|
[Previous entry: "Ground Force cont'd"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Donald Rumsfeld - America's #1 enemy"] 02 July 2003: "The ongoing Rachel Corrie incident"Oliver Kamm has some comments on an editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (also known as "the P-I" in these parts) regarding the conclusions of the IDF's investigation into the death of Rachel Corrie in the Gaza Strip in March. I have to agree with him that the piece in question is extremely shoddily written. There's actually a point Oliver missed, which is this passage: However she died, she left an impressive legacy, as the Evergreen State students made clear in remembering her at what should have been her June 13 graduation.Rachel Corrie did not enroll last quarter, opting to go to Israel instead; it is therefore incorrect to suggest she would have graduated on 13-Jun, had it not been for the fact that she was killed. Even assuming that this inaccuracy is the result of a simple error—albeit one that could, and should have been avoided—rather than a deliberate falsehood, this is a rather cheap emotive ploy. Nevertheless, looking at the article "Accounts of Corrie's death still conflict" in the Olympian, it appears the IDF's conclusions may reflect nothing but the truth, but avoid telling the whole truth. The initial autopsy performed on Rachel Corrie by an Israeli pathologist at the National Center of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv was blunt in its narrative. It noted breaks in the ribs, the spinal cord and the shoulder blades, and tear wounds in the right lung.Now, I'll admit to some irritation at the tone of this article, which suggests the IDF is lying outright. At the root of the confusion is the fact that neither of the two organisations involved—the Israeli Defence Force and the International Solidarity Movement—have explicitly stated what they mean by the term "run over." My interpretation would be that the IDF means Rachel Corrie at no point came under the bulldozer's tracks (and there appears to be no reason to assume otherwise), whereas the ISM appears to wield a definition whereby the action of the bulldozer's blade passing over Rachel Corrie's body constitutes "running over." I suspect that the failure to do so is motivated by considerations of propaganda (and remember, propaganda is "information (or misinformation) disseminated for the purpose of influencing opinion"; it's not necessarily untrue). By stating that Rachel Corrie was not run over, the IDF seeks to create the impression that no part of the D-9 came into contact with Rachel Corrie, while the ISM's version seeks to create the impression that the bulldozer passed over Corrie in its entirety (twice), crushing her beneath its tracks. Neither version is entirely true. The pathologist's report indicates Rachel Corrie's death was a direct result of some action by the bulldozer. I see no reason to doubt this, and I admit I'm a bit disappointed that the IDF is apparently attempting to whitewash the incident. That said, the IDF's version seems to more closely match those facts which can be established than the ISM's version, which is that the bulldozer driver intentionally and with premeditation killed Corrie. And, lest one rush to condemn "Israel" over this incident, bear in mind the path report was compiled by an Israeli. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
