orchards use for shooting missiles, the houses the cover the tunnels, the trucks that transport the missiles alone, to import, buiid and shoot the missles freely in to israel and attempt to kill the israelis randomly day and night.

becuase that is only obvious conclusion one can get to, with your "material are more important than terrorizing humans.

and if your going to disagree, perhaps you might explain why corrie and friends didnt even try to convince the owners of house to close down their tunnel to save their house? or why corrie and friends dont even try to stop the missiles from being fired?.....well, arent you claiming that they are 'humanitarians."

Are you really saying that the only neutral position would be to stand aside and LET innocent people lose their homes? How is that different than just taking YOUR country's side in this? The "pro-Israel" position does not represent civilian neutrality, nor is it harmless. Taking that side can do just as much harm to innocent people as taking the Palestinian side, at least in some situations. I get it that you are a committed partisan of your country...that's to be expected...but that doesn't mean your position is the only one a decent human being can take.

As to your dismissiveness of that in the first paragraph...obviously, you have never BEEN homeless. You have never been left with nowhere to sleep and nothing to wear. That is one of the most traumatic things that can happen to a person....if you don't believe me, look at what happens to anyone who "sleeps rough" on the streets of the world's cities...and saying so has nothing to do with being "capitalistic".

It might be different if the IDF, after doing what it did, had immediately built new places for these people to live.

I don't believe that property is more important than human life...but I believe that people who have done nothing wrong have a right to expect NOT to be traumatized. And when you consider the number of people who became terrorists as a result of things like home demolitions, it's not at all clear that the practice leads to a net gain in terms of human safety.

Destroying things like orchards and olive groves isn't just about destroying property...it's about asserting hegemony and letting people know "who's in charge"...it's about intentionally traumatizing and intimidating people(you effectively admitted that yourself when you said that "punishment" was sometimes a justification(who decides when such "punishment" is justified, btw? Should we really just assume it's always about "terrorism"?). And it's about destroying people's connection to the land. It sends the message "you no longer have any right to live where you live-that the way you have lived, even if for centuries, is of no value and deserves no respect".

And when you send that message to people, you can turn the nonviolent into the violent very, very quickly-something that should make you and your fellow soldiers extremely wary about doing such things.

There has to be some way to guarantee the safety of all in this conflict without doing THAT to people.

That is one of the most traumatic things that can happen to a person

so is getting killed or wounded or having 15 seconds to run to a shelter for 10 years ...does that count in your world of "traumatic things.

look over what you wrote...not a single word, not a single sentence not even a hint about the random rockets, the border attacks from gaza back then until now...not a single sentence. Clearly in your mind not only do they not exist, they are clearly so unimportant that you cant even mention them.

and since the kassams dont exist, your conclusion is easy:
the way your write it, its as if we're all pretty much an evil society that likes to destroy Palestinian houses orchards just for the hell of it, us israelis, you know our kids in golani, the reservist who drive the bulldozers, the career pilots...we're all just an evil bunch....but then, that is nothing new from you is it?

now i will ask you this over and over and over and over again until you find the guts to try to answer:
how would you stop the kassams from launching as they were back then and still do today when hamas feels like it: You do know they exist dont you? (i'm not sure, your last post pretty much stated they dont exist).

Your against stopping them before they are built.....that is obvious......and your against clearing the land so they dont get launched, that too is obvious:

that leaves ....a kassam is on the launcher, its 2:30 the sederot kids are being let out of school, there are 3 people next to the kassam and a bunch of kids about 50 meters away....

why is it there? because, the helicopter pilot yesterday didnt shoot at the truck carrying the missle because there was kid in the area, and the tunnels are not touch as per "your orders" nor are the factories where people work. That means the kassams are easy to manufacture.

well?....what will you do mr pilot Ken? who's lives are more important who are you going to defend...will you shoot? and defend the children of sederot or not shoot and let them take their chances. In reality you've got about 8 seconds to decide....whats it going to be. Your philosophy and values have led us to this situation (that buildings are more important than human lives)...so whats your decision, and the options are limited: shoot or dont shoot, risk israeli kids or risk Palestinians kids

this is not star trek, there is no phasers and no shields

He'll never admit it here but ... it doesn't count if it's happening to you-know-who.

I don't have to support home demolitions to prove that I value the lives of Israelis as much as any other lives.

And that I didn't deny the existence of the Kassams.

I would work seriously(as your country's political leaders don't)towards an actual negotiated resolution to the dispute. That is far more important than questions of military strategy.

I would attack those I knew to BE Hamas supporters(through your intelligence links, your army should have a pretty good idea who those people are).

As a general step towards reducing tensions(this isn't aimed at appeasing Hamas, but simply at calming the situation)I'd admit that Sderot was, is is the case, built where a Palestinian town once existed, and apologize, both to ordinary Palestinians and to the people of Sderot whose physical safety was undermined by that decision, for the destruction of the previous town.

