Tag: Rachel Corrie trial

The 13th anniversary of Rachel Corrie’s death

15th March 2016 | International Solidarity Movement, al-Khalil team | Gaza, occupied Palestine

Today marks the thirteenth anniversary since the passing of fellow ISM activist Rachel Corrie (April 10, 1979 – March 16, 2003). Rachel was tragically crushed to death under the front blade of an Israeli military, American funded, Caterpillar D9R bulldozer near Rafah, in the southern part of the Gaza Strip. Rachel died whilst placing herself in the path of the military bulldozer to protect the family and their home that the bulldozer was on route for and due to be demolished. Rachel’s death created a global outcry towards the Israeli military’s actions and prompted an international investigation under the contested circumstances in which she died during the height of the second intifada.

Rachel had come to Gaza during part of her senior-year college assignment that connected her home town with Rafah in a sister cities project. Whilst in Palestine, Rachel had engaged with other International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activists in efforts to prevent the Israeli army’s continued demolition of Palestinian homes in operations that the Israeli military claims were aimed at eliminating weapons smuggling tunnels.

Less than two months after Rachel had arrived into Palestine, on March 16, 2003, Corrie was killed. Her death came during an Israeli military operation after a three-hour peaceful demonstration between occupying Israeli forces operating two armoured bulldozers and eight ISM activists.

The exact nature of her death and the culpability of the bulldozer operator have since been disputed largely through extended judicial proceedings, with fellow ISM protestors that were at the scene saying that the Israeli soldier operating the bulldozer deliberately ran over Corrie, and Israeli eyewitnesses saying that it was an accident since the bulldozer operator could not see her.

Joe Carr, an American ISM activist who used the assumed name of Joseph Smith during his time in Gaza, gave the following account: “Still wearing her fluorescent jacket, she knelt down at least 15 meters in front of the bulldozer, and began waving her arms and shouting, just as activists had successfully done dozens of times that day…. When it got so close that it was moving the earth beneath her, she climbed onto the pile of rubble being pushed by the bulldozer…. Her head and upper torso were above the bulldozer’s blade, and the bulldozer operator and co-operator could clearly see her. Despite this, the operator continued forward, which caused her to fall back, out of view of the driver. He continued forward, and she tried to scoot back, but was quickly pulled underneath the bulldozer. We ran towards him, and waved our arms and shouted; one activist with the megaphone. But the bulldozer operator continued forward, until Corrie was all the way underneath the central section of the bulldozer. “

Corrie’s father, Craig Corrie has said “I know there’s stuff you can’t see out of the double glass windows.” But he has denied that as a valid excuse, saying “you’re responsible for knowing what’s in front of your blade… It’s a no brainer that this was gross negligence”. He added that “they had three months to figure out how to deal with the activists that were there.”

The report on the autopsy findings that were initially denied to the public by Israel were later revealed by the Human Rights Watch, who say a copy was provided to them by Craig Corrie, along with a translation provided by the U.S. Department of State. In the report they quote Professor Yehuda Hiss, who performed the autopsy, as concluding, “Her death was caused by pressure on the chest (mechanical asphyxiation) with fractures of the ribs and vertebrae of the dorsal spinal column and scapulas, and tear wounds in the right lung with haemorrhaging of the pleural cavities.”

The Israeli army conducted an investigation into Corrie’s death, which concluded that her death was an accident, and that the driver of the bulldozer could not see Corrie due to limited visibility from his cab. Many have criticised the investigation as bogus and are outraged at the level of direct negligence displayed by the driver and the impunity that the Israeli army receives under Israeli law.

Corrie’s family has been involved in ongoing legal battles through the Israeli supreme court in an attempt to attain justice for Rachel.

Following extended trials in an attempt to attain justice for their daughter, the Corrie family lost their latest appeal in the Israeli Supreme Court on the twelfth of February, 2015, exempting the Israeli defense ministry from liability for actions by its forces that it deemed to be “wartime activity,” but wrongly refused to assess whether those actions violated applicable laws of armed conflict, Human Rights Watch said.

