This is really disturbing

[Natoma]

I think the contents of the link speak for itself.

Here (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml)

:(

[CosmoKramer]

OMG!!! Now it's serious becuse an american has been killed!!!
:roll:

[Joe DeFuria]

Certainly tragic.

However, not unexpected that something like this was bound to happen.

So no, Cosmo, the fact that this is an American make no difference.

Same with the deaths of any "willing human shields" that may perish in Iraq. (I heard on the Radio that some UK "shields" wrote a note to the UK government "asking" not to bomb places they are protecting?)

Tragic? Absolutely. But they either know the risks going in, or are foolish to go in without evaluating the risks.

[kyleb]

so you are saying it is her own fault that she decided not to live in fear and stay out of the way of the oppression of others? or more to the point she should have known that the driver of the bulldozer did not have the soul to keep himself from running her over? i am sorry that what i said comes out as blunt as it does but i am at a loss to understand your logic so i feel it is important to state my concerns directly.

[Babel-17]

Very sad, she was a gutsy lass.

[RussSchultz]

Kyleb:

Either:
A) She knew what she was doing and what risks it entailed.
B) She was foolish.

Joe said nothing of the sort that "she got what she deserved".

[Natoma]

It's not like she was the victim of munitions fire. She was murdered Joe. If she were a human shield and got hit with a bullet or bombed, I could understand. But the guy was on a bulldozer and obviously had plenty of time to contemplate what he was doing.

In all honesty, I think he probably mistook her for a palestinian. Think about it. How often do we hear about things like this when it's a palestinian? Not very often, if ever.

But as soon as it's an american, then we hear about it. So it kind of makes me think, gee, does this kind of thing go on often? Is this one of the reasons why the palestinians hate the israelis enough to blow themselves up?

I'm just shocked and saddened by the whole situation... Sigh.

[Joe DeFuria]

so you are saying it is her own fault that she decided not to live in fear and stay out of the way of the oppression of others? or more to the point she should have known that the driver of the bulldozer did not have the soul to keep himself from running her over? i am sorry that what i said comes out as blunt as it does but i am at a loss to understand your logic so i feel it is important to state my concerns directly.

First of all, we don't know the exact circumstances around her death. Was it accidental, or was it deliberate? Don't presume either one. I don't.

To the point, she damn well should have known that putting herself in front of machinery like that carries the risk of being killed, either deliberately or accidentally.

Again, her death, like all deaths, are tragic. I'm not placing any "blame" for her death.

However, she willingly and purposefully put herself in circumstances that are highly dangerous. And to that extent, she bears some responsibility for her own death.

[Natoma]

Uhm, she had a bullhorn, she was in plain sight of the person on the bulldozer, and she was waving her arms.

I think that constitutes murder. Bulldozers are not particularly fast vehicles, so it definitely wasn't just an "accident."

I'm not saying that she wasn't risking her life merely by being there in the first place. But she was definitely murdered.

I know it's comical, but you remember that scene in the first Austin Powers movie where the guy was screaming "Noooooooooooooo!" over and over again at Mike Myers and Elizabeth Hurley, and he was like 100ft away from their vehicle? It took like 5 minutes for them to finally roll over the guy. The point is, from the pictures and the description of what occurred, the guy had plenty of time to actually let his humanity kick in and not run over her.

Screw the orders.

[RussSchultz]

Did you read the article? Even as written by the electronic intifada, it plainly states she climbed on top of the dirt pile in front of a moving bulldozer, and got caught up in the dirt.

Or should we believe the account at the beginning of the article where the bulldozer dumped dirt on her first, then ran over her twice?

[Joe DeFuria]

Uhm, she had a bullhorn, she was in plain sight of the person on the bulldozer, and she was waving her arms.

I think that constitutes murder. Bulldozers are not particularly fast vehicles, so it definitely wasn't just an "accident."

I can't believe people are so quick to rush to judgment based on the version of the story they want to believe is true, "Armchair bulldozer operators". You believe what you want. I'm content to believe I'll never get the real story. Accident or deliberate...or something inbetween.

To the point: It has no consequence on my opinion on the matter. She bears partial responsibility for her own death, however it occurred.

[Natoma]

Uhm, she had a bullhorn, she was in plain sight of the person on the bulldozer, and she was waving her arms.

I think that constitutes murder. Bulldozers are not particularly fast vehicles, so it definitely wasn't just an "accident."

I can't believe people are so quick to rush to judgment based on the version of the story they want to believe is true, "Armchair bulldozer operators". You believe what you want. I'm content to believe I'll never get the real story. Accident or deliberate...or something inbetween.

To the point: It has no consequence on my opinion on the matter. She bears partial responsibility for her own death, however it occurred.

I love you Joe. Cold-Hearted Conservative to the end. :wink:

[kyleb]

i cant belive you call us quick to rush to judgment as if Israel has a history of being all peace, love and flowers or something. aslo i would realy like to hear direct answers to my previous two questions.

[Crusher]

I saw this on cnn.com last night while reading this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/mideast.violence/index.html

It sounds like she was run over deliberately, and the pictures on that page natoma linked to seem to suggest that as well. I think anyone who goes to that region on peace missions accepts some above normal risk of being killed simply because of the nature of the area. However, that doesn't make a situation like this any more excusable. IMO, Israelis and Palistinians both needs to get their shit together. I think Israel has the right to attack the Palistinian terrorist regimes in order to defend themselves, but they can't be blinded by their anger to the point that they're treating the general civilian populace the same as the terrorists, especially foreign civilians armed with nothing more than a horn.

[CosmoKramer]

To clarify myself a bit (to avoid misunderstandings) - I certainly do feel that it's tragic, just no more or no less tragic than when Palestinians or Israeli civilians die.

[Joe DeFuria]

cant belive you call us quick to rush to judgment as if Israel has a history of being all peace,

huh?

Who said anything like Isareal has a history of all peace?

aslo i would realy like to hear direct answers to my previous two questions.

Q: "so you are saying it is her own fault that she decided not to live in fear and stay out of the way of the oppression of others?"

No. In fact, her actions are to be commended assuming she fully understood the risks and was thus willing to accept them.

more to the point she should have known that the driver of the bulldozer did not have the soul to keep himself from running her over?

Again, making assumptions. But to humor you, presumably she was there BECAUSE she felt the israleis have "no soul." So yes, she should have certainly entertained that situation (being purposefully murdered) as a possibility.

[kyleb]

we all have souls, i imagine she believed that as well as i do; and she was merely trying to help others see the same. i am certain she knew damn well the possibilities and understand that she could have avoided the situation. however; i respect her faith in human nature regardless of the results, and i detest the mentality that proved her wrong.

[Pete]

Related info (http://silflayhraka.blogspot.com/2003_03_16_silflayhraka_archive.html#90829505).

[Sabastian]

she willingly and purposefully put herself in circumstances that are highly dangerous. And to that extent, she bears some responsibility for her own death.

I would go as far as too argue that she bears full responsibility for her own death. Such a foolhardy act it boarders on stupid. Look at one of these things in the background here, this is not your everyday sort of bulldozer. AFAICT it looks millitary and quite dangerous.

http://ar.news.yahoo.com/images/reuters_ids/20020628/i/4094648341.jpg

These protestors are really fooling them selves if they think that because they are Americans Israel will change its political agenda. The only way that Palestien will ever be fully realized is for Palestinians to recognize Israel as a state that has a legitamate right to exist. Otherwise I would expect Israel to continue treating Palestine as something other then legitimate.

[Joe DeFuria]

I love you Joe. Cold-Hearted Conservative to the end. :wink:

I'd return the sentiment, but then I would be subjecting that sentiment to the typical liberal game of "make up some perceived intention" to go along with it. I'd rather not risk what that perceived intention might be, considering your sexual orientation. ;)

[Natoma]

I love you Joe. Cold-Hearted Conservative to the end. :wink:

I'd return the sentiment, but then I would be subjecting that sentiment to the typical liberal game of "make up some perceived intention" to go along with it. I'd rather not risk what that perceived intention might be, considering your sexual orientation. ;)

:lol:

touche touche :twisted:

[MrsSkywalker]

I'm sorry, but I can't muster too much sympathy for the girl. She put herself in front of a bulldozer...not just a bulldozer, but a bulldozer driven by an Isreali soldier hell bent on leveling the home of a believed terrorist. If she did it in an act of blind stupidity, then it was her own fault. If she did it to be a martyr, then sympathy for her death isn't what she was after. There is a fine line between nobility and stupidity; I think she was straddling the line.

That said, her death did put the spotlight back on the tensions between Israel and Palestine, however brief it will remain there. So as tragic or as stupid as you want to see the situation, you are seeing the situation; she did not die in vain. My prayers go out to her family.

[V3]

If she did it in an act of blind stupidity, then it was her own fault.

Even though if it is an act of blind stupidity, that girl didn't deserve to die in such manner.

It was because of intolerance and cruelty that the girl died. May she rest in peace.

[K.I.L.E.R]

How do we even know that she is a girl? :wink:

Blind stupidity is one of the best gifts given to us. :)

[MrsSkywalker]

V3: That girl sought out danger. She got in the way of a moving bulldozer, for crying out loud! It's not as if she was a poor palestinian girl caught in the fray with no way to escape...she took it upon herself to go over and get involved, and as noble as you may feel her motives were, you have to admit that she put herself in the situation that kiled her. We will never know if the driver saw her, or if he intentionally ran her over. Keep in mind that the press can have a tendancy to sensationalize things a bit...I know, shocking but true. All other reports of the incident I have read have said that it was an accident, and they as well had eyewitness reports. In my opinion, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. Keep in mind also that Israel is bulldozing the homes of terrorists. They aren't just randomly levelling all Palestinian homes, they are trying to put the screws to those Palestinians who keep bombing and terrorizing Israelis. They are at war, and I'm not justifying what the Israelis are doing, I'm saying that there are two sides to the story.

