Basically, I'm pro-Palestinian in this business, at this point - they've lost three times as many people as Israel has (I guess in the last two years?). But in the interests of fairness, someone posted elsewhere that four Americans have been killed by Palestinian suicide bombers. I'd thought Rachel was the first American victim of this violence. Anyway, I think the family will have a long wait for a phone call from Sharon. I would like to be proved wrong.

Nathan, no one has "dismissed" Ms. Corrie's death or said that she "deserved" to die. You are devastating in confronting arguments that no one has made.

The photo of Ms. Corrie burning a mock American flag makes clear that the Palestinian farmer quoted in the Haaretz article was far more politically sophisticated and mature than was she about her own country.

Notice that in the excerpt from Corrie's letter home that you quote, this American "peace lover" was defending Palestinian violence (including homicide bombings?) against the apparent objections of her family.

Jack, look over at freerepublic.com and other conservative sites discussing Corrie. Most are saying she had it coming and citing the burning of the paper flag to highlight why she served her fate.

As for Corrie defending violence, nowhere did she discuss suicide bombings. Most violence in the area is in Palestinian villages as families defend themselves from Israeli violence. You wouldn't have a death count of thousands of Palestinians if conflict involved only the suicide bombers.

Part of the whole problem of American discussions of the Palestinian cause is that all groups are lumped together-- Hamas, Fatah, average families fighting with Israeli police. Some Palestinian groups, primarily Hamas, say that violence should be directed at Israeli civilians in Israel. Others condemn such attacks but support attacks on settlers. Other Palestinian groups condemn attacks on all civilians and direct their violence against Israeli soldiers. Others promote only self-defense. And some promote non-violence.

But Israel's government kills them all without distinction, which tends to drive more and more towards the Hamas position, since if Israel won't distinguish between Palestinians, why should Palestinians distinguish between Israelis?

She defended Palestinian violence. If she did not "discuss" suicide bombings, then we are left to conclude that she defended suicide bombings.

It is a howling travesty to compare her with Martin Luther King Jr.

Nathan, are you conscious that you are defending the logic of terror ("why should Palestinians...")?

"She defended Palestinian violence. If she did not "discuss" suicide bombings, then we are left to conclude that she defended suicide bombings."

This is such a logical howler that it's hard to take you very seriously, I'm afraid. If you find something that Rachel Corey wrote or said in support of suicide bombings and cite it as evidence, fine. But speculation isn't proof.

Mr. Wilford,
Do you deny that homicide bombings are a form of Palestinian violence, or is it that do you do not feel bound by deductive syllogisms?

The peace lover defended Palestinian violence.
Palestinian violence includes homicide bombings.
Therefore, the peace lover defended homicide bombings.

Yes, Jack--

I like to eat food.
Snails are a kind of food.
Therefore, I like to eat snails.

You need to brush up on your logic and set theory.

Beyond the underlying bigotry and stupefyingly idiotic assumptions at the heart of Mr. Stephens' "argument" (if you support the plight of Palestinian civilians, you automatically support "homicide bombers") I can find NO sentence where Rachel "was defending Palestinian violence (including homicide bombings?) against the apparent objections of her family."

Jack, rationalizing the unwarranted murder of a young woman is despicable enough, but do you have to make shit up to get your point across?

What's your point, that French people aren't logical?

Until I specify that I don't like snails, your example is perfectly logical.

Mr. Rubenstein, read the excerpt from Corrie's letter home. ("What is left for people?")

Jack, the problem is that "I like food" can mean "I like eating something that comes under the category of food because I need to live but does not mean I like every item in that category."

To say that the Palestinians are justified in using violence because of their economic desperation does not mean that they are therefore justified or that Corrie approved of every form that violence took.

In fact, you can read her letters not as saying she supported the violence, but just that she understood why it was happening.

Just as I can say that because of Bush's violation of international law and coming murder of Iraqis outside international norms, I understand why many people in the world will feel justified in killing New Yorkers such as myself. That doesn't mean I'll approve of my own death, just that I'll understand why they feel that way.

Aha! So that's the evidence that she supported terrorism! Er, no.

Indeed, if you took off your Little Green Footballs decoder ring and bothered to look at the preceding sentence, you'd realize that "what is left for people" refers to "the wilful destruction of their lives" caused by Israeli bulldozers and checkpoints. To imply anything else demonstrates how utterly asinine your a priori assumptions are.

But enough of this semantic nitpicking. Here's the question, Jack: Is Rachel Corrie's death a tragedy, just like the hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians who are murdered by Hamas/Islamic Jihad, or did she "deserve it?" Your moral clarity is on the line, pal.

Yuval, you're being too easy on Jack with the question.

The question is whether Rachel Corrie's death is a crime, just like crimes committed by Hamas suicide bombers. And just as Israel has declared that not only should Hamas leaders be imprisoned, but it is okay to extra-judicially have them killed.

So Jack, is it now okay for Palestinians to assassinate any Israeli government officials in order to "deter" Israeli terrorism?

