Israeli ruling on Corrie death draws widespread condemnation

yore

seamus wrote: »

Firing through a few of the eyewitness statements on both sides, I'm inclined to think that her death was just an accident.

The protestors themselves admit that they'd become a little complacent about their actions; they were shocked when they saw the bulldozer running Rachel over because, "They'd always stopped before".
So if the bulldozers had always stopped, then you can see how the protestors could easily have lulled themselves into a false sense of security and been a little more careless, forgetting at times that they were dancing around in front of monster machines that could crush them without thinking.

For the protection of the operators, the cabs were quite heavily fortified, so vision was quite restricted. Most accounts seem to agree that when she realised that the dozer wasn't stopping, she climbed the mound of earth the dozer was pushing in front of it. She didn't do this out of panic - the dozer was moving quite slowly - she did it because that's what they usually did to get the operator's attention when they hadn't stopped. A fairly risky game, I think anyone would agree.

It's at this stage that what happened next seems to be uncertain, even among the protestors' eyewitnesses. Some claim that she seemed to fall off the mound when the dozer turned. Another claims that she turned to walk back down the mound and tripped. One claims that the dozer "scooped her up" and then dumped her on the ground. But that's so at odds with the other accounts that I'm inclined to think it's a dramatisation. They all claim that the operator had to have seen her when she climbed the mound, but given that only her head and upper torso were above the top of the bucket, I don't think a 3rd party observer can say for certain that she was visible.

So it would seem to me that for whatever reason the operator didn't see her, and she either fell or tripped off the mound and went under the dozer.
It doesn't really make sense for it to have been deliberate considering that they had otherwise been stopping and weren't exactly doing anything of particular importance. If the IDF had really gotten so annoyed that they wanted to push through, they would have lifted the protestors at gunpoint and been done with it. Or just run down everyone who got in the way. Running over a single protestor seems random and unnecessary.

Operator maliciousness? Perhaps. But in a "beyond a reasonable doubt" scenario, I don't see enough evidence to find him guilty.

Not that the IDF covered themselves in glory of course, as usual. They claimed that she was hit and killed by a slab of concrete the dozer was moving, and wasn't run over at all.

Why she was there and whether the dozers should have been there, and whether Israel should exist or not is all pretty irrelevant. The only issue is whether her death was either intentional or through gross negligence of the driver. And I don't see any really strong evidence for either.

In any case, in an action for damages against the IDF for a civilian death, I can't ever see an Israeli court finding against the IDF unless the evidence is indisputable.

Seamus, you are entitled to believe that the bulldozer driver did not see her. But from what I understand, the drivers are directed by other soldiers in APCs.

Regardless, I don't think the protestors were sneaking up and popping out of nowhere. It seems that they were making their presence felt and that the soldiers would have been aware that they were there. I'm sure it was "annoying" for the soldiers but that is no reason to kill the girl.

If you have a business/farm/yard whatever and you are driving machinery around you are going to take care. If you know there are others walking about, you are going to be looking out for them and taking extra care to do so

czx

yore wrote: »

If you have a business/farm/yard whatever and you are driving machinery around you are going to take care. If you know there are others walking about, you are going to be looking out for them and taking extra care to do so

Surely you should also take extra care if you're 'walking about' machinery and should try to stay out of the way. Would be pretty hard to miss a bulldozer coming towards you.

yore

czx wrote: »

Surely you should also take extra care if you're 'walking about' machinery and should try to stay out of the way. Would be pretty hard to miss a bulldozer coming towards you.

You don't seem to get the idea of a protest or standing up against something you feel is wrong?

There's no call for being a smart arse. If the bulldozer driver, and soldiers directing him were aware that there were people who were going to be standing in front of their targets, surely they'd have been looking out for them?

what are your feelings on this fella?

czx

yore wrote: »

You don't seem to get the idea of a protest or standing up against something you feel is wrong?

There's no call for being a smart arse. If the bulldozer driver, and soldiers directing him were aware that there were people who were going to be standing in front of their targets, surely they'd have been looking out for them?

what are your feelings on this fella?

No, it's lost on me.

Why wasn't she looking out for the bulldozer? Why didn't she move when it got too close? If she was prepared to die for the cause by taking risks like that then that's her business.

The tanks didn't roll over him, that's my take.

yore

czx wrote: »

No, it's lost on me.

