Israeli court: Israeli army not at fault for murdering Rachel Corrie

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Pan-Arabism is dead, and has been for a while now.

And an independent Jewish state was dead for two millennia. Seriously folks, this is the major flaw is Israeli policy.  They base it upon the assumptions that they will always have military superiority and that they will be united while their enemies remain divided.  Heck for that matter, all a united Arabia does is make the downfall of Israel come sooner.  If Egypt alone had an economy and military equivalent to that of Israel on a per capita basis, they'd be able to squash Israel like a bug if there was a war.  Israel has always had the advantage of a superior military. (To be fair that superiority in the early stages of 1948 was largely in superior elan rather than materiel.)

[Silent Hunter]

Only if Israel can get the nukes there.  The war I envision happening will only occur once a united Arabia has a substantial ballistic missile defense and at least air equality to Israel and more likely air supremacy.   Israel is so small, one only needs a few nukes to penetrate to be able to knock the country out and one can use short range missiles to deliver them, while a credible Israeli riposte capable of promising MAD needs to be able to hit hundreds of targets that are largely quite some distance from Israel.

Already can get the nukes there - they've got ballistic missiles and an increasingly potent air force, especially once they got F-35.

[danny]

Talking so far into the future seems silly to me, and no one really knows what is going to happen, and anyone making predictions is probably going to be very wrong. As far as we know countries in 100 years will envelop themselves in force fields that make nuclear attacks obsolete.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Only if Israel can get the nukes there.  The war I envision happening will only occur once a united Arabia has a substantial ballistic missile defense and at least air equality to Israel and more likely air supremacy.   Israel is so small, one only needs a few nukes to penetrate to be able to knock the country out and one can use short range missiles to deliver them, while a credible Israeli riposte capable of promising MAD needs to be able to hit hundreds of targets that are largely quite some distance from Israel.

Already can get the nukes there - they've got ballistic missiles and an increasingly potent air force, especially once they got F-35.

Did you not read what I said?  I'm not talking abut the current military situation at all.  Indeed if the only thing that happened now was that the Arabs got the bomb, I don't foresee a war breaking out.  (Altho I could see a future Bashir or Saddam sending them Israel's way as his regime collapses from an internal revolt.  Jews aren't the only ones who can pull a Samson.)

Talking so far into the future seems silly to me, and no one really knows what is going to happen, and anyone making predictions is probably going to be very wrong. As far as we know countries in 100 years will envelop themselves in force fields that make nuclear attacks obsolete.

Whatever the defects of my predictions, they are far superior to the idea that Israel will forever have military superiority in the region.  Yet, Israel's current policies are based upon that idea.  Whatever the weaponry of that future war is, if Israel does not hold military superiority, it is toast.

[danny]

If the Arabs think Israel is weak, a piece of paper isn't going to stop them from attacking anyway.

[CultureKing]

...anyways. This is a very sad end for the Corries. The bulldozer obviously knew that there were protesters in the area, so I don't buy the 'I didn't see her' defense. Meanwhile the Israeli government simply refuses to take responsibility for the fiasco and has now passed an act that renders Palestinians unable to bring issues to court because now only Israeli citizens and foreigners with a valid passport are allowed standing.

On a separate note growing up in Olympia (Rachel Corrie's hometown) has always put me on a bit of an odd side of the Palestine/Israel debate from the rest of the US. The verdict was front page news here and we have had a number of demonstrations over the years against how the Israeli government has handled the issue.

By the way remember that the Corrie's were suing for $1 in damages, all they wanted was an admission of guilt from someone for the loss of their daughter. Sad.

[Beet]

Ironically Corrie has achieved far more in death in drawing attention to the Palestinian cause and the Israeli government's intransigence than her meager protest would have had she not been killed. Obviously her death is a tragedy, but seeing as we all die, for a young death at least had more meaning than most (I remember my school newspaper got into quite a firestorm over a cartoon about her that the editors looked back upon at graduation as by far the most memorable incident in their college careers).

The other irony is that for all the talk of wars and the failure to achieve peace, the region has become more peaceful over time, not less. The Ba'athist secular dictatorships were the biggest culprits in starting wars historically in the region, and the most violent country right now just happens to be the last Ba'athist secular dictatorship (excepting perhaps Algeria). It's ironic as you would expect religious fundamentalists to be more violent. And they do engage in plenty of terrorism for sure. But wars on the scale of '67 or '73 or '80-'88 you have not seen so much of. Of course this post could look silly if Israel attacks Iran.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the Arabs think Israel is weak, a piece of paper isn't going to stop them from attacking anyway.

