Corrie vs. Caterpillar -- Redux.

[Mycroft]

What we hear is a mantra that goes: "holocaust, holocaust, holocaust, holocaust, holocaust..." (Repeat this mantra 1000 times, then start again from the beginning.)

If dead people need to be mentioned (and they constantly are being mentioned, especially by Israeli Jews) it would be healthy and honest to mention also other dead people than Jewish ones.

Wow, what a total non sequitur. What does any of this have to do with your attempt to smear the modern Jewish people with a "genocide" which happened so many thousands of years ago that it's factual basis is questionable?

More importantly, what do these comments reveal about you?

Do you resent Jews for remembering the Holocaust? Do you think Jews somehow have less of a right to remember personal tragedies that happened to them, their families and their ancestors than other people do? Would you express the same resentment at an Armenian or a Russian or any other person remembering or commemorating a tragedy that befell their own people?

Shameful.

 

[Mycroft]

To you, of course they are. Because in your little world, anyone who decries Israel's war crimes and human rights abuses is "fully in solidarity with the terrorist groups."

So what does the S in ISM stand for?

 

[RandFan]

Fools rush in...

• The Palestinians have legitimate complaints including crimes and atrocities committed against them by the Israelis.
• The Palestinians do not have clean hands. On the contrary, they are quite bloody.
• The Palestinians will be ignored because they have zero moral authority.
• That the Israelis commit wrongs against the Palestinians can't excuse Palestinian wrongs. Intentionally targeting civilians makes it very difficult for the world to act in support of Palestine.
• That Palestinians and the Palestinian authority call for the destruction of Israel further exasperates the problem. There will be NO solution until this changes regardless of what Israel does or does not do.
• Because it is a democracy, Israel is far more capable of change. Moderate voices and dissent are allowed. No dissent or moderate voices are allowed in Palestine.
• Corrie was blinded by her hatred of Israel and her one sided view of this conflict.
• Corrie demonstrated an abject failure to view the issue with any objective view and was ruled simply by emotion.
• Caring only for innocent people of one side simply made Corrie a partisan.
• Corrie was no peace activist.

Corrie was naive at best and stupid at worst.

 

[RandFan]

Corrie was no peace activist.

Corrie was naive at best and stupid at worst.

Looking back over my post it occurs to me that these conclusions do not follow from my premises as well as I would have liked.

As to why Corrie was not a peace activist. A peace activist is one who sees all people as worthy of human dignity and respect. Failing to denounce the violence on the part of the Palestinians and justifying violence the way she did with her mother belies the notion that she was a peace activist.

As an aside, for those interested, read the Lucifer Effect. It explains, in part, why Corrie's efforts were wrong. To change the problem you have to first understand the nature of the problem. Hint: It's not that the Israelis are inherently bad. As long as there is us vs. them there will be conflict. Corrie contributed to that divisiveness.

As to why Corrie was at best Naive and at worst stupid. Her goal was to raise awareness of the plight of the Palestinians and thus improve the conditions. While it was possible to raise awareness of the plight of Palestinians there was no hope that her efforts would bring about change. Pointing out that one group is committing atrocities against another group that is committing atrocities in the hopes of bringing about change is an effort in futility. It demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the problem or a willful blindness to that problem. It was naive at best to think that reasonable people would ignore that deaths of Israeli women and children and focus only on the plight of Palestinians. If she knew this fact and put herself at risk anyway because she cared more for Palestinians than Israelis then she was stupid and deserving of the Darwin award.

 

[Earthborn]

A peace activist is one who sees all people as worthy of human dignity and respect. Failing to denounce the violence on the part of the Palestinians and justifying violence the way she did with her mother belies the notion that she was a peace activist.

The quote that is usually used to prove that she was "justifying the violence" can also be interpreted in such way that she is trying to see how people are worthy of human dignity and respect, even if they commit violence. It is just a matter of whether you choose to interpret someone's words in the worst possible way, or if you choose not to do that.

As an aside, for those interested, read the Lucifer Effect. It explains, in part, why Corrie's efforts were wrong.

It also explains why it is wrong to explain Corrie's actions in terms of personal failure, such as "at best naive and at worst stupid":

... he insists that we blame the situation and the "system" that constructed it ...

Hint: It's not that the Israelis are inherently bad.