Why wasn't she looking out for the bulldozer? Why didn't she move when it got too close? If she was prepared to die for the cause by taking risks like that then that's her business.

The tanks didn't roll over him, that's my take.

Grand. And like Mr. Stormfrontstorm above, we'll assume you are consistent and think that the people killed on Bloody Sunday were prepared to die and it was their own business and that the British Army/State were perfectly within their rights to kill those people and whitewash over it.

Well done on stating the bleedin' obvious on the Tiananmen Sq tank. The tank didn't run over him. If it had, sure he'd have been in the wrong for being in the way, right?

Manic Moran

There are two entirely separate problems here: One is the investigation, the other, the incident.

The US Government's position (and unless Obama has lost control of the State Department, he has one as evidenced by his ambassador's statements) is that the investigation was unsatisfactory by US standards. That doesn't mean that they particularly objected to the outcome or that they had expected or wanted a different outcome, just that they would have been much happier had there been more transparancy to the process so that all could be confident that it is correct. Since I haven't particularly followed the investigations, I have no particular comment on the matter, but I presume the Ambassador knows what he's talking about.

As to the incident itself, I am reminded of the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

MISTER PROSSER:
Have you any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if I just let it roll straight over you?

ARTHUR DENT:
How much?

MISTER PROSSER:
None at all!


The bulldozer operator is probably the guy with the least culpability.



D9 is a monster, coming in at heavier than some battle tanks. The blade is taller than most people, let alone the fact that the driver is set some fifteen feet behind it. Even before one accounts for the fact that it's covered with armour, it doesn't take much to realise that visibility really does suck. It is likely that yes, he was in contact with someone by radio, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that someone would have had perfect visibility either. It's not as if they'd have been standing amongst the protestors and gotten their viewpoint.

I am also reminded of Sébastien Briat, an anti-nuclear protestor who chained himself to the tracks in the path of a nuclear-material-carrying train in France back in 2004. The train won. For any talk there may be of culpability of the government agencies, one cannot totally absolve the deceased for putting themselves in harm's way to begin with.

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

The blade is taller than most people, let alone the fact that the driver is set some fifteen feet behind it. Even before one accounts for the fact that it's covered with armour, it doesn't take much to realise that visibility really does suck.

His visiblity was good enough for him to see the rubble he was tasked to clear, so it would have been good enough for him to see the person that was standing on that rubble wearing a high-visibility vest.

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is likely that yes, he was in contact with someone by radio, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that someone would have had perfect visibility either.

Why would you think the radio guy wouldn't have a good view of the area in front of the bulldozer? I think he'd have to be pretty bad at his job if he didn't put himself in a position with a clear view of the area the bulldozer was attempting to clear.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The bulldozer operator is probably the guy with the least culpability.

A photo taken on the day from behind rachel shows the driver of the bulldozer had a clear view of the rubble where she was standing.




When the bulldozer got closer the blade might have blocked the drivers view of rachel but the point is he knew she was there and he would not have seen her move out of the way before he lost visual. Now if the driver had any shred of humanity he would not have continued to advance on rachel's position until he could establish that she had moved out of his way. So I think if there had been a proper investigation it would have found the drivers behaviour to be indicative of a person who was determined to clear the rubble even if it meant driving his "monster" of a machine straight into anyone that was in his way.

Palmach

wes wrote: »

Didn't take long for someone to engage in victim blaming. Its only the 2nd post and its already started. Pretty reprehensible pov imho.

Also, she wasn't at a building site. The Israelis were destroying Palestinian homes, and she was trying to stop it. The Israelis are the ones who had no business there in the first place.



So you absolve the IDF of responsibility then? They were destroying people's homes, which they had no business doing at all. It seems to me that you are ignoring the IDFs criminality and blaming those who tried to stop it.

They were destroying illegally built houses. She had no business being there. Serves her right.

wes

Palmach wrote: »

They were destroying illegally built houses.

Houses were in Gaza. Israel had no business there.

As for illegal houses, how about they get cracking on all the illegal settlements in the West Bank.

Palmach wrote: »

She had no business being there.

She has every right to protest, and she was welcomed by the Palestinians. So she had every right to be there. However, the IDF sure as hell don't.

Palmach wrote: »

Serves her right.

Disgusting victim blaming, and typical hypocritical attitude, when Israel kills a civilian. One rule for Israel, and another for the other guy. People like yourself have very little credibiliy imho, Palmach.