A statement from the Corrie family on the twelfth of February, 2015 read, “Today we received word from our attorneys that the Supreme Court of Israel dismissed our appeal in the wrongful death case of our daughter and sister Rachel Corrie. Our family is disappointed but not surprised. We had hoped for a different outcome, though we have come to see through this experience how deeply all of Israel’s institutions are implicated in the impunity enjoyed by the Israeli military.”

Human Rights Watch documented that in the primary stages of Rachel’s trial, Israeli investigators failed to call any Palestinian witnesses, threatened to indict other foreign volunteers who witnessed Corrie’s death while questioning them about the incident, and failed even to ask witnesses to draw a map of the area at the time of the incident. The initial military inquiry into her death even concluded that “no signs substantiate [the] assertion that Ms. Corrie was run over by a bulldozer,” a conclusion that the military later reversed.

Rachel’s death is an extremely sad and timely reminder of the callus acts of negligence and the immunity that the Israeli military receives under Israeli law. However, Corrie’s death is no way in vein nor is it forgotten. The spirit she displayed in her actions along with her will to take up the fight against injustice to those whom it is imposed upon by the zionist regime will forever be remembered.

At the time of her death, Yaser Arafat, the first President of the Palestinian Authority, offered his condolences and gave the “blessings of the Palestinian people” to Corrie. The municipality of Ramallah in the West Bank dedicated a street to Rachel Corrie whilst a cafe in Al-Khalil/Hebron bears her name. Yearly demonstrations are held in the name of Rachel by Palestinians and by activists for human rights alike. The memory and the fight for justice displayed by Rachel will not be forgotten and will continue to be remembered by those fighting the war of injustice and human rights abuses that plague the Palestinian people to this day and onwards, until occupation is non existent and there is peace.

The case of Rachel Corrie

1st June 2014 | Jack Pine Tribune | Occupied Palestine

Over a decade after Rachel Corrie was crushed under the blades of an Israeli bulldozer in Rafah, her parents Craig and Cindy Corrie found themselves in the halls of the Supreme Court of Israel. The Corries were appealing a verdict handed down in 2013 by Judge Oded Gershon of the Haifa District Court decision. Gershon ruled that Corrie was responsible for her own life by entering willfully into Gaza during a time of conflict.

“While not surprising, the verdict is yet another example of impunity prevailing over accountability and fairness and it flies in the face of the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law – that in a time of war, military forces are obligated to take all measures to avoid harm to both civilians and their property,” said Attorney Hussein Abu Hussein, Corrie’s attorney at the Haifa hearing in 2013.

This prolonged legal battle, which is approaching it’s almost 20th hearing, has taken on many different shapes over the years. The media generally focuses on evidence disputing whether or not the bulldozer operator did in fact see Corrie during the act of demolishing Palestinian homes on March 16, 2003. Much hangs in the balance in the court ruling, all of which has far reaching implications for the Corrie family, the Israeli legal system, and the broader nonviolent movement across Israel and Palestine.

Corrie’s legal unit contests that this is not an issue of murder, but a failure to protect civilians – which is covered by both a multitude of Israeli and International laws.

“We have tried very hard to let people know that this isn’t a case about murder,” said Cindy Corrie standing outside the hall of the Supreme Court, as she responded to reporters. “We want to push the issue of negligence and bring up the point of International Law and the protection of civilians.”

In the court room, Corrie’s legal representation, presented a case that the military command unit not only knew of the legal and moral obligations of protecting civilians during a time of war, and that at the very least, a proper investigation had not taken place, and at worst, there was a subsequent cover up.

Their attorneys argued that, even if the bulldozer operator did not see Rachel Corrie, he did see the other activists of the International Solidarity Movement, and that was enough to stop the operational engagement and remove civilians before proceeding.

Heading into the court room, Cindy Corrie was optimistic that they had a better chance of having tenants of Internal Law recognized and applied in the court room. “This time, instead of one judge, we will have three judges that will hear the argument,” said Cindy Corrie.