And I said nothing that equates to any statement that missiles shouldn't be prevented from being constructed. What I said was that the family whose home Ms. Corrie died defending had nothing to do WITH the missiles, or with violence of any kind, and that no missiles(to my knowledge)were being launched from THEIR home. That's hardly the same as Kassam denial.

If homes really have to be demolished, I'd give the people living in them a few days of warning so they could move out properly, and then build them new homes somewhere where those homes would not pose any sort of threat. That's not asking too much, is it?

As to tunnels...pour concrete and gravel down them.

I don't know enough about military tactics to give fuller answers to the military aspects, but tell me this...doesn't your army have infrared sensors that determine whether missiles or ordinance are stored in a particular house? I was under the impression that most armies these days have such devices.

And no, I don't think Israelis are a collectively evil society. My objections were and are to the actions of the most intransigent figures in your country's leadership. Every other country makes a distinction between the leaders and the people. You need to in the case of your own country. You make it sound as if being an Israeli is about nothing at all but trying to win wars.

Don't ever accuse me again of not caring if people get killed. I don't want any innocent people, especially any children to get killed, whoever they are. You need to learn to disagree with people without accusing them of being diabolical villains.

That's the major difference in the way you and I debate in this group...you constantly try to personally demonize, villify, and silence you. I, to the best of my abilities, simply try to debate the issues involved. I don't see you as a monster or a war criminal, I don't accuse you of sadism or personal indifference to suffering, I don't keep asking you the same question over and over and over again as if you're a heretic and I have the right to demand recantation from you...but you do all of those things to me. Please stop. I'm not your enemy. I'm just a person who disagrees with you on some, but not all things. And I have no wish to harm you OR to harm your country, nor do I have any possible ability to do so. I'm just one guy participating in a message board. Chill.

That's the major difference in the way you and I debate in this group...you constantly try to personally .....I, to the best of my abilities, simply try to debate the issues involved.

yea, well because the consequences of actions tend to affect my actual safety, its not a small article in page 12 that "5 IDF reservists died in a surprise attack" from gaza-i'll give you their names if you would like, and perhaps you would like to know where the tunnel started from? Thats why its personal.

and as someone who claims they understand the conflict and "that you care" you show an amazing ability to be callous toward israelis lives. Your posts bear it out as i noted: a whole post on why houses, and fields are so important to the Palestinians yet not a single word on why they are destroyed. Only after your called out on it, do you proceed with your "i really care about israelis" or they really are not monsters. Left on your own, you never seem to include that actual information in your posts...its not just one post, its all of your posts, i believe a 100% of them.

that does show your real point of view.
______

I don't know enough about military tactics

good that finally admit it, now then, since you dont actually know, why dont you ask and i will explain why the IDF (and all of its ambitious non caring "generals") are not so foolish as to risk their soldiers lives to follow what your ideas.


....why dont i believe you
I would attack those I knew to BE Hamas supporters(through your intelligence links, your army should have a pretty good idea who those people are).

the house that corrie was defending was a "hamas supporter" many of the fields that were razed were from "hamas supporters" (and they have families to support) .....are you still going to stand by your statement now?

i didnt think so.......
________________

again with the "ethno centrism"
Every other country makes a distinction between the leaders and the people. You need to in the case of your own country

hmm, so your against having a political system that allows the "non elite" to have some real options of making it into the politics or in other areas of influence? wow, sounds like your a real elitist when it comes down to it, because a govt that actually represents the people, is part of those people and minimizes that separation of elites vs the "people" that most countries have. What it looks like is how i describe it...and you certainly dont like it.

your true colors are really starting to show. Oh i know you'll deny it, you always do once the light is shining on it, but it is shinning now
____________________________
What I said was that the family whose home Ms. Corrie died defending had nothing to do WITH the missiles

and the tunnel? that military intelligence claimed was there, that the sensors indicated showed that the tunnel was used for bringing in war materials........well? the house fit all of your criteria for destruction...

(plugging up a "hole" not only endangers our lives, but does nothing to stop a new hole from being built 2 meters from the "old entrance). But your clear about whose lives you value more:

You disagree?...well maybe you dont understand why pouring concrete would be a risky mission and if you dont, then you should be asking and not making statements of which you know little about.

____

ou need to learn to disagree with people without accusing them of being diabolical villains.


and thats coming from you?....."villains" in this case are those that propose solutions that are so simplistic, one sided an naive that the consequences will probably be so bad that many many many more will be killed, and if and when such a thing happens, they will take no responsibility for it and not even refute their ideas that led to it. There are examples in history of such "villains"

I read quite a bit on this when it happened - this is the first I've heard of anyone hanging on to the bulldozer at the time

I have not seen anyone from the group make the claim that they were banging on the cab of the bulldozer.

n/t.

But tell us where you got that from?

n/t.

