veiled4allah: inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un veiled4allah: inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un
Please observe a moment of silence for Rachel Corrie (more from Ha'aretz).
Added: Local coverage from the Seattle Times, Seattle P-I, and Tacoma News Tribune. Olympia's newspaper, The Olympian, has three stories on the front page of their site (1, 2, 3). The local TV stations also have information up on their websites: KING5 (they also have an excerpt from her journal), KOMO4, and KIRO7. Seattle Indymedia is all over it, of course. Also, Rachel's college, Evergreen State College, mourns her death.All comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
My own entry was in reference to one or more posts elsewhere. If you'd like to add a link to your post there, add the following to the list of URLs that you ping:
(no posts pinged)
Take a quick peek at the post(s) I pinged:
(no posts pinged)
The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 02, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: israel palestine. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: state solution, originally posted, population transfer, secular state, west bank, Israel, israel, state, palestinians, solution, death, Palestinians, people, side, trust, rachel, Rachel, think, see, peace, Israelis, kynn, darulharb, does, israelis
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
To learn more about Israel than you read in the mainstream media, see Is Israel Really America's Friend?
Visit Western Journalists in Support of Palestine to learn more about the Palestinian cause.
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with israel, palestine
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: israel, palestine
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: israel, palestine
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: israel, palestine
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: israel, palestine
Find books at Amazon.com on these subjects: israel, palestine
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: israel palestine
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) israel palestine (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
So, seriously, what is the solution? Give the palestinians everything they want (half of Jerusalem, the right of return?) That will destroy Israel. Drive the palestinians out of the West Bank? That would start a war and make Israel an outcast nation (though they arent far trom that now.) Or muddle along, try to suppress the terror, and hope that something changes?
Its easy to yell at Israel. Its much harder to be productive. Unless you just advocate the destruction of Israel, like many Muslims do openly and many Europeans do secretly. That would certainly solve the problem. But I would like to believe there is a better way.
I'm amused by the way that "drarcane" concedes that granting Palestinians what they're entitled to under international law and UN resolutions would "destroy Israel." Bizarre.
In my opinion, such a move would only strengthen Israel, as this suicidal death-lock they have on Palestine is destroying the country along with their neighbors.
drarcane: One way to be "productive" is to say "okay, stop destroying the Palestinian way of life, as that only encourages suicide bombers." I guess that's not productive enough -- you only seem to see genocide or "complete surrender" (your view of obeying international law). This is what's known as all-or-nothing thinking, and that is far from productive.
There are established international bases for a secure and just peace. Israel rejects them constantly, always trying to get a better bargain than what's legal. No wonder they haven't found peace yet.
darulharb: Sure, it was violence. The violent destruction of homes that have people inside of them is an ongoing fact of life in Palestine under Israel's rule, and many people have been killed. This is "accidental"? Please.
Terminal stupidity? That's what I feared most about this whole thing -- the Limbaugh dittohead crowd oozing out of their slime to cheer Corrie's death with gloating and chortling. Sickening -- those delusions are the malignant ones, the ones which take delight in another's "stupidity" (which is to say, courage) and cheer on her death.
Burning a crude flag in protest of America's insane policy of aggressive war does not make one worthy of death. Trying to stop the destruction of homes belonging to innocent people does not make one worthy of death. Anyone claiming otherwise is beyond "malignant" in their delusions.
--Kynn
An unarmed woman engaged in civil disobedience is a "terrorist" who can be killed without due process of law. Lovely morality you people have.
Kynn has said the rest of what needs to be said. I am really saddened that you can't admit that this action might have been at all unjustified, that your response is to blame the victim. You're part of the problem not part of the solution.
She was clearly visible and using a bullhorn. She made eye contact with the driver so she knew he saw her. And he ran her over. If that isn't deliberate, what pray tell is?
On reflection, it would be better for me to say that the driver could have had a reckless disregard for her safety, but to say it was just an accident when she was clearly visible and deliberately trying to get his attention is a pretty big stretch.In the U.S., an "accidental" death caused in the commission of a violent crime is often (always?) prosecuted the same as murder. If you're a gang member and you go driving down to your rival's neighborhood, and you open fire and miss the other gangbanger -- but you blow away a minister who was there trying to preach peace -- guess what? You're tried for murder EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T SEE THE PRIEST.
--Kynn
I hope it does not vanish away like the deaths of Palestanians.
Anyway, I DO NOT rejoice in her death. She died for nothing worth fighting for (quite the opposite, in fact), and that should make one sad, really. And "stupidity" is actually a generous accessment. Because the alternative is "treason". Whether treasonous, or just delusional, if siding with the enemies of your country (yes, not just the hated Zionist entity's) and gleefully burning its flag at some psychotic rally is not malignant, nothing is.