“When the former Gaza Division’s Southern Brigade Commander Colonel Pinhas (Pinky) Zuaretz, who was in charge in 2003, testified, he confirmed that the rules of engagement at the time Rachel was killed were to “shoot to kill any adult person on the [Philadelphi] route.” As another Israeli colonel who testified put it: “There are no civilians in a war zone.” By accepting the testimony of Zuaretz and others, Judge Gershon essentially accepted that the “shoot to kill” order was acceptable, which violates the fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law, mandating that soldiers distinguish between combatants and civilians,” said Corrie’s attorney after the verdict in Haifa.

Shortly after the Haifa ruling, former President of the United States Jimmy Carter said, “The court’s decision confirms a climate of impunity, which facilitates Israeli human rights violations against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Territory.”

The State Defense argued that, “It’s impossible to stop during an operational mission, particularly if there is impending loss to Israeli life,” reasoning that it was impossible to expect the operation to halt during the presence of civilians, and further argued that Rachel Corrie was not a civilian and there for was not covered by International Law.

“In its appeal, Israel took things to a whole new level, arguing in its brief to the Supreme Court that Rachel fell outside the protections of international humanitarian law. Israel’s novel argument — which goes against both international law and Israeli precedent — is that only the “occupied population,” i.e., certain Palestinians, enjoy the protection of international humanitarian law, and that non-Palestinian civilians, including U.S. human rights defenders and presumably NGO workers, can be targeted by Israeli forces,” said Katherine Gallagher a Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, and a Vice-President of the International Board of the International Federation for Human Rights. “If the court accepts this argument, it would set a dangerous precedent and place human rights defenders in the Occupied Palestinian Territory at even greater risk than they already are.”

Corrie’s team stated that, if it was the case that there was impending danger to Israeli lives, the operation would not have stopped after Corrie was ran over by the bulldozer and investigated the scene, and that if there was an eminent threat, they would not have used bulldozers, which are not a combat vehicle.

“There was only one armed vehicle in the operation,” pointed out their attorney. “Bulldozers are not combat vehicles.”

The Israeli state defense further argued that it’s not military protocol to evacuate activists, to which Corrie’s attorney rebutted that the military has extensive training on removing Palestinians, International actors, and Illegal Jewish settlers both before and during operations. The state countered Corrie’s legal representatives, saying “that’s just training, not war time procedures” and added that “We can’t be stopping for foreigners.”

Corrie’s representation elaborated and connected the dots, suggesting that if the previous courts had wanted to know the true circumstances and conduct a proper investigation, than it would demanded the submission of military documents and orders on that day, and that the lead investigators would have been properly trained.

“We had two 19 year old boys carrying out a murder investigation of an international – two young boys,” the attorney said. “They should have had investigators with experience.”

Bill Van Esveld, of Human Rights Watch, stressed that the military police investigation failed to interview key witnesses and neglected to cross-check statements, pointing out that military police did not visit the site in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip .

The military police also failed, according to Corrie’s legal team, to obtain vital information such as radio communications for the hours before Rachel was run over.

According to a military police investigator’s report, the head of southern command, general Doron Almog, prevented the bulldozer driver from giving testimony.

The investigation has been such a point of contention during the legal battle, disputing falsified reports, manufactured video tapes, and the inability to openly question witnesses on the day, that In 2003, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised George W. Bush there would be a “thorough, credible and transparent” investigation into Rachel’s killing.

If the judges rule in affirmation of Judge Oded Gershon’s ruling in 2012 that Rachel Corrie took her own life by resisting oppression, it opens up the doors for legitimized attacks on internationals across Israel and Palestine, whether they are activists or not because as the Israeli state defense argues, “internationals are not civilians.”

In 2003, Rachel Corrie wrote in an email home, describing her comfort as an activist, relying on International Law to keep her safe: “I am staying put in Rafah for now, no plans to head north. I still feel like I’m relatively safe and think that my most likely risk in case of a larger-scale incursion is arrest.”

Time will judge whether or not this will be the last time that an international worker writes home believing that the law is on their side in the State of Israel.

Israeli Supreme Court to hear Rachel Corrie appeal

13th May 2014 | Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace & Justice | Occupied Palestine

Nine years after filing a civil suit against the State of Israel for the wrongful death of American peace activist Rachel Corrie, her family will have their appeal heard before the Israeli Supreme Court on May 21 at 11:30 a.m. in Jerusalem. The appeal, which will be argued by attorney Hussein Abu Hussein, challenges the Haifa District Court’s August 2012 ruling which concluded that the Israeli military was not responsible for Rachel’s death and that it conducted a credible investigation.