My point is, this girl chose to enter an extremely hostile situation and threw herself in the middle of an Israeli military operation...and I'm supposed to feel bad that she died because of it? There were many many ways that she could have safely pushed for peace. She could have fundraised for aid, worked for the Red Cross over there, tried to place the children orphaned by this war with loving families in safe locations, gone around this country to rally support and put the pressure on our government to get serious about helping to solve their problems....there are a number of ways she could have safely helped. She chose the dangerous path. That may have been the more noble route, but it unsurprisingly lead to her demise. I mourn the loss of life in general, and I, too, want her soul to be at peace. But I am not blaming the soldiers whose war she stepped into.

[V3]

V3: That girl sought out danger. She got in the way of a moving bulldozer, for crying out loud!

Bulldozer can stop. The Soldiers can drag her out of the dangerous situation. By force if required. Its not like the other side have no other choices.

If a drunkard walking in the middle of busy street, wouldn't you or the police try to remove him from there ?

We will never know if the driver saw her, or if he intentionally ran her over.

The driver is incompetence ? I don't think so.

My point is, this girl chose to enter an extremely hostile situation and threw herself in the middle of an Israeli military operation...and I'm supposed to feel bad that she died because of it?

I don't know about you, but I feel REALLY bad, about seeing/hearing anyone ran over by bulldozer. This case is no different.

There were many many ways that she could have safely pushed for peace.

There is also other way than running over protestor to bulldoze a house. I find it hard to belive, that they can't remove protestor off the site first. They are bulldozing houses afterall, why can't they take a step to remove protestors off the site?

Like I said before they are just intolerance and cruel.

[Babel-17]

What a sad history for that region.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,917119,00.html

[BoardBonobo]

Those bulldozers are a military design, they were built to protect the driver as they push dirt and soil over entrenched positions. The kind of device that would have been handy during the first world war.

They are thickly shielded and have bullet proof windows. Even though the girl had a mega-phone the driver wouldn't have heard her.

I agree with Joe on this, it wasn't the drivers responsibility the get out of the way. She stood on a growing pile of debris in front of the bulldozer and a terrible accident happend. But it was her own choice to take the risk.

I think that the task she was undertaking, as a peace protester, was laudable. But it had risks, especially in a country like Israel.

A terrible accident that shouldn't have happend. Almost worthy of a Darwin award.

[pascal]

See more here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,917178,00.htmlActivist's memorial service disrupted

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Wednesday March 19, 2003
The Guardian

Israeli forces fired teargas and stun grenades yesterday in an attempt to break up a memorial service for Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist killed by an army bulldozer in Gaza on Sunday.
Witnesses including several dozen foreigners and Palestinian supporters say Israeli armoured vehicles tried to disperse the gathering at the spot in Rafah refugee camp where Ms Corrie was crushed to death.

The 23 year-old activist with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) was trying to prevent the destruction of Palestinian homes by the Israelis when she was hit by the bulldozer.

Joe Smith, a young activist from Kansas City, said about 100 people were gathered to lay carnations and erect a small memorial when the first armoured personnel carrier appeared.

"They started firing teargas and blowing smoke, then they fired sound grenades. After a while it got hectic so we sat down. Then the tank came over and shot in the air," he said. "It scared a lot of Palestinians, especially the shooting made a lot of them run and the teargas freaked people out. But most of us stayed."

Another witness said the army failed to break up the service.

"People were laying carnations at the spot where Rachel was killed when a tank came and fired teargas right on them. Then a core group of the peace activists took an ISM cloth banner to the fence and pinned it up.

"The tank chased after them trying to stop them with teargas but the wind was against the army," she said.

Tensions rose further when a convoy of vehicles, including the bulldozer that killed Ms Corrie, passed the area.

"I don't think it was deliberate but it was pretty insensitive," said Mr Smith.

"I think they had been destroying some buildings elsewhere and had to pass by to get back to their base."

The army said it was investigating the incident.


Yes, it is the guardian info (now someone will refut it) and unfortunatelly she was one more innocent victim of stupidity and violence.

What now? Will US want a UN resolution against Israelis? After 35 US vetos blindinglly supporting all acts of violence?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,916299,00.htmlRachel's war

This weekend 23-year-old American peace activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by a bulldozer as she tried to prevent the Israeli army destroying homes in the Gaza Strip. In a remarkable series of emails to her family, she explained why she was risking her life

Tuesday March 18, 2003
The Guardian

February 7 2003

Hi friends and family, and others,

I have been in Palestine for two weeks and one hour now, and I still have very few words to describe what I see. It is most difficult for me to think about what's going on here when I sit down to write back to the United States. Something about the virtual portal into luxury. I don't know if many of the children here have ever existed without tank-shell holes in their walls and the towers of an occupying army surveying them constantly from the near horizons. I think, although I'm not entirely sure, that even the smallest of these children understand that life is not like this everywhere. An eight-year-old was shot and killed by an Israeli tank two days before I got here, and many of the children murmur his name to me - Ali - or point at the posters of him on the walls. The children also love to get me to practice my limited Arabic by asking me, "Kaif Sharon?" "Kaif Bush?" and they laugh when I say, "Bush Majnoon", "Sharon Majnoon" back in my limited arabic. (How is Sharon? How is Bush? Bush is crazy. Sharon is crazy.) Of course this isn't quite what I believe, and some of the adults who have the English correct me: "Bush mish Majnoon" ... Bush is a businessman. Today I tried to learn to say, "Bush is a tool", but I don't think it translated quite right. But anyway, there are eight-year-olds here much more aware of the workings of the global power structure than I was just a few years ago.

Nevertheless, no amount of reading, attendance at conferences, documentary viewing and word of mouth could have prepared me for the reality of the situation here. You just can't imagine it unless you see it - and even then you are always well aware that your experience of it is not at all the reality: what with the difficulties the Israeli army would face if they shot an unarmed US citizen, and with the fact that I have money to buy water when the army destroys wells, and the fact, of course, that I have the option of leaving. Nobody in my family has been shot, driving in their car, by a rocket launcher from a tower at the end of a major street in my hometown. I have a home. I am allowed to go see the ocean. When I leave for school or work I can be relatively certain that there will not be a heavily armed soldier waiting halfway between Mud Bay and downtown Olympia at a checkpoint with the power to decide whether I can go about my business, and whether I can get home again when I'm done. As an afterthought to all this rambling, I am in Rafah: a city of about 140,000 people, approximately 60% of whom are refugees - many of whom are twice or three times refugees. Today, as I walked on top of the rubble where homes once stood, Egyptian soldiers called to me from the other side of the border, "Go! Go!" because a tank was coming. And then waving and "What's your name?". Something disturbing about this friendly curiosity. It reminded me of how much, to some degree, we are all kids curious about other kids. Egyptian kids shouting at strange women wandering into the path of tanks. Palestinian kids shot from the tanks when they peak out from behind walls to see what's going on. International kids standing in front of tanks with banners. Israeli kids in the tanks anonymously - occasionally shouting and also occasionally waving - many forced to be here, many just agressive - shooting into the houses as we wander away.

I've been having trouble accessing news about the outside world here, but I hear an escalation of war on Iraq is inevitable. There is a great deal of concern here about the "reoccupation of Gaza". Gaza is reoccupied every day to various extents but I think the fear is that the tanks will enter all the streets and remain here instead of entering some of the streets and then withdrawing after some hours or days to observe and shoot from the edges of the communities. If people aren't already thinking about the consequences of this war for the people of the entire region then I hope you will start.

My love to everyone. My love to my mom. My love to smooch. My love to fg and barnhair and sesamees and Lincoln School. My love to Olympia.

Rachel

February 20 2003


Mama,

Now the Israeli army has actually dug up the road to Gaza, and both of the major checkpoints are closed. This means that Palestinians who want to go and register for their next quarter at university can't. People can't get to their jobs and those who are trapped on the other side can't get home; and internationals, who have a meeting tomorrow in the West Bank, won't make it. We could probably make it through if we made serious use of our international white person privilege, but that would also mean some risk of arrest and deportation, even though none of us has done anything illegal.

The Gaza Strip is divided in thirds now. There is some talk about the "reoccupation of Gaza", but I seriously doubt this will happen, because I think it would be a geopolitically stupid move for Israel right now. I think the more likely thing is an increase in smaller below-the-international-outcry-radar incursions and possibly the oft-hinted "population transfer".

I am staying put in Rafah for now, no plans to head north. I still feel like I'm relatively safe and think that my most likely risk in case of a larger-scale incursion is arrest. A move to reoccupy Gaza would generate a much larger outcry than Sharon's assassination-during-peace-negotiations/land grab strategy, which is working very well now to create settlements all over, slowly but surely eliminating any meaningful possibility for Palestinian self-determination. Know that I have a lot of very nice Palestinians looking after me. I have a small flu bug, and got some very nice lemony drinks to cure me. Also, the woman who keeps the key for the well where we still sleep keeps asking me about you. She doesn't speak a bit of English, but she asks about my mom pretty frequently - wants to make sure I'm calling you.

Love to you and Dad and Sarah and Chris and everybody.