Its amazing that you think that the killing of protesters is something she had coming. Your no better than the people who make excuses for Assad.

Nodin

Palmach wrote: »

They were destroying illegally built houses. She had no business being there. Serves her right.

News to me. As far as I know she was around the home of a local chemist which was facing demolition as part of an act of collective punishment.

According to who were these homes illegal? A source, if you would.

hatrickpatrick

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The mistake, in my opinion, that Israel made was in holding on to the occupied territories, as we can see in hindsight it was a terrible mistake for all parties. The prime minister of Israel at the time, Levi Eshkol, had deep misgivings about occupying these areas, perhaps if he hadn't passed away soon after the war things may have turned out differently.

"Mistake"? You say that like they didn't intend to colonize the area. If it was just a mistake and they accept that now, they can withdraw.
The international community, apart from the AIPAC-bound US government, has been demanding this for decades. Israel's response each time has been "not gonna happen".

With that attitude, do you not see why so many people have so little sympathy for their position?

hatrickpatrick

Palmach wrote: »

They were destroying illegally built houses. She had no business being there. Serves her right.

This incident happened on illegally occupied land, Israel's laws have absolutely no legitimate jurisdiction there whatsoever.

karma_

Palmach wrote: »

They were destroying illegally built houses. She had no business being there. Serves her right.

I've seen some cold things posted on boards, and this is right up there with the best of them.

Manic Moran

cyberhog wrote: »

His visiblity was good enough for him to see the rubble he was tasked to clear, so it would have been good enough for him to see the person that was standing on that rubble wearing a high-visibility vest.

I don't need to be able to see all of a pile of rubble to know where the pile is. The armoured windows have plenty of blind spots. You're also assuming that she got all the way to the top, as opposed to part-way up.

Why would you think the radio guy wouldn't have a good view of the area in front of the bulldozer? I think he'd have to be pretty bad at his job if he didn't put himself in a position with a clear view of the area the bulldozer was attempting to clear.

There are plenty of obstacles to visibility. His responsibility stops at his own safety, it is unrealistic to expect that he will strive for perfect visibility by being in amongst the protestors.

A photo taken on the day from behind rachel shows the driver of the bulldozer had a clear view of the rubble where she was standing.

That photo was taken earlier in the day and shows a different bulldozer.

NTM

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

His responsibility stops at his own safety, it is unrealistic to expect that he will strive for perfect visibility by being in amongst the protestors.

Absolute bollocks MM. I don't care where a driver is operating his vehicle, the ultimate responsibility that he does not harm anyone is with himself and himself alone. The prime rule when in charge of any vehicle, whether in occupied Gaza demolishing houses or on a construction site in Mayo, the driver has to make sure he is operating his vehicle in a safe manner. You even said it yourself, he was aware he was operating among protesters.

BlaasForRafa

karma_ wrote: »

Absolute bollocks MM. I don't care where a driver is operating his vehicle, the ultimate responsibility that he does not harm anyone is with himself and himself alone. The prime rule when in charge of any vehicle, whether in occupied Gaza demolishing houses or on a construction site in Mayo, the driver has to make sure he is operating his vehicle in a safe manner. You even said it yourself, he was aware he was operating among protesters.

She had a responsibility to herself to not put herself in danger. What if the driver doesn't see her? What if the driver has a moment of brainfade? I know some of you like to play the "evil israeli" card at every opportunity but sometimes unfortunate things just happen.

karma_

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

She had a responsibility to herself to not put herself in danger. What if the driver doesn't see her? What if the driver has a moment of brainfade? I know some of you like to play the "evil israeli" card at every opportunity but sometimes unfortunate things just happen.

Regardless of where this happened, it still remains the drivers responsibility. If the driver is aware people are around he must make sure that his actions do not put them in harms way. If he's moving forward blind he has to ask himself, "Am I sure there is no one there?" If he is unsure then the one thing he should never do is move forward.

This is an open and shut case to be honest, it is definitely the drivers fault. It could happen in any other country in the world and still be the drivers fault.

hatrickpatrick

So many people, even the pro Israeli side, are admitting that an Israeli court is unlikely to find IDF soldiers guilty of crimes in most cases.

Given that most of the pro Israel lobby cites Israel's allegedly being a "civilized democracy" as an excuse for excusing their behavior and supporting their policies, is this not rather troubling? The judiciary is not supposed to take sides, except the side of justice.

