Israeli court: Israeli army not at fault for murdering Rachel Corrie

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The courts decided that the driver couldn't see Rachel Corrie, and certainly if that is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) than you can't convict someone of murdering someone whom you don't know exist.

Murder, no.  Manslaughter yes if you act in a manner that prevents you from being reasonably certain that what you are doing puts others in danger.

It's a grey zone, but since the bulldozer operator was unable to see what he was plowing up then yes what he did constitutes manslaughter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The courts decided that the driver couldn't see Rachel Corrie, and certainly if that is true (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) than you can't convict someone of murdering someone whom you don't know exist.

Murder, no.  Manslaughter yes if you act in a manner that prevents you from being reasonably certain that what you are doing puts others in danger.

It's a grey zone, but since the bulldozer operator was unable to see what he was plowing up then yes what he did constitutes manslaughter.

If someone jumps in front of my car while I'm driving and I hit him, that's not manslaughter, it's his fault.

Do you customarily drive cars that don't let you see what is in front of you?  The available facts indicate she did not move in a sudden manner and intended to be seen in time to cause the bulldozer driver to halt.  If the bulldozer driver was unable to see then he was at fault for willfully driving an unsafe vehicle.

I realize you support Israel's efforts to slowly grab more land from the Palestinians in the mistaken belief that increases your country's security.  It might do so in the short term, but in the long term it won't.  Israel's continued existence depends upon the Arabs remaining disunited.  Once the ultra-Zionists achieve their goal of removing the Palestinians from Judea and Samaria, one more roadblock to Arab unity will be gone.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I realize you support Israel's efforts to slowly grab more land from the Palestinians in the mistaken belief that increases your country's security.  It might do so in the short term, but in the long term it won't.  Israel's continued existence depends upon the Arabs remaining disunited.  Once the ultra-Zionists achieve their goal of removing the Palestinians from Judea and Samaria, one more roadblock to Arab unity will be gone.

What roadblock is this? Is there some sort of difference of opinion in the Arab world which would somehow be go away?

Arabs are not united because they hate one another, but that has nothing to do with Israel.

And the Arabs hated each other before Saladin finally united them and kicked Crusader butt. Heck they hated each other after Saladin united them, but he kept them united long enough to achieve his goal. All the State of Israel is is a modern day Jewish Crusader State.  The Arabs will get the atomic bomb someday and while it will be a very bloody war when it comes, bye-bye Israel when it does.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The other apologists aren't going to like you saying that.

Too bad.  I feel sorry for the average Israeli Jew.  They largely didn't ask for the present situation as they weren't the ones who moved into the area.  But they are stuck with what is a no-win situation in the long term. It'll be decades at a minimum before what I foresee happening happens, with an excellent chance it won't happen in the lifetime of anyone living, but I am utterly convinced that it will happen, and I don't see a way to prevent it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is exceedingly unlikely (closer to impossible) that any democratic and economically semi-functional country would initiate the complete annihilation of a people.

Who said anything about democratically united Arabs?

The Arab Spring is not a Middle Eastern version of Europe 1989.  It's more like Europe 1848.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really.  Israel is nibbling at the margins, but for the threat I perceive, they could take over the whole West Bank and kick out all the Palestinians and it wouldn't matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To repeat, I said a united Arab state, and nothing about a democratic one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all.  The dictator of a united Arabia is likely going to have gotten there by stoking the nationalistic fires to divert the people.

Israel's got dozens of atomic bombs at the bare minimum. It'll be bye-bye Middle East if anyone launches a nuke at Israel.

Only if Israel can get the nukes there.  The war I envision happening will only occur once a united Arabia has a substantial ballistic missile defense and at least air equality to Israel and more likely air supremacy.   Israel is so small, one only needs a few nukes to penetrate to be able to knock the country out and one can use short range missiles to deliver them, while a credible Israeli riposte capable of promising MAD needs to be able to hit hundreds of targets that are largely quite some distance from Israel.

Besides, while I think this war will end with atomic fire, I don't expect it to start there.
As I said, it will take time for the military situation I envisage happening to happen.  Probably a half century at minimum, so I'll never find out in this world if I'm correct.  And maybe the political situation will moderate, but I doubt it because I fully expect Israel to continue following policies based upon a smug self-assurance of their military superiority well past the time it no longer has that superiority.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Pan-Arabism is dead, and has been for a while now.

