What really happened to Rachel Corrie, as narrated by classmate and fellow activist Joe Smith, who was there:

Rachel "was sitting on a mound of earth in front of the bulldozer. The earth started to move under her when the bulldozer digs in. You have a couple of options you can roll aside --- you have to be very quick to get out of the way. You can fall back, but she leaned forward to try to climb up on top. She got pulled down, and the bulldozer lost sight of her ÖThen, without lifting the blade, he reversed and she was underneath the blade."

sitting on a mound of earth? That's a new one. Previously she had been either kneeling in front of the bulldozer, standing as per the photos (which are very clearly of different bulldozers in different locations), or standing on the bulldozer's blade.

I don't know if we'll ever find out what happened. No two stories are alike.

-beth

she was in front of a moving bulldozer. she was an idiot. period.

Joe Smith is in danger of being drummed out of the ISM. He is not using the death of his comrade to further the cause. Instead, he is telling the truth.

What "really happened" to her is that apparently she died a horrible death in what seems to have been a terrible accident. And whatever you think of her political stance or the foolishness of her reported actions, as human beings I hope we can agree that the death of this young woman is very sad. My first reaction is how I still feel today: Yes, it was stupid of her to come so close to the bulldozer, but assuming he saw her it was also very irresponsible for the operator to proceed hoping or expecting she would get out of the way. Why not wait until the protestors could be cleared away?

"All the photos we have seen were actually taken hours before."

I think this needs to be clarified. Obviously the photos showing her injured weren't taken hours before. Surely it is meant that all the photos showing her standing with a megaphone were taken hours before, but that no photos were taken just before or during the specific incident where Corrie was injured, until after it was over.

Possession of a megaphone doesn't automatically confer moral superiority on the shouter over the shoutee. And sitting on that mound of dirt greatly increased the chance that she made herself invisible to the dozer operator. Essentially she volunteered for roadkill duty.

Does a woman provocatively holding a megaphone, like a woman provocatively dressed, get what she deserves?

Talk about doublespeak, Erin.

I have mixed feelings about the Rachel Corrie story. I cannot at this point explain my ambivalent feelings about her views, her worldview, and the control she had over the events leading up to her death. I do prize passion over indifference, even when it is (imho)misguided, misplaced, and/or naive. Passion provides room for growth, development, and maturity - things often ocurring during the maturing process that Ms. Corrie is now precluded from. Indifference never grows and that leaves me with a deep and abiding sorrow. No, my comment, actually a question, focuses on on the responsibility colleges such as Evergreen State College (Ms. Corrie) and Tufts (Ms. Monnin)have to its students when they create curricula or inculate an atmosphere designed to create a reputation as an 'activist' campus. Do colleges that encourage student protest have some duty to also educate their students about the risks they run? Sitting in front of an IDF bulldozer in a war zone in the Middle East is not the same as blocking a developers bulldozer in a suburb of Portland. You can sit in a tree for a year in Oreogn with no real fear of harm. Did anyone 'teach' or advise Evergreen's students about these risks? I doubt it. Similarly, if Peace Studies is a recognized major at Tufts - does any part of the curriculum educate those students that the First Amendment applies to those with whom one disagrees? Absent that, Ms. Monnin's actions are simply a case, to quote Malcolm X, of the chickens coming home to roost. Does the Peace Studies curriculum have a course in oral advocacy? Written advocacy - or are one's grades based on the quality of violent ad hominem oral and physical attacks. I pose these questions not because I wish to shift personal responsibility for their conduct away from Ms. Monnin and Corrie. Given the academic focus of this blog - I would be interested to hear some views on the obligations of college communities to foster swocial activism without teaching social graces [for want of a better term]. Regards, Ivan

i liked rachel corrie.
she came in to are class

rachel corrie was relley nece and came to are class to talk about why she was going to israel

Franz, I wonder what grade you're in.

I'm sure Rachel Corrie was very nice and likeable when she spoke to your class. You'll learn that you have to separate your personal feelings about people from your opinions about their beliefs and actions. Sometimes nice, likeable people really are that way, but once in a while they use their charm to try to sway people to their side. You have to learn to see through that.

Laura, I don't think a child "has to learn to see through" apparent niceness. These kids are posting their thoughts about someone they met in their classroom - they don't need lessons in cynicism for the good of their souls.

Rachel Corrie died in a tragic accident, but she knew the risks. To martyr her is misleading, just as it's misleading to paint her as an idiotic member of a lunatic fringe.

