Tweet
I agree that calling her “anti-American” and a “flag burner” are perhaps cheap shots. I choose to interpret their accusations as an attempt to describe her as more than just an “American peace activist” as many in the media have done. The truth is that there are actually very few people who really know what was in her heart and mind.
Furthermore no one should even attempt to deny that honestreporting.com has a pro-Israel agenda. Likewise, many of the other sites I’ve seen linked here are blatantly anti-Israel. Let’s not deny that either. It’s for us to wade through the propaganda and come to a reasoned opinion about what happened and why.
So instead of vilifying her, let’s vilify the people who caused her and the bulldozer to have to be in the same place at the wrong time, and let’s vilify the media’s handling of the tragic event.
First, the media:
Recently I’ve seen several websites that display pictures of Rachel that day (one such site was linked by Tomasz previously). Of particular interest is a series of two pictures: the first is of Rachel with a megaphone standing in front and to the side of a bulldozer (there’s almost always a caption to the effect that “she is clearly visible”), the second is a tragic picture of her lying in the wake of a bulldozer after it backed up on top of her.
The clear implication of placing these two pictures together is that the events of the second picture were immediately preceded by the events of the first picture. The two pictures create a fabricated reality that suggests the driver of the bulldozer committed homicide. However, upon closer inspection, you’ll notice that the horizon in the first picture is completely different than the horizon in the second picture. Several independent inquiries have confirmed that the two pictures in question were actually taken hours apart. (The lighting is supposed to be different too but I can’t tell on my crappy LCD screen.)
It’s completely irresponsible to present these two pictures side by side without proper explanation of context.
What do you think?
Here’s another article for you to read:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0303/corrie.html
This one is about Reuters and how it came to stop distributing the pictures in question.
And now the real culprits:
The bulldozer would not have had to be there if it wasn’t to demolish tunnels that were being used to smuggle arms. Palestinian militants intentionally use heavily populated areas as their base of operations. They do this because they know it will make it harder for Israel to route them out. However this use of human shields is a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a crime against the people who they’re supposedly trying to “liberate”.
John Podhoretz wrote an excellent New York Post Op-Ed column on this very issue. The article is unfortunately archived.
Here’s a link to the archive and abstract:
New York Post Archives
And here’s a quote:
"The Fourth Geneva Convention goes into great and elaborate detail about how to assign fault when military activities take place in civilian areas... Hamas is at war with Israel. But instead of separating themselves from the general population in military camps and wearing uniforms, as required by international law, Hamas members and other Palestinian terrorists try to use civilians -- the "protected persons" mentioned in [The Fourth Geneva Convention] 3:1:28 -- as living camouflage. To prevent such a thing from happening, international law explicitly gives Israel the right to conduct military operations against military targets under these circumstances."
He talks specifically about Hamas. I don’t know if these were their tunnels, but the principle is sound.
Let me conclude with a response to something Tomasz said which will lead me to my final thought.
Tomasz, you say that “Personally, I still do not buy that this was an accident.” Personally, I’m not sure from what you base your opinion. Although I don’t know what was in the heart and mind of the soldier driving the bulldozer, I do know that I have to give him at least as much benefit of the doubt as I give to Rachel. That is, just because he's a soldier and an Israeli, it doesn't make him a callous murderer.
Here’s why I choose to believe that it was an accident: The Israeli authorities must have intentionally chosen to use bulldozers for this operation in an attempt to minimize potential casualties and reduce psychological trauma. Let’s face it; Israel could very easily have dropped bombs on these houses and did not have to risk sending its soldiers into extremely hostile parts of Gaza.
By sending IDF personnel, Israel reduced the risk to the local population and significantly increased the risk to its own soldiers. Israel does this when possible because although they are in a defensive war with the militants, they are not at war with the general Palestinian “civilian” population. This humanitarian gesture which Israel frequently extends is just as frequently ignored by the media.
Furthermore no one should even attempt to deny that honestreporting.com has a pro-Israel agenda. Likewise, many of the other sites I’ve seen linked here are blatantly anti-Israel. Let’s not deny that either. It’s for us to wade through the propaganda and come to a reasoned opinion about what happened and why.
So instead of vilifying her, let’s vilify the people who caused her and the bulldozer to have to be in the same place at the wrong time, and let’s vilify the media’s handling of the tragic event.
First, the media:
Recently I’ve seen several websites that display pictures of Rachel that day (one such site was linked by Tomasz previously). Of particular interest is a series of two pictures: the first is of Rachel with a megaphone standing in front and to the side of a bulldozer (there’s almost always a caption to the effect that “she is clearly visible”), the second is a tragic picture of her lying in the wake of a bulldozer after it backed up on top of her.
The clear implication of placing these two pictures together is that the events of the second picture were immediately preceded by the events of the first picture. The two pictures create a fabricated reality that suggests the driver of the bulldozer committed homicide. However, upon closer inspection, you’ll notice that the horizon in the first picture is completely different than the horizon in the second picture. Several independent inquiries have confirmed that the two pictures in question were actually taken hours apart. (The lighting is supposed to be different too but I can’t tell on my crappy LCD screen.)
It’s completely irresponsible to present these two pictures side by side without proper explanation of context.
What do you think?
Here’s another article for you to read:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0303/corrie.html
This one is about Reuters and how it came to stop distributing the pictures in question.
And now the real culprits:
The bulldozer would not have had to be there if it wasn’t to demolish tunnels that were being used to smuggle arms. Palestinian militants intentionally use heavily populated areas as their base of operations. They do this because they know it will make it harder for Israel to route them out. However this use of human shields is a war crime, a crime against humanity, and a crime against the people who they’re supposedly trying to “liberate”.
John Podhoretz wrote an excellent New York Post Op-Ed column on this very issue. The article is unfortunately archived.
Here’s a link to the archive and abstract:
New York Post Archives
And here’s a quote:
"The Fourth Geneva Convention goes into great and elaborate detail about how to assign fault when military activities take place in civilian areas... Hamas is at war with Israel. But instead of separating themselves from the general population in military camps and wearing uniforms, as required by international law, Hamas members and other Palestinian terrorists try to use civilians -- the "protected persons" mentioned in [The Fourth Geneva Convention] 3:1:28 -- as living camouflage. To prevent such a thing from happening, international law explicitly gives Israel the right to conduct military operations against military targets under these circumstances."
He talks specifically about Hamas. I don’t know if these were their tunnels, but the principle is sound.
Let me conclude with a response to something Tomasz said which will lead me to my final thought.
Tomasz, you say that “Personally, I still do not buy that this was an accident.” Personally, I’m not sure from what you base your opinion. Although I don’t know what was in the heart and mind of the soldier driving the bulldozer, I do know that I have to give him at least as much benefit of the doubt as I give to Rachel. That is, just because he's a soldier and an Israeli, it doesn't make him a callous murderer.
Here’s why I choose to believe that it was an accident: The Israeli authorities must have intentionally chosen to use bulldozers for this operation in an attempt to minimize potential casualties and reduce psychological trauma. Let’s face it; Israel could very easily have dropped bombs on these houses and did not have to risk sending its soldiers into extremely hostile parts of Gaza.
By sending IDF personnel, Israel reduced the risk to the local population and significantly increased the risk to its own soldiers. Israel does this when possible because although they are in a defensive war with the militants, they are not at war with the general Palestinian “civilian” population. This humanitarian gesture which Israel frequently extends is just as frequently ignored by the media.
Comment