Wow, there's a photo of her yelling something at a media camera at a protest, while she burns what might be a very crudely-drawn US flag (or might be something else entirely).
Well, that surely undoes everything she did in the rest of her life, everything else she says, and makes it good she died.
(link)
Intended? I'm sure that the IDF views it less as an intent and more as a pleasant surprise when it happens. The IDF's "intent" is clearly shown by their repeated disregard for the safety of Palestinians and their dogged intent to carry out their destruction of Palestinian life. In other words, the purpose of the bulldozers, of course, is to tear down houses -- but if a few human beings get caught in there, no loss, eh?
I'm glad to hear that darulharb doesn't "rejoice" in her death, just gloat over her "stupidity" and then accuse her of treason. Way to claim the moral high ground!
Truth is, she did die for something worth fighting for. And burning a flag is a valid form of political protest -- it's not treasonous, and it's not illegal, either.
Rachel didn't side with any of the enemies of her country, either. She sided with the people of Palestine. I'm surprised at how you choose to mourn her death -- by spouting repeated nonsensical lies. I guess we all cope with grief in our own ways.
--Kynn
When the sheer evil of killing women and children is carried out by vile brutes like Hamas, there is "cheering" on that side.
When Israel responds, or when Palestinian children are shot in the head, people like "darulharb" engage in passing crass comments, like he/she has so aprtly displayed.
There is no sincerity on either side. The Palestinian groups know full well that by killing non-combatants on the Israeli side, they will spark a harsh crackdown from them. They know the consequences, yet they still carry out the action. This can only mean they have a lust for Jewish blood.
But the Israelis fair no better. They claim to target only militants - which is fair enough. Yet ones sincerity is shown by ones actions - we do not, certainly not anyone claiming to be from a "civil" democracy, fire rockets into a room, where this suspected militant may be, knwing full well that there are a handful of children inside. This is insincere from the Israelis.
Well just so long as you're sure that's ok then. You appear to be demonizing the IDF to same extent as you believe they demonize Palestinians. Maybe it helps you to view them not as someone else's kids doing their duty to their country but rather as modern day SS storm troopers, ironic and sad really. I've met with a few and for the most part they come across as normal human beings who don't hate to the degree that you imagine.
Maybe it will help you to believe that the bulldozer driver might not be traumatised at these tragic events and that he deliberately ran her down?
Events surrounding this tragedy appear to be cloudy to say the least, I've seen quite a few conflicting reports already. One thing that I do know for sure is that Rachel was involved in a dangerous activity, which ultimately cost her her life.
More information will undoubtedly surface as to these events, in the meantime, my thoughts are with her family.
In response to draracane: The contents of barak's proposals to the PA are much debated. The maps that have been made public (and I see no reason to doubt them, given that the Israeli government has not disavowed them) show Israel permitted the creation of three separate Bantustans in the west bank, entirely surrounded by Israeli territory. That is far from 'withdrawing from the territories'. It was not a fair offer at all.
The second offer was better, but by then Barak was far behind in the polls. It is not yet clear that the Israeli people are to support Israeli withdrawal the west bank under any conditions.
I will try to find a website that has the maps, so you can see the Barak proposal.
My grim assessment of the situation is based on historical comparisons of situations where two ethnic groups living in close proximity claimed the same lands. In the Balkans, the situation was only pacified through the intervention of a superior outside force (and the continued presence of said force.) In Ireland, the Good Friday accord is falling apart. In Kashmir the two sides almost came to nuclear war.
And those are the more pleasant options. Consider the Turkish 'solution' of the problem with the ethnic Armenians. Or what the Americans did to the American Indians.
It is very very rare for two groups fighting over the same territory to peacefully resolve their differences. Usually it only ends with either the subjugation of one of the groups or intervention by an outside force. Because, you see, neither side trusts the other (understandably) and so the violence just keeps going and going.
I freely admit that I am biased to the Israelis, in that I want Israel to continue to exist, but the situation of the palestinians is tragic. I wish I could think of a solution, but I cant. Please forgive me if my extemporaneous thoughts cause offense, that is not my intention.
she's a darwin award recipient for sure.
I am against zionism as strongly as I am against any fundamentalist religion, as it is horribly misguided and believes itself to be the only correct author of authenticity. I would like a peace forged, a federation of sorts. Firstly, Israel must admit major wrongdoing, as they are the aggressors.
She put herself in front of a human being operating a machine, and that human continued to operate the machine.