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

That photo was taken earlier in the day and shows a different bulldozer.

NTM

Forgive me I didn't realise there were two D9 bulldozers operating in the field that day. Anyway even if the one pictured is not the bulldozer that killed rachel what the photo does show us is that the visibility from a D9 isn't half as bad as you're trying to make out to be.

it is inconceivable that at some point the driver did not see her, given the distance from which he approached, while she stood, unmoving, in front of it. As I told the court, just before she was crushed, Rachel briefly stood on top of the rolling mound of earth which had gathered in front of the bulldozer: her head was above the level of the blade, and just a few meters from the driver.

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/35718

Manic Moran

cyberhog wrote: »

Forgive me I didn't realise there were two D9 bulldozers operating in the field that day

Shows how much you've actually researched the case then, doesn't it?



Perhaps now I should also assume that you don't know that the Israelis had multiple types of D9 with differing types of armour and resulting also in differing levels of visibility?

If the driver is aware people are around he must make sure that his actions do not put them in harms way.

His actions didn't put them in harm's way. They put themselves in the path of the bulldozer, he didn't need to do anything.

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

His actions didn't put them in harm's way. They put themselves in the path of the bulldozer, he didn't need to do anything.

If you were driving along and saw a child standing on the road ahead of you would you continue driving towards that child if you saw it wasn't moving out of your way? You wouldn't continue right? You would stop your car before you hit the child wouldn't you?

czx

cyberhog wrote: »

If you were driving along and saw a child standing on the road ahead of you would you continue driving towards that child if you saw it wasn't moving out of your way? You wouldn't continue right? You would stop your car before you hit the child wouldn't you?

Interesting that you mention child instead of adult. She knew what she was doing.

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

His actions didn't put them in harm's way. They put themselves in the path of the bulldozer, he didn't need to do anything.

If his actions didn't put anyone in harms way, then how the hell is there a girl dead after being run over by one?

You're just wrong on this one. Anyone operating a machine of that size and power absolutely must take the responsibility for injuring someone by driving forwards over them.

hatrickpatrick

czx wrote: »

Interesting that you mention child instead of adult. She knew what she was doing.

So you'd happily run over an adult then even if you had ample opportunity to avoid her?
Lovely.

czx

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you'd happily run over an adult then even if you had ample opportunity to avoid her?
Lovely.

No, I'm saying the burden of responsibility would lie far more with an adult than a child. I would say she had ample opportunity to move, so why didn't she? In contrast to a child who might not know any better. I don't think you can argue that she had a far better view of the bulldozer than the operator had of her.

karma_

czx wrote: »

No, I'm saying the burden of responsibility would lie far more with an adult than a child. I would say she had ample opportunity to move, so why didn't she? In contrast to a child who might not know any better. I don't think you can argue that she had a far better view of the bulldozer than the operator had of her.

Anything could have happened, she could have fell, been caught under the blade, stumbled or just been too slow. This still does not excuse the fact that this driver ultimately killed her. A heavy machine operator even thinks there might be someone there, he should not move forward under any circumstances.

brimal

If anyone is to blame, it's the International Solidarity Movement.

They encourage their volunteers to take 'direct action' which often puts them in harms way.

czx

karma_ wrote: »

Anything could have happened, she could have fell, been caught under the blade, stumbled or just been too slow. This still does not excuse the fact that this driver ultimately killed her. A heavy machine operator even thinks there might be someone there, he should not move forward under any circumstances.

If she protested from a safe distance she would still be alive. She decided to stand in front of the bulldozer. The reason she decided to protest like this is because it's provocative. The reason it's provocative is because it's dangerous.

karma_

czx wrote: »

If she protested from a safe distance she would still be alive. She decided to stand in front of the bulldozer. The reason she decided to protest like this is because it's provocative. The reason it's provocative is because it's dangerous.

If your aunty had balls....

If the driver had been more careful she'd still be alive. Ultimately it's his responsibility, he's the operator.

hatrickpatrick

czx wrote: »

No, I'm saying the burden of responsibility would lie far more with an adult than a child. I would say she had ample opportunity to move, so why didn't she? In contrast to a child who might not know any better. I don't think you can argue that she had a far better view of the bulldozer than the operator had of her.

One could literally say the exact same thing about Bloody Sunday protesters, that the burden of responsibility of them was to move when ordered to. Would you hold them more responsible than the military which chose to kill them anyway?