“During the past nine years, we have sought accountability in the Israeli courts for Rachel’s killing but were handed a verdict that showed blind indifference to the rights of the victim and little interest in seeking truth and justice,” said Craig Corrie, Rachel’s father.

The Corrie family appeal focuses on serious flaws in the lower court verdict which erred by ignoring and misinterpreting essential facts and misapplying legal norms. The appeal also challenges the lower court’s total disregard of international law obligations as well as procedural advantages that were regularly granted to the state during the proceedings. Lawyers for the Corries and the State of Israel have submitted their arguments in writing to the panel of three justices – Deputy-President of the Court Miriam Naor, Esther Hayut, and Zvi Zylbertal.

Speaking of his family’s hopes, Craig Corrie said, “It is a tragedy when the law is broken, but far, far worse when it is abandoned altogether. The Supreme Court now has a choice, to either show the world that the Israeli legal system honors the most basic principles of human rights and can hold its military accountable, or to add to mounting evidence that justice can not be found in Israel.”

Rachel, a 23-year-old human rights defender from Olympia, Washington, was crushed to death March 16, 2003, by an Israeli military bulldozer while nonviolently protesting demolition of Palestinian civilian homes in Rafah, Gaza. The following day, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised President George W. Bush a “thorough, credible, and transparent” investigation into Rachel’s killing. In 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff informed the Corrie family of the U.S. Government’s position that the Israeli investigation did not meet these standards and advised them to “use the Israeli court system.” The Corries filed suit in 2005, charging the State of Israel and its Ministry of Defense with responsibility for Rachel’s killing.

The civil trial before Haifa District Court Judge Oded Gershon began March 10, 2010, and 23 witnesses testified in 15 hearings, spread over 16 months. Each session was attended by the Corrie family,American Embassy officials, and numerous legal and human rights observers.

Testimony exposed serious chain-of-command failures in relation to civilian killings, as well as indiscriminate destruction of civilian property at the hands of the Israeli military in southern Gaza. Four eyewitnesses from the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) testified that Rachel was visible to soldiers in the bulldozer as it approached. Military witnesses testified that they saw ISM protesters in the area; and the on-site commander asked to stop operations due to their presence, but was ordered to continue working. An Israeli colonel testified that there are no civilians in war, and the lead military police investigator, himself, stated his belief that the Israeli military was at war with all in Gaza, including peace activists.

Testimony also revealed serious flaws in the military’s investigation into Rachel’s killing. Investigators failed to question key military witnesses, including those recording communications; failed to secure the military video, allowing it to be taken for nearly a week by senior commanders with only segments submitted to court; failed to address conflicting testimony given by soldiers; and ignored damning statements in the military log confirming a “shoot to kill” order and a command mentality to continue work in order to avoid setting a precedent with international activists.

On August 28, 2012, Judge Gershon ruled against the Corrie family, handing down a verdict stating the Israeli military was not to blame for Rachel’s death and that she alone was responsible for her demise. The Judge lauded the military police investigation and dismissed the case, adopting the Israeli Government’s position that the military should be fully absolved of civil liability, because soldiers were engaged in operational activities in a war zone.

The verdict was widely condemned by legal and human rights organizations monitoring the case, citing misrepresentation of facts and the fundamental principle of international humanitarian law – that in a time of war, military forces are obligated to take all measures to avoid harm to both civilians and their property. President Jimmy Carter stated that the court’s decision confirmed “a climate of impunity, which facilitates Israeli human rights violations against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Territory.”

Seating in the courtroom is limited, and members of the press are advised to arrive early with press credentials. Proceedings will be in Hebrew. The family is seeking permission from the Court to provide simultaneous translation for court observers. However, pending the Court’s decision, journalists should make plans to bring their own translator. Cameras and audio recording equipment will not be permitted once proceedings begin. Photos may be taken before the judges enter the room.

