Rachel's politics and mine could not be more different. I am an American nationalist. She was an American liberal. I pay her tribute not only from a sense of racial duty, but also out of sheer admiration. Rachel Corrie stuck to her principles to the death. She was the picture of the old Aryan courage: almost alone, no weapons and facing an enemy that weighed more than a dozen grizzly bears. She might not have known when she woke up that morning that she was going to die in a few hours, but at some point before she died—she knew.

The Israelis offered neither assistance nor transport. They merely watched and talked on their radios. One of the peace activists shouted to get the attention of Dr. Samir, who called an ambulance. When the paramedics arrived, the activists served as human shields so that the Israelis would not use them for target practice, as they have been known to do. Rachel was dying at that point, but she was not yet dead. She was taken to the emergency room of Al Negar Hospital in Rafah, where she died of brain hemmorage and fractures of the skull and chest.

And then one of those magic moments in history happened.

Rachel Corrie, an American, became the heroine of Palestine, their adopted Joan of Arc. Her bravery in facing death had made her larger than life, immortal in fame, and a partial redemption for her country in the minds of the Arab peoples. Bill Clinton and George Bush had thrown a pile of dirt on the reputation of the United States; in death, Rachel climbed to the top of that pile and planted a rose. As long as there is anyone who hates America because of its wars on weaker countries, someone else will say, “Yes, but remember Rachel Corrie.”

The moments in between the crushing and Rachel's death can be compared to the initial collapse of the core of a fission bomb, and the liberation of her spirit resembled the radiance of the detonation as it lit up the whole world. Perhaps this is the way genuine martyrs and saints are always made. At any rate, it was a spectacular burst of acclaim that followed a spectacular episode of heroism.

Consistent with the ancient traditions of both Arab and Aryan peoples, let the poems be written, let the songs be sung. Now and forever, the Palestinians and the Americans have a heroine in common. In these peoples, Rachel's moral courage inspired awestruck reverence. From the Jews, we have the usual tribute in the form of snarls and curses, which they heap on anyone who proves to be better than themselves.

Why did it happen? Although Israel has been contemptuous of Arab lives for a long time, it has been the assumption that Israel would not dare kill Westerners so brazenly. Accordingly, volunteer peace activists had come from America and from Europe to protect the people in Palestine from Israeli aggression. That is what peace activists do. They shield other people and other people's property from harm. Unless peace activists are committed enough to die for their principles—that is, if they run when their opponents threaten them—they will quickly lose credibility and be held in contempt.

Rachel Corrie was a principled young woman. Certainly, she could have avoided death, simply by taking a few steps to one side. But she knew that it would discredit the peace activism that she valued more highly than her own life. She could have run, but she knew why she must not run. Her death wasn't a "waste" in the sense that she died in vain. However, it was a murder, and it should be treated as such.

Two conclusions are inescapable from the evidence produced so far. The first is that Rachel Corrie’s killing was a premeditated act approved by the upper echelons of the Israeli regime—the culmination of a series of confrontations in recent months with International Solidarity Movement (ISM) “human shields.” The second is that the US government is complicit, having rejected repeated requests to intervene on behalf of the volunteers.

—World Socialist Website

I had not carried my own conclusions that far, but it does make some sense. A military bulldozer driver would kill an American on orders much more readily than he would do so out of mere personal anger. He has his career to think about, you know. But beyond that, one of the peace activists testified that while the bulldozer driver was pushing ISM members into fences and into piles of barbed wire, a tank drove over to see what was going on, and there was a surprised look on the face of the soldier who rose to look out of the tank. The bulldozer driver may have gotten secret orders that the tank crew didn't know about.

Come to think of it, a political assassination of a U.S. national by a member of the Israeli army would probably require a personal decision by Ariel Sharon. That he isn't above giving such authorization, we well know from the bloodiness of his own military career. But the solid evidence needed to confirm the suspicion is unfortunately missing, and it is not clear that the U.S. government would do a damn thing about it even if the proof were in hand. It is still possible that the bulldozer driver got a sudden case of the "Jewish high-and-mighties" and killed her by his own choice, relying on the religious laws of Israel to excuse him for killing a lowly gentile.

But if Israel's government is complicit, and if the US Embassy knew about its intentions, then the US government would be an accessory to Rachel's murder by refusing to demand protection for the ISM activists. But the reasoning for this is as yet tenuous. Accusing the Bush Administration of conspiracy with a foreign government to kill a U.S. citizen requires a smokier gun than has yet been found. More likely, the rejection by the U.S. Embassy of the peace activists' requests for protection was the result of the usual U.S. "political blank-check" and "look-the-other-way" policies in Israel's favor, and this time those policies contributed to an Israeli murder of an American.

There is one other thing, though it may be coincidence. Has anyone noticed that Rachel was murdered during Purim?

My Early Mistakes in Assessing this Event.

Before I get to the lies, distortions, equivocations, obfuscations, evasions, and slander of the Zionists, I want to admit a couple of mistakes that I made soon after Rachel's murder came to my attention.

First, the Zionists elected to use a photograph in which Rachel Corrie was tearing up a crudely drawn representation of a U.S. flag as part of a protest against U.S. government policy in Palestine. The apparent intent behind the photo's (very widespread) use by media outlets is to make it seem as if Rachel deserved to die for being disrespectful to her native country. The notion is a ridiculous one. Rachel could have burned a thousand flags and not deserved to be killed for doing it.

But what I have to confess is that I thought, at first, that the photograph was a fake. And I said so, on an earlier version of my tribute page for Rachel. I thought that it was a fake mostly because the light falling on the faces in the picture didn't appear to be consistent with regard to the direction of the source.

What I did not know what that there were buildings nearby (but not in the photo) with highly reflective white exterior walls. The inconsistent lighting did not, in this case, result from a photographic alteration, as is the case, for example, with a well-known photograph of Jupiter and its satellites. Which way is the sun? It depends on which satellite you look at. The NASA picture was put together from several different images taken by the Voyager space probe.

Second, along with many other people, I believed that the photograph of Rachel using the megaphone to shout at the bulldozer driver was taken only moments before she was killed. In fact, that photo was taken a short while earlier during a previous encounter. Rachel (apparently) passed the megaphone to another activist before the Jew on the bulldozer killed her.

Third, the first version of this page was somewhat tacky. I was very emotional over the killing of one of my kinswomen by the Israelis, and I threw the photos of Rachel, injured and dying, into the readers' faces. There's a place for that kind of documentation, of course. It will not do to cover up the ugliness of the Zionists' behavior. But I removed the unnecessary caption from the picture and put the picture further down the page. At least I wasn't as tacky as the Jewish media was in selecting the irrelevant "flag burning" photo to illustrate the bulldozer murder story!

The Jewish Hatred of Rachel.

Since Rachel’s death, Zionists have gone on a remarkable worldwide “hate fit” against her. At the funeral given by her Palestinian friends, and attended mostly by them, Israeli soldiers showed up to toss teargas canisters and concussion grenades into the bereaved crowd.

It isn’t every day that you see Arabs carrying a coffin draped in the American flag.

The more prestigious mainstream media in America minimized their coverage, were vague in some of the details, and got other details wrong. The Jewish chatterboxes, on the Internet and radio, have been defaming dead Rachel for stupidity, antisemitism, conspiracy with terrorists, and so on. Within a week, they’d even produced a long list of “Rachel jokes” and cartoon images aimed at mocking Rachel or trivializing her cause.

The speed with which Israel’s international propaganda machine has been mobilized and the rate of its activity suggests that the Jews fear reprisals for what their soldier did, unless they can quickly defuse reaction with their usual methods.

The Lies of the Zionists.

I watched the Zionist propaganda about the Israeli murder of Rachel Corrie since it began to appear. The pattern is consistent with what has been noted in connection with a certain other major Jewish fraud. The earliest lies are inconsistent with each other and are often proved false by an inspection of the available evidence. The later deceptions depend less on outright lies and more on tricks, such as misconstruing the significance of a fact, vagueness about time, omissions of necessary context, dishonestly ellipsed quotations, etc. As I write, however, the Zionists are still relying partially on lies.

Why do they lie? Israel has used a part of America's gift to murder an American. Accordingly, the U.S. Government can no longer benefit Israel without betraying the Americans. You know as well as I do that when a criminal, or a criminal government, gets away with his crimes, he will only grow bolder. Letting Israel get away with killing Americans once will encourage them to do it again, especially if our elected officials keep sending them foreign aid no matter how many of our people they kill.

