Remembering Rachel Corrie
Remembering Rachel Corrie: Justice Still Not Served Corrie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST
"As we approach March 16, we need to ask: how it is that an unarmed US citizen can be killed with impunity by a soldier from an allied nation .."
By ELIZABETH CORRIE
Only a year ago, the approach of the month of March would have held the same positive associations for me as it has for many the beginning of the end of winter, the promise of springtime and even summer not too far behind. This year, and for every year for the rest of my life, the approach of March will mean something else entirely the anniversary of the brutal death of my cousin, Rachel Corrie. On March 16, 2003, an Israeli soldier and his commander ran over Rachel with a 9-ton, Caterpillar bulldozer while she stood unarmed, clearly visible in her orange fluorescent jacket protecting a Palestinian home slated for demolition by the Israeli army.
The death of Rachel Corrie and the response that her case has and has not received reveal several disturbing, indeed immoral and criminal, truths. First, Rachel died while attempting to prevent a home demolition, a common practice of the Israeli Army's collective punishment that has left more than 12,000 Palestinians men, women, and children homeless since the beginning of the second uprising in September 2000. This practice violates international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Second, Rachel was run over by a Caterpillar bulldozer, manufactured in the United States and sent to Israel as part of the United States' regular aid package to the State of Israel, which amounts to at least $3 billion to $4 billion annually, all of which comes from U.S. taxpayers. The use of Caterpillar bulldozers to destroy civilian homes, not to mention to run over unarmed human rights activists, violates U.S. law, including the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits the use of U.S. military aid against civilians.
Third, the self-acquittal of the Israeli Army for Rachel's death and the resistance of the State of Israel to an independent investigation into this case reveals both the Sharon administration's unwillingness to take responsibility for the death of a U.S. citizen and the Bush administration's cowardice in allowing another nation to attack U.S. citizens with impunity.
Fourth, Rachel's death was in fact only the first of several Israeli attacks on foreign citizens in the West Bank and Gaza Brian Avery, from New Mexico, was shot in the face on April 5, 2003; Tom Hurndall, a U.K. citizen, was shot in the head on April 11, 2003 and died on January 13; and James Miller, another U.K. citizen, was shot and killed in April 2003 as well. To date, in only Hurndall's case will the Israeli soldier responsible for the attack face trial, and this because the British government, after several months, finally responded to the overwhelming evidence presented by the Hurndall family.
As we approach March 16, residents and citizens of the United States should ask themselves how it is that an unarmed United States citizen can be killed with impunity by a soldier from an allied nation receiving massive United States aid, using a product manufactured in the United States by a United States corporation and paid for with United States tax dollars. When three Americans were killed, presumably by Palestinians, in an explosion on October 15, 2003 as they traveled through Gaza, the FBI arrived within 24 hours to investigate the deaths. After one year, neither the FBI, nor any other US-led team has done anything to investigate the death of an American, knowingly killed by an Israeli.
Why the double standard? Perhaps this reveals the most disturbing truth of all.
-Elizabeth Corrie works with the Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice. She lives in Atlanta.
___________________
*** Sig will be edited -> see rule #5 regarding political/religious content
Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization: "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."
|
