Worth noting that Corrie was killed 23 years ago during a different phase of the conflict and under a previous government. (In which Netanyahu served as minister of finance.)
That's not really a response to the point being made.
The claim I was responding to was: "By the time the bulldozers are there civilians have long moved out of the area."
Rachel Corrie's case is a counterexample to that general claim: she was a civilian physically present in the area of an Israeli military bulldozer operation.
Saying that it happened 23 years ago, under a different government, doesn't make the counterexample cease to exist.
It only tells us that the example isn't evidence about every Israeli bulldozer operation today.
If you're arguing that civilians currently leave before demolition operations in Gaza, then make that case.
"That happened under a previous government" doesn't establish that.
I'm not arguing for anything. I'm just adding context, because your comment read as if it happened during the 'current phase' of the conflict. That's a crucial detail to omit, imho.
> your comment read as if it happened during the 'current phase' of the conflict
I don't think anyone else "read" it like that.
> That's a crucial detail to omit
It really isn't. No international body decided on "phases" to delinate combat, and given that there is not yet apology or atonement or peace since, that "phase" never ended.
Everyone who has not heard of her before thought that you are referring to something that happened now and not decades ago.
I was surprised and felt mislead.
I'm not sure what are you even arguing with me about. If it doesn't weaken your argument than it shouldn't matter to you that I've added factual context.