Sending Israel more money so it can buy more things—guns, bulldozers—so that it can kill more Americans is treason. No kidding, no exaggeration. It's just plain dirty treason for any US official, elected or appointed, in the Executive Branch, the Congress, the Judiciary, or the Armed Forces to support Israel. At the very least, all aid to Israel must cease: no more gifts, no more loans, no more loan guarantees, no more joint ventures in weapons manufacture, and a 10-year trade embargo. The Zionists are afraid that the U.S. government, in particular its president, will for once get fed up and find enough courage to do what should have been done a long time ago.

What I think the Zionists are counting on is the expiration of public interest in Rachel Corrie's murder. As the interest goes away, memory will fade, and evidence that is presently ready to hand will become rare and hard to locate. None but the most persistent researcher will be able to track it down. On the other hand, the false Jewish propaganda will still be readily available from seemingly authoritative sources of documentation. The average person will mistake bandwidth for truth, and, if this happens, the Zionists will have won.

Jewish movie-makers from Hollywood are already sniffing around Rachel's old neighborhood in Washington State, scouting out tidbits of information that they will use to (1) enrich themselves at the expense of the girl that their Israeli cousins murdered and (2) make it look like the Jew who drove the bulldozer over her was somehow blameless. Can't you just see it now? The handsome actor they pick to play the bulldozer driver will have an awful guilt-trip when he discovers that he "accidentally" drove over a girl who "fell" into the path of his bulldozer. Oh, he'll just rend his clothes, won't he? They'll show him not being able to get to sleep at night because he can't stop beating himself on the breast.

The "Hollywood" Jewish propaganda about Rachel Corrie's murder is on the way, folks. How many of you will be suckers?

But let's start with a recount of some of the early lies, and work our way toward the smoother later ones. I heard most of the early lies from people posting on web BBS.

Zionist Lie #1. Rachel "ran" into the path of the bulldozer.

Rachel was in front of the bulldozer already when it was approaching her on the fatal encounter.

Zionist Lie #2. Rachel "fell" into the path of the bulldozer.

Rachel fell when the bulldozer pushed the mound of dirt that she was standing on. Until that moment, she was the most visible object in his forward direction. The Zionist liar, in this case, apparently wants to make you think that Rachel had been running alongside the bulldozer and tripped into its path.

The purpose of both Lie #1 and Lie #2 is to make the listener believe that Rachel's death was an accident that the bulldozer driver did not have time to prevent.

Zionist Lie #3. The bulldozer driver could not see Rachel because she was sitting down.

Actually, this is two lies packed into one. First, the ISM activists had been successfully persuading bulldozer drivers to turn away from Palestinian homes by sitting on the ground in front of them. The bulldozer driver can usually see a sitting activist. Second, Rachel was not sitting when the bulldozer hit her. She had stood up and had climbed a pile of dirt. Her head was level with the bulldozer driver's eye, according to Joseph Smith.

Zionist Lie #4. The bulldozer driver could not see Rachel because of the narrowness of the bulldozer's front window.

That front window is plenty wide enough for the driver to have seen Rachel. She was directly in front of the bulldozer when it hit her. Her upper body was above the bulldozer blade. If the Jew driving the bulldozer could see anything at all through that front window, he could see her.

Zionist Lie #5. The house behind Rachel had terrorists in it, so the bulldozer driver was justified in killing Rachel in order to demolish the house.

The house belonged to a Palestinian doctor, and there were no terrorists inside it. The Jews were knocking down Palestinian homes because they wanted a clear field of fire on anyone within 100 meters of a wall they were building along the border between Egypt and Gaza. Dr. Samir's home was one of those targeted for destruction for that reason. His house, and many others, were "in the way" of a new, Israeli project for the security of the Jews.

Zionist Lie #6. Gaza is a war zone and Rachel took her chances by entering it.

Gaza is not a war zone as Israel's supporters portray it. It is a Palestinian neighborhood. The question is not what was Rachel doing in Gaza. The question is what was an Israeli bulldozer doing in a defenseless Palestinian neighborhood.

Those are the early lies that I heard the most frequently. Now I'll present some of the more crafty later ones.

One of the worst of the Zionist disinformation sources is a group using the misleading domain name "HonestReporting.com." Their website is full of the grossest distortions of the events leading to the 16 March 2003 murder of Rachel Corrie. Some of their statements are outright lies. When they aren't exactly lying, they pick nits and attempt to magnify them into elephants with distorted quotes and omitted context. Here's one of many examples:

HonestReporting.com wrote:

At the time of Corrie's death (5pm), Smith describes Corrie as "sitting, with arms waving" (no megaphone), and another colleague holding the megaphone from a distance...

Thus, the AP photo and caption fails to note the two most essential factors in determining visibility or lack thereof: 1) Corrie was no longer standing, but had changed to a sitting position, and 2) she was no longer in possession of attention-grabbing megaphone.

But Joseph Smith actually wrote:

16:45-17:00

One bulldozer, serial number 949623, began to work near the house of a physician who is a friend of ours, and in whose house Rachel and other activists often stayed. While we occupied the other structures directly west (the closest was less than 5 meters away and the furthest was less than 25 meters away), Rachel sat down in the pathway of the bulldozer.

I was elevated about 2 meters above the ground, and had a clear view of the action happening about 20 meters away. Still wearing her fluorescent jacket, she sat 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.

The bulldozer continued driving forward headed straight for Rachel. 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. She got so high onto it that she was at eye-level with the cab of the bulldozer. Her head and upper torso were above the bulldozer's blade, and the bulldozer driver and co-operator could clearly see her. Despite this, he continued forward, which pulled her legs into the pile of rubble, and pulled her down out of view of the driver. If he'd stopped at this point, he may have only broken her legs, but he continued forward, which pulled her underneath the bulldozer.

We ran towards him, and waved our arms and shouted, one activist with the megaphone. But the bulldozer driver continued forward, until Rachel was underneath the cab of the bulldozer. At this point, it was more than clear that she was nowhere but underneath the bulldozer, there was simply nowhere else she could have been, as she had not appeared on either side of the bulldozer, and could not have stayed in front of it that long without being crushed.

Reading Joe Smith's words should make it clear that you can't trust "HonestReporting.com." They attempted a very brazen lie (see Zionist Lie #3 above), evidently depending on most readers not to follow the link and read Mr. Smith's words for themselves.

According to Smith, Rachel Corrie was initially sitting down because most of the time the bulldozer drivers would see them sitting in front of a house and go somewhere else. To belabor the obvious, the bulldozer driver could see a peace activist even when the peace activist was sitting. "HonestReporting.com" affected not to notice this important point.

The bulldozer "headed straight for Rachel" (i.e., she would have been visible to the driver through the front window). To increase her visibility still further, Rachel climbed the pile of dirt that the bulldozer had shoveled up, and her upper body was above the blade. The driver of the bulldozer could not have missed her. "HonestReporting.com" not only failed to mention that Rachel had abandoned her sitting position in favor of a position of even greater visiblity, they argued that the opposite had occurred!

The only point "HonestReporting.com" might have is who was in possession of the megaphone when Rachel was crushed. But along with that nit, they attempted to persuade their readership of two falsehoods.

Just to give the reader a futher taste of "HonestReporting.com's" deceptions, read this from their website:

The problem with the AP photo caption is that readers are led to believe that this photo depicts the very scene and moment of the accident. The implication is criminal recklessness on the part of the IDF driver.

In fact, however, this photo was NOT taken in the moments before Corrie's death. Joseph Smith, of the pro-Palestinian International Solidarity Movement, was the photographer and wrote a chronological account of the incident (published on pro-Palestinian websites).

Smith says that the photo of Corrie "standing with megaphone" is ascribed to the time period 2pm-4pm. In addition, during this period, Smith notes that the bulldozer "always stopped in time to avoid injuring them.

It does not matter that the photograph showing Rachel facing the bulldozer, while holding the megaphone, was not taken moments before she was killed. The photo does nonetheless shows that the bulldozer driver can see objects in his forward direction, and that's the important point which the photo illustrates. A deaf man can operate a bulldozer. A blind man cannot.

