• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Steve Laudeman of Denver writes:

Dave Kopel, billed as a media critic, has cast his eye on the Post’s coverage of the Rachel Corrie story. In his article, Kopel makes a few subtle references that confirm his own biases. Who is keeping an eye on Dave Kopel?
Kopel attacks the ISM, of which Corrie was a member, for supporting violent resisitance to the Israeli Occupation. He fails to note that violent resistance to occupation is an internationally recognized right, even if the occupier is an ally of the United States. When political and diplomatic means to end the Occupation fail, as they have repeatedly over the last forty years, what other recourse is there? He implies that the ISM is complicit in terrorism by stating that they have provided human shields to “terrorists”, including the militants who took refuge in Bethlehem and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. Again, military resistance to occupation is legitimate, and it is not terrorism. Kopel freely casts aspersions when referring to Palestinians. Yet he does not refer to the bulldozer operator who destroyed a doctor’s home and killed an innocent American as a terrorist. What’s the difference? Kopel tells us the bulldozer that killed Corrie was searching for explosives, yet does not cite his sources for this information. Could it have come from the Israeli military? Is there any possibility that the perpetrators of this crime might have not been completely truthful?
Kopel seems convinced that the Post did not cover the story adequately, and he presents convincing evidence that there is more here than meets the eye. So how about a thorough and nonbiased investigation? This is exactly what the Corries have been asking for. They have asked the State Department and the U.S. Congress to figure out what happened to their daughter. And they have been denied, because the politicians in Washington and the journalists in Denver are beholden to the pro-Israel lobby.
We will never really know what happened to Rachel Corrie.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Yes, Steve, we know what happened to Rachel Corrie: She was murdered by the Israelis. Just like the sailors on the USS Liberty, her murder will be unquestioned by our government. Isn't it a grotesque injustice, that Americans' lives and well being are like sewage to the Israelis, to be flushed into oblivion?

Rachel Corrie was a tool while she alive and tool since she's been dead.

Corrie put herself in harm's way because of the propaganda she chose to believe.

If she had been killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber, you wouldn't even know her name and there certainly wouldn't be a self-indulgent litle play about her because the victims of Palestinian violence don't seem to matter.

Rachel Corrie was a martyr who died for her beliefs... but she was NOT murdered. She was impossible to see from the position of the tank driver, for one thing. SHE, on the other hand, could see the giant machine coming her way and, yet, she CHOSE to stay.. in complete defiance of logic and what she knew would be the outcome.

The driver of that vehicle is not now, nor has he ever been, at fault.

Kisses!!!

The occupation of Isreal is by Syrian and Egyptian nationals, called Palestinians (Historically inaccurate name). None of these Palestinians were land owners in feudal system of the middle east. The sad thing is they are the pawns of middle east hatred of anything not muslim. Egypt and Syria could welcome their people home, but they haven't and won't. When a tank or bulldozer comes your way, move.

Sheila,

You and I are in complete agreement except for one thing. It wasn't a tank. It was a bulldozer.

The bulldozer didn't run over her. She placed herself in front of the bucket and ended up being buried under falling debris.

Corrie was one of a group of young activists who were there to specifically disrupt these bulldozers from tearing down a house that was suspected of being used for terrorist activity.

While I certainly have empathy for her death, she was ultimately responsible for putting herself in harms way to protect terrorists.

It is amazing how many AIPAC operatives have infiltrated this forum to rebut any criticism of Israel. This was the same twisted logic that Ward Churchill used, saying that the occupants of the twin towers put themselves in harms way by being in those buildings. Thanks, all of you AIPAC Loyalists, for showing the rest of us that the lives and well being of American Citizens are less than those of Israelis'.

I have never given a dime to AIPAC, and I don't know whether Sheila or some of the others who pointed out the follies of standing in front of a bulldozer are either. Pointing out common sense makes a person neither an AIPAC supporter, nor a support of Hamas for that matter. All they did was state their opinion that standing in front of a bulldozer operator who may not have seen her while the bulldozer was approaching is not murder. People may not like Israel's policy of destroying the houses of suspected terrorists (there are times I doubt the morality of it myself), but that hardly turns passive resistance to the point of death into murder.
Furthermore, not one of the critics of Dave Kopel's piece has attacked his basic facts. And, David Kopel does not hide the fact he's conservative/libertarian, just as the other RMN media critic doesn't not hide the fact he's liberal. As far as I'm concerned, the original letter has no point.

Okay.. I am not sure what an AIPAC loyalist is, so I can rest assured I am not one of them.

However, Mr. Anonymous at 3:13, your logic, if you want to call it that, is flawed. To say that anyone here is claiming that American life is less than an Isrealis' is erroneous.

Furthermore, it makes about as much sense as this:

'Apple pie is a see the gold gym bag. '

Makes no sense. Does it?

Neither Sheila nor Thomas nor I know for sure what the facts on the ground were went she was killed. As you might expect, her proponents who were there say the dozer driver could see her, whereas the Israelis say he could not.

CNN's description of what happened:

"She was raising her hands and yelling at the bulldozer driver to stop," Arraf said. "The bulldozer driver paid no attention. ... He buried Rachel with dirt, which ended up, obviously, knocking her down. Then he ran over her, and then reversed and ran over her again."

"Other witnesses, however, reported that Corrie had scaled a pile of dirt but then lost her footing and fell backward behind it, out of sight of the bulldozer operator. The bulldozer continued moving forward, covering Corrie with dirt and then crushing her."

"It was not clear whether the bulldozer operator could hear protesters' yells over the sound of the machine."

"A member of the solidarity group, who identified herself as Alice from London, said she and Corrie had sat for about three hours in front of houses belonging to their friends. The driver of the bulldozer must have seen them, she said, but drove over Corrie anyway."

"She emerged from under the bulldozer saying, "My back is broken, my back is broken," Alice told CNN."

"Tom Dale, who said he was about 10 yards from Corrie, said she was in plain view and was wearing an orange jacket. As the bulldozer lifted a pile of earth, it moved forward and caught Corrie under its blade, he said."

There were two photos taken by a member of Corrie's Palestinian International Solidarity Movement which were widely published which, taken together, suggest that Corrie was in plain view. However, the first of those was taken well before the incident. Those photos are discussed at http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Rachel_Corrie3_Continued.asp in which it concludes that question is simply not answered.

After looking at the honestreporting website, I see that it is a pro-Israel website. It is interesting, however, that it did not conclude that Corrie could not be been but that the question as to whether or not she could be seen was unanswered, I presume because of the conflicting statements.

POST A COMMENT

• 48 years not enough for Lawrence Trujillo
• SCHIP program
• Iranian President’s visit
• Paul Campos
• Afraid of government
• Paul Krugman
• Man who shot cougar justified
• War in Iraq