Who said anything about a piece of paper?  Maybe things would be different if Israel had acted differently after the 1967 war and never tried a long-term occupation, but now...  Now it's only a matter of time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The other irony is that for all the talk of wars and the failure to achieve peace, the region has become more peaceful over time, not less. The Ba'athist secular dictatorships were the biggest culprits in starting wars historically in the region, and the most violent country right now just happens to be the last Ba'athist secular dictatorship (excepting perhaps Algeria). It's ironic as you would expect religious fundamentalists to be more violent. And they do engage in plenty of terrorism for sure. But wars on the scale of '67 or '73 or '80-'88 you have not seen so much of. Of course this post could look silly if Israel attacks Iran.

The reason that there hasn't been a major war with Israel is that since then Israel has clearly had military superiority in any sort of conventional war since then.  Those dictators weren't so dumb as to give Israel another chance to embarrass them.

[Silent Hunter]

Did you not read what I said?  I'm not talking abut the current military situation at all.  Indeed if the only thing that happened now was that the Arabs got the bomb, I don't foresee a war breaking out.  (Altho I could see a future Bashir or Saddam sending them Israel's way as his regime collapses from an internal revolt.  Jews aren't the only ones who can pull a Samson.)

Yes, I read it. However, a substantial ballistic missile defence won't stop an Israeli nuclear attack based just as much on sub-launched cruise missiles.

[danny]

If the Arabs think Israel is weak, a piece of paper isn't going to stop them from attacking anyway.

Who said anything about a piece of paper?  Maybe things would be different if Israel had acted differently after the 1967 war and never tried a long-term occupation, but now...  Now it's only a matter of time.

Then what would you have proposed to stop the Arabs from wanting to get rid of Israel?
Because it was just as much their intention before 1967 as after.

[The Mikado]

Intentionally placing oneself in mortal peril is a damned foolish protest technique.  What did Corrie expect?  Honestly, she got what she wanted: publicity.  Isn't it disingenuous to call for justice when this is clearly the outcome she desired?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Isn't it disingenuous to call for justice when this is clearly the outcome she desired?

Of course, but that won't stop the anti-Israel people from doing so.

[CultureKing]

The two of you sound like rape apologists. Peaceful protest, even in dangerous circumstances does not warrant a death sentence and to suggest that Corrie desired to die and become an martyr for the cause is foolish. While Corrie's judgement in this matter may not have been sound it seems equally or even more likely that the Israeli army and the bulldozer driver did not handle the situation properly (once again when you know there are protesters in the area why would you proceed forward so recklessly??!!).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the Arabs think Israel is weak, a piece of paper isn't going to stop them from attacking anyway.

Who said anything about a piece of paper?  Maybe things would be different if Israel had acted differently after the 1967 war and never tried a long-term occupation, but now...  Now it's only a matter of time.

Then what would you have proposed to stop the Arabs from wanting to get rid of Israel?
Because it was just as much their intention before 1967 as after.

Perhaps not try to take over Arab land to reform a defunct nation in the first place?

Still, there was at least a chance that the Arabs could have eventually come to accept the Israeli enclave existing in Palestine before the occupation began.  1967 Israel in a no win situation. Going back to the 1967 borders immediately wasn't a realistic option.  Nor could they do as they had done after the 1948-9 war and give the Arabs that remained political rights, not and keep Israel a Jewish state.  (Tho if they had, I think the Jews would still have been a majority, just not an overwhelming one.)

Still, despite their unpalatablity politically, the two options that might have had a chance of success would have been to plan on a return to 1967 borders (probably with some border changes, especially in the area of Jerusalem which I find it unlikely Israel would ever willingly give up) even without a final peace deal or to go for a one-state solution of a State of Israel-Palestine (probably sans Gaza to improve the demographics as far as the Jews are concerned).  I can't say either would be a guaranteed long term success and they both would have been riskier in the short term. However, the settlements and the occupation put Israel on a path that ensures it will continue to exist only so long as it has military superiority, but not much past that.

[Beet]

Intentionally placing oneself in mortal peril is a damned foolish protest technique.  What did Corrie expect?  Honestly, she got what she wanted: publicity.  Isn't it disingenuous to call for justice when this is clearly the outcome she desired?