That last paragraph is in reference to a time when the bulldozers were plowing up grass and other vegetation. At that time, the bulldozer drivers were relatively benign. But even at this time, the bulldozer drivers engaged in threatening behavior, which the dishonestly ellipsed quotation from "HonestReporting.com" was cobbled up to conceal. Smith's actual words were:

Rachel and two other activists began interfering with the other bulldozer, which was attempting to destroy grass and other plants on what used to be farmland. They stood and sat in its path, and though it would drive very close to them, and even move the earth on which they were sitting, it always stopped in time to avoid injuring them.

Driving those bulldozers anywhere near sitting people is already reckless behavior. Accidents do happen in such circumstances. This is not to say that injuries occur only by accident, of course. The bulldozer driver had not yet decided to kill one of the peace activists, but at that time he didn't mind risking harm to them.

"HonestReporting.com" omits Joseph Smith's statement that the bulldozer that crushed Rachel, a short while previously, had pushed Rachel back against a fence, though at that time it did not seriously injure her.

Picture taken between 3:00-4:00PM, 16 March 2003, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Rachel Corrie (L) and Nick (R) oppose the potential destruction of this home (to the west of the Doctor's home where Rachel was killed). In the instance pictured, the bulldozer did not stop and Rachel was pinned between the scooped earth and the fence behind her. On this occasion, the driver stopped before seriously injuring her. Photo by Joseph Smith (ISM Handout).

On another occasion (on the same day), it pushed another American activist—Smith calls him "Will"—back into a pile of barbed wire! Here's what Smith said:

We noticed that the bulldozers had incurred again onto Palestinian land, and the six activists were opposing them, so we left the tank to join them. During this round, one bulldozer pushed Will, an American activist, up against a pile of barbed wire. Fortunately, the bulldozer stopped and withdrew just in time to avoid injuring him seriously, but we had to dig him out of the rubble, and unhook his clothing from the wire.

All of this indicates that the Israeli soldier driving the bulldozer knew fully well that he was menacing and endangering the peace activists with his machine. "HonestReporting.com," of course, mentions none of this. By focusing on trivia, such as whether or not Rachel was holding the megaphone just prior to the fatal bulldozer attack, by giving incomplete quotations, and by being ambiguous about time (when it suits them), "HonestReporting.com" sidesteps the clear indications of malice on the part of the Israeli bulldozer driver to which Joseph Smith referred.

It is clear that "HonestReporting.com" is run by Zionist liars who hope to pass themselves off as neutral observers. Because of the interest in Rachel Corrie's murder, it is doubtful whether Israel's international propaganda media will be able to deceive many. The eyewitness testimony of Joseph Smith is available and widely linked, and there are enough Americans with computers to inform the Americans who don't have them.

I predict again what I predicted earlier: Israel's lies and distortions are wasted effort this time. Rachel Corrie will not be defamed, and her story will not disappear. Israel merely further blackens its own reputation, and that of its controlled media, with efforts such as those of "HonestReporting.com." The more mainstream Jew-controlled media (especially broadcast TV) probably will continue to distort and minimize coverage of the murder out of engrained habit, but, likewise, to no practical effect.

Please go to http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1284.shtml and read Joseph Smith's comments for yourself. Don't rely on the liars at "HonestReporting.com" interpret them (or anything else) for you. Download a copy and put the file date in it somewhere so that, in the event that Zionists somehow hack or take control of the website, you won't be deceived by any changes.

More Zionist Lies.

A webpage entitled "WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO RACHEL CORRIE? (A Peace Activist Intentionally Murdered–Or Not?)" was set up in an attempt to obfuscate Rachel's murder and to misrepresent the obfuscation as a raising of reasonable doubts. The webpage, whose author is not presently known to me, accuses the ISM of "misrepresenting photos" in order to slander an innocent Israeli army bulldozer driver with a false charge of murder.

But it's a lame gambit. Too many people know that the Israeli army has no compunction against killing civilians, and that they do it all the time. It is the IDF, not the ISM, that has a credibility problem. It is the IDF, not the ISM, whose spokespersons are most likely to lie. But let's look at the alleged misrepresentations anyway.

As the Zionist liars at "HonestReporting.com" did before them, the author of the "WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO RACHEL CORRIE?" webpage presented the photo of Rachel holding the megaphone while confronting an Israeli army D9 Caterpillar bulldozer and making a big deal out of the fact that many news sources were confused, at first, about when this photo was taken in relation to the moment Rachel was crushed.

It does not look to me that the ISM set out to deceive anybody. They put their photos online so that the world would see images from the scene of the crime. They never said that the photo of Rachel holding the megaphone was taken moments before she was run over. Many people leaped to that conclusion (I was one of them), but the ISM, themselves, provided the correction for that mistake with their testimony. Likewise, the ISM never said that the bulldozer in the picture with Rachel holding the megaphone was the same bulldozer as the one that crushed her. The ISM did say that there was more than one bulldozer in the area.

Further, the bulldozer that did hit Rachel, the one with serial number 949-623, was of the same make and model as the one shown in the photo with Rachel holding the megaphone, and the primary value of that photo is that it shows that the driver of such a vehicle can see a person in front of his machine. No other value was ever claimed for that picture by the ISM, to my knowledge.

Now comes a subtle deception by the webpage author, who says: "The ISM however, never claimed the photo was taken moments before, but did absolutely nothing to solve the confusion."

The "confusion" being discussed here is important only if you were to suppose that a bulldozer driver could have no way of noticing someone in front of his vehicle unless that someone was shouting at him through a megaphone. But that's false. As I said before, a deaf man can operate a bulldozer, but a blind man cannot. Rachel was easily visible through the front window of the bulldozer. The driver could not have missed her. The "confusion" being fussed over by the webpage author is not important. It is an irrelevant nit being talked up into a mountain of contention to fog the real issue.

The webpage author next attempts to manufacture a conflict among the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. Here's how it went.

CONFLICTING STORIES

For such a clear case of murder as the ISM is presenting it, their seems to be a lot of confusion over how Rachel Corrie died. Here are several conflicting accounts of how she died:

"She was sitting in the path of the bulldozer. The bulldozer saw her and ran over her. She ended up completely underneath it," fellow activist Joseph Smith told AFP. (AFP)

"Rachel had been staying in Palestinian homes threatened with illegal demolition, and today Rachel was standing with other non-violent international activists in front of a home scheduled for illegal demolition. According to witnesses, Rachel was run over twice by the Israeli military bulldozer in its process of demolishing the Palestinian home. Witnesses say that Rachel was clearly visible to the bulldozer driver, and was doing nothing to provoke an attack." (ISM Press release)

According to the ISM activist, Corrie was wearing a bright jacket and climbed onto the bulldozer shovel-plow and began shouting at the driver. "There's no way he didn't see her, since she was practically looking into the cabin. At one stage, he turned around toward the building. The bulldozer kept moving, and she slipped and fell off the plow. But the bulldozer kept moving, the shovel above her. I guess it was about 10 or 15 meters that it dragged her and for some reason didn't stop. We shouted like crazy to the driver through loudspeakers that he should stop, but he just kept going and didn't lift the shovel. Then it stopped and backed up. We ran to Rachel. She was still breathing." (HaAretz)

From ISM Media Coordinator Michael Shaikh in Beit Sahour:
"The confrontation between the ISM and the Israeli Army had been under way for two hours when Rachel was run over. Rachel and the other activists had clearly identified themselves as unarmed international peace activists throughout the confrontation. he Israeli Army are attempting to dishonour her memory by claiming that Rachel was killed accidentally when she ran in front of the bulldozer. Eye-witnesses to the murder insist that this is totally untrue. Rachel was sitting in the path of the bulldozer as it advanced towards her. When the bulldozer refused to stop or turn aside she climbed up onto the mound of dirt and rubble being gathered in front of it wearing a fluorescent jacket to look directly at the driver who kept on advancing. The bulldozer continued to advance so that she was pulled under the pile of dirt and rubble. After she had disappeared from view the driver kept advancing until the bulldozer was completely on top of her. The driver did not lift the bulldozer blade and so she was crushed beneath it. Then the driver backed off and the seven other ISM activists taking part in the action rushed to dig out her body. An ambulance rushed her to A-Najar hospital where she died." (ISM Press release)

So let’s get this straight. She was “clearly visible” to the bulldozer driver, although she was “sitting”, and at the same time “slipped and fell off the plow”. The ISM Media Coordinater says that eyewitnesses say that it is not true that she was sitting in front of the bulldozer, although Joseph Smith, an eyewitness, said she was. Joseph (or Joe) Smith later expanded on the story:

"[S]he 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. Then, without lifting the blade, he reversed and she was underneath the blade".

