The Israeli Defense Forces were not held accountable. But, the parents of Rachel Corrie this week, are actually having their day in court. They are currently in Haifa, Israel for the civil case involving the death of their daughter.
Cindy and Craig Corrie — two courageous parents who are trying to find justice in a nation that routinely destroys the homes of Palestinian people in its ever-broadening claim of the tiny amount of remaining Palestinian land —speak out.
 
In January of 2003, Rachel went first to the West Bank for training with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). It was a Palestinian-led, nonviolent resistance movement to oppose the occupation and what was happening to Palestinians at the time. That movement was founded because there was a resolution in the United Nations, submitted by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, to have a human rights monitoring force in the area after the start of the second intifada, when there was so much killing and violence. And that resolution was vetoed by the United States and by Israel. And at that point, ISM was formed.
Some of the co-founders included an Israeli woman, Neta Golan; Americans, Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf; a Palestinian academic, Ghassan Andoni; and others. And Rachel joined that effort. She was trained in Beit Sahour. She had prepared here before she left. She was studying Arabic. She had done a lot of education, and she was beginning to educate our family, because we were new to this issue.
She chose to go to Gaza, to Rafah particularly, because she felt that it was maybe the most forsaken part of the Occupied Territories. It was where she felt her focus and attention was needed. She was there for about seven weeks. She was working, doing a lot of things during the time. Part of what she was doing was writing back and informing us about what she was seeing. And her words have since been incorporated into a play, and her writing from there is in a book of her work called “Let Me Stand Alone,” published by Norton some years ago. But the play, “My Name is Rachel Corrie,” is still being seen around the world. Craig and I, just before we came to New York, saw a reading of it in Tacoma, Washington. We went to a performance in Reykjavik, Iceland last year. So it just keeps moving around the world.
But she was working with children and with women’s groups. One of the women in Gaza, when we visited there in 2003, was so happy to show me a note that Rachel had left for her on International Women's Day. She wanted to connect women in Rafah with women near our community in Olympia. And so, she wanted to start a sister city project between Rafah and Olympia, which people in our community have supported since that time.
One of the things that she did was to oppose home demolitions, along with the other internationals who were there at the time to support Palestinians. Human Rights Watch reported that between September 2000 and 2004 over 1,700 homes in Rafah were destroyed. It was mass clearing demolitions, is what the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions tells us. These were not punitive demolitions. Those were occurring in the West Bank for people who were accused of doing some harm to the Israeli citizens through suicide bombings or some other way. But these were clearing demolitions. And the neighborhood where Rachel was staying, it had been a neighborhood with many, many homes at one point. But these were being massively destroyed to clear a buffer zone and to put in a large steel wall, that now largely has come down. But it was standing and was being built at the time we were there in 2003.
The home that Rachel stood in front of that day had two families in it — two brothers, an accountant and a pharmacist, and their five young children. Craig and I have come to know that family. We visit them whenever we go. We have communications with them. Part of the family came to the United States. The Israeli government had nothing against this family. They allowed them to go to Tel Aviv in order to get their visa to come to the United States to travel with us in the year 2005. And yet, their home was destroyed without any, you know, accommodation of any sort and under great threat to the family, as well. It didn't happen the day Rachel stood there; it happened later that year.
 
So, Rachel standing there that day, what did she decide to do? What happened that day?
I think Rachel knew that Reem and Iman, that Kareem, that those children were behind that wall. She had been helping them with their English homework and they were helping her learn Arabic. She had slept at the foot of their parent's bed, because they couldn't sleep in their own bedroom because of the shots that would be fired through the wall as Israeli military equipment drove past the house. So she slept at the foot of the family's bed with the other children to offer some international protection to that family.
The bulldozer was coming toward their house, and she knew that the kids and the parents were behind her. I don't think there's any way that … you know, I think she also believed that the bulldozer would stop. It had stopped for activists, came right up to them, pushed into them, but stopped at other points during that day. I don't think she believed this was going to happen to her. But she couldn't move, because right behind her were these kids and people that she had grown to know and to care for.
 
And what do you understand the bulldozer did?
We have eyewitnesses; seven international eyewitnesses. We have photographic evidence from all of those eyewitnesses that, according to their report there was a military police investigation. They indicated, though, they didn't use the photographic evidence that the ISM'ers had, but anybody looking at those photos can see that what the ISM'ers say is accurate, that the bulldozer proceeded toward Rachel, that she took a position indicating that she was not going to move.
She was in her orange jacket. She, when it kept coming, she rose on the mound, and the eyewitnesses testified that her head rose above the top of the blade of the bulldozer, so she could clearly be seen, but the bulldozer continued and proceeded over her, and so that it was covering her body. It stopped and then reversed, according to the eyewitness testimonies, without lifting its blade, so backed over her once again. Her friends were screaming at the bulldozer drivers through this to stop. They rushed to her, of course, and she said to them, "I think my back is broken." And those were her final words. And they squeezed her hands and told her that they loved her. And I feel like she had good people with her.
 
