Today, Haifa District Court handed down a magnificent ruling for the death of Cindy Corrie. For those who do not know this person, she was a Leftist Wack Job who lost her life protecting the homes of the families of the terrorists who conducted suicide bombing inside Israel killing women and children. This sorry excuse for humanity was trying to protect their houses. The details of the accident vary from one side to another. She turned into a poster child for the Leftist wackos and I remember seeing her dumb picture all over Berkeley when I was in under-grad. She turned into symbol for all the Anti-Semites and Anti-Israeli campaign for accusing IDF of killing Americans. These same groups have turned a complete blind eye to all the civilians who were being murdered on weekly basis in Israel.
The legal battle quickly ensued from the family inside Israel and in the U.S. As I mentioned above, Haifa District Court handed a ruling denying the Plaintiff MONETARY Damages. The court nailed it in their beliefs as to why it was denied. The Court explained,
Judge Oded Gershon called Corrie's death a "regrettable accident", but said the state was not responsible because the incident had occurred during what he termed a war-time situation. Asserting that Corrie could have avoided danger, Gershon dismissed claims that the IDF was negligent in the incident and denied the family's suit for damages. The IDF did not violate Corrie's right to life, he said, asserting that she consciously inserted herself into a dangerous situation.
The judge basically classified it as a “regrettable” accident. I would like to call it a “self-inflicted” accident. Since the Corrie family was suing for monetary damages, the claim they were asserting is “Negligent” and “Wrongful Death” in Torts. The first thing any 1st year law student will learn in Torts when it comes to “Negligent” is the “But For” concept. To put it in a simple format, the trier of the fact (the Jury or the Judge depending on the type of the trial) should ask this simple question: “But for Defendant’s negligent act, would the Plaintiff have suffered the damages?” After asking this question, another element to this rule is whether there are any affirmative defenses and one of the major defenses that would destroy any “negligent case” is “did the Plaintiff commit act to worsen the damages or cause the damages” and “did the Plaintiff conducted acts that assumed the risks of being physically hurt.”
Here, Cindy Corrie entered a war zone during the time that Israeli buses were blowing up in weekly basis. Israel was conducting military operation and preventive acts to ensure its citizens rights to live. Ms. Corrie was trying to defend the terrorists and their houses. Israel was simply trying to establish a concept that if you blow yourself up and kill Israeli citizens, instead of getting $50K and all sorts of rewards from the terrorist supporting groups and countries, you will lose your house. Ms. Corrie was simply trying to prevent Israel to defend its citizens. She entered a closed military zone, put herself in danger and then as a result, she ended up being sent to hell. Ms. Corrie availed herself to danger despite all the warnings from the IDF. There is no Negligent in here from IDF. Corrie is the responsible person for this death and her family should not be blaming Israel for it.
In conclusion, when you are trying to defend terrorists at wartime, it is likely that you will lose your life. I am sorry but far too many American Rachels have been killed in Israel as the result of these terrorists’ attacks. Here are the lists of the Rachels that have been killed in Israel as the result of the terrorists that Rachel Corrie was defending:
Rachel Teller, blown up in a shopping mall; Rachel Levy, blown up in a grocery store; Rachel Levi, shot while waiting for the bus; Rachel Gavish, killed with her husband, son and father while celebrating a Passover meal; Rachel Shabo, murdered with her three sons aged 5, 13 and 16 while at home.
Israel has the obligation to ensure its citizens right to live and they need to enforce policies that would prevent and deter terrorists attacks. Ms. Corrie did not have any standing to get involved in this conflict. It was not her house that was being destroyed and it did not involve her family. If Ms. Corrie did not agree with that policy, it is up to her and if she wants to take actions against it, she is assuming the risk of getting physically hurt in a military operation. Standing in front of a Bulldozer is a very stupid thing to do in a military Zone especially when the driver does not have a clear view of you. However, without entering into the details of the case, Ms. Corrie got what she deserved and her family does not even deserve a dime. Corrie was a Leftist Wack-Job and a terrorist-apologist who was defending terrorists and their activities in murdering of Israeli civilians. When you defend murderers when they kill women and children, maybe you do deserve the same faith of those women and children. Stupidity during a time that Israeli civilians were being murdered is not a claim for damages.