Smith, an eyewitness to Rachel’s death, seems to portray it as some sort of accident, while the ISM, officially, calls it a “murder”. Why? Does their hatred of Israel seem to run so deep that they are willing to negate the testimony of an eyewitness for their own purposes? Or is it a misunderstanding? A look into the history of Rachel Corrie and the ISM certainly leaves one to choose the former.

Indeed, let's get this straight. Except for a possible error in the HaAretz story about Rachel climbing the shovel-plow instead of climbing the pile of dirt that the plow was pushing, there are no genuine conflicts in the several quotes chosen by the Zionist webpage author. That is, there are no important conflicts at all: none that would exculpate the bulldozer driver, none that would lead anyone to believe that the murder was an accident. And the differences in the quotes are usually not even real conflicts, but are instead the result of including or omitting different details.

There is a difference between incompleteness and inaccuracy that the webpage's author is (deliberately) failing to observe. In the first of their ISM quotes, Joe Smith failed to mention that Rachel had gotten up from her sitting position to climb the mount of dirt that the bulldozer was pushing. That's an example of incomplete testimony. Someone cross-examining Mr. Smith would quickly get from him the fact that Rachel was not sitting right before she was run over, but had stood up on the pile of earth in order to look directly at the bulldozer driver. And then, as the dirt started to break up, Rachel fell under the bulldozer blade.

According to other testimony by Joe Smith, the ISM activists had been persuading Israeli army bulldozer drivers to turn away from homes they meant to destroy by sitting on the ground in front of them. Also, bulldozer drivers had, for several hours prior to Rachel's murder, been driving close to activists who were sitting on the ground, often coming close to them, but not ever quite hitting them. In plain language, the bulldozer drivers could usually see sitting activists. So this first alleged "conflict" in the ISM testimony—She was “clearly visible” to the bulldozer driver, although she was “sitting”—is not a conflict at all. It was only said to be a conflict by a Zionist while trying hard to raise doubts about an act whose nature is reasonably clear.

The webpage author misrepresented the last quote (also by Joe Smith) as some sort of admission that Rachel's death was an accident. On the contrary, Joe Smith in many other writings, is very clear about his belief that the killing was a deliberate murder.

"She [Rachel] got so high onto it [the mound of dirt] that she was at eye-level with the cab of the bulldozer. Her head and upper torso were above the bulldozer's blade, and the bulldozer driver and co-operator could clearly see her. Despite this, he continued forward, which pulled her legs into the pile of rubble, and pulled her down out of view of the driver." (Joe Smith)

We thought this might happen eventually. We often spoke in the abstract that eventually one of us would get killed, but we always figured they'd shoot us, or it'd be an "accident", like in a house that is missiled or a stray bullet gets an unlucky activist. I never dreamed it'd be like this, the intentional crushing of a human being. I do believe it was intentional. I saw it, and I know he saw her, I know he did, and I know he knew she was still under the bulldozer when it backed up without raising its blade. (Joe Smith)

Those quotes by Joseph Smith prove that the author of the webpage is merely another Zionist liar, trying to phony up doubts that aren't really there. As time goes on, these Zionist deceptions become ever more pedantic, ever more focused on emphasis and minor details, ever more prone to misdirect thought rather than simply to lie, and to use the old trick of claiming that their opponents (the ISM) are fully discredited by any slight omission in any recounting of their testimony.

The webpage goes on to relate an opinion by another Zionist:

As Tal. G notes, “So the ISM itself admits that Corrie deliberately jumped in front of the bulldozer, confident that it would stop because IDF bulldozers have always stopped in the past.” Quite ridiculous, isn’t it? Also, for a person who has just been “crushed” by a bull dozer, twice, she seems quite intact, and is even able to talk.

The above quoted words were printed beside the photo of Rachel, dying of trauma but not quite dead yet, bleeding from the mouth as her friends surround her and try to help her. This is the kind of hate the Jews have for all non-Jews, and we had better learn now that the Jews are the enemies of all the world's other peoples, whether White or Arab.

In "Tal G's" view, Rachel wasn't someone who was ready to sacrifice her own life to protect an oppressed people; rather, he believes that Rachel was a hooligan foolishly playing "chicken" with bulldozers. And the reason Rachel was able to say one final sentence (My back is broken) is that she was crushed twice by the lowered bulldozer blade, which was sufficient to wound her mortally. She was not crushed additionally by the bulldozer treads, which would at once have made a jelly of her body.

And, of course, the "flag burning" photo had to make an appearance.

Rachel Corrie, was a well-intentioned woman who sought the protection of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet looking at only one side of her and calling her a “peace activist” is not only irresponsible, but quite possibly untrue. These two photos show her burning a mock flag of the United States.

Burning a flag is a fairly common way of expressing dissent from a country's policies. Rachel Corrie burned a flag in protest of the indifference of the U.S. government to the harm that Israel inflicts on the Palestinian people. Were it not for almost unqualified U.S. support of Israel, the Jews would not be able to oppress the other peoples of the Middle East. Burning a U.S. flag might not have endeared Rachel to her fellow Americans, but it was consistent with her role as a peace activist protesting U.S. support for Israel, and one might presume that popularity wasn't her aim. In any event, the misuse of the "flag burning" photo by the Jew-controlled media as a means for demonizing a murder victim (and, by extension, exonerating the murderer) is another clear illustration of Jewish hatred against a gentile who got in their way.

The Zionist webpage concludes with these words:

Also, little has been said about who the house she was defending. HonestReporting notes that “The bulldozer was part of an operation to eliminate tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza.” Surely Rachel would have known this, as she was willing to “sit” in front of a bulldozer for them. Rachel’s death was a horrible accident, and, unless proven otherwise, will stay that way.

As has already been proved, "HonestReporting.com" is anything but honest. The bulldozer was not part of an operation to eliminate tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists. As Joseph Smith said,

They want to demolish it [Dr. Samir's house] because it happens to lie near the boarder, and they're systematically demolishing all the houses near the boarder. It has nothing to do with retaliatory or preventative operations. They were not searching for tunnels or bombs either. We know what this looks like, they do it alot. It involves armored drills and bomb dogs and shooting at the ground, none of which was present here. Its just a further example of the Israeli military's blatent lies. (Joseph Smith)

Rachel's death was a calculated murder. Twist the tale all they might, in as many media as they like, the Zionists will not cover up the truth this time.

Yet another pathetic attempt to mislead and deceive the public about Rachel's murder is shown on the page at

http://www.geocities.com/rachav/Rachel_Corrie_Propaganda.html

Under the pretense of exposing "false propaganda," this page spreads false propaganda. This is a very common Jewish deception technique. The web page begins with its principal lie:

"A false claim has been made that Rachel Corrie of Olympia, Washington, was 'murdered' by the Israelis."

The claim isn't false. It's true. Rachel Corrie was murdered by an Israeli soldier. There is some question as to whether the soldier acted on orders or out of personal anger, but there is no doubt about the murder itself.

The webpage fabricator then verbally "rolls up his sleeves" as if to get to work.

I am now going to address some of the false claims below. You will need to be very observant or you will do what many have done already, and miss the clues to the lies being told by the Palestinian and anti-Israel media. The original stories told by ISM were that Rachel was deliberately mowed down while standing with a megaphone in her hand at this site. The ISM story later changed as the facts were exposed.

The ISM story never "changed." Details varied, but that was because different witnesses saw the same event from different positions, and each had his own contribution to make. And some of the accounts were more complete than others. But incompleteness is not the same thing as inaccuracy, and supplementation is not the same thing as contradiction, however much the Zionists would like you to confuse them with each other.

Zionist allegations about a "changing" ISM story are false. At least, those allegations are false in the sense that changing means repairing a story that has been exposed as being partly a hoax. Changing the story in that way is something that the Zionists must frequently do. The ISM has done nothing of the kind.

At one time, the Zionists (at the deceptively-named "HonestReporting.Com") were admitting that the ISM never stated that Rachel Corrie was holding the megaphone when the Jewish bulldozer driver ran over her. This was an assumption made by various news agencies upon seeing photographs made the day of the murder. By the way, I made that assumption too. But, apparently, the Jews have decided to change their story again and accuse the ISM of making false statements about who was holding the megaphone when the murder took place.