She is viewed as a hero worldwide and it would have made a big difference in how the world views Israel, which is now about the same way they view this country, had they prosecuted those responsible for her death.

She will always be remembered, around the world, as a humane person who was willing to risk her life to protect others.

She was an American citizen, yet this government remained silent about her death. Had this happened in an Arab country, our phony elected leaders would be screaming from the rooftops, probably joined by Israel.

RIP Rachel, the world adores you.

Nothing was achieved.

Not many people ( outside of the politically aware or militants with their own agendas) even know of this incident ...let alone what the "cause" was.

A tragic sad wasteful death with nothing gained.

Whatever the verdict, she was a courageous young woman and did nothing to deserve your disrespect.

She was as brave as any member of the IDF.

Have you seen the play based on her diaries?

when in doubt or should i say deflecting the truth blame the parents for "letting" their 22 yr old "child" to "vacation" in a "war zone".

i have a daughter who is in her 20`s. i can not allow her to do anything anymore. i can state my opinion,advise,and guide her if she wants my help.

Was it "unacceptable" for legal reasons? Nope. Just opinion. Like anyone else, he is entitled to his bias, I mean opinion.

For those who hoped for a just verdict on the death of Rachel Corrie, the American student and ISM activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza in 2003 as she was defending a Palestinian home about to be demolished, this is a sad day. Not surprising, but still sad and bitter. The judge who decided the case, Oded Gershon, absolved the army of all blame, despite massive and internally contradictory testimony to the contrary. Moreover, he essentially blamed Rachel for her own death, commenting that a “normal person” would have run away from the bulldozer rather than confront it.

Palestinians and Israel human rights activists have learned that justice cannot be obtained through the Israeli judicial system. The Haifa District Court, in which the trial was held, could not have ruled other than how the state wanted. For the past 45 years of Israeli occupation, the Supreme Court has excluded from its rulings all reference to international humanitarian law and to the Fourth Geneva Convention in particular, which protects civilians living in conflict situations and under occupation. Only Israeli law applies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories – military law and orders – and the courts have restricted even that form of law by declaring that in instances of “security,” they defer to the military. As in Rachel’s case, the IDF thus has carte blanche to commit war crimes with impunity, with no fear of accountability or punishment.

Sending IDF American-made Caterpillar bulldozers to demolish Palestinian homes in Gaza or anywhere in the Occupied Territories is a war crime. To what degree Israel ignores, violates and distorts international law was particularly evident in the testimony of Pinhas “Pinky” Zuaretz, the brigade commander who supervised the illegal “clearing” of Palestinian homes from that area of Gaza. “There are no civilians in military conflicts,” he testified, directly contradicting one of the most fundamental principles of international law, the duty to protect non-combatants.

When justice and law become separated as they have in Israel, the law is demeaned and becomes merely another tool of oppression. As a human rights defender, a status articulated and defended by the UN, Rachel Corrie had every right – even a responsibility – to intervene in the violation of universal human rights. It is incumbent on governments, courts and concerned individuals alike to ensure that human rights are enforced, especially when those being oppressed have no power to defend themselves. The attempt of this Israeli court to present Rachel’s death as the consequence of the irresponsible actions of a person who should not have been defending Palestinian human rights in the first place denies both the culpability of a state engaged in illegal activities and the duty of citizens to work for universal justice.

http://972mag.com/in-rachel-corrie-verdict-israel-deals-new-blow-to-international-law/54770/

I'm awaiting pictures and vids of Halper in 'compromising' poses with Hamas ie shaking hands or in the same room something........

It was about whether Corrie's death was intentional or not. And I don't have to show pics of Halper shaking hands with Hamas. This piece alone is irrefutable proof of his idiocy and bias.

there are claims that the situation that Corrie was in was a war zone that would make international law quite applicable or is this yet another case of it what we say it is when say it?
A bit of having ones cake and eating it too IMO

and my comment about about photos and vids was made to another poster who seems to have such things on hand for appropriate situations

It has no moral or legal force as between governments. That's because international law is a set of contracts between governments that they are free to void at will. Worse, it is rarely, if ever, applied with the rigorous methods of the law. It is usually used for political game playing, such as in the Corrie case. So, international law applies to Israel to the extent that Israel has agreed to it, just as it applies to any other country. However, just as with any other country, international law doesn't actually count for very much. On the other hand, if someone wrongfully, intentionally killed Rachel Corrie, then that is a crime, whether international law says anything about it or not.

and Israel only seems to to attempt to use international law when it is convenient, IMO the problem is not intention but negligence on Israel's part in Corries death, something addressed in the suit

the Supreme Court references IHL and GC4 quite often. That they don't come to the conclusons Halper wants is a different matter.

People like Halper really have no love or use for "law" unless it serves their agenda. That's why they love international law so much. Because international law is not actually about law, but about cloaking a political agenda in faux legitimacy.

