dikayasobaka

I do not have Russian keyboard here, so sorry for the poor English below :)

Yes, it is true that she used her status of an American citizen, so as other international members of ISM did. It is the mission of the organization to provide international and non-violent protection or Palestinian people in occupied territories. Because Israeli army cannot use force against American or European citizents, it cannot shoot rubber bullets at them, e.t.c. Or so it used to be thought.
But the way, was there any official response from the "buldozer" side? I heard (but that was from ISM people, so it might be subjective) that the driver was not found guilty because he had a prove of bad vision(?!!!?)

From:

Yes, it is true that she used her status of an American citizen, so as other international members of ISM did.

In this case, it was hypocritical for her to burn a mock U.S. flag.

Because Israeli army cannot use force against American or European citizents, it cannot shoot rubber bullets at them, e.t.c.

A foreigner who enters a war zone should expect to be caught in crossfire.

But the way, was there any official response from the "buldozer" side?

Read the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie

From:

it was hypocritical for her to burn a mock U.S. flag
I don't know about that. But if she did, than I guess you are right.

A foreigner who enters a war zone should expect to be caught in crossfire.
There is no war there.

Read the Wikipedia article
Reading. Thanks. "The Israeli army's investigation, led by the chief of the general staff of the IDF, found that Israeli forces were not guilty of any misconduct"

From:

I don't know about that.

That's what she did on the picture I posted.

There is no war there.

Intifada II was not a war between sovereign states, like the Russo-Japanese War or the Spanish-American War; it was a guerilla war, like most modern wars - Vietnam, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Algeria, Kashmir, Iraq etc. By denying that it was a war, you resemble the Bush administration, which calls the Iraqi insurgents "the anti-Iraqi forces" rather than irregular soldiers fighting a war.

From:

Woa! Bush administration! me?! how did we get there?! that's even funny :) Mister, you don't need to give me those lectures, I teach at the same university :))))

From:

I guess it's my fault. I don't know you so, I have to be more careful in my expressions. Well, when I said that there is no war there, you could have sensed sarcasm in my words. Because officially, there is no war, no bullets, no killing innocent civilians, etc. Officially, it's a "conflict". What happens in reality is a different issue.

From:

War takes place between sovereign states (the Russo-Japanese War, the war between India and Pakistan that led to the creation of Bangladesh, the Iran-Iraq war are all examples). Most modern armed conflicts are not like that - they are conflicts between a state and guerillas supported by some ethnic, religious or social group. The conflicts in Chechnya, Kurdistan, Kashmir, Kosovo, Palestine and many more are or were like that. Informally, they are referred to as wars, even though formally nobody declares war at the beginning or capitulates at the end (for example, formally the United States never fought the Vietnam War, because who would it declare war against - the Viet Cong?). Anyway, Rachel Corrie and her confreres came to a war zone and decided to get involved in the war - they should have expected that some of them would die.

From:

Informally, they are referred to as wars, even though formally nobody declares war at the beginning or capitulates at the end.
Ага.

they should have expected that some of them would die.
Ну вобщем-то да. Кажется я теряю нить - а чём, собственно, спор? Риск быть покалеченным или даже убитым есть везде. Когда Вы садитесь в машину или, скажем, заходите в лифт. Не в этом дело. Если официально война не объявлена, то убийство невооруженного человека является уголовной ответственностью. The case is much more severe if the unarmed person who was killed is a foreign citizen. Именно на это и расчитывает ISM, когда выставляет "живые щиты", чтобы, скажем, дать возможность палестинским женщинам добраться до своих бараков или защитить дома от незаконних разрушений.
И что значит "they decided to get involved in the war"? Пожалуйста объясните.

From:

Деятельность ISM граничит с военной. Допустим, они блокируют подразделение израильской армии, пытающееся захватить палестинского боевика. Да, они безоружны - но является ли их деятельность в такой ситуации сугубо мирной? Сложный вопрос, согласись.

From:

Допустим, они блокируют подразделение израильской армии, пытающееся захватить палестинского боевика.

Так всё-таки "допустим", или они действительно занимаются подобного плана акциями? Можно ссылку?