Rachel

February 27 2003


(To her mother)

Love you. Really miss you. I have bad nightmares about tanks and bulldozers outside our house and you and me inside. Sometimes the adrenaline acts as an anesthetic for weeks and then in the evening or at night it just hits me again - a little bit of the reality of the situation. I am really scared for the people here. Yesterday, I watched a father lead his two tiny children, holding his hands, out into the sight of tanks and a sniper tower and bulldozers and Jeeps because he thought his house was going to be exploded. Jenny and I stayed in the house with several women and two small babies. It was our mistake in translation that caused him to think it was his house that was being exploded. In fact, the Israeli army was in the process of detonating an explosive in the ground nearby - one that appears to have been planted by Palestinian resistance.

This is in the area where Sunday about 150 men were rounded up and contained outside the settlement with gunfire over their heads and around them, while tanks and bulldozers destroyed 25 greenhouses - the livelihoods for 300 people. The explosive was right in front of the greenhouses - right in the point of entry for tanks that might come back again. I was terrified to think that this man felt it was less of a risk to walk out in view of the tanks with his kids than to stay in his house. I was really scared that they were all going to be shot and I tried to stand between them and the tank. This happens every day, but just this father walking out with his two little kids just looking very sad, just happened to get my attention more at this particular moment, probably because I felt it was our translation problems that made him leave.

I thought a lot about what you said on the phone about Palestinian violence not helping the situation. Sixty thousand workers from Rafah worked in Israel two years ago. Now only 600 can go to Israel for jobs. Of these 600, many have moved, because the three checkpoints between here and Ashkelon (the closest city in Israel) make what used to be a 40-minute drive, now a 12-hour or impassible journey. In addition, what Rafah identified in 1999 as sources of economic growth are all completely destroyed - the Gaza international airport (runways demolished, totally closed); the border for trade with Egypt (now with a giant Israeli sniper tower in the middle of the crossing); access to the ocean (completely cut off in the last two years by a checkpoint and the Gush Katif settlement). The count of homes destroyed in Rafah since the beginning of this intifada is up around 600, by and large people with no connection to the resistance but who happen to live along the border. I think it is maybe official now that Rafah is the poorest place in the world. There used to be a middle class here - recently. We also get reports that in the past, Gazan flower shipments to Europe were delayed for two weeks at the Erez crossing for security inspections. You can imagine the value of two-week-old cut flowers in the European market, so that market dried up. And then the bulldozers come and take out people's vegetable farms and gardens. What is left for people? Tell me if you can think of anything. I can't.

If any of us had our lives and welfare completely strangled, lived with children in a shrinking place where we knew, because of previous experience, that soldiers and tanks and bulldozers could come for us at any moment and destroy all the greenhouses that we had been cultivating for however long, and did this while some of us were beaten and held captive with 149 other people for several hours - do you think we might try to use somewhat violent means to protect whatever fragments remained? I think about this especially when I see orchards and greenhouses and fruit trees destroyed - just years of care and cultivation. I think about you and how long it takes to make things grow and what a labour of love it is. I really think, in a similar situation, most people would defend themselves as best they could. I think Uncle Craig would. I think probably Grandma would. I think I would.

You asked me about non-violent resistance.

When that explosive detonated yesterday it broke all the windows in the family's house. I was in the process of being served tea and playing with the two small babies. I'm having a hard time right now. Just feel sick to my stomach a lot from being doted on all the time, very sweetly, by people who are facing doom. I know that from the United States, it all sounds like hyperbole. Honestly, a lot of the time the sheer kindness of the people here, coupled with the overwhelming evidence of the wilful destruction of their lives, makes it seem unreal to me. I really can't believe that something like this can happen in the world without a bigger outcry about it. It really hurts me, again, like it has hurt me in the past, to witness how awful we can allow the world to be. I felt after talking to you that maybe you didn't completely believe me. I think it's actually good if you don't, because I do believe pretty much above all else in the importance of independent critical thinking. And I also realise that with you I'm much less careful than usual about trying to source every assertion that I make. A lot of the reason for that is I know that you actually do go and do your own research. But it makes me worry about the job I'm doing. All of the situation that I tried to enumerate above - and a lot of other things - constitutes a somewhat gradual - often hidden, but nevertheless massive - removal and destruction of the ability of a particular group of people to survive. This is what I am seeing here. The assassinations, rocket attacks and shooting of children are atrocities - but in focusing on them I'm terrified of missing their context. The vast majority of people here - even if they had the economic means to escape, even if they actually wanted to give up resisting on their land and just leave (which appears to be maybe the less nefarious of Sharon's possible goals), can't leave. Because they can't even get into Israel to apply for visas, and because their destination countries won't let them in (both our country and Arab countries). So I think when all means of survival is cut off in a pen (Gaza) which people can't get out of, I think that qualifies as genocide. Even if they could get out, I think it would still qualify as genocide. Maybe you could look up the definition of genocide according to international law. I don't remember it right now. I'm going to get better at illustrating this, hopefully. I don't like to use those charged words. I think you know this about me. I really value words. I really try to illustrate and let people draw their own conclusions.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Just want to write to my Mom and tell her that I'm witnessing this chronic, insidious genocide and I'm really scared, and questioning my fundamental belief in the goodness of human nature. This has to stop. I think it is a good idea for us all to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop. I don't think it's an extremist thing to do anymore. I still really want to dance around to Pat Benatar and have boyfriends and make comics for my coworkers. But I also want this to stop. Disbelief and horror is what I feel. Disappointment. I am disappointed that this is the base reality of our world and that we, in fact, participate in it. This is not at all what I asked for when I came into this world. This is not at all what the people here asked for when they came into this world. This is not the world you and Dad wanted me to come into when you decided to have me. This is not what I meant when I looked at Capital Lake and said: "This is the wide world and I'm coming to it." I did not mean that I was coming into a world where I could live a comfortable life and possibly, with no effort at all, exist in complete unawareness of my participation in genocide. More big explosions somewhere in the distance outside.

When I come back from Palestine, I probably will have nightmares and constantly feel guilty for not being here, but I can channel that into more work. Coming here is one of the better things I've ever done. So when I sound crazy, or if the Israeli military should break with their racist tendency not to injure white people, please pin the reason squarely on the fact that I am in the midst of a genocide which I am also indirectly supporting, and for which my government is largely responsible.

I love you and Dad. Sorry for the diatribe. OK, some strange men next to me just gave me some peas, so I need to eat and thank them.

Rachel

February 28 2003


(To her mother)

Thanks, Mom, for your response to my email. It really helps me to get word from you, and from other people who care about me.

After I wrote to you I went incommunicado from the affinity group for about 10 hours which I spent with a family on the front line in Hi Salam - who fixed me dinner - and have cable TV. The two front rooms of their house are unusable because gunshots have been fired through the walls, so the whole family - three kids and two parents - sleep in the parent's bedroom. I sleep on the floor next to the youngest daughter, Iman, and we all shared blankets. I helped the son with his English homework a little, and we all watched Pet Semetery, which is a horrifying movie. I think they all thought it was pretty funny how much trouble I had watching it. Friday is the holiday, and when I woke up they were watching Gummy Bears dubbed into Arabic. So I ate breakfast with them and sat there for a while and just enjoyed being in this big puddle of blankets with this family watching what for me seemed like Saturday morning cartoons. Then I walked some way to B'razil, which is where Nidal and Mansur and Grandmother and Rafat and all the rest of the big family that has really wholeheartedly adopted me live. (The other day, by the way, Grandmother gave me a pantomimed lecture in Arabic that involved a lot of blowing and pointing to her black shawl. I got Nidal to tell her that my mother would appreciate knowing that someone here was giving me a lecture about smoking turning my lungs black.) I met their sister-in-law, who is visiting from Nusserat camp, and played with her small baby.

Nidal's English gets better every day. He's the one who calls me, "My sister". He started teaching Grandmother how to say, "Hello. How are you?" In English. You can always hear the tanks and bulldozers passing by, but all of these people are genuinely cheerful with each other, and with me. When I am with Palestinian friends I tend to be somewhat less horrified than when I am trying to act in a role of human rights observer, documenter, or direct-action resister. They are a good example of how to be in it for the long haul. I know that the situation gets to them - and may ultimately get them - on all kinds of levels, but I am nevertheless amazed at their strength in being able to defend such a large degree of their humanity - laughter, generosity, family-time - against the incredible horror occurring in their lives and against the constant presence of death. I felt much better after this morning. I spent a lot of time writing about the disappointment of discovering, somewhat first-hand, the degree of evil of which we are still capable. I should at least mention that I am also discovering a degree of strength and of basic ability for humans to remain human in the direst of circumstances - which I also haven't seen before. I think the word is dignity. I wish you could meet these people. Maybe, hopefully, someday you will.

Rachel

A more comprehensive collection of Rachel's emails can be found at Guardian.co.uk/israel

[pascal]

More here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,915725,00.html

Israeli army bulldozer crushes US peace protester in Gaza Strip

Peace campaigner killed as Israeli army destroys homes in Palestinian refugee camp

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem and Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Monday March 17, 2003
The Guardian

An Israeli army bulldozer crushed an American peace activist to death in the Gaza Strip yesterday in what witnesses described as a deliberate killing. Rachel Corrie, 23, died as she attempted to prevent the military destroying homes in the Rafah refugee camp, one of the most dangerous in the occupied territories.
"She was standing on top of a pile of earth," said another activist, Richard Purssell, who was a few feet away. "The driver cannot have failed to see her. As the blade pushed the pile, the earth rose up. Rachel slid down the pile. It looks as if she got her foot caught. The driver didn't slow down; he just ran over her. Then he reversed the bulldozer back over her again. She was very courageous."