How do you get that? The issue in the Corrie case in Israel was whether her death was intentional. Essentially a murder charge That is an issue of common law, not international law. Part of the point of the judge's ruling was that Corrie willingly put herself in a war zone. So, yes, I think that Gaza at the time was a war zone.

in which case Israel does have responsibilities to protect civilians and Corrie was indeed a civilian

irrespective of international law. International law is essentially a set of contracts between sovereigns that has no moral or legal force. However, basic prinicples of morality always apply. International law doesn't add anything to that. The civil case, as far as I am aware, was not about the failure to protect Rachel Corrie. It was about intentionally killing her. Again, irrespective of international law, the wrongful intentional killing of a human being is a crime. But there is already a word for it. That word is murder. Whether Corrie was murdered is an issue of common law, and international law doesn't have anything to do with it. People like Halper are just playing political games.

The first sentence of my post was, "Israel has the responsibility to protect innocent people in its jurisdiction or area of operations, irrespective of international law." Doesn't that include the military? Of course it does. Then where do you get that I am saying the opposite? I'm assuming that you aren't intentionally misrepresenting my posts, but I really don't understand how you get to your question from what I posted.

IDF's actions then Israel is indeed responsible for her death

There are varying levels of culpability. The court case was about whether the Israelis intentionally killed Rachel Corrie. You understand that that is the most severe level of responsibility, right? Okay, so the court found that the Israelis did not murder her. Does that mean that the Israelis are entirely off the hook? No, it does not. There are lower levels of responsibility. The military could have been reckless, or negligent. As far as I know, those issues weren't before the court. Or it might not have been the Israeli military's fault at all. Yes, Israel is responsible for its military, but you still have to show that the military acted wrongfully to cause Rachel Corrie's death. Just because someone dies does not mean that it's the other person's fault. Sometimes people get themselves killed doing foolish, reckless or dangerous things. That may be what happened to Rachel Corrie. You understand that her death could have been her own fault, right?

http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/trial/the-legal-docket-case-overviews

on the first part which is one that is being focused on as justification for Israel finding itself innocent you may have a point, but it is the second(bolded) part that is actually the sticking point, reckless in that in an area were there were civilians present IDF chose not to have spotters, no matter what excuse is given IDF allowed civilians to be present in its presence in what we are told was a war zone without taking even rudimentary precautions for the safety of such civilians that would be negligence

The Plaintiffs still had to prove their case. The judge said that they didn't.

Corrie entered a war zone, chose a side and decide to participate on that side to disrupt a military operation. Her "weapons" of choice were her "passport", and using that she was attempting to protect the infrastructure of the hamas military.

she was niave, she was used, but was an adult who chose a side in a war and participated in that war.....a lot of civilians participate in wars, they lose any semblance of "lawful protection" that they believe they have when they choose to participate.

and she was allowed to be in what is being called a war zone in which IDF knowingly allowed civilians to present without taking any precautions as to their safety that is indeed negligence

and she was allowed to be in what is being called a war zone in which IDF knowingly allowed civilians to present

this is not the first time where reality and opinions based on fantasy meet: Palestenians live all over gaza, which by weird coincidence is the same geographic area (map?) where the low level war was and is taking place.

So to use your logic, i guess you believe israel should practice ethnic cleansing and clear out all of those civilians from their homes and business while the war goes on?....where shall they go? sederot? the sea? plus i'm sure you would be the first to defend the IDF actions (thats a question...lets see if you can even answer it....)
____________

why should one israeli soldier risk his/her life to protect a "non violent" protestor who is attempting to protect the system designed to kill those very soldiers and their families?

proper precautions, no need for ethnic cleansing just caution that is all, however seeing as how you brought that up demolition of Palestinian homes could be considered a form of ethnic cleansing at least from specified area's

why should one IDF risk his life to protect civilians? really?

keeping the "civilians away?...from the IDF as well as from the hamas snipers?...and how does one do this exactly without clearing out the nearby homes to insure a fire fight doesnt break out?

well what exactly are these "precautions"... because i dont know what they are (oh yes, dont forget that this is S. Gaza, not NYC)
__________________

your forgot the other half (did you really think i wouldnt notice?...)

why should one IDF risk his life to protect civilians? really?...those that are helping in the attempts to murder israelis...
____

hey maybe the guy with the bullhorn should have shouted at Corrie to get out of the way, the kind of thing one of those "spotters" would have done. Maybe he decided that he didnt have to?...hmm sure is a possibility isn't it?

so what is this: proper precaution that you mentioned. i noticed that you skipped over its definition....care to elaborate?

does this proper precaution involve me risking my life to protect people who apparantly have no qualms in protecting the infrastructure that is used to try to kill me.....?

perhaps you would like to explain to me the logic behind that....why i should?