A performance of My Name is Rachel Corrie, a play drawn from the diaries and e-mails of Rachel and staged around the world, will be presented in Hebrew on Monday, May 19 at 21:00 at the Arab-Hebrew Theatre in Jaffa. It will be followed by a panel discussion with the Corrie family, moderated by human rights lawyer Michael Sfard. For more information, visit The Coalition of Women for Peace, which is sponsoring the event.

Guardian: Rachel Corrie’s family claim Israeli military withheld vital video evidence

11 July 2011 | The Guardian

The family of Rachel Corrie, the US activist killed in Gaza while protesting against house demolitions in 2003, on Monday claimed the Israeli military authorities withheld video evidence during the Corries’ civil lawsuit and misled US officials on crucial details.

Craig Corrie, Rachel’s father, told a press conference in Jerusalem that the footage from a surveillance camera near the scene of his daughter’s death submitted to the court was “incomplete”. Additional video material obtained by the family showed Rachel’s body in a different spot to the place identified by some military commanders, he said.

He also alleged that the Israeli military had misled US officials on the position of Rachel’s body when she was killed.

Rachel, from Olympia, Washington state, was killed while attempting to protect the home of a Palestinian family in the Rafah area of Gaza from being demolished by Israeli troops in March 2003. Her family and other activists who witnessed the incident say she was crushed by an Israeli army bulldozer.

Following Rachel’s death the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, promised US president George W Bush a “thorough, credible and transparent” investigation.

An internal Israeli military investigation, which was never published nor released to the US government nor the Corries, concluded that the two soldiers who operated the bulldozer had not seen Rachel and that no charges would be brought. The case was closed.

In March last year the Corrie family launched a civil case, accusing the military of either unlawfully or intentionally killing Rachel or of gross negligence. Hearings in the case ended on Sunday and a verdict is due to be delivered next April.

“After more than a year of hearings, we are at this moment in much the same place as we were when they began – up against a wall of Israeli officials determined to protect the state at all costs, including at the expense of truth,” said Cindy Corrie, Rachel’s mother.

“We came seeking accountability. We demand justice,” said Craig Corrie.

The final witness in the case, Colonel Pinhas Zuaretz, told the court in Haifa that Rafah was a war zone in 2003 and “reasonable people would not be there unless they had aims of attacking our forces”. Members of the International Solidarity Movement, such as Rachel Corrie, were aiding “Palestinian terrorists”, he said.

In arguing that the case should be dismissed, the Israeli government claimed Rachel was responsible for her own death. Both sides have 90 days to submit closing arguments in writing.

AP: Testimony ends in Israel case over killed American

10 July 2011 | Associated Press

An Israeli court heard its final witness Sunday in a trial surrounding the death of American activist Rachel Corrie, who was crushed by an Israeli military bulldozer in the Gaza Strip in 2003.

Israel’s commanding officer in Gaza at the time, Col. Pinhas Zuaretz, testified Sunday.

Corrie, a pro-Palestinian activist from Olympia, Washington, who was 23 at the time, was killed when she stood before the bulldozer on the Gaza-Egypt border. She and other activists believed the military was about to demolish nearby Palestinian homes.

The military cleared the soldier who drove the bulldozer, saying he could not see the activist.
That prompted Corrie’s parents to file a civil suit against Israel’s Defense Ministry in 2005, charging Israel with responsibility for killing their daughter.

The trial opened in 2010 and had 15 hearings and 23 witnesses. The verdict is scheduled to be announced April 23, 2012, said Craig Corrie, the dead woman’s father.

“I demand to get some kind of accountability,” he said. “That’s what a court can do. That’s certainly why we’re here.”

Corrie belonged to a pro-Palestinian group called the International Solidarity Movement, whose activists enter conflict zones despite Israeli bans and attempt to interfere with the activities of Israel’s military.

Corrie’s death made her a symbol for pro-Palestinian activists, and a play has been written about her.
An officer who testified earlier in the trial said Corrie and other pro-Palestinian activists had spent hours trying to block two military bulldozers under his command from clearing vegetation and rubble near the border, ignoring repeated warnings to leave.

Though the military did at times demolish houses used by gunmen or arms smugglers, he said, no houses were set to be demolished that day.

The infantry major was identified only by his initials, S.R., according to military regulations.