|
Trending Topics
|
Summary of the Verdict: Estate of Rachel Corrie v. The State of Israel
(Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs) Judge Oded Gershon - During the relevant period of time, the "Philadelphi Corridor" was the site of daily warfare, i.e., daily gunfire by snipers, missile fire and IED explosions directed at the IDF forces, events which led to the injury and death of many Israelis. There was a military directive in force declaring the "Philadelphi Corridor" a "closed military area" and forbidding the entry of civilians. Less than one hour before the incident, a hand-grenade was thrown at the IDF forces. Rachel Corrie was an activist in the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), whose activists "specialized" in sabotaging the IDF's operational actions. ISM activities included stationing activists to serve as "human shields" for terrorists wanted by Israeli security forces; financial, logistical and moral assistance to Palestinians, including terrorists and their families; interrupting demolition activities or the sealing off of houses belonging to terrorists who conducted suicide attacks with multiple casualties. The two bulldozers and the armored personnel carrier were occupied with the clear military operational task of clearing the land in a dangerous area which posed a significant risk. The force's action was designed to eliminate the danger of terrorists hiding and to expose hidden explosive devices, both of which were intended to kill IDF soldiers. The act of clearing the land was "a war-related action." The decedent was behind the bulldozer's blade and behind a pile of dirt and therefore the bulldozer's operator could not have seen her. The bulldozer moved very slowly, at a speed of one kilometer per hour. When the decedent saw the pile of dirt moving towards her, she did not move, as any reasonable person would have. She began to climb the pile of dirt. Therefore, the decedent was trapped in the pile of dirt and fell. The decedent could have distanced herself from any danger without any difficulty. However, she chose to take the risk described above, and that eventually led to her death. There is no foundation to the plaintiffs' claim that the bulldozer struck the decedent intentionally. This was a very unfortunate accident and was not intentional. No one wished to harm the decedent. I was convinced that the bulldozer's operator would not have continued to work if he had seen the decedent standing in front of the bulldozer, as he and his colleagues acted in similar circumstances earlier that day, when they moved from location to location because of the disturbances caused by the members of the ISM. Because the decedent was accidentally killed in the framework of a "war-related activity," the State bears no responsibility for the damages inflicted on the plaintiffs resulting from a war-related action. Because of the circumstance surrounding the decedent's death, I will not make the plaintiffs' pay the legal expenses and each side will bear its own costs.