Other activists said the bulldozer had approached from several metres away and that Ms Corrie, who was wearing a brightly coloured jacket, was waving and they were shouting at the driver to stop but he ignored them.

Witnesses said another protester had been slightly injured about half an hour earlier when the same bulldozer knocked him into barbed wire.

Ms Corrie was one of eight foreign volunteers - four from the US and four from Britain - with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) seeking to block house demolitions.

Mr Purssell, from Brighton, said that earlier an Israeli tank protecting the bulldozer had attempted to drive protesters away with warning shots and teargas. But there had been no trouble immediately before Ms Corrie was crushed.

Doctors at al-Najar hospital said she had died from skull and chest fractures. The Israeli military described the death as a "very regrettable accident".

"We are dealing with a group of protesters who are acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger - the Palestinians, themselves and our forces - by intentionally placing themselves in a combat zone," the army said.

An Israeli military official later claimed there was limited visibility, especially on the ground immediately in front of the vehicle, from the windows of the armoured bulldozers used by the army.

ISM volunteers frequently act as human shields to hinder demolitions, delay the construction of the new "security" wall in the West Bank or to help protect Palestinians harvesting their crops under threat from Jewish settlers.

An ISM spokesman in America said yesterday that Ms Cor rie was a student in Olympia, Washington, who had been in the area for about a month.

She is the first foreign peace activist killed in the occupied territories during the past 2 years of intifada.

Another witness, Mansour Abed Allah, a Palestinian human rights worker in Rafah, said it was ironic that an American should be killed by a US-made bulldozer: "America is providing Israel with tanks and bulldozers, and now they killed one of their own people."

In an email this month, Ms Corrie described a February 14 confrontation with another Israeli bulldozer in which she referred to herself and other activists as "internationals".

"The internationals stood in the path of the bulldozer and were physically pushed with the shovel backwards, taking shelter in a house," she wrote. "The bulldozer then proceeded on its course, demol ishing one side of the house with the internationals inside."

After her death, the movement called on the US government, the UN and the international community "to uphold international law and respect the Geneva convention". It also demanded that the US halt the sale of weapons and Caterpillar bulldozers used in the destruction of Palestinian buildings.

Rafah refugee camp is surrounded by Jewish settlements and army posts. Palestinian civilians say they are frequent victims of random shootings by the military and settlers. Children are often among the dead.

The Israeli military has imposed "full closure" on the occupied territories this week to coincide with the Jewish holiday of Purim. The order prevents any Palestinians crossing into Israel.

[Joe DeFuria]

Pascal,

"I don't think it was deliberate but it was pretty insensitive," said Mr Smith.

"I think they had been destroying some buildings elsewhere and had to pass by to get back to their base."

Come on Pascal. I thought you were smarter than to just take sensationalized spoon feb propaganda at face value.

[Joe DeFuria]

What now? Will US want a UN resolution against Israelis? After 35 US vetos blindinglly supporting all acts of violence?

It is quite appaling to see the pure hatred of the U.S. manifest itself in such ways. Again, I thoght you were better than that, Pascal. You really do think the U.S. is so blatantly selfish that such a hypocritical thing would be persued?

If the U.S. says anything official at all, I'm quite sure it will be very similar to what I'm saying. "Her conviction is admirable, and her death is tragic and unfortunate."

[MrsSkywalker]

Bulldozer can stop. The Soldiers can drag her out of the dangerous situation.

It is not their job to rescue idiots. Like it or not, if you get in the way of a military operation, any country's military operation, you must be prepared to face the consequences of your uninvited involvement.

If a drunkard walking in the middle of busy street, wouldn't you or the police try to remove him from there ?[/qoute]

Um, what? Ok, first of all, alcohol impairs judgement. A person has a very limited sense of danger when drunk. Secondly, in the US I fully expect someone to guide the intoxicated individual to safety without question. Here are the flaws in your scenerio: The girl was sober, acting with her senses intact, and was not in the US, but a war torn country. The two situations are completely different.

[quote] They are bulldozing houses afterall, why can't they take a step to remove protestors off the site?

You talk as if they were bulldozing to make room for a new guest house or something. They are levelling the homes of terrorists. They aren't contractors out to do a job, they are soldiers on a mission. If you don't see a major difference in that, then nothing I can say will make you see my point. These soldiers are on a mission. It's not a job, it's not a weekend project, it's a mission.

Has the entire world forgotten the attrocities that the Palestinians have committed over the past four decades? I feel badly for the innocents, but let's face it, the PLO has major humanity issues.

http://www.terrorism.com/terrorism/PLO.shtml] ( [url) Some info on the PLO[/url]

Granted, they were ordered into peace...but we have all seen the news. Peace just ain't happenin'. Forty years of terrorist acts against a country kind of creates tensions. Israel has said "Enough!" They aren't going to take it anymore, and I don't think they should. They have been persecuted throughout history and I say it's about time that they take a hardline stance to protect their people. I am not supporting the rouge acts of violence committed by Israelis, not at all. But I do firmly support the Israeli government in their quest to get rid of terrorists. My heart does not bleed for the PLO or anyone who supports them.

[kyleb]

[quote] It is not their job to rescue idiots. Like it or not, if you get in the way of a military operation, any country's military operation, you must be prepared to face the consequences of your uninvited involvement.

well i do belive she was prepared to face the consequences so that is beside the point. what i am curious about is that it seems like you are you saying that if people are willing to kill people who don't even want to kill anyone, we should just respect that for what it is? also, sense they are getting paid to do what they are doing, that makes the death that they bring justified? am i just confused by your comments here or is that what you mean?

[pascal]

Pascal,

"I don't think it was deliberate but it was pretty insensitive," said Mr Smith.

"I think they had been destroying some buildings elsewhere and had to pass by to get back to their base."

Come on Pascal. I thought you were smarter than to just take sensationalized spoon feb propaganda at face value.
I dont get it at face value but I will not hide it. The link and quote is there, then just filter it, find more info take your conclusions.

[Joe DeFuria]

well i do belive she was prepared to face the consequences so that is beside the point.

I can't speak for MrsSkywalker, but since I agree with the post, I'll share my opinion.

First off, it's not beside the point. You like to just attach your beliefs and ideals to others, when you have no justification for doing so....other than perhaps she supports "the side" of the conflict that you support.

I am not that presumptuous. Different individuals have different motives...even those who support the same end cause. You say she understood the risk. I say I'm not so sure.

what i am curious about is that it seems like you are you saying that if people are willing to kill people who don't even want to kill anyone, we should just respect that for what it is?

The first thing you must understand, is that we DON'T KNOW if she supports the killing of people, or wants people killed. That is an assumption on your part. And certainly would be an assumption that the military would have to makt. It's reasonable to assume that she, at that moment, was not any direct threat to the driver. It's also reasonable to assume that she doesn't want to see palestinians killed. But that says nothing about her desire to see others killed, or her support for others to kill Isralies.

Maybe yes? Maybe no? Maybe if we read more about her and her cause, we might have a better understanding. Do you think the driver has that luxury?

The driver is part of a military operation. As far as he is concerned, what he is doing is saving the lives of his people, and making it safer for his people. That's the purpose of his mission.

Anything that gets in the way of that mission, is putting his people at greater risk. You say she doesn't want to kill anyone. As far as he is concerned, by her very presence there and impairing of his missin, she is putting israeli civilians at risk, and can ultimately result in their death.

As far as he is concerned, he doesn't have the option of getting out of the vehcile, as he may be foricbly restrained from getting back in.

As far as the military is concerned, having additional soldiers around "policing" the situation to get "rid of protestors" puts THEM at greater risk of poalestinian resistance and attack.

That is the difference between when a MILITARY operation clashes with "protestors", and in contrast, say to two "protests" from different ideals clashing with one another.

The two situations are entirely different, and they come with and entirely different set of risks.

One should not EXPECT the military to alter course because of protests. One might hope...one might believe that the individual driving the dozer goes against orders to protect his own citizens due to the pshycological conflict of having to kill an someone to get the job done...but one should not expect it to happen.

also, sense they are getting paid to do what they are doing, that makes the death that they bring justified?

Where does that have anything to do with it? And was that implied by MrsSkywalker? The point of him being in the military is NOT that he's getting paid. It's that the military is carrying out orders of it's government / people for their OWN humanitarian purpose...the ensuring the protection and safety of it's people.

That is different than a "contractor" who's doing a job to build a new house or level ground for a new parking lot.

am i just confused by your comments here or is that what you mean?

Confused.

[pascal]

What now? Will US want a UN resolution against Israelis? After 35 US vetos blindinglly supporting all acts of violence?

It is quite appaling to see the pure hatred of the U.S. manifest itself in such ways. Again, I thoght you were better than that, Pascal. You really do think the U.S. is so blatantly selfish that such a hypocritical thing would be persued?

If the U.S. says anything official at all, I'm quite sure it will be very similar to what I'm saying. "Her conviction is admirable, and her death is tragic and unfortunate."Sorry, but I find it very disturbing when people die this way while trying to really help other people. Also it is more disturbing when some people (not you) try to qualify her as "idiot". We should have more respect for people lifes. :(

Sometimes I ask myself what if US had a less condecendent position with Israelis. Be hard with BOTH sides and make them stop all this absurd situation.

[Joe DeFuria]

Sorry, but I find it very disturbing when people die this way while trying to really help other people.

I find it tragic as well. Though I find it equally as tragic when people don't even consider that the Israeli military (including the bulldozer drivers) is on his own mission to help other people.