One does NOT have to agree with the Israeli occupation of the WEST BANK, GAZA, and EAST JERUSALEM, with all the house demolitions, etc, that regularly go on, to realize that, tragically, Rachel Corrie did not use the best judgement, which, unfortunately, contributed to the loss of her life. However, it's true that the soldier driving the bulldozer was reckless and negligent at best, and should be held accountable.

"Oral advocacy?" That would never work in Israel, which is not a democracy, but a police state. I was there, I saw how the Palestinians are harrassed and beaten without reason. Almost 300 Palestinian children are in Israeli jails, mostly for things like stone throwing. In Israel, Palestinians are not even considered human, they are treated more like animals, yet I never met a more forgiving and loving people, considering the daily humiliation they endure. Go there, and find out for yourself. Be half as brave as Rachel Corrie. Would you say the same thing to a U.S. military woman, that she knew the risks and thus was stupid to go into a warzone for a cause? I doubt it. Yet most military people are there for a job. Rachel Corrie worked from her heart, and not for war, but for the cause of peace. As far as her "poor judgement," I would say the driver of the Israeli bull dozer had poor judgement. That bulldozer was even driven to her memorial service where Israeli forces tear gassed and jeered her mourners. She is a hero in Palestine. How sad, her own people question her motives, when we are all citizens of the earth. Well, I am an American, and Rachel will be my hero, too. She was the reason I went to Palestine. And she was right and her words, true.

Both the Israelis AND the Palestinians are EQUALLY at fault in this whole conflict. The only way to go is a TWO-state solution; the jewish State of Israel, and a Palestinian Arab state ALONGSIDE Israel, which would be comprised of WEST BANK, GAZA STRIP and EAST JERUSALEM! I'm sorry, but I still stand by my position.

Maybe I should rephrase what I said, to avoid some confusion here:
Although I really DON'T approve of Israel's policies in the Occupied Territories(In fact, I, too, think they should withdraw NOW!) I believe that the wisdom of sending ordinary, run-of-the-mill, inexperienced people over into the heart of a war zone to act as human shields, is questionable at best.

I think that the "two-state solution" sounds better on paper than it would play out if it were tried. After over 50 years the majority of Arabs in the Middle East have refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. A significant portion of the militant Palestinian organizations equally refuse to accept Israel. I'm afraid that a Palestinian state next to Israel would refuse to disarm those militants and warfare would continue unabated. How can one end the conflict?

Send Arnold ... he'll strongarm them and make them stop.

What you're saying, MCE, about much, if not most, of the Arab world refusing to accept Israel's existence and legitimacy of existence does ring true; However, although there's NO guarantee that things will be hunky-dory in the event that a Palestinian state DOES get established in the GAZA STRIP, WEST BANK and EAST JERUSALEM, and what you're saying about continued warfare is possible, that's a chance that the Israelis are going to have to take. There are several reasons why:
A.) The birthrate of the Palestinian Arabs in GAZA, WEST BANK and EAST JERUSALEM is much, much higher than that of the Israeli Jews. It would only be a matter of time before Israel was no longer a jewish-majority state.
B.) (I admit to not caring for the idea of war, much)
However, in the event of another conflagration, Israel would be far more able to protect and defend a SMALLER area of land and its people if they withdrew from the Occupied Territories and withdrew and evacuated the settlements that they've built.
C.) Many Israelis, both soldiers and civilians, have
criticized the occupation and said that it's intolerable-that is cannot continue because it's very harmful to them as a society and as a people. The majority of Israelis are NOT happy with being an occupying country. This also brings up another point: That the occupation flies in the face of being the democratic society that Israel claims to be.
D.) The Palestinians, who are held in much fear and contempt by everybody else in the region, are NOT wanted by any of the other Arab States, and Israel, for obvious reasons, cannot absorb them. The best way to recompense the Palestinian refugees is to incorporate them into the new Palestinian State.
E.) Having said all of the above, I believe that Israel's survival depends on a political settlement, and that Israel MUST do its part by pulling out of the Occupied Territories and withdrawing the settlements.
I do agree however, that the Arab States , the USA, the UN, the European community, as well as the Palestinian leadership itself must do its part by helping to ensure that a two-state solution happens, and that security will be ensured for Israel in the process, as well as for everyone else.

