Israel cleared of Rachel Corrie's death...... by Israel

**Adhamh Ashashi** · August 28, 2012, 01:27 PM

Well a judge today cleared Israel Defence Forces of any wrongdoing firstly in the killing of Ms. Corrie and also stating that the IDF conducted a thorough investigation into the death of Ms. Corrie.

The judge stated that she was in a military zone and did not distance herself from the zone. Human rights experts have stated that this has a created a dangerous precedent due to "a potentially far-reaching disavowal of state liability in cases in which non-combatants were killed or injured when the military was engaged in 'war-related action'".(Report here from the Indpendent)

Personally I think this is a shambles. This case should not have been tried in Israel. This should have been brought before an international court or mediated in another state due to nature of the case.

Firstly, I think that an Israeli judge could not be deemed unbiased in this situation. If he found against the IDF, he would be questioning the IDF and opposing them. Judges are still human beings and finding against your own nation's military is a very dangerous thing to do, especially in such a militarised state such as Israel. The IDF is the military of the state, and rightly or wrongly, Israel needs a large military. Now, if a judge disagrees with the IDF, that could set off a precedent that could limit the powers of the IDF. I do not believe an Israeli judge is going to do that.

Secondly, if this was to be held in an international court, the level of bias would be dropped dramatically. You would have up to 15 judges of all different nationalities presiding over the case, not just one judge who is a national of the state being sued in this instance.

If Iran had tried a person for killing a foreign national for protesting, and found him not guilty because the state of Iran believes that what they did was indeed for the benefit of Iran, this would have caused global outrage. I just believe that it is pointless allowing this to be tried in Israel, it is a shambles and needs to be brought before the ICJ.

**s.rwitt** · August 28, 2012, 01:32 PM

Firstly, I think that an Israeli judge could not be deemed unbiased in this situation. If he found against the IDF, he would be questioning the IDF and opposing them. Judges are still human beings and finding against your own nation's military is a very dangerous thing to do, especially in such a militarised state such as Israel.

Speaking of precedent, what kind of precedent do you think this would set?

**Adhamh Ashashi** · August 28, 2012, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by s.rwitt

Speaking of precedent, what kind of precedent do you think this would set?

Human rights experts have stated that this has a created a dangerous precedent due to "a potentially far-reaching disavowal of state liability in cases in which non-combatants were killed or injured when the military was engaged in 'war-related action'"

War related action is not defined. We need a definition of this term and it needs to be determined by an international organisation and not by a state engaged in war related action. If left open to Israel it could encompass a very wide definition and relieve the IDF a lot of liability.

**Adar** · August 28, 2012, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Adhamh Ashashi

Human rights experts have stated that this has a created a dangerous precedent due to "a potentially far-reaching disavowal of state liability in cases in which non-combatants were killed or injured when the military was engaged in 'war-related action'"

War related action is not defined. We need a definition of this term and it needs to be determined by an international organisation and not by a state engaged in war related action. If left open to Israel it could encompass a very wide definition and relieve the IDF a lot of liability.

Human rights expert got an annoying tendency to be the same thing as "left wing idiot who hate Israel".

The Israel case is quite simple. Someone willingly walked into a very dangerous situation and died. Having an international jury of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, China and Equador really wouldn't help in determining that...

**Adhamh Ashashi** · August 28, 2012, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Adar

Human rights expert got an annoying tendency to be the same thing as "left wing idiot who hate Israel".

The Israel case is quite simple. Someone willingly walked into a very dangerous situation and died. Having an international jury of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia, China and Equador really wouldn't help in determining that...

Someone is entitled to protest and not be killed. They could have forcibly removed her, but they instead decided to go ahead and a person died.

It would because you have no opportunity for bias to sway the decision.

Originally Posted by s.rwitt

I'm talking about the idea that judges can't be trusted to rule on cases involving their government.

Well the judge selection process is made up of a committee, of which there is a strong political influence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicia...mittee_(Israel)). I am also assuming that the majority of people that are available to be selected for the committee would be in favour of the demolition of houses for Israeli benefits. If a judge finds against the IDF in a case to which what they were doing is quite widespread and common (demolition of Palestinian property) it could prevent the IDF from legally continuing or could open up vast liability for the IDF and subsequently the Israeli government. This judge would then not be overly favourable within the Israeli government and could jeapordise his/her position.

Hence, I do not feel it is possible for an Israeli judge to have been completely unbiased in presiding over this case.

**mongrel** · August 30, 2012, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Adar

The Israel case is quite simple. Someone willingly walked into a very dangerous situation and died.

If I was to be pedantic, I'd say that she was lying down, in plain sight. Bulldozers aren't dangerous if they are handled properly.

**s.rwitt** · August 30, 2012, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by mongrel

If I was to be pedantic, I'd say that she was lying down, in plain sight. Bulldozers aren't dangerous if they are handled properly.

Yeah, they aren't dangerous if you don't crouch in front of them either...

**Menelik_I** · August 30, 2012, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by mongrel

If I was to be pedantic, I'd say that she was lying down, in plain sight. Bulldozers aren't dangerous if they are handled properly.

A minicooper is dangerous if you stand in front of it.

**mrmouth** · August 28, 2012, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Adhamh Ashashi

Human rights experts

To the sun with them.

**Closetu** · August 28, 2012, 06:53 PM

Sad. Even commies with tanks stopped for a grocery man standing infront of them.

Is it that hard to get out of a bulldozer and physically remove a 100 lbs girl?

**Bleda** · September 11, 2012, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Adhamh Ashashi

Human rights experts have stated that this has a created a dangerous precedent due to "a potentially far-reaching disavowal of state liability in cases in which non-combatants were killed or injured when the military was engaged in 'war-related action'"

Dangerous precedent? ha. That ship sailed a long long time ago. Governments have been shielded from legal liability for violent wartime deaths for as long as there have been governments waging wars. How liable were the Allied powers for their firebombings of Dresden or Tokyo?

Semantics will change nothing on this count.

**s.rwitt** · August 28, 2012, 01:38 PM

I'm talking about the idea that judges can't be trusted to rule on cases involving their government.

**~~removeduser_4536284751384~~** · August 28, 2012, 01:43 PM

This wouldn't have happened if Isreal took the moral high ground, stopped trying to pacify Palestine by force and let it go its own way.

**motiv-8** · August 28, 2012, 02:16 PM

Human rights expert got an annoying tendency to be the same thing as "left wing idiot who hate Israel".

Exercising the same minute amount of logic, "left wing idiot who hate Israel" has an annoying tendency to be the same thing as "someone who investigates Israel for any wrongdoing."

**Adar** · August 29, 2012, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by motiv-8

Exercising the same minute amount of logic, "left wing idiot who hate Israel" has an annoying tendency to be the same thing as "someone who investigates Israel for any wrongdoing."

That's not logic at all as I never made an iff statement.

But yes it is likely that any left wing (or right wing) idiot who is hating Israel is going to whine about any possible mistake the may or may not have done. Most likely they are also going to try to get an international court assembled from their peers to make their attacks look more credible. Just like prop-Israeli people would try to flood the court with pro-Israeli people.

Which makes the entire idea of having an international court ridiculous as it's never going to be very fair or unbiased.