_____

here i'll give you the *basic hierarchal system, since clearly you have (as its been noticed in the past) have very little understanding of the military:

complete the mission
protect you unit
protect yourself
protect civilians.

you'll notice they come in 4th, the civilians....they are not the primary concern during a military mission. Now you can say thank you for being educated

*subject to conditions, urgency of mission, environment, and decisions of commanders in the field.

but as you have made quite plain though several comments civilian lives, well at least nonIsraeli civilian lives are just not that important to IDF

eta your comment also would indicate that you do not consider Palestinian nor activists to really be civilians

Wearing civilian clothes has long the the most basic of low level/guerrilla type wars.

again just the fact that im writing this goes either to you willful blindness out of political preference or massive ignorance...i'll go for the first, but for those who dont know:

hamas, fatah, hizballa, the suicide bombers, the kassam launchers, the snipers all wear civilian clothes. They have official uniforms that sometimes they wear and sometimes not.

the IDF research and development have yet to finalize their mind reading abilities (spock is on vacation) hence it is never clear who is the fighter and who is the innocent civilian...actions are a good indication.
___________________________

eta your comment also would indicate that you do not consider Palestinian nor activists to really be civilians
since you like modifying and adjusting my explanations to fit what you like to believe: if it makes you feel better, and better fits your preconceived notions about us and our policies then feel free to believe that we target civilians, believe all Palestinians are terrorists, all 'activists" are really terrorists in disguise.

your just one of many that simply need to believe such stuff. but i dont write for you, i write for those others who look at your comments and conclusions and wonder if this is really what the "pro Palestinians really think and believe.....because if they do, then it explains a lot why their situation keeps getting worse and worse.

so feel free to take my comments and make the extreme and simplistic.....(your not the only one who does that)

in your opinion ?

i dont have any doubt about that...she was also a member of the ISM and she was also a participant in the war.

now you get to pick and chose and declare that we kill civilians.
_____

now comes the reality part:
as a civilian, she believed she can participate in the war and she would be protected by her 'civilian status. What she didnt understand, that she may be a "civilian" but by participating in the war and her passport or status no longer has an affect on the events that follow.

basically she can identify herself as she sees fit, her actual actions changed her real status.
_____

to put it bluntly: I've been shot at by "civilians"....and did not think twice before returning fire, their "civilian status was and is irrelevant:

conclusion for you: thankyou: IDF soldiers will shoot at civilians without even considering their civilian status.

first off if your being shot at the person doing the shooting is a combatant, but Corrie wasn't shooting at anyone, she was however annoying them and for that she got killed but I'll accept you final statement

"IDF soldiers will shoot at civilians without even considering their civilian status."

we've been known to massacre children
starve them when we can
give them aids when their not looking
steal their organs and sell them on the black market
we chase them down with our tanks and run them over (especially those in wheel chairs)
we've entered their hospitals and executed many amputees who couldnt leave (they were too slow)
sometimes we only wound the palestenians so they can clean up their blood before dying
we poison their water as policy and then refuse them medicines
we poison their food as well
we poison the trees, in fact we posion everything we can...and we love doing it.
we get two points for shooting pregnant non jewish women and double that if they are carrying twins


i'll think of more, but feel free to use these in your arguments and you can quote me.

If all that's true then it could seem the "N" word could apply but even I don't think that, so ummm how about another "n" word in the case of Corrie something like negligent

in any event calm down sir this can't be good for your blood pressure

remember: gaza a "concentration camp"..guess what that makes the guards?...thats right, were just like them.

Palestinians and genocide?...well gosh who was the cause of the most famous genocide? N.... and i would guess that for many that its a way of calling us "N" (are we allowed to even write the "word that shall not be applied")

werent we starving the kids in gaza, bodies all over the streets just like in the warsaw ghetto?...guess who did that in WWII and those same types of people are doing the same to the Palestenians...me

that makes us just like those "N" people

Didnt Dr Globbles do experiment on live bodies?..ok, we just killed them for their organs, so were pretty close to the good Dr.
_____

no don't mind being called "N".....for those that believe were such and there are many and for those that believe were "close" to them, the worst society/country in the world etc etc etc. i prefer their honesty in speech as opposed to the indirect methods. the "N" people were clear in their hatred, evil in the deeds, but their cousins are still very much alive and i prefer that they dont hide behind others.
______

in this particular case with corrie, the negligence belongs to the ISM and the gaza govt that invited, planned and sent an misinformed, poorly equipped group of people to a very dangerous place

clearly with the massive PR work on corrie, the others have learn:

1) that were like N and will bulldoze anyone in our way
2) the IDF doesn't care about civilians and will bulldoze them
3) Like other bulldozer drivers, the IDF drivers have very limited vision and its dangerous to get to close

either way, i do believe those kids have learned to keep their distances from a large moving bulldozer and hence perhaps a few more lives have been saved, thats her legacy.

was a Dr Suess character at least it sounds like it, in any event I feel slighted your thinking of someone else with that stuff but okay

ps I think you meant Dr Goebbels

...with equating Israelis (of course, just the Jewish ones) to Nazis? From the Corrie case to slow-motion genocide, from organ theft to giving Palestinians aids, from starving Palestinians to the USS Liberty, etc.