Moral clarity:
Rachel Corrie's death is a tragedy. She was in a war zone, and stood in the path of a bulldozer, so I really don't think you can compare this situation to victims of terror. It is absolutely disgraceful and dehumanizing to say that she "deserved" to die.

Political hay:
You assume a priori and without any evidence that her death is a "crime." Did you skip over evidence in law school?

For the umpteenth time, Hamas militants get up in the morning planning to slaughter Israeli civilians. Nathan, if you aren't willing to acknowledge the difference between the elected leaders of a liberal democracy and a gang of terrorists, then we really have no basis on which to continue this discussion. Israel is defending herself from single-minded killers.

Quite frankly, Israel is creating the "single-minded" killers with its policies.

Jack,

Do you even realize anything about who gave large amounts of funds to Hamas as an upstart organization to try and offset the PLO. It was the Israeli government. So following your logic, if rachel corrie was defending terrorists then Israel created them by the funding of Hamas.

I'm interested by JS's statement that Rachel was in a war zone. Now I'm guessing that she was in a basically Palestinian area. If so, I doubt the area sees a lot of suicide bombings. What, then, makes it a war zone? Would it be a war zone if the Palestinians were left to themselves?
If you dig at the logic of the statement, it does seem to be tacitly admitting that the area is a "war zone" precisely because of the IDF and their guns and bulldozers. I'm not sure this is the conclusion he was looking for.
I also think that an ardent defender of Israel should learn how to spell Rubinstein, or at least check it before posting.

"Now I'm guessing that she was in a basically Palestinian area"

--A lot of what is said here shows many have no idea what they are talking about. Reading daily news reports--a minimum qualification for a slightly informed person--would let you know that this area was the subject of shooting attacks. Look it up, I'm not explaining further. Some of the posts here remind me of U.S. people who believe the U.S. is going to Iraq to save the Kurds from Saddam. That's why the Turkish army may come too--to save the Kurds.

Just an announcement-- poster ploome got himself banned from the site, not for his conservative views but because of his abusive language.

Let me be clear-- I welcome conservatives who want to post comments and analysis, but the rules are simple. You are guests here and that requires respect for the persons you debate with here, including myself. You can attack their views and I have a pretty wide definition of how hard you can attack them before I consider it personal, but there is a line when political attack becomes personal abuse. And at that point, you're gone.

Well, NOW I'm guessing that the shootings are of settlers by Palestinians. And no, I haven't read a shred more. So, tell me I'm wrong.
IF they're shootings of settlers by Palestinians, then I guess whether you call it a basically Palestinian area depends on how many settlers have managed to move in so far. Kind of like the Chinese in Tibet.
But if this is the case, I have to say, it's the settlers who make it a war zone. Just as European settlers moving across America did. And I also guess that the deaths in the area are not exclusively Jewish.
Sure I lament deaths on both sides. I also weep for the Kurds, the largest ethnic group denied a nation, and persecuted in four countries.

I know I'm late to the party, but oh well.

Just to let you all know I have absolutly no respect for the likes of Corrie. She goes to another country to support anti-semites in their destruction of Israel, gets killed by jumping onto a bulldozer blade and then falling off. The bulldozer was filling in tunnels used to sneak terroists across to Israel (the house smashing story is bunk. Take a look at the pics.) The bulldozer drives onto her, her friends get the attention of the driver, the driver backs off of her (if had really driven over her twice she would have burst out of her clothes and the last thing her friends would have thought of was a hospital), and now everybody wants him hung.

And now everybody starts treating her as a martyr. Just why am I supposed to feel sorry for her? (And why no sympathy for the other "international" who was injured?)She was supporting people, whom if they had their way, would have us all put to death as infidels. Nice folks, huh?

Oh, and just to remind all you "It's the J-E-W-S types, Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have killed more "palestinians" than even you all could dream of Israel killing. Even if you multiplied that dream number by 10.
Thanks and have a wonderful day in your "Israel is EEEVVIILLL" la-la world!

Analog

I'm curious as to what you hope to accomplish with this kind of ad hominem. You attack a straw man. The voices who oppose Israeli policies are rarely as you've described, but are best represented by the following passage from "Common Dreams"

"Palestinian suicide bombings are clearly war crimes, even though some Palestinians claim they are justified in response to Israeli massacres and the illegal occupation of Palestinian land. However, Israeli military assaults that systematically result in civilian deaths are also war crimes, regardless of their justification. Both are reprehensible and must be condemned."

And as for what was going on in Rafah where Ms. Corrie met her fate, I'd much prefer to go by her words than yours, since she was actually there. As to those who assasinate her character, I've read virtually all that has been published of her own words...here you can find a sample.
http://www.electronicintifada.net/v2/article1254.shtml

These are not the words of someone who is either insane, stupid or disingenuous. I would judge her from what she says rather than the rabid hyperbole directed against her and others who believe that Palestinians deserve basic human rights and self-determination regardless of what might have been done in their name, and regardless of how many may have been killed by Jordan, Syria or Saudi Arabia (dubious as your claim may be).