Who claimed they were?

As long as there is us vs. them there will be conflict. Corrie contributed to that divisiveness.

You're not helping either. With "as long as there is us vs. them there will be conflict" you are basically saying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is eternal.

Pointing out that one group is committing atrocities against another group that is committing atrocities in the hopes of bringing about change is an effort in futility.

The group she accused of atrocities and the group whose plight she was trying to raise awareness for, are not equivalent. One group is a military organisation controlled by a government, the other is a civilian population.

 

[Trigood]

Sure, but by the same token the only reason you want to glamorize her actions and motives is that you think she was on the "right" side.

Every year tens of thousands of teenagers die due to stupid errors in judgment. It should be a no-brainer that to purposefully place yourself in a war-zone and purposefully place yourself between the combatants in that war zone, is exactly that kind of lapse in judgment that could result in death. Yet for some reason, for some people, Corrie gets a pass on that because there was a political angle to her death.

So, you see no moral difference between a teenager placing himself in danger by driving drunk, and a young person placing herself in danger while promoting values that are dearer to her than life itself? Values that she truly believes in? (even if you don't)

In my city last year, a young girl foolishly (in my opinion) participated in a "ghost-hunting" activity, in which the put-upon resident of the so-called "haunted house" fired some pot-shots out the window, horribly injuring her for the rest of her life. I would consider that a foolish "error in judgment."

You may consider Rachel's actions foolish and her values skewed, but I don't believe you can deny that they sprang from a much different place than a foolish desire to drink-and-drive, "ghost-hunt," or some other such meaningless teenage prank. Rather, they sprang from a much different, more serious and value-laden place.

Obviously, you don't agree with those values, which is your prerogative. But the premise above, you must grant. Which is basically what Cleon was saying.

The Corrie's are suing Caterpillar to further Rachael's political agenda, but if they really wanted to sue someone for wrongful death, they should sue the ISM. They're the ones that purposefully place children's lives in danger for the purpose of creating propaganda.

First, it's Rachel's own foolish choice. Now, it's the ISM. OK, maybe I'm splitting hairs.

One person's "propaganda" is another person's "righteous cause." Gandhi did a lot of things to "create propaganda." The march to the sea to make salt. The final stand against the salt factory henchmen (in which, I believe, several people probably died).

Overall, I've never seen such glee over a young woman's death, a woman who basically did nothing wrong (never killed anyone or committed any terrorism, or even broke any laws as far as we know), as I have on this thread. I would call it "disgusting" but that's too mild a term.

 

[webfusion]

Overall, I've never seen such glee over a young woman's death, a woman who basically did nothing wrong

What glee? I have not read posts here reflecting any glee. This was an isolated incident, on a day and in a zone where combat troops of the Israeli Defense Forces were operating. The armored unit in that area of Gaza had been coming under palestinian fire. Ms Corrie went into harm's way on the side of the palestinian terrorists, which is exactly how the ISM routinely functions. Rachel did not qualify as being an "innocent bystander" and her actions that day were typical of the ISM making determined and specific efforts to get themselves right into the faces of IDF combat troops.

Let me give you a hypothetical -----

• This coming August, as I have mentioned (and linked), the ISM is planning to run through the Israeli Naval blockade.
  The ISM has decided that the Israelis will not shoot.
  
  Out at sea, an Israeli Naval craft spots a fishing trawler, and maneuvers to stop it. The trawler ignores these attempts, and evades.
  
  The Israelis shoot.
  Two ISM members die.

Are these ISM casualties "innocents" ?

 

[RandFan]

The quote that is usually used to prove that she was "justifying the violence" can also be interpreted in such way that she is trying to see how people are worthy of human dignity and respect, even if they commit violence. It is just a matter of whether you choose to interpret someone's words in the worst possible way, or if you choose not to do that.

I think you are being overly generous.

It also explains why it is wrong to explain Corrie's actions in terms of personal failure, such as "at best naive and at worst stupid":

I think your point better without noting attribution error. We can debate that if you like but I have a feeling it will not bring any satisfaction to either of us.

As to whether or not the Lucifer Effect sheds light on Corrie's behavior, of course I agree. 100%. That said, we need to raise awareness and combat ignorance. If you find my rhetoric a bit strong and hypocritical then I can see that point. However it is useful to point out that Corrie was blinded by her emotions and naive as to the likelihood that her actions would bring about change.

