Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Israel’s Rachel Corrie Verdict: Court Rebuffs Case of Slain U.S. Activist

Israel’s Rachel Corrie Verdict: Court Rebuffs Case of Slain U.S. Activist
An Israeli court rejected a suit by the family of an American activist 
slain by Israeli security forces in 2003
By Karl Vick | @karl_vick | August 28, 2012
 
Coming almost a decade after her death beneath the tracks of an armored 
Israeli bulldozer in the Gaza Strip, the verdict in the Rachel Corrie 
case was the farthest thing from a surprise. By the time Israeli judge 
Oded Gershon gathered his robes about him and took his seat in an airy 
Haifa courtroom Tuesday morning, the trajectory of the proceedings had 
emerged across 15 court sessions stretched over two and a half years. On 
the day of judgment, as during the trial, His Honor stood with the 
Israel Defense Forces. Israelis overwhelmingly do.
 
“I reject the suit,” Gerhson said. “There is no justification the state 
pay any damages.”
 
What followed in the hallway outside moments later was more illuminating 
than most of what transpired in almost all of the testimony.  As camera 
operators jostled for position, attorneys for the state spoke first — 
but only in Hebrew. The Corries’ lawyer followed in English, then 
Arabic, and finally in Hebrew. Everyone knew their audience, and where 
they could get a hearing.
 
The wonder is that the Corries sought theirs in Israel. The family began 
with Israel’s promise to Washington to conduct a “thorough, credible and 
transparent investigation,” something U.S. diplomats say has not 
occurred. But filing suit in Israel in hopes of producing firm facts 
meant squaring off against the IDF, the most admired institution in the 
country, routinely ranked far above any elected official or organ. Among 
Israel’s Jewish majority, identification with the military is almost 
total, and not only because young Jewish men are obligated to three 
years service in it (two years for women). The force operates under a 
motto that translates roughly as “purity of arms,” often put as “the 
most moral army in the world.” Others may note the challenge of squaring 
the motto with the coarsening that inevitably flows from 45 years as an 
army of occupation in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and 
Gaza, which were afire with the Second Intifada at the time of Corrie’s 
death. But the ideal remains so firmly fixed in the Israeli mind that 
when an unambiguous instance of brutality emerges – like the video of a 
lieutenant colonel rifle-butting  a Danish activist – shocked dismay 
occupied the public discourse for most of a week.
 
The Corrie lawsuit, however, challenged no one’s preconceptions. Rather 
it extended Rachel Corrie’s mission in life – using the privileges 
afforded the holder of a U.S. passport to assert rights into the courts 
where Palestinians rarely have standing (and from which a proposed 
regulation would bar them altogether). The case took more than six years 
to complete, and with Gershon’s verdict, appeared to end about where it 
began: The district court judge articulated the widespread Israeli 
assumption that a misguided young foreigner flirted with death, and 
lost. “The state did not risk the defendant,” he said. “The defendant 
risked herself.” Gershon described the group Corrie was with, the 
International Solidarity Movement, as pro-terrorist – also a common view 
in Israel — and insisted that “under no circumstances” were the IDF 
bulldozers that day aiming to demolish the Palestinian homes the 
nonviolent activists were aiming to protect.
 
The Corries (whom, for the record, my wife volunteered to assist) 
replied at a news conference as they had in court – with specifics that 
the state had called beside the point. Cindy Corrie quoted a Human 
Rights Watch tally of 16,000 Palestinians whose 2,500 homes were 
destroyed between 2000 and 2004, most of them in the area near the 
Egyptian border where her daughter would die. Israeli officials argued 
that the properties provided cover for attacks. The Corries held aloft a 
photo of the family whose house stood in the area behind where Rachel 
Corrie stood facing the bulldozer, in a fluorescent orange vest.
 