Do you see how the Jews lie? As time goes on, as memory fades, the Jews begin using lies that they dared not use at first. They reverse themselves on their past recognitions of the merits of their opponents' account, claiming to find lies where they weren't claiming them earlier. This is one of the more insidious facts about organized liars: their power grows as the events in question recede from memory.

The ISM's "original story," insofar as the ISM really told it, has never changed, and I'm betting that it never will. The ISM said, originally, that the Israeli bulldozer driver deliberately ran over Rachel Corrie. They continue, right up to the present, in saying that same thing. The ISM did not say that Rachel was holding a megaphone when she was crushed.

The importance of the megaphone is, at any rate, greatly inflated by the Zionists who want you to believe that the bulldozer driver had no way to notice Rachel unless she had the megaphone. That is, the Zionists want to convince you that Rachel's death was an accident because Rachel did not have the megaphone, and, further, they want to make you believe that the ISM has, for that reason, an incentive to falsify their account and change their story.

The megaphone was not necessary in alerting the Jewish murderer to the presence of an ISM activist directly in his forward field of vision. Rachel was VISIBLE to the Jew driving the bulldozer. The driver could SEE her through his forward window. Thus, the ISM did not have an incentive to falsify their story, though this does not mean that they would have done so even if they had had such an incentive. ISM activists are far more honest than Zionist deceivers.

The webpage fabricator then displays a photo of a bulldozer about to push Rachel Corrie backwards into a fence, shoving her along with some dirt it had scraped up. (To be sure, however, the webpage fabricator does not say that this is what the bulldozer had been about to do. You learn that from the testimony of ISM witnesses.) This photo was taken some time before the murder, and the bulldozer in the picture might not be the one that killed her. The ISM never said that it was.

The webpage fabricator next displays two more pictures of Rachel Corrie in front of bulldozers. In the first of these pictures, she's holding the megaphone. In the second, Rachel has just been run over and is lying on the ground, dying from internal injuries. The ISM never claimed that the two pictures were taken at about the same time.

Some weeks ago, when "HonestReporting.Com" was telling its own lies, it did not go so far as to make the false accusation that the ISM had made such a claim. They merely accused the ISM of not doing enough to prevent others from drawing incorrect conclusions about who had the megaphone at the time of the murder. Now, however, things are different. Now it's OK to accuse the ISM falsely. Why is it OK? Because time has passed, and fewer people remember what the ISM said or did not say about those pictures.

Although the webpage fabricator clearly has over-emphasizing the importance of the megaphone as one of his purposes, he also seems to have at least one other: making his readers believe that the existence of more than one bulldozer in Rafah on the day of the murder proves that nobody can be certain about what happened. It's "all in the wind," the fabricator seems to be hinting, because the ISM isn't even sure which bulldozer killed Rachel.

Well, it's not all in the wind. The bulldozer in the lower picture is the one that killed Rachel. One of the ISM activists went over to this bulldozer shortly after Rachel had been crushed and wrote down its serial number. It is the Caterpillar D9 Bulldozer with number 949623. Furthermore, not only did the ISM not say that there was only one bulldozer in Rafah, they clearly said, early on, that there had been more than one bulldozer in Rafah on the day of the murder.

What we have here is the webpage fabricator's attempt to invent a contradiction upon the ISM out of nothing.

The fabricator next makes this statement:

Rachel Corrie was described as being seated on the ground, not standing when she was accidentally run over by the Bulldozer.

Described BY WHOM? It matters. The testimony of Joseph Smith and the other eyewitnesses present when the murder took place clearly proves that Rachel had been sitting while the bulldozer was still a distance away, shoveling dirt toward her, but that she stood up and climbed the mound of earth when it reached her. Just before she fell and was crushed, Rachel was head-and-chest above the bulldozer blade, staring its driver right in the eye.

After the bulldozer pulled back from Rachel's body, her friends ran over and dug her out of the dirt. One of them, perhaps Joseph Smith, ran over holding his camera to document Rachel's injuries. He fiddled with the camera for a bit, trying to get the best angle. As it happened, the camera was slightly slanted when the shutter snapped open, and because of the camera angle, the people in the photo were about 15 degrees canted to the left.

So it was a less than perfect picture. But what does this webpage fabricator take that to mean? They darkly hint that the photographer had thought of a dishonest reason for taking the photograph that way, no doubt in order to make the Israelis look bad. The way Smith was holding the camera "proves" that the ISM is full of Jew-haters who will say anything to blame the poor, innocent Jews.

As it happens, Joseph Smith took another photo of this group of activists. You can find it at the bottom of this page. This one is not slanted. Also, there seems to be wide, deep bulldozer treads on either side of them. I wonder what those treads might mean?

The webpage shows a picture of Rachel, injured and bleeding from the nose and mouth, and says:

Closeup of the injured Rachel Corrie. There are no obviously visible head/skull injuries yet the Palestinians claimed that she 'dead of massive head and chest injuries' Her clothing is intact.

Her friends are holding Corrie in this photo, despite the report I read of one witness saying that she claimed her back was broken.

Someone should tell this stupid Zionist that a person can be crushed, and her bones broken, by the weight of a bulldozer blade without having her clothes sliced to ribbons. A bulldozer blade is not a chainsaw. And what's this about no obviously visible head/skull injuries? She's bleeding profusely from her head. And after a crushing most of the bleeding is internal, from organ ruptures, concealed from view by skin and clothing. And the reason her friends elevated her head is because her brain injury was more directly threatening to her life than her broken back was; it was a medically sensible action to take.

The fabricator then shows us a letter from Brian Levitan, evidently yet another Jewish liar. Levitan states that the bulldozers were excavating tunnels, not primarily destroying houses. However, the ISM witnesses state that the reverse is true. Joe Smith, for example, said that the IDF does frequently look for tunnels, and that the ISM activists are familiar with the activities that go on when such a search is underway. Those activities weren't going on when the Jewish soldier killed Rachel with the bulldozer. Levitan has given false information.

So what was the bulldozer doing on the day of the murder? The Israelis had begun a major construction project to partition Gaza from Egypt with a high wall. In addition to the wall, they were clearing ground of obstructions within 100 meters, so that the Israelis would have a clear field of fire against any Arabs in this no-man's land. Any houses in that 100-meter strip were to be torn down, pursuant to this new Israeli policy. Dr. Samir's house was among the houses in that strip.

I can well believe that the Israelis "warned" the ISM peace activists not to interfere. When criminals can turn away their opposition with mere threats, they use threats. But the ISM was not intimidated, and Rachel gave her life in opposition to a Jewish tyranny.

The Zionists never will stop lying about Rachel Corrie. With time, they will become more brazen, as well as cleverer, with their lies, but liars they are and will remain. The Jews have killed one of our people. Their war against the Palestinians has become also a war against us.

Deceptions of the Zionists other than Lies.

A Zionist has complained that the "building" that Rachel was defending when the Jewish soldier killed her had been "sympathetically described as the 'home' of a 'doctor'." WHICH is exactly what it was! Jews do tend to put a bad smell on the truth when it isn't what they want others to hear.

One Zionist tried to blame Rachel for her own death by saying, "She willingly involved herself; you don't sit in front of bulldozers." That gets the moral cart before the horse. Bulldozer drivers should not run their bulldozers over people, not even when someone is standing in front of a house they want to demolish and refuses to move. Impatience is not an excuse for murder.

Another Zionist attempted to use the alleged lack of an Israeli building permit for Dr. Samir's home as a justification for doing whatever was necessary, including killing a peace activist, in order to demolish it. A failure to secure a building permit is not a warrant for murder. It is also not true that a Palestinian home should be required to have an Israeli building permit. Most of these houses are older than Israel is, and so the Israelis would not have been able to issue permits for their construction, even if we might suppose that they would be so inclined. (The incursions of the bulldozers mean something, I think.)

One thing that often doesn't get mentioned, but certainly should be, is that Israel's occupation of Gaza (and West Bank) is not a just cause. It's illegal and a violation of the same kind of UN resolutions that the United States used as justification to make war on Iraq.

Israel's occupation of these Palestinian lands is not a reaction to Palestinian terrorism, it is the provocation for Palestinian terrorist reprisals. Aside from the obvious fact that the land belongs to the Palestinians, with the Israelis being VERY heavily armed trespassers, there's the additional fact that the IDF targets nearly any Palestinian with impunity. Israeli soldiers have killed young Arab children, pregnant Arab women, medical personnel, old people...