Who claimed they were?

I have not found any recognition on Corrie's part as to the humanity of Israelis. I would be happy to recognize any that you would provide. It is the absence of such and her zeal for the Palestinians that calls into question her view of Israelis as anything other than the enemy and the cause of the suffering of the Palestinians. It is this kind of thinking that draws out this idiotic conflict.

You're not helping either. With "as long as there is us vs. them there will be conflict" you are basically saying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is eternal.

Not eternal, protracted and for the very reason that both sides see each other only in the worst light. Both sides dehumanize the other. It WILL require compromise on both sides. Israel, IMO, is capable of compromise. The Palestinians are not (at this time). When they are so capable there will be change. That is not to say that Israel creates many of the problems that draw out this conflict. They do. They are guilty of atrocities and they could lower the level of violence and perhaps create an atmosphere more conducive to changing the views of the Palestinians. I'm confident that eventually the dynamics will change. 50 - 100 years? Who knows. It won't be next year I'm confident of that.

The group she accused of atrocities and the group whose plight she was trying to raise awareness for, are not equivalent. One group is a military organisation controlled by a government, the other is a civilian population.

I think you miss the point. Israelis and Palestinians are human beings. The differences between them are quite literally superficial and are the results of artificial human construction though I'll confess that the consequences of those constructs are very real. In the end both are suffering atrocities committed against them.

If one is so disposed one can find ample justification for the atrocities on either side. It's what we as humans are good at. It's an evolutionary trait. That's fine. If someone like Corrie wants to side with the Palestinians that is her right. Just don't call Corrie a "peace activist" and don't expect reasonable people to accept that going next door to intentionally murder your neighbors child is ok under some circumstances. It's not and failing to recognize that the subjects of Corrie's ardor are in fact doing that is to fail to be a peace activist and simply to become a partisan.

The world could use more peace activists. I wish I were one. Unlike Corrie though I can recognize that this conflict WON'T end by focusing only on the atrocities committed by the Israelis... or the Palestinians I should add.

 

[Bud Fox]

Looking back over my post it occurs to me that these conclusions do not follow from my premises as well as I would have liked.

As to why Corrie was not a peace activist. A peace activist is one who sees all people as worthy of human dignity and respect. Failing to denounce the violence on the part of the Palestinians and justifying violence the way she did with her mother belies the notion that she was a peace activist.

As an aside, for those interested, read the Lucifer Effect. It explains, in part, why Corrie's efforts were wrong. To change the problem you have to first understand the nature of the problem. Hint: It's not that the Israelis are inherently bad. As long as there is us vs. them there will be conflict. Corrie contributed to that divisiveness.

As to why Corrie was at best Naive and at worst stupid. Her goal was to raise awareness of the plight of the Palestinians and thus improve the conditions. While it was possible to raise awareness of the plight of Palestinians there was no hope that her efforts would bring about change. Pointing out that one group is committing atrocities against another group that is committing atrocities in the hopes of bringing about change is an effort in futility. It demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the problem or a willful blindness to that problem. It was naive at best to think that reasonable people would ignore that deaths of Israeli women and children and focus only on the plight of Palestinians. If she knew this fact and put herself at risk anyway because she cared more for Palestinians than Israelis then she was stupid and deserving of the Darwin award.

Moroever, Corrie, like many other left-wing activists, places the entirety of the blame for the Palestinians plight on the Israelis. While Israel's actions have been at times unwise and, at worst, on occasion immoral, there was a complete and utter failure on her part to recognise the contribution of Palestinians' Arab brethren to the problem. If the Arab nations had not been bent on Israel's destruction and been willing to negotiate peace with Israel (rather than promote the three "no's"), and had been willing to absorb Palestinian refugees (as Israel did with Jewish refugees from Arab lands in '48) rather than cynically perpetuate the refugee problem, then we would not be witness to what we are seeing today. The 2 state solution could have been in place long ago. The Arab refusal to negotiate contributed heavily to the success of those promoting Israeli expansion.