“We believe that Rachel was seen,” Cindy Corrie said. The heavily 
armored Caterpillar bulldozer may have had limited sight lines, the 
Corries acknowledge, but in addition to a driver, a second soldier was 
also in the cab, and conflicts in their assorted statements have never 
been reconciled. In fact, a pair of IDF investigations produced 
strikingly inconsistent accounts of the incident. The first was cursory 
at best: Investigators failed to interview any eyewitnesses except 
Israeli soldiers, and appeared to misidentify which of two bulldozers on 
the scene that day was involved. A second investigation, reached into by 
senior officers, strained to avoid contradicting the first, producing a 
muddle that the trial did little to sort through.
 
“I reject the idea that making these things known is somehow an attack 
on Israel,” said Craig Corrie, who left his job as an insurance actuary 
to work full time on understanding his daughter’s March 16, 2003 death. 
  He noted the deaths of two other foreigners in the same area within 
weeks of Rachel’s.  In a seven month period, Cindy Corrie said, the 
Israeli human rights advocacy group B’Tselem counted 100 civilian 
deaths, including 40 children.
 
“I’m an army veteran,” said Craig Corrie. “In 11 months in Vietnam, I 
was given nine medals.  I think I can talk on some of this. I think that 
in controlling a military you have to start that before these incidents 
happen, and we have seen that that’s not the case.  We have seen from 
the highest levels of this military that they thought they could kill 
people on that border with impunity.”
 
By the time Rachel was killed, around 5 p.m. the activists and the crews 
had been sparring on the rubble field since noon.  During the trial the 
Corries said that, as much as anything, filing suit was a way to finally 
look into the eyes of the driver of the bulldozer. But he was allowed to 
testify from behind a screen. “I can say without a doubt that I believe 
my sister was seen as that bulldozer approached her,” Sarah Corrie 
Simpson said.  “As for the intent of the driver, I hope some day he will 
have the courage to sit down in front of me and tell me what he saw and 
what he feels.”
 
http://world.time.com/2012/08/28/israels-rachel-corrie-verdict-court-rebuffs-case-of-slain-american-activist/?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29
 
-- 
Sostieni Rete ECO
 
http://rete-eco.it/it/sostienici.html
 
 

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:07:02 PM UTC+2, persio wrote:
 
una sbroccatella via copiaincolla, non ci sono più i 
pirla di una volta.


uomo di poca fede...il copiaincolla è un avviso, come a dire "sto cotonando, i copiaincolla sono gli scarti dell'elaborazione, che deve essere per definizione autonoma da qualsivoglia fonte"


ma guarda te se va a finire che, poco prima della
tua dipartita, veniamo a scoprire che c'è qualcosa
di cui t'intendi: il veropirlismocotonatore.


La tua stima mi onora, purtroppo stavolta dovrò deluderla.


 La tua stima mi onora, purtroppo stavolta dovrò deluderla.
 
persio, sei un pirla deludente.

 tua dipartita,
 
posso ancora vincere.


ma diparti comunque, lo sappiamo.

 ma diparti comunque
 
perchè? Se vinco mi proclamerò Leader Eterno di IPI, che diventerà
moderato. Da me, ovviamente.


palle, il 20.01.13 tu molli ipi.



BLACKLISTED!
AHR AHR AHR

 posso ancora vincere.
 
Ti sei fatto mettere in mezzo con una scommessa, eh?


 Ti sei fatto mettere in mezzo con una scommessa, eh?
 
Ha agito da uomo.
 
 
-- 
*Sunspot*
I am perishable and that's the best part.
 

 Ha agito
 
perchè usi il passato per qualcosa che deve ancora avvenire? Comunque
ti avviso che sei nella gray list, quando avrò vinto e sarò moderatore
di IPI sei a rischio.

 ti avviso che sei nella gray
 
grEy ovviamente

 perchï¿½ usi il passato per qualcosa che deve ancora avvenire?
 
Perchï¿½ sul futuro delle tue scelte nutro ampi dubbi mentre accettare o 
proporre una scommessa ï¿½, fattualmente, agire da uomo.


 Ha agito da uomo.
 
Lodare il candidato pollo fa parte del gioco.


 Ti sei fatto mettere in mezzo con una scommessa, eh?
 
l'ha proposta lui, il che in linguaggio pirlico è probabilmente
"farsi mettere in mezzo".

 l'ha proposta lui
 
perchè so che vincerò.
AHR AHR AHR