Far from having an above-average human rights record, the IDF has the most brutal record since the Soviet NKVD (which, by the way, was also mostly Jewish). Further, the establishment of the Jewish state can be compared to bandits invading a farm, tying up the farmer and tossing him into a truck headed for the city dump, while the bandits steal his money, raid the refrigerator, burn the crops, poison the livestock, dynamite the barn, and bulldoze the house down. Any Christian fundamentalist who approves of what the Israelis did to the Palestinians should suffer the same fate as the Palestinians, so that he may learn some morals.

Most of the time, the Israeli argument for demolishing Palestinian homes is merely a false pretext. However, it is a pretext that the Jews find very convenient. Israel's aim is not merely to get rid of the Palestinian fighters. Israel's aim is to get rid of all the Palestinians, as quickly as it dares to do so while the world is watching. All the talk about Palestinian autonomy was bogus from the start: Israel never had any intentions to permit it. Israel's killings and demolitions in the occupied territories are essentially state terrorism, papered over by the pretext of fighting terrorism.

What I'm getting at is that the presumption of legitimacy for the Israeli military presence in Gaza is a false presumption, a kind of deception in the form of a tacit prefix to further Zionist deceptions.

The Official Lie about Rachel's Murder by the State of Israel.

The Israeli government concluded its investigation of Rachel's death on 14 April 2003. Led by the chief of the general staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, the investigation found that Israeli forces were not guilty of any misconduct. It simultaneously accused Rachel Corrie and other members of the International Solidarity Movement of "illegal, irresponsible and dangerous" behavior.

The army report claimed Rachel “was struck as she stood behind a mound of earth that was created by an engineering vehicle operating in the area and she was hidden from the view of the vehicle's operator who continued with his work. Corrie was struck by dirt and a slab of concrete resulting in her death.”

You knew it would be like this. And why shouldn't Israel lie? They have a traitor US president covering for them in America, who can be counted on to approve of whatever the Israelis want approved, no matter how false, how murderous, or how fraudulent. The Bush Administration, by endorsing the Israeli "findings," has become an accessory to Rachel's murder.

What I am certain of, however, is that Rachel was not hidden behind a mound of earth immediately before the bulldozer driver ran over her. According to the witnesses, she had climbed to the top of the mound of earth that the bulldozer began pushing. Until she fell, her head and upper body were visible to the bulldozer driver through his forward window—impossible to miss. The IDF report lied about the geometrical relationship between the bulldozer, Rachel, and the mound of earth at the time she was killed.

Further, the IDF report lied about what crushed Rachel so badly as to cause her to die. It wasn't a "slab of concrete." It was the bulldozer's lowered front blade, which scraped over her body twice.

The Stranger
World Socialist Website
The Guardian

Thus, the Jew of all times has lived in the states of other peoples, and there formed his own state, which, to be sure, habitually sailed under the disguise of 'religious community' as long as outward circumstances made a complete revelation of his nature seem inadvisable. But as soon as he felt strong enough to do without the protective cloak, he always dropped the veil and suddenly became what so many of the others previously did not want to believe and see: the Jew.

The Jew's life as a parasite in the body of other nations and states explains a characteristic which once caused Schopenhauer, as has already been mentioned, to call him the 'great master in lying.' Existence impels the Jew to lies and to lie perpetually, just as it compels the inhabitants of the northern countries to wear warm clothing.

—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 11.

We can't say that we weren't warned, can we?

News Media Articles about Rachel Corrie's Murder.

The Guardian

World Socialist Web Site

electronicintifada.com (1248)
electronicintifada.com (1263)
electronicintifada.com (1284)

Miftah.org (IDF throwing tear gas at Rachel's funeral)
The Guardian (version of same story)

deism.com

Rachel Corrie Memorial Website

Truth from a guest editorial in the Rocky Mountain News

A story heavily larded with lies from The Jewish Bulletin.

Here is one of the Zionists' slander-Rachel pages:
Shark Blog

Photographic Documentation.

The intimidating first encounter. Jew pushes Rachel back to fence.	As the bulldozer approaches, the Israeli Jew can see Rachel.	The Jew drives over her anyway. Then reverses and does it again!
Palestinians carry mock coffin draped in American flag for Rachel Corrie. Jewish soldiers threw tear gas and fired on the ceremony, killing one Palestinian.

My gratitude to the Palestinians who did honor to my fellow American.

Rachel Corrie, hail and farewell.

Whose side does President Bush take?

“Every time we do something, you [Shimon Peres] tell me America will do this and will do that... I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” —Ariel Sharon

"Washington condemned Corrie’s 'tragic' death and demanded an immediate, full Israeli probe into her slaying." —from the Press

The word "Israeli" makes a joke out of the words "immediate" and "full." Think about it. Iraq has to let UN inspectors in again and again, permitting them access everywhere and to everything, or else the U.S. government will send bombers and cruise missiles and maybe invade them too. But our president trusts Israel, on the other hand, to "investigate" itself. Don't you think that America would probably be better off without a fool giving the orders to the Armed Forces?

Other Peace Activists Attacked by Israelis Since Rachel Corrie's Murder.

Thomas Hurndall, age 21, of Manchester, England. ISM peace activist in Rafah, Gaza. On 11 April 2003, in the presence of a group of ten ISM activists, Israeli soldiers opened fire with tank-mounted machineguns, shooting over the heads of some Palestinian children playing on a mound of dirt nearby, endangering the children as warning or intimidation to the ISM. It was as though to say, "If you bother us, we will kill these children." Hurndall carried a small Palestinian boy away from the threatened area, and then he returned to rescue two little girls. According to witnesses, including a photographer from the Associated Press, an Israeli sniper deliberately targeted Hurndall, who was wearing a bright red fluorescent jacket, as he was trying to carry the girls to safety. Thomas Hurndall has never regained consciousness since the Jewish sniper shot him. Read about it here, here, here, and here.

There was one boy, however, that Tab [Tom Hurndall] noticed was too frightened to move. Instinctually, he quickly removed him from the area, as he observed shots land around the small and fragile innocent. After successfully evacuating him, he was about to leave when he noticed two small girls down in front of the roadblock, right in the line of fire.

He was going to help them escape when the Israeli soldier in the tower took his aim, and fired a large calibre sniper bullet directly into Tab's head. He was in full view of the tower, and like Laura was wearing the high visibility gear. Our embassies had been informed of our presence in the area, and they had informed the Israeli military.

They knew who he was, they knew what he was, and they knew what he was doing. They knew that he was no threat to their physical safety, but they likely understood the international attention his presence was attracting, and knew how our human shield work had prevented them from adequately terrorizing the Palestinian civilians and demolishing their homes.

In this way, he was a "threat" to them, a threat to the image of Israel it portrays to the world. He was a threat to the validity of the occupation, and a threat to their unquestioned notion of these people as nothing but inhuman terrorists. The sniper couldn't tolerate this kind of challenge, and took lethal measures to end it. We'll only have to see how such an act will backfire.

—Joe Smith

Tom Hurndall, shot by a Jewish sniper while trying to save Palestinian children from Israeli machinegun fire. Tony Blair might as well say: "The United Kingdom praises Israel's sagicity in shooting this Englishman." George Bush says with his actions: "America must reward Israel with more foreign aid for its superb choice of targets."

Bryan Avery, age 24, of Alburquerque, NM, United States. ISM peace activist in Jenin, West Bank. On 5 April 2003, while acting as a human shield, Avery was shot in the head by IDF troops in an armored personnel carrier. He had been wearing an orange vest that marked him as an international worker. Following the shooting, the Israelis lied by saying that Avery had come between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen, with whom they were in battle, or that he was accidentally hit by a ricochet bullet. The heavily Jew-influenced media picked up these lies and parrotted them uncritically. However, there were no Palestinian gunmen, and Mr. Avery was deliberately shot in cold blood. Read about it here and here.

Note: Like Rachel Corrie, Bryan Avery is on record as expressing a belief that the Jewish Israelis would not intentionally murder an American. These leftists are wrong; the Jews hate Americans even though they use the US government to bilk away American tax money. Now that they understand that the US government is treasonous enough to give them money even though they kill Americans, the protected status of Western peace activists seems to be at an end.