Please lay out the particulars of the court case.
This is a culmination, really, of seven years of our family searching for some sort of justice in the killing of Rachel. And we've tried to do that through diplomatic means, and we've asked for a US-led investigation into Rachel's killing. We also understand that the Israelis, through Prime Minister Sharon, promised President Bush a thorough, credible and transparent investigation of Rachel's killing. But, by our own government's measure, that has not happened. So we're left with simply a civil lawsuit.
So, we're accusing the state of Israel of either intentionally killing Rachel or guilty of gross negligence in her killing seven years ago. And so, we're seeking-the only thing you can seek in a civil case is damages. You know, so it's really a very small part of the story that's gone on in our lives. But it's critical to have our time in court.
Our motivation for that was largely that it is an avenue which we understood we would be able to pursue and get information. So, through the discovery process, we were hoping to get a good deal of information. We have gotten some, but they've used sort of secrets of state to keep us, block us, from getting other evidence into court. But we're going forward, and we're very hopeful that we will get a fair trial.
 
Cindy Corrie, speaking of blocking information, the Palestinian doctor who first treated your daughter, who first treated Rachel, is not being allowed out of Gaza to testify? Is that right?
That's our understanding at this point. We were alerted by our attorney, really about a week or so ago, that the Israeli government seemed to be dragging its feet about having our eyewitnesses. We have four international eyewitnesses. There were seven on the scene when Rachel was killed. Four will be coming to testify. Our attorney told us that the Israelis were not agreeing to let them into Israel. We sought help from the US government, from the State Department, and from our ambassador. And subsequently, the four international eyewitnesses have been given approval to come, and they will be entering the same day that we are.
But the doctor, who's in Gaza, who was with Rachel at the end of her life, or soon after, who administered to her there in Gaza in the hospital, was called as a witness on our side, and the Israeli government has not yet approved entry for him. He also could testify, we hoped, by video conference. That's what's been offered, and they have not agreed either to having him come into Israel or to testify by video conference. And we are pursuing that. We know that Ambassador Cunningham has also been pursuing this with Israeli officials.
 
The US ambassador to Israel?
The US ambassador to Israel, yes.
 
He's been pushing for the Palestinian doctor to be able to testify.
To be able to testify by video conference, yes.
 
Sarah, the autopsy of your sister, of Rachel-and I'm still sure that is hard to hear seven years later —can you talk about the significance of that?
Yes. First of all, when Rachel was first killed, our family really didn't want to have an autopsy done. It just wasn't in our beliefs or wishes. And it seemed at the time quite apparent how she was killed, so the necessity of it didn't seem like it was necessary at that time. But my mother and father were in Congressman Baird's office and were basically told that the Israelis would refuse to release Rachel's body back to the United States unless an autopsy was done.
They understood, through the State Department, Congressman Baird, that there was some sort of court proceeding going on in Israel, and there wasn't a lot of information about that court proceeding. But they were allowed to give a statement of the family's wishes about the autopsy, and they did a written statement that said the autopsy could only occur if it was done in the presence of a US embassy official and also if it was performed by a civilian doctor. And that was placed in writing and signed and faxed to a Capt. Margolin [phon.] with the IDF. And what we didn't know was that Captain...
 
The Israeli Defense Forces.
The Israeli Defense Forces. And what we didn't know at the time was that Capt. Margolin took that to the Israeli court and submitted it into the court record. And the judge granted the wishes and said that the autopsy could only occur with the US embassy presence and by a civilian doctor. In 2003, my parents were allowed to read the military police report about the investigation into Rachel's killing. And in that report, it said that a US embassy official was present at the autopsy, so we always assumed that that had happened and had gone as our wishes had stated.
It wasn't until several years later, through US government FOIA records, that I first saw some mention of the fact that there was no US embassy official present during the autopsy. And it took us until 2007 to confirm with the State Department in writing that absolutely there was no US embassy official present. So that goes against an Israeli court order in terms of the autopsy wishes. So we actually amended our complaint against the government of Israel to bring the violation of the Israeli court order into these proceedings, and information about that will be heard.
 
How will this proceed?
Well, I think we have to see how it all unfolds.
 
Sarah, this is your first time in Israel?
Yes, it is. It will be my first time in Israel. And honestly, I wish that there would have been a way for me to go without the focus being entirely on the trial, because, you know, I do feel like I need to get a chance to experience a little bit of the culture, meet some of the people. And I'm sure there'll be some opportunity, but the focus is entirely on the trial at this time, and, you know, it's a difficult time for our family because of that.
 