And an independent Jewish state was dead for two millennia. Seriously folks, this is the major flaw is Israeli policy.  They base it upon the assumptions that they will always have military superiority and that they will be united while their enemies remain divided.  Heck for that matter, all a united Arabia does is make the downfall of Israel come sooner.  If Egypt alone had an economy and military equivalent to that of Israel on a per capita basis, they'd be able to squash Israel like a bug if there was a war.  Israel has always had the advantage of a superior military. (To be fair that superiority in the early stages of 1948 was largely in superior elan rather than materiel.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Only if Israel can get the nukes there.  The war I envision happening will only occur once a united Arabia has a substantial ballistic missile defense and at least air equality to Israel and more likely air supremacy.   Israel is so small, one only needs a few nukes to penetrate to be able to knock the country out and one can use short range missiles to deliver them, while a credible Israeli riposte capable of promising MAD needs to be able to hit hundreds of targets that are largely quite some distance from Israel.

Already can get the nukes there - they've got ballistic missiles and an increasingly potent air force, especially once they got F-35.

Did you not read what I said?  I'm not talking abut the current military situation at all.  Indeed if the only thing that happened now was that the Arabs got the bomb, I don't foresee a war breaking out.  (Altho I could see a future Bashir or Saddam sending them Israel's way as his regime collapses from an internal revolt.  Jews aren't the only ones who can pull a Samson.)

Talking so far into the future seems silly to me, and no one really knows what is going to happen, and anyone making predictions is probably going to be very wrong. As far as we know countries in 100 years will envelop themselves in force fields that make nuclear attacks obsolete.

Whatever the defects of my predictions, they are far superior to the idea that Israel will forever have military superiority in the region.  Yet, Israel's current policies are based upon that idea.  Whatever the weaponry of that future war is, if Israel does not hold military superiority, it is toast.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the Arabs think Israel is weak, a piece of paper isn't going to stop them from attacking anyway.

Who said anything about a piece of paper?  Maybe things would be different if Israel had acted differently after the 1967 war and never tried a long-term occupation, but now...  Now it's only a matter of time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The other irony is that for all the talk of wars and the failure to achieve peace, the region has become more peaceful over time, not less. The Ba'athist secular dictatorships were the biggest culprits in starting wars historically in the region, and the most violent country right now just happens to be the last Ba'athist secular dictatorship (excepting perhaps Algeria). It's ironic as you would expect religious fundamentalists to be more violent. And they do engage in plenty of terrorism for sure. But wars on the scale of '67 or '73 or '80-'88 you have not seen so much of. Of course this post could look silly if Israel attacks Iran.

The reason that there hasn't been a major war with Israel is that since then Israel has clearly had military superiority in any sort of conventional war since then.  Those dictators weren't so dumb as to give Israel another chance to embarrass them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the Arabs think Israel is weak, a piece of paper isn't going to stop them from attacking anyway.

Who said anything about a piece of paper?  Maybe things would be different if Israel had acted differently after the 1967 war and never tried a long-term occupation, but now...  Now it's only a matter of time.

Then what would you have proposed to stop the Arabs from wanting to get rid of Israel?
Because it was just as much their intention before 1967 as after.

Perhaps not try to take over Arab land to reform a defunct nation in the first place?

Still, there was at least a chance that the Arabs could have eventually come to accept the Israeli enclave existing in Palestine before the occupation began.  1967 Israel in a no win situation. Going back to the 1967 borders immediately wasn't a realistic option.  Nor could they do as they had done after the 1948-9 war and give the Arabs that remained political rights, not and keep Israel a Jewish state.  (Tho if they had, I think the Jews would still have been a majority, just not an overwhelming one.)

Still, despite their unpalatablity politically, the two options that might have had a chance of success would have been to plan on a return to 1967 borders (probably with some border changes, especially in the area of Jerusalem which I find it unlikely Israel would ever willingly give up) even without a final peace deal or to go for a one-state solution of a State of Israel-Palestine (probably sans Gaza to improve the demographics as far as the Jews are concerned).  I can't say either would be a guaranteed long term success and they both would have been riskier in the short term. However, the settlements and the occupation put Israel on a path that ensures it will continue to exist only so long as it has military superiority, but not much past that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Faced with these options, I am glad that Israel chose a third option over those, if this means that there will be more wars in the future, then so be it.

I never said there was a magickal solution that would have brought about a Jewish State of Israel living in peaceful coexistence with its neighbors. I don't believe it exists.  My point is that the policy Israel fell into after 1967 guaranteed that the final Arab-Israeli war will be awful bloody when it happens.