Corrie Lawyer Says Israel is Worse than Nazi Germany
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2012/09/wheres_the_coverage_corrie_law_1.html

as you seem to have all down BTW I was wondering when you'd get around to posting that

Hazard a guess or two?

but I'm willing to wait untill you come up with something

An individual is allowed to have opinions and preferences without those opinions and preferences being take to automatically discredit his opinion.

Don't let yourself get tricked into using Fox News memes, regardless of the issue. It's a bad habit and all it does is carry water for the Right.

It's enough to say that Carter disagreed with you. The fact that he does doesn't make his position here intrinsically unjust.

pm me if you did.

If he posted something about me that even freaked HIM out, that's going some.

It was a response to my post, so the natural assumption was pointed in my direction. Carry on.

Carry on.

biased oh wait you meant opinionated against?

Rachel Levy (aged 17, blown up in a grocery store)

Rachel Levi (19, shot while waiting for the bus)

Rachel Gavish (killed with her husband, son and father while at home celebrating a Passover meal)

Rachel Charhi (blown up while sitting in a Tel Aviv cafe, leaving three young children)

Rachel Shabo (murdered with her three sons aged 5, 13 and 16 while at home)

Rachel Ben Abu (16, blown up outside the entrance of a Netanya shopping mall)

Rachel Kol, 53, who worked at a Jerusalem hospital and was killed with her husband in a Palestinian terrorist attack in July a few days after the London bombs.

Rachel Sela, 82, murdered the day before Purim on March 4th, 1996 when an Palestinian suicide bomber exploded at Dizingoff Center, Tel Aviv.

Rachel Tajgatrio, 83, murdered while shopping in Jerusalem's "Machaneh Yehuda" market when 2 bombs went off on July 30th, 1997.

Rachel Thaler, 16 years old from Ginot Shomron died of her wounds on February 27 2002, after a Palestinian bomber exploded in a shopping mall's food court, killing 3, wounding 30.

Rachel Tamari, 65, murdered by a Palestinian bomb on the Dan #20 bus in Ramat Gan, on July 24, 1995. 6 Israelis died in that attack, and dozens were wounded.

Rachel Drouk, 35, mother of 7 from the Shilo community was murdered by Palestinian terrorist gunfire while on her way to a demonstration (October 28, 1991) -- that negotiating with Palestinian terrorists would be dangerous to Israel. The driver of her car, Yitzchak Rofeh was also killed and 5 others wounded.

Rachel Weiss, 26, pregnant and mother of 3 small children (Rafael, Netanel and Efraim), were all murdered by Palestinian terrorists who threw a molotov cocktail at her car in the Jordan Valley (October 31, 1988)

Rachel Weiss, 69, stabbed to death by Palestinian terrorists who were sent by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin to as an "entrance test" to the Hamas organizations. She was murdered in her home in Moshav Shapir, August 3rd, 1988.

Rachel Munk, 24, was murdered in a drive-by terror attack by on July 26, 1996, along with her husband Zeev Munk. The attack took place on the Beit Shemesh - Kiryat Melachi road near Moshav Gefen.

Rachel Stern, 8 years old, stabbed to death, along with her mother, while eating breakfast in their home in Kiryat Shmona, on April 11, 1974. 16 people were murdered that day by Palestinian terrorists in that attack.

Rachel Afita, 16, murdered by Palestinian terrorists in the Northern Israeli community of Maalot on May 15, 1974

Rachel Lev, 50, murdered by Palestinian terrorists when 5 bombs exploded throughout the Haifa area on October 23, 1969 and the following day. 7 people were killed in the attack, including her husband Eliyahu and son Avraham.

Rachel Mizrachi, 38, stabbed to death by Arab terrorists in her home in Tiberias, October 2, 1939.

May their memories be blessed.

deaths on any side of this conflict.

It serves no purpose for any side in a war to say "the lives of people on OUR side are always more valuable than the lives on the other side".

It's an equal tragedy and an equal injustice when ANY innocent person, anywhere, is killed in a war. Can we all, for the love of whatever gods any of us do or don't believe in, at least agree on THAT?

She was against any innocent person being killed or harmed, no matter what side they were on, and so were and are the ISM(I don't support the ISM's program because a single-state isn't workable, at least at this point, but they don't deserve to be demonized-they may be wrong on some things, but they aren't evil).

1. You thought their activists were yelling and banging on the cab window for the driver to stop.

2. They said the D9 ran over Corrie twice, backing up to do so again.

3. They lied with photographs

4. They lied with video (supposedly showing the driver celebrating)

In fact, they did all they could - and are still doing so - in order to lead others to believe Corrie was intentionally murdered. That is, after all, what the trial is about.