I certainly agree with some of your points but a few just don't seem to make sense to me. For example, Point B seems to fly in the face of most military strategy. If you were the US trying to defend New York City from the ferocious Canadians would you pull out of the rest of NY state and concentrate your forces in NYC itself? With regard to the position of most Israelis, didn't the past two elections of Sharon indicate that the majority who voted were looking more for security than negotiations? While I might be willing to make concessions from my nice safe home in the US, it seems that most voting Israelis aren't. Honestly, I don't know what sort of settlement is possible that would result in both a viable Palestinian and Jewish state living side-by-side. I used to think that once the present generation died off the next generation would be able to come to terms but it seems that the present generation (particularly of Palestinians) is very carefully teaching hatred to its children so that my hopes are diminishing.

By the way, returning to Rachel Corrie ... the reason I looked at this collection of e-mail ... I found a copy of the eye witness testimony of Joe Smith on the web. It doesn't suggest that the whole thing was an accident with no blame for the driver, as does the opening text above. It is very critical of the Israelis involved.

One has to realize that NYC is part of the United States, which is a much bigger country than Israel. Israel is a very small country in and of itself, and therefore really CAN'T afford to keep an angry Palestinian population under martial law like that, in part, at least for this reason. Israel is NOT the United States, and the United States is not Israel. Also, the occupation of GAZA, WEST BANK, and EAST JERUSALEM, with the building of settlements on those occupied lands is really sapping Israel's resources and economy, and so forth. The settlements are also too expensive for israel to continue to build and subsidise. I still stand by my position on a two-state solution. I think Israel should give up the Occupied Territories completely and just guard its borders. That would be the best thing. Israel may have to guard its borders, anyhow.

I agree with you that Israel cannot afford to keep all of the settlements but I think that it also cannot afford to give them all up. I'm not sure that the cost of building and maintaining them is much of an issue. It's the cost of defending them and also defending Israel proper that's hurting the economy. I wish that I could believe that the Palestinian population would cease to be angry if Israel left the Occupied Territories. After all, the PLO had no trouble finding reasons for attacking Israel before the 1967 war and the neighboring Arab states would still find Israel a thorn in their sides. Perhaps the settlements provide a convenient excuse for doing what the zealots would do anyway? In summary, I don't think your solution would work and is very risky. Unfortunately I don't have anything better to suggest.

I agree that there IS no guarantee that the Palestinian population wouldn't continue to be angry even if the Israelis DID give up the Occupied Territories and withdrew the settlements, and there's no guarantee that things would be hunky-dory even if a Palestinian State DID get established in GAZA, WEST BANK, and EAST JERUSALEM. However, for things in the Mid-East
to continue on their present course IS a guarantee for a disaster for Israel: its destruction. When they're surrounded by people and other countries that HATE it for even existing, a little more flexibility is necessary. That's why I still stand by my position. While it's true that many if not most of the Arabs haven't given up their desire to destroy Israel, I believe that Israel would regain the high moral ground if they pulled out of the territories

It's beyond insulting that after someone has died you would lie on this webpage in order to trivialize those trying to remember her cause. I checked the Electronic Intifada page, which you say shows "a misleading sequence." Every photo on the page has the time that it was taken printed immediately below it. They are not trying to lie about the events; you are.

I'm not trying to trivialize the fact that this young woman lost her life. A life that's taken or seriously compromised as a consequence of this kind of trauma is unfortunate. However, I still stand by my position:
One does NOT have to agree with the Israeli occupation of WEST BANK, GAZA, and EAST JERUSALEM to realize this; The Israeli soldier who mowed Rachel Corrie down with the bulldozer was vicious. However, Rachel Corrie did not act very smart, either when she chose to stand or kneel in front of a bulldozer.

The unfortunate thing is that many people ... men, women, children ... have lost their lives in this conflict. Who do you honor after the fact? The innocent victims of violence (i.e., the Israeli children murdered on a school bus or the Palestinan child who is killed during an Israeli surgical strike) or the blue-eyed, blonde haired US activist? I suppose I'm a little upset that some groups would try to score points by pointing to Ms. Corrie and asking people to draw simple conclusions about very complex situations.

The deaths on BOTH sides, particularly INNOCENT civlians, at that, is grossly unfortunate. One can rightfully say, however, that since death is an everyday way of life over in the Mideast, the fact that this happened should come as no surprise. Joshua Hammer had it right when he said that no deaths occurring in the Middle East have the power to shock any more.