I just need someone to explain to me how defending the rights of one people means wishing to destroy another. Why must it be Palestinians vs. Jews? Why must the survival of one group mean the displacement of another?

You might want to look at some U.N. documents from 1948-50. All references to "terrorism" in Palestine from that period actually refer to the terrorism of Zionist organizations. It also refers to the forced displacement of 700,000 Palestinian Arabs. The beginning of a process that continues today. No one has ever explained to me how this can be considered just. I'm actually a long time supporter of a Jewish homeland, given what happened in this century. But there MUST be a better way...

We will never find that way if all we can do is shout invective over the walls that separate us.

Woogie

She left her home and everything she knew behind her, and went to Palestine to help the deprived and unfortunate people there, to try and create awareness in her own people and the rest of the world, that whatever is happening in Palestine is wrong. She wasn’t a Muslim, it wasn’t her liability to do whatever she did, but she laid down her life for this noble cause when she came in front of an Israeli army bulldozer, demolishing a Palestinian doctor’s house. The Bulldozer crushed her in front of other American citizen, who were also there for the same cause. She was wearing an orange jacket and there is no way that the man operating the machine could not have seen her.
She mentioned in one of her letters about the immense difficulties the Israeli army would have to face if they shot and killed an unarmed American citizen. But I am certainly surprised that I never once saw any western media criticize and condemn Israel for killing a US citizen.

Capt Jacob Dallal, an Israeli military spokesman was quoted as saying,

“An initial inquiry indicates that an Israeli bulldozer apparently accidentally ran over a protester. The windows of the bullet-proof bulldozer are very small and the visibility is very limited, and the bulldozer operator did not see the woman.”

The above statement is proved a lie, from the pictures, which show that there is no way the driver could not have seen her.

I would also like to quote Joseph Smith who was with Rachel and the small group of people when this incident happened, as he writes:

“My name is Joseph Smith, I am 21 years old and from Kansas City, Missouri, USA. I have been working with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) in Rafah for over two months and plan to stay for at least one more.

One bulldozer, serial number 949623, began to work near the house of a physician who is a friend of ours, and in whose house Rachel and other activists often stayed. Rachel sat down in the pathway of the bulldozer. Still wearing her fluorescent jacket, she sat down at least 15 meters in front of the bulldozer, and began waving her arms and shouting, just as activists had successfully done dozens of times that day. The bulldozer continued driving forward headed straight for Rachel. When it got so close that it was moving the earth beneath her, she climbed onto the pile of rubble being pushed by the bulldozer. She got so high onto it that she was at eye-level with the cab of the bulldozer. Her head and upper torso were above the bulldozer's blade, and the bulldozer driver and co-operator could clearly see her.

Despite this, he continued forward, which pulled her legs into the pile of rubble, and pulled her down out of view of the diver. If he'd stopped at this point, he may have only broken her legs, but he continued forward, which pulled her underneath the bulldozer. We ran towards him, and waved our arms and shouted, one activist with the megaphone. But the bulldozer driver continued forward, until Rachel was underneath the central section of the bulldozer.”

The photograph that Riz is using to determine whether or not the Israeli driver saw her was taken by the photographer about 4 hours before the incident. I will go look up the reference but the photographer himself said so. Therefore Riz's assertions that the driver did or did not see her are not provable by the photograph.

The full story may be read here:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Rachel_Corrie3_Continued.asp

"The problem with the AP photo caption is that readers are led to believe that this photo depicts the very scene and moment of the accident. The implication is criminal recklessness on the part of the IDF driver.

In fact, however, this photo was NOT taken in the moments before Corrie's death. Joseph Smith, of the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement, was the photographer and wrote a chronological account of the incident (published on pro-Palestinian websites).

Smith says that the photo of Corrie "standing with megaphone" is ascribed to the time period 2pm-4pm. In addition, during this period, Smith notes that the bulldozer "always stopped in time to avoid injuring them."

At the time of Corrie's death (5pm), Smith describes Corrie as "sitting, with arms waving" (no megaphone), and another colleague holding the megaphone from a distance.

Additionally, one key point that Smith does not mention is that the bulldozers shown in the two photos are different types. The later photo is a bulldozer with much smaller windows, and hence reduced visibility.

Read Smith's account at:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1284.shtml

Thus, the AP photo and caption fails to note the two most essential factors in determining visibility or lack thereof: 1) Corrie was no longer standing, but had changed to a sitting position, and 2) she was no longer in possession of attention-grabbing megaphone.

When publishing such a photo, AP is obligated to explain details of chronology; in the absence of any information, readers presume that since the bulldozer appears 8-10 feet away from Corrie, the photographer must have snapped the picture moments before the bulldozer hit her.

This photo was published by many of the 15,000 media outlets that AP services. And though the accompanying articles may provide clarifying information, a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, by not providing a caption that clearly counterbalances the easy "misread," AP has misrepresented Corrie's death and contributed to a worldwide slander of the IDF."

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Rachel_Corrie3_Continued.asp