From:

Эпизод с Корри, к примеру. Израильтяне пытались снести дом, который, по их сведениям, использовался боевиками ХАМАСа как наблюдательный пункт для снайперов. Задно там жили и гражданские лица.

From:

по их сведениям

Не могу сказать, что я верю такому утверждению. Разные израильские источники ссылаются на разные причины: расчистка территории, поиск и обезвреживание взрывных устройств(бульдозерами?! без эвакуации людей живущих всего в нескольких метрах?! хм...). Кроме того, позже вообще было заявлено, что IDF не собирались ломать дом. Вообщем в таком свете утверждение, что на доме скрывались снайперы мне кажется весьма сомнительным. Как утверждают очевидцы происшествия, бульдозер и даже, кажется, танк заехали на частную территории мирных жителей, повреждая землю, деревья и строения. Кроме того, поскольку видимость из таких бульдозеров плохая, перемещение машины должно было координироваться солдатами находяшимися около бульдозера, что не имело места в этом случае.

Да и подумать, что это за причина такая - рушить здание из-за того, что его, возможно, могут использовать снайперы?! Опять же напоминаю - это не война в формальном плане. Соответственно, незаконное внедрение на частную собственность и принесение ущерба имуществу.

Хм... я всё ещё не понимаю о чём спор :) О том, что ISM - это воинствующая сторона? что-то я запуталась...

From:

Есть одна тактика, применяемая Цахалом, которую я однозначно не поддерживаю: разрушение домов пойманых террористов. Все остальное из того, что ты перечислила, может быть оправдано тактическими обстоятельствами.

И да, формально это не война. Посему не мешало бы, чтобы боевкики ХАМАСа и прочих прекратили взрывать автобусы, кафе, дискотеки и т.д. Я не отрицаю их права на войну с силовыми структурами - но атаковать сугубо гражданские объекты есть натуральное блядство.

А спор, полагаю, о том, насколько ISM является сугубо гражданской структурой.

From:

Back to my latin keyboard and lame English.

Well, don't take me wrong - I do not support terrorism! And I do agree that "атаковать сугубо гражданские объекты есть натуральное блядство" from both sides of the conflict. I am only taking about peace process and the way ISM approaches it. As far as I know ISM and people working for it, it is a non-violent peace making organization, nominated for Noble Peace Prize. If I miss something in the organization's activity, I would be very much interested to know about it.

From:

Have you ever read short story "Or Else" by Henry Kuttner? Here is a Russian translation. It is about a non-violent peace-making alien.

From:

Funny! :)
Yope, non-violent peace demonstrations only provide temporary relief, if any. But where do you see a solution to such conflicts?

From:

Victory by one side, and vae victis to the other side.

How do you think the Russian Civil War or the American Civil War or the Second World War would have ended if aliens descended and tried to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe on the losing side?

From:

Eh... is it arguing for the sake of argument? :) I do not believe ever mentioning in my comments that the beauty would safe the world or non-violent demonstration is our only hope. Read my comments more carefully, pls. I do, however, applaud people who are willing to risk their lives to protect civilians during armed conflicts or wars.
But back to your scenario, which, for the record, i support. What, in your point of view, is the definition of the victory in such situation?

From:

Regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict, please read this Etgar Keret story in Russian translation: one translation, another translation. I can't say anything else.

From:

I don't see how it is the answer to my question about the victory... But thank you, it is a good story.
As to "I can't say anything else." Well, it is quite upsetting actually. In every conflict one should hear from both sides. Because there are also stories like this, for instance. Let's not picture the situation as black and white one.

From:

There are many stories in there, of course.

What I find unacceptable in Israel's actions is that Palestinians were never given equal rights within whatever borders Israel drew for itself. What I find unacceptable in the actions of the other side is, obviously, terrorism and (on the part of some groups) calls for extermination of Israel and Jews which pretty much meant to say that peace was not on their agenda.

(no subject)

From:

-s-a-v-v-a-.livejournal.com - Date: 2006-03-14 08:35 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From:

Well, there are many ways to support civilians, in time of war or otherwise. Stopping an army performing an operation whose objective may not even be clear to you is not necessarily one of them. Also note that the ISM'ers are not known to ride Israeli buses in an attempt to serve as a human shield for Israeli civilians.

From: