The Israeli Court System on Trial: The Rachel Corrie Appeal

[Purveyor]

Katherine Gallagher, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights

On March 16, 2003, 23-year old human rights defender Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer while protecting Palestinian homes in Gaza from demolition. For the past 11 years, Rachel's family has sought accountability for her killing, while also shining a spotlight on Israel's ongoing violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the widespread impunity Israeli officials enjoy. This week's appeal hearing before the Israeli Supreme Court will likely signal whether there will finally be a modicum of justice for Rachel -- and a measure of accountability to be had in an Israeli court.

In 2003, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised George W. Bush there would be a "thorough, credible and transparent" investigation into Rachel's killing. The U.S. government was not satisfied with the investigation done by the Israelis. Instead of opening its own investigation into the death of the American peace activist, however, the U.S. urged the Corries to press for justice themselves, in the Israeli courts. (Ironically, in 2006 the United States Departments of Justice and State filed a brief opposing the Corries' lawsuit in Washington against Caterpillar, which sold Israel the armored bulldozers knowing they were being used to commit international law violations; that case was dismissed). In 2005, the Corries filed their civil action in Haifa, Israel. The family spent much of 2010 and 2011 traveling back and forth for the 15 hearing dates spread over 16 months.

Rather than find flaws with the military's investigation -- as the U.S. had -- the judge accepted the testimony and evidence by the Israeli officials wholesale. Judge Gershon found in 2012 that Rachel was ultimately responsible for her own death because she traveled to Gaza and was present in an area where Israeli forces were operating. Effectively ignoring the obligations the Geneva Conventions place on Israel to protect civilians, he described her killing as an act of war, and as such, based on the exemption of the military from civil liability under Israeli law, found the military could not be held responsible. In essence, the district court agreed with an Israeli colonel who testified that all of Gaza -- with its 1.8 million children, women and men -- is a warzone and there are no civilians in war. The verdict was widely criticized by human rights organizations, and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter stated that it confirmed "a climate of impunity," which facilitates further Israeli human rights violations.

After the verdict, Rachel's mother, Cindy Corrie, said, "[o]ur lawsuit was not a solution but rather a symptom of a broken system of accountability within Israel and our own government."

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-center-for-constitutional-rights/the-israeli-court-system_b_5363288.html

[4now]

1. Sick and disgusting

[Bodhi BloodWave]

2. now i haven't checked the link to read the rest of it yet

but if we were to accept the colonels view that all of Gaza is a war zone and that there is no civilians in war...wouldn't the extension of that mindset be that all of Israel is a war zone as well and that there are no civilians within?(I mean, if they are at war then the territory of both sides should/could logically be considered a war zone neh? )

[King_David]

3. I had to look up who Rachel Corrie is and what this is all about,

I think almost everyone has forgotten what happened in this tragic accident 10 years ago.

Actually I think it was 11 years ago.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. For somebody that continuously plays the

victim, one has to wonder why they actively ignore the victims of Israeli oppression and apartheid.

I guess that it is easier to dehumanize, belittle and then pretend to forget than to actually show some empathy for others.

It's very telling And downright republicaesque.