I'm surprised at you. Of course she wasn't expecting, or wanting, to die.

[Insula Dei]

I'm hoping some people on here are being ironic,...

[The Mikado]

Intentionally placing oneself in mortal peril is a damned foolish protest technique.  What did Corrie expect?  Honestly, she got what she wanted: publicity.  Isn't it disingenuous to call for justice when this is clearly the outcome she desired?

I'm surprised at you. Of course she wasn't expecting, or wanting, to die.

_{Shh.  I'm trying to get a rise out of FallenMorgan.}

[bgwah]

Intentionally placing oneself in mortal peril is a damned foolish protest technique.  What did Corrie expect?  Honestly, she got what she wanted: publicity.  Isn't it disingenuous to call for justice when this is clearly the outcome she desired?

I'm surprised at you. Of course she wasn't expecting, or wanting, to die.

_{Shh.  I'm trying to get a rise out of FallenMorgan.}

That the best excuse you could come up with?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Nah, talking with Mikado in IRC right now. He was trolling.

[Free Palestine]

Intentionally placing oneself in mortal peril is a damned foolish protest technique.  What did Corrie expect?  Honestly, she got what she wanted: publicity.  Isn't it disingenuous to call for justice when this is clearly the outcome she desired?

I'm surprised at you. Of course she wasn't expecting, or wanting, to die.

_{Shh.  I'm trying to get a rise out of FallenMorgan.}

Meh

[danny]

Perhaps not try to take over Arab land to reform a defunct nation in the first place?

Still, there was at least a chance that the Arabs could have eventually come to accept the Israeli enclave existing in Palestine before the occupation began.  1967 Israel in a no win situation. Going back to the 1967 borders immediately wasn't a realistic option.  Nor could they do as they had done after the 1948-9 war and give the Arabs that remained political rights, not and keep Israel a Jewish state.  (Tho if they had, I think the Jews would still have been a majority, just not an overwhelming one.)

Still, despite their unpalatablity politically, the two options that might have had a chance of success would have been to plan on a return to 1967 borders (probably with some border changes, especially in the area of Jerusalem which I find it unlikely Israel would ever willingly give up) even without a final peace deal or to go for a one-state solution of a State of Israel-Palestine (probably sans Gaza to improve the demographics as far as the Jews are concerned).  I can't say either would be a guaranteed long term success and they both would have been riskier in the short term. However, the settlements and the occupation put Israel on a path that ensures it will continue to exist only so long as it has military superiority, but not much past that.

So basically Israel has the option of giving back a big chunk of land and pray that that would appease the Arabs so that they might not want to get rid of Israel, even though all evidence so far would show that the opposite is true.

Another option is to simply cease to exist.

Faced with these options, I am glad that Israel chose a third option over those, if this means that there will be more wars in the future, then so be it.

[Vosem]

(once again when you know there are protesters in the area why would you proceed forward so recklessly??!!).

Why do you recklessly drive cars on streets people cross? Because you assume they won't crouch down on the road in a fetal position with the crazy assumption that this will somehow stop everyone from driving.

Right next to the high school I attend, they're building a new one (the one I go to now will be demolished next summer). People go to the high school, right next to the construction, yet nobody's died. Because even high schoolers aren't that stupid.

I'm hoping some people on here are being ironic,...

Ironically, everybody -- with the possible exception of The Mikado -- was serious before this post, but afterwards the majority aren't.

Intentionally placing oneself in mortal peril is a damned foolish protest technique.  What did Corrie expect?  Honestly, she got what she wanted: publicity.  Isn't it disingenuous to call for justice when this is clearly the outcome she desired?

I'm surprised at you. Of course she wasn't expecting, or wanting, to die.

_{Shh.  I'm trying to get a rise out of FallenMorgan.}

It's not that hard

Kidding, FM. We have our disagreements, but he's still basically a good guy.

[Beet]

Nah, talking with Mikado in IRC right now. He was trolling.

Yeh, reading it again it's obviously trolling. Now I'm surprised I didn't see it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Faced with these options, I am glad that Israel chose a third option over those, if this means that there will be more wars in the future, then so be it.

I never said there was a magickal solution that would have brought about a Jewish State of Israel living in peaceful coexistence with its neighbors. I don't believe it exists.  My point is that the policy Israel fell into after 1967 guaranteed that the final Arab-Israeli war will be awful bloody when it happens.