Israeli military: above the law, decency, humanity and international law

An Israeli judge ruled today that their nation's military was in no way responsible for the death of a protester he bulldozed because the Israeli government wanted to destroy homes in the Gaza Strip. The news and headline today:

Israel judge rules Rachel Corrie responsible for her own death

Parents of American activist Rachel Corrie fail in their attempt to place blame on Israel after their daughter was killed by a bulldozer in Gaza at a protest

JERUSALEM — Nine years after their daughter was crushed by an Israeli military bulldozer in the Gaza Strip, the parents of American activist Rachel Corrie lost their legal bid Tuesday to hold Israel responsible for her death and force authorities to reopen the investigation.

A Haifa judge rejected the parent's negligence lawsuit, calling Corrie's death an accident that she brought upon herself by refusing to leave what had been declared a closed military zone. "It was a very regrettable accident and not a deliberate act," said Judge Oded Gershon.

And sure, people will take sides--the driver did see her, he didn't, whatever.

As you can tell here--and as you would guess if you know me--I'm on the side of the protester and her family. I find it at least extremely difficult to believe that the driver of the bulldozer didn't see her or know she was there. She "was wearing a fluorescent orange jacket and standing just a few feet away" from the bulldozer and driver at the time.

In fact, I'll go one step further on this. I feel sure the official order from the Israeli government was to go forward with the destruction of the homes no matter what. It may well have been only spoken but I feel strongly that was their position.
This flies in the face of decency and of humanity, as I said in the title, above, but it also goes against international law. A nation and its government isn't supposed to tear down anyone's home, regardless.

Was the young lady--Rachel Cory, 23--pushing her luck?

Apparently the answer to that is yes.

Did the right thing happen? Should she have been killed so a nation's government could tear down homes they didn't want?

Absolutely not.

Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-corrie-verdict-20120829,0,4476903.story

We--the US--pay for what??

Listening to KCUR/NPR yesterday, I learned we--the US--pays millions of dollars per year (not that much in the ultimate scheme of things) so "Sesame Street" is produced and played in Israel and Palestine. I thought it stunning and rather silly, really. I'm all about education and exposure to the wider world but I don't think it's the US' duty to "save the world" in this respect. But that's me. Link: http://www.npr.org/2012/01/17/145340572/f-is-for-funding-which-palestinian-muppets-lack

On Palestinian Statehood

There seems to be one hugely overlooked issue that needs to be addressed on Palestinian statehood and I don't see it mentioned in the conversations. It seems clear that the Palestinian statehood issue could possibly be considered IF, if they officially recognize Israel's right to exist and follow that up with no longer bombing Israel and Israelis. Then and only then, I think it's obvious, the possibility of a Palestinian state can be evaluated and considered. Link: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=new+york+times+palestinian+statehood&pbx=1&oq=new+york+times+palestinian+statehood&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=3093l10488l0l10708l36l21l0l0l0l1l1075l6006l0.7.7.3.2.7-1l20l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=dc9b7cc97129edc0&biw=1440&bih=727

So, the Palestinians want their own state?

This week, the Palestinians said they are going to take the possibility of their own statehood to the UN. Okay, sure. No problem. Let's just all tell them there are only two provisions for it, though. First, they have to recognize Israel's right to exist (which very likely isn't going to happen) and second, that they have to stop attacking Israel in any and all ways, including lobbing mortars at them and all other ways. Deal? Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/world/middleeast/Abbas-Security-Council-United-Nations-Vote.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

"That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!"

Only one full day into the new Obama administration and already it seems like such good things--things we wanted and even expected--are coming to fruition.

Besides speaking to several of the leaders in the Middle East by phone (Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah), the new President Obama then had a meeting with his economic advisers about our fiscal situation and that mess we're in.

He talked of accelerating the country's departure from Iraq with his top military staff.

"As part of Wednesday's burst of activity, Obama's aides circulated an unsigned draft executive order that would require the closing within a year of the Guantanamo prison..."

And this is all extremely refreshing, intelligent and wonderful stuff, all in one day, sure.

Check out all that was done:

--President "Obama announced he was freezing the pay for senior White House staff and tightening up rules for former lobbyists who work in government -- an effort to make good on campaign promises for ethics reform."

--He froze the pay of all administration officials who make more than $100,000.00 per year or more;

--He signed rules making it easier for Americans to get government documents;

--"As part of the transition, Obama last night ordered federal agencies to hold off on pending regulations made in the last days of the Bush administration. The order blocks proposals including those to ease emission requirements for factories and require some foods to be labeled by country of origin";

--"The administration also sought a 120-day pause in military war-crimes tribunals of suspected terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. Obama has vowed to close the facility and revamp the system for holding and trying enemy combatants";

--"Obama also decreed that only he would have the power to assert executive privilege, so as to 'limit its potential for abuse.' That may be a reference to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion of executive privilege in keeping documents from Congress.";

Of all the good things done and changed today, however, this one impressed me most and gave me the most hope:

---"'A lobbyist who joins the Obama administration...is forbidden from working on issues they previously were involved with,' he said. Any person who leaves the administration will be barred from lobbying the government for two years. Government hiring, he said, will henceforth be based on qualifications, competence and experience, 'not political connections.'";

(Link to complete articles here--and they're good:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090122/pl_bloomberg/aysq9ot7ervu_1;
http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN2042189320090122?pageNumber=1)

It truly is a new day.

A great, new day.



_____________________________
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

It was just reported that the now former Vice President Dick "The Dick" Cheney was welcomed back to Wyoming with a standing ovation.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

and Rush Limbaugh?

He's concerned that our new President's rules for honesty and openness in government is just a ruse, created so we can go after George Bush.

Hmmm.

Not a bad idea.

It WAS our government, wasn't it, Rush?