Also it is more disturbing when some people (not you) try to qualify her as "idiot". We should have more respect for people lifes. :(

Agreed. However, she might really not have taken into consideration the risks. And if she didn't, that's not smart at all. We don't know, so I don't make the presumption either way, just offer the different possibilities.

Sometimes I ask myself what if US had a less condecendent position with Israelis. Be hard with BOTH sides and make them stop all this absurd situation.

And sometimes, I ask myself if everyone else had a less condecendent position toward the U.S...

And I honestly think that if you believe you can "make" both sides stop, without introducing our own brand of oppression, that is an absurd position to take.

[pascal]

Sorry, but I find it very disturbing when people die this way while trying to really help other people.

I find it tragic as well. Though I find it equally as tragic when people don't even consider that the Israeli military (including the bulldozer drivers) is on his own mission to help other people.

Then they have the right to kill? I suppose any bulldozer operation in urban area with civilians is to be taken with care and skill.


Also it is more disturbing when some people (not you) try to qualify her as "idiot". We should have more respect for people lifes. :(

Agreed. However, she might really not have taken into consideration the risks. And if she didn't, that's not smart at all. We don't know, so I don't make the presumption either way, just offer the different possibilities.
Smart or not it was her option which is not subject of questioning. The unnecessary violent act IMHO is arguable.



Sometimes I ask myself what if US had a less condecendent position with Israelis. Be hard with BOTH sides and make them stop all this absurd situation.

And sometimes, I ask myself if everyone else had a less condecendent position toward the U.S...

And I honestly think that if you believe you can "make" both sides stop, without introducing our own brand of oppression, that is an absurd position to take.
But US had already introduced its own brand of oppression in one side only, which is IMHO an unbalanced position. IMHO both sides have to make concessions and work toward peace.

[kyleb]

well i do belive she was prepared to face the consequences so that is beside the point.

First off, it's not beside the point. You like to just attach your beliefs and ideals to others, when you have no justification for doing so....other than perhaps she supports "the side" of the conflict that you support.

she left the safe shores of our country to enter a war zone; as i said "i belive" as in i find it most likely, to say i have no justification is a mockery of logic. also, why do you presume she had a taken a "side" when, you do not that we do not always have to pick a "side" don't you?

I am not that presumptuous. Different individuals have different motives...even those who support the same end cause. You say she understood the risk. I say I'm not so sure.

well no one said you had to be sure.

The first thing you must understand, is that we DON'T KNOW if she supports the killing of people, or wants people killed.

but as long as you are not sure then anything goes?

That is an assumption on your part. And certainly would be an assumption that the military would have to makt. It's reasonable to assume that she, at that moment, was not any direct threat to the driver. It's also reasonable to assume that she doesn't want to see palestinians killed. But that says nothing about her desire to see others killed, or her support for others to kill Isralies.

i am speaking of the evidence we have; you are the one venturing into assumption there.

Maybe yes? Maybe no? Maybe if we read more about her and her cause, we might have a better understanding. Do you think the driver has that luxury?

he sure did as life is what we make of it.

The driver is part of a military operation. As far as he is concerned, what he is doing is saving the lives of his people, and making it safer for his people. That's the purpose of his mission.

so as long as it is your goal to save some people, killing others is acceptable?

Anything that gets in the way of that mission, is putting his people at greater risk.?

do you think he found the bullhorn or the bright colored jacket more threatening?

You say she doesn't want to kill anyone. As far as he is concerned, by her very presence there and impairing of his missin, she is putting israeli civilians at risk, and can ultimately result in their death.

As far as he is concerned, he doesn't have the option of getting out of the vehcile, as he may be foricbly restrained from getting back in.

As far as the military is concerned, having additional soldiers around "policing" the situation to get "rid of protestors" puts THEM at greater risk of poalestinian resistance and attack.

so it is all right to kill as fair as your concerned, assuming the killer is concerned as well? were does concern for life come in on this? just on the life you care to concern yourself with?


That is the difference between when a MILITARY operation clashes with "protestors", and in contrast, say to two "protests" from different ideals clashing with one another.

The two situations are entirely different, and they come with and entirely different set of risks.

so seeing as you say they are entirely different situations. does that mean that protestors are not people, or military are not people? or are the situations not actually so different as you claimed?

One should not EXPECT the military to alter course because of protests. One might hope...one might believe that the individual driving the dozer goes against orders to protect his own citizens due to the pshycological conflict of having to kill an someone to get the job done...but one should not expect it to happen.

welll obviously, i never argued otherwise.


Where does that have anything to do with it? And was that implied by MrsSkywalker? The point of him being in the military is NOT that he's getting paid. It's that the military is carrying out orders of it's government / people for their OWN humanitarian purpose...the ensuring the protection and safety of it's people.

she said what his job was not, she said what his job was; and by definition of job, pay is a part of the situation no matter how much you refuse to admit it.

[Joe DeFuria]

she left the safe shores of our country to enter a war zone;

Correct. And as I said, to presume she did so having not completely thought things through is, well, presumptuous.

as i said "i belive" as in i find it most likely, to say i have no justification is a mockery of logic.

Did I say it was a mockery of logic? I said it was PRESUMPTUOUS.

also, why do you presume she had a taken a "side" when, you do not that we do not always have to pick a "side" don't you?

Is this a serious question? In big, bold letters from the ISM web-site and their mission:

"A CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE ,
AND FOR A JUST AND VIABLE PEACE "

Firthermore: "Although Israel points to the occasional acts of Palestinian violence as a grave problem, it is clear that the Occupation itself is the overwhelming, and continuous act of collective violence in the area. "

The Palestinian response over the years has been some attempts at armed struggle (as is their right), but mostly peaceful protests, demonstrations, and appeals to Israeli courts.

It's clear which "side" she is on. No? She is not on the side that the occupation is needed ensure Israeli protection. Is that not clear?

I presume she has taken a side because I cannot find any reference in her groups's web-site that shows any mention of doing similar protestations "against" palestinians. She also burns American flags, which I take as a clear sign that she does not support American policy. And the non support of Bush and American policy is prominently plastered throughout the ISM web-site.

Please, let's NOT turn this thread into a "which side is right". That is not the point. The point is, ISM, the organization she's representing, is clearly on ONE side.

but as long as you are not sure then anything goes?

YES. When it comes to military action. You apparently fail to realize, despite what MrsSkywlaker and I are saying, is that a Military Operation is a while new ballgame.

We are about to impose on a miltary operaion in Iraq. We will do our best to minimize civilian loss. We are ENCOURAGING civilians to leave. Why? Because we will not comprimise our ability to successfully complete the mission.

That's what it means to be at war. That is the nature of war and military operations.

You obviously do not realize this, which gives me little confidence that she realized it either.

i am speaking of the evidence we have; you are the one venturing into assumption there.

Name me one thing that I assumed. I do NOT assume she wants anyone killed or not killed. The point is, NEITHER CAN THE MILITARY.

And THE MILITARY'S JOB is not to guess one way or the other. the military's job is to complete the mission. She should not assume that military CARES what her beliefs or motives are. All she should assume is that the military WILL CARE that she is an obstacle to completing a mission. And she will have to deal with the possibility that you know, the military might just have the same strong convictions of completing their mission, as she has strong convictions from preventing its completion.

so as long as it is your goal to save some people, killing others is acceptable?

In a military operation? Yes. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A MILITARY OPERATION.

You keep on trying to get on some moral high-horse which is not relevant to this discussion.

You can be absolutely, 100% certain that THE MILITARY believes that the fact that some people will be killed is acceptable.

do you think he found the bullhorn or the bright colored jacket more threatening?

Do you read one damn thing that I wrote? GO BACK and read that part again where I said it's reasonable to assume that AT THAT MOMENT, SHE did not pose a direct threat?

so it is all right to kill as fair as your concerned, assuming the killer is concerned as well? were does concern for life come in on this? just on the life you care to concern yourself with?

I can see it's impossible to have a pointed discussion with you. Not only do you not feel the need to address the actual issue (whether or not she should expect that she may be killed accidentally or purposely by protesting in a military setting), but you continually distort my statements, and otherwise make implications that I have not made.

You have made it quite clear, Kyle, that you either do not understand the nature of military operations.

Think of the military as a machine that will regard completing the mission above all else, with ZERO regard to any human life that gets in the way of completing that mission. That's not entirely true, but that is a more accurate representation than whatever dream-world military you believe in.

Military action is justified by those who use it, by saying the end result of a successful use of the military, outweighs the destruction of property and lives that it causes. That is what one should expect the leaders who order the war believe, that is what one should expect the commanders who orchestrate the missions believe, that is what one should expect the soliders who carry out the missions to believe.

And we know very well that you disagree with this philospohy entirely Kyle. That is not the point. The point is, this philosophy is in fact what guides military action. And anyone getting in the way of a military operation, and doesn't perceive the military in that way, is just fooling himself, or herself.

so seeing as you say they are entirely different situations. does that mean that protestors are not people, or military are not people? or are the situations not actually so different as you claimed?

See above "machine" analogy.

To be perfectly clear, one should EXPECT that the military is made up of people who believe that killing and destruction of property is a justifiable means to and end.

Whether or not YOU believe it is justifiable is not relevant. If you do not assume that the people carrying out a mission think this way, then you are setting yourself up for death.

she said what his job was not, she said what his job was; and by definition of job, pay is a part of the situation no matter how much you refuse to admit it.

I don't really know how to respond to that, because I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say.