An Israeli soldier shot a journalist (Nazih Darwazeh) on 19 April 2003. Read about it here.

In 2002, Israeli soldiers shot and killed Raffaele Ciriello, an Italian journalist. The Israeli government routinely whitewashes (automatically excuses and falsely justifies) the murders committed by its soldiers.

Also, Israel has stepped up its murdering of Palestinian civilians in West Bank and Gaza. Some of the links will give the numbers and details.

A point that needs to be made. Tom Dale, one of the ISM activists, has expressed concern that the murders and injuries of ISM peace activists may become matters of routine, much as those of the Palestinians already are "a predictable news bulletin from a violent region." Ho hum. And now back to the football game. Dale said, "This is what it is like for Palestinians. No one cares anymore. And it's now moving that way for internationals."

It needn't be that way. And the only reason it IS that way is the U.S. President and nearly everybody in Congress are traitors to the Americans. They have betrayed their own people because the Jews control the media and use them to shape public opinion in America. These traitors in our government are betting that Americans don't care enough about treason to get nasty about punishing it. And, mostly, they're right: too much comfort, too much money, and too much multicultural brainwashing have made most Americans into apathetic fools.

One day, some of these fools will find themselves unjustly thrown into prison, or threatened by the US government's terroristic "counter-terrorism" thugs, at which moment they will expect the whole world to stop watching TV and help them. Suddenly, the injustice and the danger isn't on TV anymore—it's happening to them. Suddenly, state terrorism is REAL—because it's happening to them. What had seemed like an intriguing conversation topic will then look like the deadly menace that it always was, and definitely like nothing to make sport over.

However, they will not deserve help—because they didn't fight for the others who were victimized before them. They will not get help—because those yet to be victimized won't see why they should get involved. The nation that wouldn't hang together, will hang separately. And perhaps the worst of the Americans are those who will find refuge in a solemnly expressed agreement with my words here: the head-nodders, the "that's right"ers, the immoral sluggards who want to appear both moral and wise but who are too lazy to do more than nod their heads and then try to change the subject.

Anyone who wants things to change must first take the media away from the Jews. That is the key. There is no other key. Destroy the Jewish stranglehold on the mass media, and then many good things will become possible. Fail to do so, however, and nothing will ever change. ISM activists will die for nothing.

One thing we must understand is this: it is not possible to "embarrass" Jews into being nice people by exposing the viciousness of their behavior. Jews are not Whites. Jews only understand credible threats of overwhelming force, they fear only being overtaken at long last by utter disaster. If they see no such danger, they will go right on killing whoever they want to kill, and they'll just laugh at anybody who tries to shame them with the evidence of their crimes.

Other Incidents about which Jews have Lied.

Israel said their 75-minute attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967 was a "mistake." It was, in fact, an act of war that should have been answered as such.

Israel said that their 1996 artillery attack on a UN refugee camp, which killed 100 civilians, was an "accident."

Israel said that their rocket attack on an ambulance full of children in southern lebanon was a "mistake."

Israel says that the many Palestinian children that their soldiers have been killing were "accidents."

A Theory about Why Jews are so Murderous.

If Rachel Corrie had been a Palestinian woman, Israeli soldiers and snipers would have shot her, her friends, the ambulance driver and anyone else who tried to rescue her. Israeli soldiers...have done this countless times before. Because Rachel was an American, however, and the Israeli government wanted it to look like an accident, the ever-present snipers were ordered to hold their fire. This allowed the Palestinians to rush her to Al-Najjar hospital in Rafah. But her fragile body was so badly broken, with skull and chest fractures and internal hemorrhaging, that the doctors could not save her. Afterwards, when her Palestinian friends gathered to mourn her death, sadistic Israeli snipers opened fire on the crowd, murdering one of them. No Westerners were there to be witnesses, so it was back to standard operating procedure... —from the Web

White people have a habit of thinking that other races are more or less like ourselves. We think that what would inspire us, inspires them; that what would shame us, shames them. However, that is not always true. The Jews are not ashamed of the killing that they do. They don't regard it as being unfortunately necessary. They enjoy it. Causing death is kind of a sexual thing with Jews. The IDF soldier who drove the bulldozer was getting a very big thrill from knowing that he was killing a White girl. It was the high point of his week, and the memory of it will warm his dreams for years to come.

For the same reason, Jews simply can't stop themselves from taking shots at Arab children when they get the chance: the temptation to "get off" by using the rifle is too much for them to resist. This is also the motivation for the massacres in Sabra and Chatilla, and likewise for the Israeli helicopter gunship attack on an ambulance full of children in southern Lebanon in April 1996, not to mention their 2002 slaughter of a Palestinian boy (12-year-old Muhammad al-Durra) as he crouched by a wall next to his father. Jewish abortion doctors working in America are getting paid in ways other than money.

And the more helpless their victims are, the bigger the thrill is. To understand that is to understand much of what Jews do. Adolf Hitler, describing Jewish malevolence in Mein Kampf, was guilty only of understatement. The Jews are (by and large, with possible exceptions) a race of psychopathic perverts who have gotten all the officials of the U.S. Government afraid of them. That's the situation. What will we do about it?

Will Lefties Ever Learn?

A week after history gripped the gentile leftists and made them face the facts, they have again managed to go heading off in the wrong direction. They've evaded the first-order lesson that the death of Rachel and the deaths of all those Palestinians should have taught them (i.e., Jews are dangerous to others) because acknowledging that lesson would be antisemitic, or, more exactly, anti-Jewish.

Instead, the gentile left has fastened its attention on a second-order lesson, or what it thinks is a "lesson," namely that Whites are the beneficiaries of Israeli racism. The lefties think that they should feel guilty because they are usually spared from being targeted by Israeli killers in Palestine on account of their race. But even if this were correct (it is not), it would be a matter of only secondary importance. Who should care, or feel guilty, about being White, seldom shot at or run over by bulldozers, when the point is that the Israelis hate Palestinians, who are frequently shot at and run over by bulldozers. Of what help to the Palestinians would such guilt be? None. If the Israelis loved White gentiles the thing to do would not be to lament the safety that being White brings, but to make use of it!

However, this is the wrong way to assess Israel's hesitation to kill White people. The Jews who hate the Palestinians also hate us. Yes, they do. Their religion teaches "The best of the gentiles, kill him," and they observe this injunction to hate all non-Jews most faithfully. The reason for the hesitation is purely political. America and Europe sustain Israel with lots of money. If Israel makes it a habit of shooting and crushing Americans and Europeans, they may possibly endanger some of their free foreign aid loot. The ISM makes use of an Israeli bias while being wrong about its nature or why it works.

Israel can only be stopped by being strangled. If the money is cut off, it will not last long. Israel might kill many Palestinians first, and it might drop some nukes on Damascus, Cairo and Baghdad. (Israel's military power should never have been allowed to grow, but it cannot now be wished away.) However, in the long run the Arabs would swarm over Israel and defeat it. The surviving Palestinians would be either absorbed into the populations of their Arabic kinfolk, or they would be given their own independent state in the place where Israel had been. And that really is the right way to handle the present mess.

A "Discussion" with Zionists.

In this section, I present a discussion that is typical of the debate between the Zionst obfuscators and those who defend the memory of Rachel Corrie. (Copied from NEWS UK.) I am posting this here to be a reminder to the world of the kind of hatred that the Jews can put forth against those who oppose their aggression.

(Jenab, original post)

This subject is covered in more detail on my page at
http://www.geocities.com/jabpagec/posts/corrie.html

For a long time, Israel has been brazenly ignoring UN Resolutions calling for it to withdraw from the Palestinian occupied territories. I wonder what Lord Balfour would have thought of this behavior? But anyway, the ambition of the Jews is, as it has been all along, to get all the land in the Palestine region for themselves and to clear away the indiginous Arab people.

Although Israel has been contemptuous of Palestinian lives, even to the point of using their children for target practice, it has been a common belief that the Jews would not dare to kill Westerners so casually. Accordingly, peace activists from Europe and from America have gone to Israel hoping to shield the Palestinian people from bullets and to shield their homes from Israeli demolition squads.

But on 16 March 2003, push came to shove. An American activist, Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old college student from Olympia, Washington, faced off against a Jewish soldier driving an armored bulldozer. The assumption that Western lives were untouchable broke down as the Jew used the bulldozer blade to knock the girl down, after which he drove over her body, following which he put the machine into reverse and drove over her again, and when Rachel emerged from under the bulldozer for the second time, the driver made certain that the blade scraped her body.