I think it's important for people to understand that this lawsuit was just — it's one step, one piece of what we've been doing in the past seven years. And we did pursue answers diplomatically. We worked with the State Department, with — you know, trying to work with the Israeli government to get answers to our questions early on. It was actually in the Department of State quite early that the suggestion was made that we sue the Israeli military and the Israeli government as a way to address this. But it wasn't-
 
The State Department suggested that.
It was through the State Department that the suggestion initially was made for us to…
 
This was during the Bush years.
This was during the Bush years, yeah.
And I think that was reiterated.

Sarah?
We didn't file the final lawsuit almost up until the last minute that the statute of limitations would wear out, because we wanted to do this diplomatically. We thought, given the relationship of the United States with Israel, that there was the means to resolve this diplomatically. And no family wants to go through a lawsuit in these kind of matters. And my father and I actually met with Larry Wilkerson in, I believe it was, December 2004, and again that statement of filing a lawsuit was reiterated. And we did file the lawsuit then in the spring of 2005.
You have lost a lawsuit against Caterpillar.
Yes.
The company that made the tractor that crushed your daughter that the Israeli military used.
Yes, uh-huh.
 
: What were the grounds of that suit and the rejection of it, the denial of it?
And that suit was brought in US court and in western Washington. But some people really misunderstand the direction of it. In international law, there is the obligation to hold corporations accountable if they sell their products, continue to sell their products, knowing that human rights violations, a pattern of human rights violations, are occurring with their equipment. And Caterpillar Corporation had been on notice for years that their Caterpillars were being used to harm Palestinians, to destroy their homes, but also to take their lives.
Rachel was not the only person on that lawsuit. There were a number of Palestinian families. I've been to the gravesite of a Palestinian family in Nablus. I recognized the name when I was walking through the gravesite of a family, eight family members that were destroyed when their house was demolished with Caterpillar equipment on top of them. It isn't that Caterpillar sold a piece of equipment, and then something bad happened; it's that Caterpillar continues to sell the equipment knowing that their equipment is being used for human rights violations.
Now, the case was dismissed in western Washington in the district court there but was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. And in their ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court upheld the decision of the lower court, primarily because the US government entered into the discussion, and there is separation of powers. And the court did not discuss the merits of the case at all, but said that they were cognizant of the fact that-a political question is the legal term for this, but that cognizant of the fact that if they ruled against Caterpillar corporation or address this, that they could be implicating the United States because of its role in funding all of this equipment, so could be-they were cognizant of the fact that they also would be possibly intervening in terms of who has the right to make these decisions within our own government. It's a separation of powers question.
 
One of my frustrations in all the work that we did in Congress was that I think we thought, in the initial days after Rachel was killed, if the US government took a very strong stance against her killing, that perhaps it would have given some more protection to the others — I mean, to US citizens that are traveling in that region. And what we know is that shortly after Rachel was killed, Tom Hurndall, who was a British peace activist, was killed in the same two-mile stretch of Rafah, Gaza. Then there was James Miller, who was a British reporter that was also shot and killed in that same two-mile stretch. On the US side, we had Brian Avery in the West Bank, who was severely injured when he was shot in the face by the IDF. And now we have Tristan Anderson. And some of the frustration was that if there was accountability in Rachel's case, I wonder how many of those other cases would not have happened.
I do like to point out that in the case of the British citizens, that the British government took a very strong stance against those killings. In the case of Tom Hurndall, they actually managed to get a criminal conviction. And much of that came by the work of the family and the work of the UK government to put pressure on Israel to do a credible investigation. In the case of James Miller, that criminal process did not occur. It was very similar to our case. They closed the case without bringing charges.
But the British government continued to push so that there would be basically a damages claim. I believe that it was about $2.4 or $2.5 million to that family. And I don't think it's about the dollar figure, but it's about saying that there was something very wrong that went on in that case. Iain Hook was another British citizen that they did not get-he was killed, as well, and they did not get a criminal conviction in that case. But again, that damages claim does say that the UK government believed that there should be accountability in that case.
And I just think that the US government certainly has the ability to push for the rights of their citizens and the safety of their citizens as hard as the UK government does. And I think both President Obama and Vice President Biden would understand that and want to make sure that the safety of the US citizens that are traveling in Gaza and the West Bank is the highest priority, when we're over there.
 