 

[webfusion]

*breaking News*

In the border area of RAFAH, on the other side of the Philadelphi Route of Gaza, the Egyptians are fighting running battles with the Bedouins who refuse to move away, and are sitting in front of the bulldozers.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/888207.html
Egyptian Police initially said they fired tear gas and used water cannons to evict masses of demonstrators from the streets.

An Associated Press reporter at the scene then saw police firing live ammunition in the air and rubber bullets at the protesters.

 

[Bud Fox]

In the border area of RAFAH, on the other side of the Philadelphi Route of Gaza, the Egyptians are fighting running battles with the Bedouins who refuse to move away, and are sitting in front of the bulldozers.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/888207.html
Egyptian Police initially said they fired tear gas and used water cannons to evict masses of demonstrators from the streets.

An Associated Press reporter at the scene then saw police firing live ammunition in the air and rubber bullets at the protesters.

Where's the ISM? Shouldn't they be there helping the downtrodden? Or are they only present when they consider Israel the aggressor?

 

[fuelair]

You wouldn't share those "legal and ethical grounds" with us?

Judging from the consequences, this said activity constantly (endlessly?) provokes terrorism and hatred from the Arab side.

So what - can't help what religious nuts do - just kill them till they stop.

 

[Ion]

So what - can't help what religious nuts do - just kill them till they stop.

That's what the Palestinians do to Israeli religious nuts who settle outside Israel's boundaries.

At least these Palestinians are in their land.

The Israeli religious nuts are occupiers.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The group she accused of atrocities and the group whose plight she was trying to raise awareness for, are not equivalent. One group is a military organisation controlled by a government, the other is a civilian population.

How about you try to spin that golf ball a little harder, eh? Care for my 60 degree wedge? I think you only used a nine iron.

You left out a part of that. Let's try something a little closer to the actual composition of sides, if not a best or perfect explanation.

The other is a civilian population frequently harboring (or merely being used as refuge by) terrorists who commit terrorist acts and then try to hide within the so called civilian population. That is the balancing point missing your one sided "one is a military organization" where you completely whitewash the paramilitary nature of the various Palestinian guerilla/terrorist groups who use raw violence in pursuit of political change under cover of being "civilian."

DR

 

[fuelair]

That's what the Palestinians do to Israeli religious nuts who settle outside Israel's boundaries.

At least these Palestinians are in their land.

The Israeli religious nuts are occupiers.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhttttt - by the by, I can make you a great deal on a bridge I happen to have an option on up in Brooklyn, NY!! Just leave your info in your next response!!!

 

[Ion]

What info?

 

[Earthborn]

That is the balancing point missing your one sided "one is a military organization" where you completely whitewash the paramilitary nature of the various Palestinian guerilla/terrorist groups

I'm not whitewashing anything. I'm just pointing out that Rachel Corrie was not trying to raise awareness for the plight of paramilitary groups. You can call it one-sided if you want, but it is not my one-sidedness but Rachel Corrie's.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not whitewashing anything. I'm just pointing out that Rachel Corrie was not trying to raise awareness for the plight of paramilitary groups. You can call it one-sided if you want, but it is not my one-sidedness but Rachel Corrie's.

OK, I see where you are coming from.

DR

 

[webfusion]

UPDATE: The US 9th Circuit Court today upheld the lower court dismissal of the lawsuit against Caterpillar. Case closed.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/904480.html

 

[The Fool]

from webs link..


"It is not the role of the courts to indirectly indict Israel for violating international law with military equipment the United States government provided and continues to provide," Circuit Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote for a three-judge panel.


"The executive branch has made a policy determination that Israel should purchase Caterpillar bulldozers," the decision said. "A court could not find in favor of the plaintiffs without implicitly questioning, and even condemning, United States foreign policy toward Israel."

The 9th Circuit has in some previous cases shied away from lawsuits in which American policy was in question. Because the United States executive branch paid for the Caterpillar bulldozers sent to Israel, the sale was an extension of U.S. national security decisions, the judge wrote.

"In this regard, we are mindful of the potential for causing international embarrassment were a federal court to undermine foreign policy decisions in the sensitive context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," the ruling said.

looks like the court disqualified itself from making a decision on the grounds that it could not consider the case on the merits of the individual cases due to the possibility of condemning US foreign policy if it were to find in favor of the plaintiffs. Are US courts not allowed to make decisions that may condemn executive branch policy??