Wrench makes a good point here. If I were operating that vehicle and a civilian who had been in front of me suddenly disappeared from view, I would stop the vehicle immediately and get out to find where she was. Regardless of how stupid Rachel may or may not have been, the driver of the bulldozer had a responsibility and a duty not to endanger human life by what he was doing. When the civilians first showed up and started protesting, he could have called for the police or army to send someone to have them removed from the area where he was working.I do not deny that Israel has a great deal of blood on its (collective) hands. Im not sure an apology would do much good, but if it would help, go for it.
The fundamental issue is trust, or lack thereof. A federation of Israelis and palestinians, living and working together in peace, is the optimal solution, to my mind. Alas, neither side trusts the other to live in peace. The Israelis fear that if they relax restrictions and stop military operations, they will only be making things easier for the suicide bombers. And the palestinians dont trust the Israelis to actually give them freedom, so they keep sending suicide bombers.
So my question is, how can each side earn the other sides trust without making themselves more vulnerable?
A solution, which would ultimately benefit both sides and bring the real peace, does exist. Unfortunately, it dares not speak its name, not in these pages anyway.
With the impending crisis, I have been reading various things online, trying to learn more about Islam, and the more I read the more interesting and fascinating I find the religion and its history (if I can say that without giving offense.) I think its a pity that so many (non-Muslim) Americans view Islam as "the enemy", and this war as a "clash of cultures"--I think we have a lot to learn from each other.
I wish I could think of a solution, but I cant.
A solution, which would ultimately benefit both sides and bring the real peace, does exist. Unfortunately, it dares not speak its name, not in these pages anyway.
Yeah it's called one person, one vote, secular state for all. There, I said it. Sue me.I wonder what solution darulharb is thinking of and why he believes I won't countenance it. Do tell.
In the past, I've compared the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the Algerian war of independence, and I think the comparison may hold here as well. The Algerian war left a great deal of mutual bitterness between Algerian and France - but forty years on, there are millions of Algerians living in France, Chirac was cheered when he visited Algiers and the two countries are moving closer to cooperation if not friendship. So it might be one day between Israel and Palestine - but not unless there is a substantial period of mutual separation to allow tensions to cool. A one-state solution is, at most, something for the very long term - for the time being, two-state seems to me the only viable answer.
President Arafat and Shari'a by 2050.
I wonder what solution darulharb is thinking of and why he believes I won't countenance it. Do tell. Population transfer and resettlement.
So it might be one day between Israel and Palestine - but not unless there is a substantial period of mutual separation to allow tensions to cool. A one-state solution is, at most, something for the very long term - for the time being, two-state seems to me the only viable answer.Ah, but that's just the thing. The borders carved along the 1949-50 cease-fire lines (so-called "1967 borders") won't allow for any meaningless separation - they do not correspond to any natural or even historical boundary. All that would accomplish is make Israel unacceptably vulnerable and newly stillborn Arafatistan unviable and starving.
Could you explain how your attitude is different from that of the Palestinian extremists who want to "drive Israel into the sea"? I assume that you think "population transfer" of Jews is immoral, so on what grounds do you support the "population transfer" of Palestinians? It really baffles me how you condemn people who have the same attitudes that you do, they just have it about different people than you do. How is it only wrong when others do it not when "your side" does?
Yeah it's called one person, one vote, secular state for all.
President Arafat and Shari'a by 2050.
What does Sharia have to do with a secular state?"Transfer", eh, why bother with the political correctness? Partition and ethnic cleansing is what you advocate.
I do realize a one-state solution is a pipe dream - but so it was for South Africa. Also I agree about the lack of trust being the issue for a one-state solution. But how can we trust that in a two-state or biracial fed. situation, the Palestinians will get a fair shake? That to me sounds like the potential for either an aparteid or segregationist state. At least with a one state, the framework for equality is theoretically built-in.
In a federal or two-state arrangement, the Palestinians will be able to protect themselves due to the decentralization of authority. If Palestine is a "state" in an Israeli-Palestinian confederation and land use is a state-regulated matter, then it will be able to prevent expropriation of land through the use of its governmental authority. This would probably require a looser federal system than the United States, where there's too much potential for federal interference in state affairs; the Canadian or Swiss constitution might be a good model.
As far as I'm concerned, the unitary arrangement is the one which would leave both sides most vulnerable. In a unitary state, it's very easy for the majority of the moment - which is currently Jews, but will soon be Palestinians if the entire Mandate area is considered - to vote the minority out of existence. Even a strong constitution won't necessarily prevent that; constitutions aren't much good without the mechanism and will to enforce them. An arrangement between Israelis and Palestinians is much more likely to work if each side has the means to protect itself rather than having to trust the goodwill of a nebulous majority.
A confederation would do this, but - as I said, and you agreed - there isn't enough trust at the moment. It may be a long-term goal, but for the moment, two independent states is the only real way forward. I certainly don't see how a solution that would leave each side free and independent of the other is equivalent to segregation or apartheid.