Please don't tell me that you are trying to argue the idea that a military person "doing his job" does so for the same reason that a contractor does his job...."because he's getting paid." Please, please tell me you are not saying that...

[kyleb]

"pay" refers to more than just money you know, and job refers directly to that which we are "paid" to do. please tell how you cast a blind eye to this? also, how to you take and idea like "military" and separate it from concepts of humanity? your arguments appear to be based on some sort of verbal-alchemy from what i can tell.

[Joe DeFuria]

"pay" refers to more than just money you know, and job refers directly to that which we are "paid" to do.please tell how you cast a blind eye to this?

Please tell me what your point is? I really have no idea. Is your point that military soldiers get paid? Uh, I agree.

(EDIT: Oh, I see now. In another thread you now conveniently mention your "good friend" just going to war just because he's getting paid, not because he believes in the cause. Again, that is irrelevent. As I said, one should EXPECT / ASSUME that the soldiers in a military operation are there to complete the objective. You keep on trying to interject some morality judgement into the question at hand where it doesn't exists.)

, how to you take and idea like "military" and separate it from concepts of humanity?

Sigh. First read my last post.

Second, the quick summation should you get confused by my tactics of providing several pointed responses to your last post: Military, as perceived by those who support its use, is a tool to preserve and protect humanity.

your arguments appear to be based on some sort of verbal-alchemy from what i can tell.

What can I say? I'll take that as a copmliment, I'm doing my best to take the crap statements and implications you make, and transform it into something valuable, like education. ;)

[MrsSkywalker]

I am in no way implying that getting cash is either an incentive or a license to kill. Not one person joins the military for the pay or benefits...in fact, in the US soldiers get less money than they would working a regular 9-5, and I can't imagine that it's too different in other countries. Being a soldier isn't a job, it's a position born of a passion for defending and keeping sacred what you believe in: putting your life on the line for what you believe is a just and noble cause. Now, the girl put her life on the line for what she believed to be a just and noble cause. If you want to believe that made her noble and a "soldier" in her own right, fine, believe that. However, she had absolutely no training in combat, obviously little training in local politics, and no real comprehension of the differences between Olympia, WA, and the Gaza Strip.

Being a cruisader who was willing to die for a cause does not qualify her as an idiot. Not being fully prepared before jumping into the situation does.

If you take offense at that, that's fine by me. This is after all my opinion. Consider this, though, before you flame me back (which I am sure you will....I know, you just can't help it. I'm fine with that): She was an untrained civillian stepping into a situation that even the trained Palestinian military is staying out of.

[kyleb]

Not one person joins the military for the pay or benefits.

my father did, he was 17 and had moved out of the house two years prior to that because he was tired of getting beat by his drunken father. just after finishing highschool, the pay or benefits offered by the military sounded like a much better deal my dad than the dirt poor life he had lead up until then. this is not uncommon and i can sight many such cases of very similar situations as i have been around the military for the majority of my life. also, besides the pay; what do you think warriors kill for if not the benefits have been led to belive they will receive? the issue of when it is justified to kill and when one should show respect for life often gets very blurry when you start justifying it with terms like "military" and "duty", but the act is still the same and there are at least as many wrong reasons to do it as there are right ones. this holds true regardless of the words we use.

[Joe DeFuria]

my father did, he was 17 and had moved out of the house two years prior to that because he was tired of getting beat by his drunken father. just after finishing highschool, the pay or benefits offered by the military sounded like a much better deal my dad than the dirt poor life he had lead up until then.

I do agree that some people join the military for monetary reasons. However, that does not impact the way one should assume that military action is being carried out.

Incidentally, training one self for, and acquiring a civilian job, while probably harder and less immediately gratifying road to take, also seems to me to be a much better than your dad lving the dirt poor life he had lead up until then. What your saying is, your dad chose what seemed to be the easier road.

Not blaming your dad at all. Just that at least in this country, there are more options than joining the military for making money and supporting oneself.

also, besides the pay; what do you think warriors kill for if not the benefits have been led to belive they will receive?

By "benefits lead to believe they will receive", I presume you mean the benefits of preserving and protecting humanity that they are lead to beleive, or believe all on their own without being "lead" to them?

You'll have to ask them. How should we know? I also don't know what makes serial killers do their thing either.

the issue of when it is justified to kill and when one should show respect for life often gets very blurry when you start justifying it with terms like "military" and "duty",

The issue of when it's justified to kill is very blurry, regardless of whether the military is involved in it or not.

but the act is still the same and there are at least as many wrong reasons to do it as there are right ones. this holds true regardless of the words we use.

True. Though I'm still trying to figure out your point in releveance to the topic at hand.

Are you just trying to say that the bulldozer driver may not believe in the "humanitarian cause" as stated by Israel? And because of this unknown, and the girl could not know how he viewed it, so the girl is not responsible for her own death? Are you trying to say this was not a military operation when "you get down to it?" just a guy in a bulldozer and a girl with a blowhorn?

[kyleb]

I do agree that some people join the military for monetary reasons. However, that does not impact the way one should assume that military action is being carried out.

Incidentally, training one self for, and acquiring a civilian job, while probably harder and less immediately gratifying road to take, also seems to me to be a much better than your dad lving the dirt poor life he had lead up until then. What your saying is, your dad chose what seemed to be the easier road.

Not blaming your dad at all. Just that at least in this country, there are more options than joining the military for making money and supporting oneself.

sure enough, my father is spend a few years in the marines before giving it up for civilian life. however, eventually he turned to the army for a collage education and had a long carrier with that. now he owns, or rather the bank owns, a few how cleaning services that along with his retirement pay allow him to live a comfortable lifestyle. but the man has been far from happy for the majority of his life that i have seen, and he always seems to have to keep himself occupied on a specific task to get there when he does. i love my father very much, but even though i belive his is a good man i do know that he has done more than his fair share of wrong. i know that he knows it too, even though he does not like to talk about it; but we all do that, it is part of being human. however, i still cannot find it in myself to encourage such behavior in myself or anyone else for that matter. i hope that does well to make my position more clear.


By "benefits lead to believe they will receive", I presume you mean the benefits of preserving and protecting humanity that they are lead to beleive, or believe all on their own without being "lead" to them?

those are the promises i am talking about.

You'll have to ask them. How should we know? I also don't know what makes serial killers do their thing either.

i will work to find some good information on the net for you if you might be willing to look into those subjects, such things have been a topic of much research and the opinions i hold are based on that information.

The issue of when it's justified to kill is very blurry, regardless of whether the military is involved in it or not.

well you can make anything look blurry if you squint hard enough; but that does not mean it is anything but clear.

True. Though I'm still trying to figure out your point in releveance to the topic at hand.

Are you just trying to say that the bulldozer driver may not believe in the "humanitarian cause" as stated by Israel?

if i am to belive a man's cause is one of humanitarian origin, i must see that he behaves in a human manor. i understand that he might belive otherwise, but his actions prove that he was confused, and the persevation of humanity was obviously not his cause.

And because of this unknown, and the girl could not know how he viewed it, so the girl is not responsible for her own death?

no, that is not what i am saying, i see many parties who deserve a share of the respectability in this matter, including myself. are you saying that from what you have seen you belive that no one is to blame but herself?

Are you trying to say this was not a military operation when "you get down to it?" just a guy in a bulldozer and a girl with a blowhorn?

well "just" is going way to far; i am saying that putting a label on something does not change what it is, at least not for me.

[Joe DeFuria]

i hope that does well to make my position more clear.

Unfortunately, not really. Your position seems to be that you encourage others to try not and do wrong, which is a rather ambiguos position that anyone would take.

i will work to find some good information on the net for you if you might be willing to look into those subjects, such things have been a topic of much research and the opinions i hold are based on that information.

Could be an interesting exercise, but I'm not sure of the point. What makes people kill? I'm sure there are lots and lots of reasons, some good (at least IMO), some bad. And each individual case probably has a separate set of circumstances.

well you can make anything look blurry if you squint hard enough; but that does not mean it is anything but clear.

:?:

You can cover everything with a "blanket philosophy", but that does not make the real situation clear.

if i am to belive a man's cause is one of humanitarian origin, i must see that he behaves in a human manor. i understand that he might belive otherwise, but his actions prove that he was confused, and the persevation of humanity was obviously not his cause.

Can you restate? Don't know what you mean.

no, that is not what i am saying, i see many parties who deserve a share of the respectability in this matter, including myself. are you saying that from what you have seen you belive that no one is to blame but herself?

No, I'm not saying that. I'll repeat what I said from my very first two posts in this thread:

Certainly tragic.

However, not unexpected that something like this was bound to happen.

However, she willingly and purposefully put herself in circumstances that are highly dangerous. And to that extent, she bears some responsibility for her own death.

well "just" is going way to far; i am saying that putting a label on something does not change what it is, at least not for me.

The problem is, you are apparently narrow minded enough to believe I am applying the label, and not yourself.

You are saying there is a label of a "Miltary Action" being put on a man running a piece of construction equipment / bulldozer.

Why are you not the one putting a label of "just man in a bulldozer" on what is a military mission?

[kyleb]

Unfortunately, not really. Your position seems to be that you encourage others to try not and do wrong, which is a rather ambiguos position that anyone would take.

i understand. trust me it is not an easy goal to live up to but i still like to try.

Could be an interesting exercise, but I'm not sure of the point. What makes people kill? I'm sure there are lots and lots of reasons, some good (at least IMO), some bad. And each individual case probably has a separate set of circumstances.

it comes from this age old philosophy that while the circumstances are often different, that which drives them is very much the same. granted, you would have find value in the concept for it to do you any good; i was just hoping you might.