The anniversary of Rachel's death will be taking place in the midst of the trial. Her death occurred on March 16th. What are you calling on people to do?
We're calling on people to be visible on March 16th, calling for accountability in Rachel's case, but also making the linkages between accountability for her and the lack of accountability that's occurred in-particularly with Gaza, with what happened in Operation Cast Lead in December of 2008 and January of 2009, but really for all of the acts of violence against Palestinians and others in the Occupied Territories.
And we're also calling for attention to the assault on nonviolent human rights observers and activists that continues in various ways. There are Palestinians, now a growing number of Palestinians, who have died in nonviolent protests to the wall in the West Bank. People can find their names, I think, by going to the International Solidarity Movement website.
 
The separation wall.
The separation wall. And sometimes I read the list of those names. Palestinians resist nonviolently in many different ways. But this is in nonviolent protest to the wall.
And also, I think it's important for people to make the link between our ability to access the Israeli courts and the fact that Palestinians have really little opportunity to do that. We understand that currently Palestinians who want to operate in the courts or to take their cases to the courts have to put a bond forward of something between twenty and fifty thousand dollars in order to bring a suit. And this is, of course, very prohibitive to them to be able to do that.
B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch and other organizations have talked about the impunity that the Israeli military enjoys because of lack of accountability through the courts and in other ways. And I hope that people will be visible to say, "We've had enough of this," and to call for accountability for Rachel, but to link it to these other larger issues.
 
I don't know who wants to take this on, but what did happen to your daughter on March 16th? What do you understand happened?
 
My understanding of the case.
 
Sarah?
You know, after looking at all the evidence that I have seen-and in particular, there's an IDF video. It's a still camera that was out on the border that day that filmed the area that Rachel and the activists were in. It did not actually film the incident of her killing. The camera, at the time that she was killed, just happened to pan towards the Egypt border and was focused on the Egypt border away from where Rachel was at the time, and then, after she was hit, quickly panned back around to where she was. And I've looked at that video in second-by-second detail, painstakingly trying to figure out exactly what was going on.
After looking at that and other evidence, I am very confident that the bulldozer driver and operator knew that Rachel was in front of that bulldozer as it began to move forward towards her. We know that they did not see Rachel leave that visibility field, because of course she was hit and injured. So she did never leave that visibility.
 
What she was wearing?
She was wearing a red vest, like what you would see a flagger on the side of the road wear, so very obvious red reflective vest. And one of the things was, when I first got that copy of that IDF videotape, the US government requested that tape. It came in very grainy black-and-white footage. Since that time, more recently, an Israeli reporter was able to obtain a color copy of that film. And when you see that color copy, the red vest-there was another activist who was wearing a red vest, as well, and he's on the scene-it stands out, remarkably, in that color film. There's no doubt that she would have been visible wearing that vest.
I want to point out about the color copy of the tape, too. In the black-and-white version, it actually does show Rachel standing on the scene prior to her being killed. We know from testimony that the scene that she's-the place that she's shown on that video, she actually walks forward slightly, I think about twenty to thirty yards, and she's actually hit and killed about twenty and thirty yards in front of where she's seen on that black-and-white tape. But when the color copy showed up, amazingly, that point at which Rachel was still alive and could be seen, that portion of the tape wasn't provided to the reporter. It was cut out.
So there is this feeling, when I look at that, that there's a great attempt to try to depict that Rachel couldn't be seen on the scene that day. But why aren't we given the whole copy of the tape? Why wasn't our US government given the color version of that tape when they repeatedly asked to have the audio transmissions of the bulldozer drivers in their headquarters, as well as the videotape sent to the US government on behalf of our family.
 
Are you hoping to get that in this trial?
We already had the discovery process, and we have not been given any further tape. So, at this time, I'm not confident that that would come forth.
 
Is that a violation, Cindy, of the judicial process in Israel that, in discovery, you're not getting what you're asking for, if it exists?
Well, I believe that it is. We have asked for the evidence that's available. And the videotape has been controversial from the beginning. You know, part of it is that the first stories that we got from the Israeli government —I think the first one was that Ed McKeon, who was in the American embassy, said he was told initially that a wall fell on Rachel from a home demolition. And then the story went to "No, we weren't doing any demolitions that day."
And then a PowerPoint, taken from this video, was circulated through the United States Congress and shows a picture of the bulldozer with a high mound of earth and says here's-puts an X where Rachel's body was and says, "See, she couldn't be seen." What we know through-and have been speaking about for some time-through Sarah's analysis, is that that wasn't the bulldozer that hit Rachel. There were two bulldozers in the area that day. Each of them had two people inside. There was an armored personnel carrier there, as well, that was supposed to also be looking at what was happening in the area.
But the photo that was circulated to the members of the United States Congress to say to them, from the Israeli officials to the US Congress, "See, she couldn't be seen," is false. And so, there's been a repeated effort that we've seen through the years to provide misinformation.