------------

Why do you think they lied and are going so far as to try to prove something that even you and your fellow activists here do not believe (Corrie murdered intentionally)?



Those are ISM members posing with machine guns. Is that your idea of peace activists who wish no one any harm?

Look at the quotes below from my post at the bottom of the page. The ISM believes murdering Jews is legitimate resistance against occupation. These are disgusting people, Ken. They're viewed as heroes not only by some Leftists but also by the David Duke neo-nazi contingent around the world. No one decent should be touting them as good peace activists.

There's no difference between killing a member of the IDF in self-defense(I'll assume you'll admit that Palestinians do act at least sometimes in true self-defense) and killing a soldier in any OTHER army in self-defense. It isn't automatically bigotry simply to kill a soldier who is attacking you or your homeland simply because that soldier simply happens to be Jewish. The soldier isn't being killed in that instance, in the case of self-defense, is not being attacked or fought back against because he or she is Jewish. He or she is being attacked, at that moment, for the same reason anyone on one army would attack anyone in whatever army she or he was fighting against...because a war was going on and because these things happen in a war.

Please stop using the term "killing Jews" in the way that you do. It's demagogic and inflammatory. Killing an IDF soldier in self-defense is not the same thing as Hitler intentionally killing Jews because they were Jews. It shouldn't happen, there shouldn't BE wars, no soldier should die in wars...but it isn't automatically different simply because the soldier in question happened to identify as Jewish. Please stop the hysteria. You are being offensive and you are mocking the memory of the actual victims of historical antisemitism when you use that particular phrase. Everyone who posts on this board, including me, is against the killing of Jewish people, and you have no right to imply otherwise. And I can't see how you do the "pro-Israel" cause any good by demeaning historic injustices and suffering through careless use of the phrase you use.

As far as I know(and again, I'm neither a member or supporter of the ISM, so I'm not the person to ask about everything they've done)the ISM does NOT defend unprovoked attacks on Israeli soldiers, or ANY attacks on Israeli civilians, or the targeting of anyone for violence anywhere simply for being Jewish. If they were to actually defend anything of the sort, I would denounce it and so would everybody that regular posts in the I/P group, including all the avowed antizionists. Nobody here is a Nazi or an apologist for Naziism, shira. Nobody here hates Jews or wishes them to die. OK?

My statement about people banging on the D-9 cab was not an intentional untruth-I thought I had a source for it, was unable to find the source, and deleted it as soon as I realized I couldn't source it. That was my error, and the ISM, whatever you can say about them, was not responsible for it. It's a non-issue.

As to the picture, I don't know anything about it and don't wish to address it unless I can find some sort of explanation for it.

... isn't killing a Jew?

You're right, if the soldier in question is a Xtian or a Druze. But, odds are, if you kill an IDF soldier, you're killing a Jew. I'm not sure how you can possibly think it isn't.

A soldier who, as it happens, is Jewish.

And it should never happen, as the killings of Palestinians should never happen.

But the killing of a soldier who happens to BE Jewish is totally different than killing of a person for BEING Jewish, or of the mass killings perpetrated by Hitler and Torquemada. It's no different than any other killing of any other soldier in any other war. The result is that a human being has been killed, but the same thing can be said of a person who is murdered on the one hand and a person who is killed in self-defense, or by accident on the other. The law treats each of those types of killings differently, and so do most people who react to them.

The term that the poster I referenced demagogically overuses, implies a moral equivalency between the killing of an IDF soldier in self-defense in a wartime situation, on the one hand, with the events of the Holocaust or the Inquisition on the other.
It isn't the same thing and that poster should know it.

Nobody should kill anybody.

And nobody's life should automatically be priveleged over anyone else's life simply because of their religious or cultural identity of the person who happens to be killed or the person who happens to do the killing.

We are all human beings and we all deserve to live, at least so long as we don't do violent harm to others

The only way to end the killing, and all the other kindd of suffering people have experienced on BOTH sides of the I/P dispute is to value everyone's life and to work towards no one GETTING killed and no one being oppressed or made to suffer, no matter who they are.

Killing a soldier who's on the opposite side of a war from the side you are on is simply killing a soldier, or being killed by someone whose fighting on the opposite side of that war from you is just a killing...nothing more, nothing less. It's wrong, but It isn't murder and it isn't an act of bigotry. It makes no difference what the religious or cultural identity of that soldier is. Killing in self-defense on the field of battle is always exactly the same no matter who gets killed.

It's time to stop pretending that the entire Palestinian cause is predicated on hatred of Jews, or that the lives on any one side are of intrinsically greater value than the lives on the other, or that any one particular side, no matter what, is ALWAYS entitled to claim that they are the real victims. Yes, there are Palestinians who are antisemites(there are an equal number of Israelis who are anti-Arab or anti-Muslim, and there's no moral difference between the two). If you want the killing to stop, try actually working to find some way to end the conflict, and try recognizing the humanity of those on the other side of the conflict. Insisting on the childish notion that one side's killing is better or worse than the other side's killing is pointless and demeans the value and dignity of all people.

Shira's use of the phrase I objected to,(a phrase, along with the phrase "killing Arabs", that should be banned from usage in the I/P group due to inappropriate usage), is demagogic and offensive. It mocks the memory of people like Anne Frank and all the others through history who were truly victims of bigotry.

... that they would be killing and trying to kill Jewish soldiers and Jewish civilians if Israel was a Muslim state on their border?

They are being attacked and killed for being Jewish ... that is the truth of the matter.

I don't agree with their methods(they're brutal and ineffective) but I reject the idea that they do what they do because Israel claims to be a "Jewish state", or the bigoted and insulting corollary to that notion that-that Palestinians would be just be fine with being subjugated and occupied by anybody ELSE.

Nobody else on the planet has ever said "I don't want to be oppressed by a DIFFERENT group of people...but I'm ok with being oppressed by people who look like me". Why assume that Palestinians, alone, would take such a stupid and self-defeating view of life? Why assume that they are nothing but a nation of selective masochists?

If other Arabs or other Muslims were treating them in the same way, of course the Palestinians WOULD resist. Even if that wasn't the case in the distant past(and actually, Palestinians did resist the Ottomans now and then) it is now. If it weren't the case in recent history, there would have been no uprising against the Hashemites under King Hussein, and the PLO would not have been formed while MOST Palestinians lived under Hashemite occupation. If they were fine with being occupied, so long as it was other Arabs or other Muslims doing the occupying, they'd have all moved to Jordan and left it at that. It's one of the major reasons Palestinians will never accept the idea that "Jordan is Palestine"...because accepting that means accepting being ruled by the Hashemites for generations to come.

The Israel/Palestine war is a nightmare...but, that the case for every other war that's been fought.

It serves no purpose to pretend that there's a difference between killing IDF troops in a war and killing any other troops in any other war, or that it's automatically WORSE to kill an IDF soldier than to kill any other soldier(or, by the same token, automatically less horrible for IDF troops to kill than it is for any other soldiers to do so). Soldiers kill and die in war. The answer is to find means other than war to solve disputes-NOT to privilege the lives of one side over the other. Are you actually interested in doing anything like that, holden? Or do you just get off on rooting for your side?

At some point, universalism and common humanity have to win out. You can't base everything on particularism, and you can't privilege some lives and some losses over others. We have to get to the place where we ALL care about whether or not EVERYBODY'S children live or die.

What's their objective in your opinion?

if they are lying or not...so I choose not to respond to that.

And, frankly, I believe you are trying to bait me in asking about the inner workings of an organization of which I'm not a member or a supporter.

Maybe if Israel would get rid of its far right wing government which has alienated the world against it, elect a government that actually wants peace, not war, none of those people would be dying.

It's sickening that my taxes help pay for this atrocity of justice and letting Israel get away with murdering American citizens, who protest their apartheid policies non-violently.

But in Israel's mind, non-violent protestors are just as bad as militants who fire rockets or employ suicide vests. As long as Israel treats non-violent protestors for Palestinian rights as criminals, Israel will either know no peace or will end up committing genocide against the Palestinians people.

Disagree with your analysis.

...to murder Jewish innocents, as Rachel Corrie and the ISM believe (they label it armed 'resistance' or 'struggle').



These assholes actually believe the UN and IHL sanctions the "noble" murder of innocent Jews.

like the intentional attack of the USS Liberty and murder of American sailors on that ship along with American peace activists, like Rachel Corrie, Americans would demand their money back from Israel or demand that more pressure be put upon Israel to stop the building of illegal settlements and make a real peace deal with the Palestinians.

Thank you for that 'revealing" comment.

No amount of evidence is good enough, including hebrew audio from IAF pilots that day:
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/uss_liberty/recordings.shtml

Corrie is even better. The ISM has lied their asses off from day one in order to paint Israelis in the darkest colors imaginable. It's amazing how times change but old habits die hard.

That incident happened way before the US began granting Israel any significant aid. It's just that the vast majority of them agree that the only reasonable explanation for the attack was mistaken identity/friendly fire, which is the conclusion all of the investigations also came to. In general, broadcasting your support for this kind of conspiracy theory won't get you a ton of respect around here.

that the bulldozer driver not only killed Rachel Corrie intentionally, but that he did so as part of a far larger conspiracy to eliminate anyone who critiques their policies regarding the I/P conflict; a conspiracy supported both by Israel's elected government officials as well as their independent judiciary (who may have just ruled this particular case an accidental death but has in the past imprisoned soldiers who violated the IDF's strict code of conduct regarding engagement with live fire and ruled against the government at various points in the conflict re: Palestinian rights?)