Rachel's "international" friends (three of them from Britain) surrounded her immediately. At that point, Rachel was dying, but was not yet quite dead. She was taken to a Palestinian hospital in the Rafah refugee camp, where she died. But the Jews were not finished with Rachel. At the funeral given her by the Palestinians, and attended mostly by them, soldiers from the Israeli army showed up and threw tear gas canisters and concussion grenades at the grieving assembly.

It is not every day that you see a group of Arabs carrying a coffin draped in the American flag. My gratitude to the Palestinians who did honor to my fellow American.

Rachel Corrie, hail and farewell.

I am convinced that the United States and England are backing the wrong side, and that we always have been. We've been backing the wrong sides in a number of earlier wars, too, not merely this one. Wisdom may have come a little late to Mr. Churchill, and it might have taken a few glasses of wine to get it out of him, but come it did: "We killed the wrong pig." It came somewhat more easily to Arnold S. Leese, though he spent several nights in the can for the sharing of his own revelations.

If there is anything worse than having been long mistaken, it is continued persistence in a recognized error. Let us, therefore, abandon our allegiance to leaders who lead us in wrong directions. And let us do it while England remains English and while America can yet be made America once more.

No more support for Israel. America, England, Australia, Russia, Ukraine, and all of Europe are for the White people. For keeps. Forever.

---

(Effu)

Rachel was a silly, silly girl

Why wasn't she out collecting money for starving people instead of protecting a house where terrorists gather??

Because she was a silly, silly girl.

---

(Jenab)

The house that the Jewish soldier was trying to destroy belonged to Dr. Samir Nasrallah, a Palestinian physician. I suppose that others of her political persuasion were indeed gathering food for the poor. But some of them choose to protect the lives and homes of the innocent victims of Zionist aggression. Rachel wasn't defending any terrorists.

Further, Israel uses the occasional act of terrorism by Arabs as a pretext for massive and more-or-less continuous state terrorism. Whatever the Jews might say about it, the bulldozer was aggression, not defense.

I have watched Israel's international propaganda machine ramp up the misdirection and disinformation that it believes will deflect blame from the Israeli army toward the peace activists. For once, it doesn't seem to be working. The issue isn't going away, and most of those with whom I've spoken agree that Israel would have been better off admitting guilt and offering to make amends, rather than attempt to blame the victim. Jews will be Jews, I suppose.

---

(Doodles)

What is the big hurry all of a sudden? Big hurry to go to war with Iraq... Big hurry to bulldoze a house when all the Jewish bulldozer operator had to do was wait for Rachel to take a bathroom break....

Not a good excuse

---

(Jenab)

That would not work. Another peace activist would take her place while she was taking a break.

---

(Effu)

Who said a Doctor lived there???

That house was inhabited by terrorists according to a few stories I read.

It also had NO BUILDING PERMIT.

Was your house built with a permit????

Mine was.

The Palestinians have been there for 55 years and couldn't find the time to get a building permit?

Yeah right!!

---

(Jenab)

The "permit" argument goes back to the original establishment of Israel.

The Jews did not ask permission to seize any of the land owned by Palestinians in 1948. They just picked up some guns and took it, driving away the Arab owners, and killing any Arabs who did not run fast enough.

The "permit" argument is fallacious because Israel is a bandit state.

I quote from Effu's post: "The Palestinians have been there for 55 years and couldn't find the time to get a building permit? Yeah right!!"

The Palestinians have been "there" for considerably longer than 55 years. It is Israel that has been "there" for merely that much time. The Arab's house that are being destroyed are often older than Israel itself is, and so, of course, Israel would not have had the opportunity to grant 'permits' for their construction, even if it had been so inclined.

The stories that Effu might have read about the house being occupied by terrorists are lies. Just like the story about Rachel "running" into the bulldozer's path was a lie, and just like the story about the bulldozer driver not being able to see Rachel was a lie.

The aim of the Jews is, and has always been, the theft of all Palestinian lands. Any talk of 'peace' by the Israeli government is, and has always been, pure misdirection.

[I didn't think to point it out, but Effu was trying to use the argument that Rachel's murder was justified because the house that she was standing in front of lacked (according to him) a BUILDING PERMIT. If case their argument about terrorists hiding somewhere in Dr. Nasrallah's bedroom doesn't work, hey, no problem, they'll just trot out the argument about "building permits." The Zionists are scraping the bottom of their barrel of tricks.]

---

(Catalyst V2)

Why is there any surprise that the girl was injured by the bulldozer ?

Why didn't the stupid woman get out of the way ?

---

(Jenab)

Although Israel has been contemptuous of Arab lives for a long time, it has been the assumption that Israel would not dare kill Westerners so brazenly.

Accordingly, volunteer peace activists have come from America and from Europe to protect the people in Palestine from Israeli aggression.

That is what peace activists do. They shield other people and other people's property from harm. Unless peace activists are committed enough to die for their principles—that is, if they run when their opponents threaten them—they will quickly lose credibility and be held in complete contempt. Rachel knew that it was necessary for her to die. She could have run, but she knew why she must not run.

It is strange to see such determination to make light of someone's courage in facing death. Of course, when I say "strange" I am speaking tongue-in-cheek. Actually, it's nearly as disgusting, and reprehensible, to take this attitude as it was for the IDF to toss tear gas and concussion grenades into Rachel's funeral.

---

(Catalyst V2)

Her death is a needless, quickly forgotten tragedy that she could have avoided. There was no point in her actions, and no lasting point has been made. What a sad waste.

---

(Jenab)

I have already answered this.

Rachel Corrie was a principled young woman. She had the courage necessary to die for those principles. Certainly, she "could" have avoided death, simply by taking a few steps to one side. But she knew that it would discredit the peace activism that she valued more highly than her own life.

Her death wasn't a "waste" in the sense that she died in vain. However, it was a murder, and it should be treated as such.

---

(Catalyst V2)

a) What Bollocks
b) Who Cares ?

---

(Catalyst V2)

And I have already concluded that you're talking crap.

Who in their right mind would stand in front of a bulldozer, for God's sake.

How can it be murder if she could have got out of the way ?

I can only conclude she valued her life, and therefore her principles, very cheaply indeed.

What a waste.

---

(Jenab, answering Catalyst's post above line by line.)

And I have concluded that you don't mind defaming the dead when it suits your political agenda.

Someone who valued the human rights of others more highly than she valued her own life. Defaming Rachel as you do is the same as defaming any martyr for a good cause.

Because the moral obligation of the bulldozer driver is to avoid killing, even if his job is to demolish a building. Impatience is no excuse for murder.

You conclusion is contrived, brewed in malice and steeped in error.

No, indeed. Rachel did not die in vain. Israel's international propaganda machine won't be able to fool the world this time.

A Call to the Liberals for a Joint Stand against Zionism.

I call on all honest liberals, especially gentile liberals, who recognize that Israel is the aggressor in the Middle East, to join with those of us on the other side of the political spectrum on this one issue on which we both agree. Israel has killed one of your number, and it has killed people on our side in the past too. It's past time that we all recognized Zionism for the danger that it is to all the world's other peoples.

It is not necessary to "hate Jews" in order to understand that Jews are not worth nearly as much as all of this world's other peoples combined, and that since the Jews act in such a way as to make the choice necessary, the gentiles cannot be blamed for coalescing against them. We need not enjoy killing, as they do. We only need to kick the economic props out from under the Jewish military machine, and the peoples that Israel currently oppress will take care of the rest.

Let the American Left and the American Right converge in opposition to Zionist aggression. Let US and European support for these killers come to an abrupt end. Be aware of the crypto-Zionist infiltrators who will try to refocus our agenda to their own benefit.

Governments seldom do the right thing simply because it is the right thing. If the US and British governments had been so virtuous, Israel would not exist and neither would these problems. If we are to change our government's policy from pro-Israel to pro-America (or to pro-British in Britain, pro-French in France, pro-German in Germany, etc.), we're going to have to figure out how to put more pressure on our governments than the Jews can.

But until Americans do that, the U.S. government will continue to obey the Zionist media bosses in making its policies and in making its wars. And it will excuse or ignore this and future crimes by Israel against the American people.

"If they kill us there, then why should we not kill them here?"

Jerry's Posts Index Page
Jerry's Aryan Battle Page