You can cover everything with a "blanket philosophy", but that does not make the real situation clear.

agreed. however i still argue that such techniques do have their own share of value.

if i am to belive a man's cause is one of humanitarian origin, i must see that he behaves in a humane manor. i understand that he might belive otherwise, but his actions prove that he was confused, and the persevation of humanity was obviously not his cause.

Can you restate? Don't know what you mean.

sorry, left out an "e" there. :oops:
i edited in the quote but more directly; if what is done is not humane, then i cannot consider the cause humanitarian.


No, I'm not saying that. I'll repeat what I said from my very first two posts in this thread:

Certainly tragic.

fair enough, i was just taken by your question that i fogot about the prior comment.

However, not unexpected that something like this was bound to happen.

i agree that things like this should be expected, however i am still dissapointed at the way they are tollerated.

However, she willingly and purposefully put herself in circumstances that are highly dangerous. And to that extent, she bears some responsibility for her own death.

agreed, i think that applies to nearly everyone though.

The problem is, you are apparently narrow minded enough to believe I am applying the label, and not yourself.

blanket statements and narrow-mindedness are often illusions of perspective, and we all faultier to such conditions. i could say the same thing about some of your arguments, but i don't care to insult you with matters of my opinion.

You are saying there is a label of a "Miltary Action" being put on a man running a piece of construction equipment / bulldozer.

are you saying that i am wrong on this?

Why are you not the one putting a label of "just man in a bulldozer" on what is a military mission?

well sure i would not be able to have this conversation with you if i did not use words, my point is that the words chosen do not chance the nature of what is being expressed. so you might call it military action or call it howdy-dudey time; but what happened is the same either way.

[Joe DeFuria]

i understand. trust me it is not an easy goal to live up to but i still like to try.

So do I.

it comes from this age old philosophy that while the circumstances are often different, that which drives them is very much the same. granted, you would have find value in the concept for it to do you any good; i was just hoping you might.

Not really. Perhaps what drives people to murder might be similar, but that's not the same as what drives people to kill, IMO.

agreed. however i still argue that such techniques do have their own share of value.

As does evaluating each situation on its own merit.

i edited in the quote but more directly; if what is done is not humane, then i cannot consider the cause humanitarian.

Sorry, that's just rhetorical.

i agree that things like this should be expected, however i am still dissapointed at the way they are tollerated.

Fair enough.

blanket statements and narrow-mindedness are often illusions of perspective,

Right...

and we all faultier to such conditions. i could say the same thing about some of your arguments, but i don't care to insult you with matters of my opinion.

Quite the contrary, you insult me regularly with matters of your own opinion.

are you saying that i am wrong on this?[quote=Joe DeFuria]You are saying there is a label of a "Miltary Action" being put on a man running a piece of construction equipment / bulldozer.

No, I'm saying that the fact that you asked the question is the problem. You do not seem to even consider that the situation could or should be looked at another way.

In other words, your accusing me of labeling the situation as a "military action", is NO MORE INHERENTLY RIGHT OR WRONG than me asserting that you are labeling the situation as a "man in a bulldozer."

You don't think a "man in a bulldozer" is a label, but simply "reality." I say the reality is, it's a military operation.

I really don't think that you appreciate "my reality" at all.

Why are you not the one putting a label of "just man in a bulldozer" on what is a military mission?

well sure i would not be able to have this conversation with you if i did not use words, my point is that the words chosen do not chance the nature of what is being expressed.

Of course words chosen change the nature of what is being expressed.

so you might call it military action or call it howdy-dudey time; but what happened is the same either way.

You might call it a man in a bull-dozer, or you might call it howdy-doody time, what's your point?

"What happend?" A girl died because she was crushed by a heavy piece of machinery. Using "other words" to describing it as ANYTHING ELSE, is precisely expressing what happened as something of a different nature.

Be it a "military operation", a "horrific accident", or "murder".

[Joe DeFuria]

just after finishing highschool, the pay or benefits offered by the military sounded like a much better deal my dad than the dirt poor life he had lead up until then...

Speaking of "monetary incentive":

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81765,00.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Saddam Hussein has decreed that any Iraqi who kills an enemy soldier will get a reward equivalent to $14,000.

And $28,000 will go to anyone who captures an enemy soldier alive, the decree said, according to the official Iraqi News Agency.

Shooting down an enemy fighter plane is worth $55,500, a helicopter, $28,000, and a missile, $5,500. Killing the pilot will bring $14,000; capturing the pilot alive is worth twice as much.

[kyleb]

as for the your previous post, at this point i am just going to accept that you do not understand my perspective and it is far too unlikely that you will for me to rebut your comments. as for the latter, i want to point out that my arugments stand for our millitary as well as theres, i do not support such things regardless of who is behind them.

[Joe DeFuria]

as for the your previous post, at this point i am just going to accept that you do not understand my perspective and it is far too unlikely that you will for me to rebut your comments.

I would prefer that you accept that I do understand your perspective, and I simply don't agree with it. It seems to me that you can't fathom a possibility where one could understand your perspective, and at the same time disagree with it.

as for the latter, i want to point out that my arugments stand for our millitary as well as theres, i do not support such things regardless of who is behind them.

Agreed.

Though last time I checked, OUR military forces weren't paid on "commission."

[kyleb]

ya but commission is a detail and i am talking about the general principles regardless of such details. this is a great example of what i am referring to as not being able to understand my perspective. granted i understand that it is because your opinion is that the details can overcome to principles, but i must insist that as long as you do that you are not understanding my perspective. also not that i am not trying to insult your intelligence by this, in the same sense i do not understand the perspective of someone who claims the Pope is god's representative on earth. i dissagree with them but i do not understand why the disagree with me. ;)

[Joe DeFuria]

ya but commission is a detail and i am talking about the general principles regardless of such details.

Commission vs. "flat wage" is not a detail. It changes the very basis for the fundamentals of motivation.

[Sharkfood]

I can't believe there is actually some form of "debate" going on with this story!! How braindead HAS the population become?

By the very link given in this thread from the original post- it clearly dictates this woman was hellbent to have a "stand-off" with a bulldozer with direct orders to demolish the home of a terrorist... as in someone convicted of killing multiple people in cold blood. Then there is this looney LEAPING in front of the bulldozer? Run the dumbo over.. one less whacko in the world. Darwinism in it's finest hour.

We have the same problem in my area right now. I've almost ran over several of these so-called "peaceful" demostrators that are hell-bent on preventing ME, a resident of this area, from conducting my business in the city. There is nothing "peaceful" about it- they are breaking in windows of parked cars, slamming the hood of my car with their fists (with dents) and generally trying to taunt and engage motorists- regardless of their beliefs. Anyone that was anti-war may just flip sides to avoid being associated with this kind of extremism, especially if it means losing your job, revenue or damages to your personal property.

I'm waiting for a few of these psycho jobs to get run down on the city streets of San Francisco and for the same bleeding heart, one-sided, blind to the reality viewpoints being "debated" on this thread here to crop up. People were born with a brain... when they fail to use it, expect the worst.

Now pardon me while I go fling myself off a 50-story building and some left-winged psycho labels it "murder" by high-rise design engineers.

[kyleb]

ya but commission is a detail and i am talking about the general principles regardless of such details.

Commission vs. "flat wage" is not a detail. It changes the very basis for the fundamentals of motivation.

not for me.


also Sharkfood, could you please tell me what source you are using for your arguments? i read a few reports on the incident but they never mentioned anything about the owner of the home being convicted terrorist.

[Sharkfood]

Right on the links on the first page.
An IDF statement said Saafin has "perpetrated shooting attacks, recruited terrorist cells and launched mortars toward Israeli communities and IDF posts in the Gaza Strip."

The Palestinian Islamic Jihad operates out of Gaza and carries out attacks in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel. The group has carried out military operations against Israeli soldiers and Israeli civilians. It introduced suicide bombings to Israel in 1992.

The IDF said the soldiers came under fire as they approached Saafin's house, in an attempt to arrest him. They returned fire, killing the suspect.

Followed by-

Witnesses reported about 40 Israeli tanks, accompanied by bulldozers and two Apache helicopters, in the refugee camp, which they said were targeting houses.

This is called a military incursion into Palestinian lands against terrorists. As clearly described in the above, a brigade of tanks with bulldozers were entering the refugee camp, going after the homes of known terrorists in Gaza. The article also describes they did destroy the home of Saafin, and likely many others.

[Sharkfood]

usnewslink.com also clearly explains this behavior from Israel. It's nothing new and has been publicized on international television from IDF itself as well.

Since June 2002, the Israeli army has destroyed more than 150 houses belonging to Palestinians allegedly involved in attacks

[kyleb]

so where was the "convicted" part?

[MrsSkywalker]

so where was the "convicted" part?

Come on. Do you think the Israeli intelligence is going to release their info??

[kyleb]

i was not asking for Israeli intelligence info, only for Sharkfood to back his claim.

[MrsSkywalker]

i was not asking for Israeli intelligence info, only for Sharkfood to back his claim.

But that IS what you're asking for...intelligence info proving that the people are without a doubt 100% terrorists. You are being unreasonable. How could Sharkfood possibly be privy to more info than the press in regards to this? It's not like there are court cases. You seem to still be thinking of this in civillian terms. This is a military action. MILITARY ACTION. They don't need to have a trial, they have to have intelligence that discloses who is a terrorist and who is not.

Why do you like to harp on trivial details so much?

[kyleb]

because i do not consider the situation trival.

[Sxotty]

so you are saying it is her own fault that she decided not to live in fear and stay out of the way of the oppression of others? or more to the point she should have known that the driver of the bulldozer did not have the soul to keep himself from running her over? i am sorry that what i said comes out as blunt as it does but i am at a loss to understand your logic so i feel it is important to state my concerns directly.

Kyle have you ever been in any buldozer? Let alone the ones they use the driver would not even have been able to see her unless she was like 20 feet away, and in truth she just tripped, well if you are clumsy don't hang around heavy equipment.

Also use your critical antialiassing eyes and look those pictures don't even look like they are at the same location, so sure they look neat but they are completely random incidents, for all you know she crawled infront of it when she died, I mean obviously from eye witness acounts that is not what happened but those pictures are definitely very misleading.

At least they did not photoshop the pictures lol

[kyleb]

what do you mean the pics are missleading? compared to what?

[pascal]

More info: Making of a martyr

Sandra Jordan reports from Rafah on the death of American activist Rachel Corrie, crushed by an Israeli bulldozer as she battled to prevent destruction at a refugee camp

Sunday March 23, 2003
The Observer

As always, Rachel Corrie went last Sunday to the falafel stall where she usually had lunch and bantered with the Palestinian proprietors. Carrying a loudspeaker and wearing an orange fluorescent vest, the young American peace campaigner was heading for a protest against the Israeli army's demolition of Palestinian houses in the Gaza Strip town of Rafah.
Later that afternoon Corrie, 23, died under the blade of an Israeli bulldozer and now, according to a growing legend, she is a new heroine for Palestine. There are graffiti in Gaza in her honour - one slogan reads: 'Rachel was a US citizen with Palestinian blood' - there is a picture of her on the website of the terrorist group, an honour usually reserved for suicide bombers. Yasser Arafat has pledged to name a street after her.

In the United States there have been tearful candlelit vigils in her home town, her letters home have been published on the internet, there have been glowing tributes from her friends and teachers, anger from politicians, a march to condemn Israel's actions and calls for an investigation.

And, of course, there is interest from Hollywood in the story, with film-makers already approaching people who knew Corrie and her comfortable middle-class, middle-American family.

Her Western friends are witnessing the making of a martyr. They have seen the extraordinary transformation of Corrie, a blonde Evergreen College student from the safe town of Olympia in Washington state, a girl-next-door who played soccer, liked gardening and loved the poetry of Pablo Neruda, into a symbol of the Palestinian resistance.

It's an unlikely legacy for the dreamer Corrie, youngest daughter of Craig, an insurance executive, and Cindy, a volunteer in schools. Their child was an accomplished flautist who recently moved from Olympia to the gentle countryside of North Carolina

A peace activist with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), Corrie knelt in the path of the Israeli machine to prevent it demolishing a house near the Egyptian border in the southern Gaza Strip. She had got away with this tactic on other occasions, but this time the bulldozer didn't stop. She struggled to climb the mountain of earth it was pushing in front of its blade, but as the machine got higher she slipped and was buried. The driver slowly advanced and ran her over twice.

'A regrettable accident,' said the Israeli army; a war crime, claims the ISM.

Corrie knew the risks, but unlike the other Palestinian shahids she was born into the US milk-and-cookies culture, not the refugee camps of a society that celebrates the cult of martyrdom.

'Her death serves me more than it served her,' said one activist at a Hamas funeral yesterday. 'Going in front of the tanks was heroic. Her death will bring more attention than the other 2,000 martyrs.'

Corrie's courage is in no doubt. Simply being in Rafah is terrifying. There are daily gun battles and Israeli tank incursions and air bombardments. The city is overlooked by grim Israeli watch towers known as the 'towers of death'. It is squalid and oppressed.

Corrie and her fellow ISM activists chose to live there to bring attention to the misery of the Palestinians and show solidarity with people perceived as terrorists by most Americans. They are respected and welcomed by the Palestinians, and often act as human shields to protect children from Israeli gunfire by accompanying them as they walk to school. Rachel had become politically conscious only since 11 September, 2001. She was no Hamas or Islamic Jihad militant, groomed for martyrdom and soothed by the promise of a privileged place in heaven.

In Rafah, Arafat's political party Fatah held a wake for 'Retchell Corie', attended by representatives of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade, among others. These are the militant Islamic fronts condemned by Rachel's government as terrorists. Their people mingled with secular organisations and droves of ordinary Palestinians who came to pay their respects, including children carrying a sign: 'Rachel, we love you as an angel.' A little boy pointed to a picture of her and said: 'She died defending this holy and blessed land.'

It is the first time an American has been adopted as a Palestinian martyr. The posters of Corrie that began to appear on buildings and lampposts look incongruous beside pictures of the hundreds of Arab men, women and babies killed since the intifada began. The homage is particularly ironic because it began as US troops were preparing for the invasion of Iraq, seen here by many as a crusade against the Arab world.

Rafah is a besieged town, the 'hottest' in the Occupied Territories. Corrie came here in January to record human rights abuses and help local charities. She came as a human shield, but she didn't think she would die.

Her British friend and fellow activist, Tom Dale, 18, from Lichfield in Staffordshire, said he saw her die. First, he said, there was fear on her face as she realised that her defiant gesture was going wrong. Joe Smith, 21, who went to college with Corrie, said that, although they acknowledged the danger, they saw death as a 'small, unlikely, potential risk'.

'We knew there was a risk,' Smith said, 'but we also knew it never happened in the two years that we (the ISM) have been working here. I knew we take lots of precautions so that it doesn't happen, that if it did happen it would have to be an intentional act by a soldier, in which case it would bring a lot of publicity and significance to the cause.'

The activists have compelling photographic evidence to support eyewitness claims that Corrie's death was a deliberate, murderous mowing down of a unarmed protester. Dale watched as she knelt down in front of the bulldozer, perhaps 20 metres away, something the activists had done repeatedly that day as they had in the past. 'The bulldozer went towards her, very slowly, she was fully in clear view, straight in front of them.'

As the bulldozer got closer, it pushed a mound of earth in front of its blade. The heap began to overtake Corrie so she stood up to climb up the mounting soil. 'Unfortunately, she couldn't keep her grip there and she started to slip down. You could see that she was in serious trouble, there was panic on her face as she was turning around,' said Dale. 'All the activists there were screaming, running towards the bulldozer, trying to get them to stop. But they just kept on going. '

The activists said the driver saw Corrie. 'As the mound grew higher she climbed up, getting to eye level with the driver. He saw her in her fluorescent orange jacket. But he kept on going,' Smith said.

A traumatised Smith raised his camera and took photographs: Rachel standing in front of the bulldozer; then her bloodied body being pulled from the freshly turned soil; being cradled in the arms of her friends.

'If only they'd had a video camera,' one Palestinian journalist lamented. 'A film of the Israelis killing an American in cold blood would have ended the intifada.'

The weight of the heavy-duty, US-made military earthmover, its blade down, dragged over her body, crushing the American student deep into the soil. Once. Twice. She was still alive when the driver, an Israeli soldier, reversed over her, but she died soon after being taken in a Red Crescent ambulance to Rafah hospital, where she regained consciousness for a moment. Her last words were: 'My back is broken.'

The hospital report says Corrie died from suffocation. Her ribs and left clavicle were broken. Her upper lip was lacerated. The doctors stitched up her face for the journey home to her grieving family on the other side of the world.

The Israeli Defence Force has opened an investigation into Corrie's death. An IDF official confirmed that a military police investigation has also been launched, which will last between a week and a month. The spokesman could not confirm whether the US government had requested the investigation, though her parents have asked for one. He criticised the student and the other activists for putting themselves in harm's way by entering a combat zone. 'They were highly irresponsible,' he told The Observer .

For now, the official Israeli line is that the driver did not see Rachel through the bulldozer's thick bullet-proof glass. However, the spokesman acknowledged that the armoured personnel carriers (APCs) that accompany bulldozers are responsible for directing the drivers towards their targets. So why didn't the APC drivers get the bulldozer to stop? The IDF declined to comment.

There was a storm in Rafah last Wednesday. Strong, gusting winds blew desert sand across the roads, lodging in puddles on the bitumen. At 2.30pm it began to rain. Water bonded with the sand and fell as droplets of mud on the mourners who had gathered to commemorate Corrie at the spot where she was fatally injured. The desolate sandy stretch is now strewn with the rubble from the demolition of houses which she could not prevent. It faces towards the Egyptian border where Israeli troops are on patrol.

As the memorial service got under way, the Israeli army sent its own representative. A tank pulled up beside the mourners and sprayed them with tear gas. A bizarre game of cat-and-mouse began as the peace activists chased the tank around to throw flowers on it, and the Israeli soldiers inside threatened, in return, to run them down.

The game ended when the Israeli bulldozers came out, accompanied by more APCs, firing guns and percussion bombs. The insult was as clear as the danger of the situation and the people went home, the service halted.

There are those who dismiss Western activists as just well-intentioned 'political tourists', naive and ineffectual do-gooders. On the night of Corrie's death, nine Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip, among them a four-year-old girl and a man aged 90. A total of 220 people have died in Rafah since the beginning of the intifada.

Palestinians know the death of one American receives more attention than the killing of hundreds of Muslims. 'It is a fact,' agrees Richard Purcell, who shared a messy, run-down flat with Rachel Corrie in Rafah. 'That's the way things are in this world. I wish it wasn't.'


http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,919973,00.html

[MrsSkywalker]

Hmmm... Pete and Repeat were in a boat, Pete fell out. Who was left?