sonixax  نوشته: ثابت نشد چون دادگاه بیطرف نبود آنارشی جان .
دلیل اینکه حکومت میره زیر سوال اینه که در یک دادگاه نا عادلانه موارد بررسی شده .
اینکه راننده طرف رو ندیده حرف مفت و دروغه . بولدوزر باید دید کافی و کامل روی زمین روبرو داشته باشه تا بتونه درست خاک برداری کنه . مساله بعدی که در دادگاه بهش اشاره شده بود این بود که نیروهای نظامی  گفته بودن کسی جلو نره این خودش رفته تو چس مقصر خودشه !
BBC فارسی - جهان - دولت اسرائیل 'در مرگ راشل کوری مقصر نیست'
وقتی اسرائیلیها کوری را ندیدند+تصاویر - مشرق نیوز | mashreghnews.ir
خوب با این استدلال از فردا هر کسی که پرید توی خیابان جلوی ماشین با سرعت هر چه تمام تر بکوبیم بهش چون همه میگویند نپرید وسط خیابان و از جاهایی که مشخص شده از خیابان رد بشید ! تازه اینجا یک برتری هم داریم اون هم اینه که این قانون هم هست .
سوای همه اینها ، اصلن درست طرف این دختر رو ندیده ! کجای دنیا اگر شما یک نفر رو زیر بگیرید به خاطر اینکه ندیدیدش تبرئه میشید ؟! اگر داستان برعکس بود چه میشد ؟!
من گفتم حتی اگر راننده محکوم میشد هم نقطه ضعفی برای دولت اسرائیل نبود چون عمل یک فرد بوده نه دستور از طرف نخست وزیر اسرائیل !!! این بولدوزر هم این جور که نوشته شده دید محدودی داشته و یک نفر دیگه هم باید هدایتش میکرده...شما همون مقاله ویکی پدیا رو بخونید متوجه میشید !! 
نقل قول:The major  points of dispute are whether the bulldozer operator saw Corrie and  whether her injuries were caused by being crushed under the blade or by  the mound of debris the bulldozer was pushing. An IDF spokesman has  acknowledged that Israeli army regulations normally require that the  operators of the armored personnel carriers (APCs) that accompany bulldozers are responsible for directing the operators towards their targets because the Caterpillar D9 bulldozers have a restricted field of vision with several blind spots.[SUP][41][/SUP] 
نقل قول:The IDF produced a video about Corrie's death that includes footage taken from inside the cockpit of a 
D9. The video makes a "credible case", wrote 
Joshua Hammer in 
Mother Jones,  that "the operators, peering out through narrow, double-glazed,  bulletproof windows, their view obscured behind pistons and the giant  scooper, might not have seen Corrie kneeling in front of them".[SUP]
[10][/SUP]
این هم عکس اون بولدوزر :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2233[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2234[/ATTACH]
من نمیگم اسرائیل عمل خطا نداشته یا پارتی بازی نشده براش ، اما انصافا بعضی موارد همه پروپاگاندای طرف مقابل هست مثل قضیه محمد الدوره یا همین راشل کوری...
اما در مورد حکم مواردی نوشته شده اینجا :
نقل قول:In 2010, Corrie's parents, represented by Attorney Hussein Abu  Hussein, filed a lawsuit against the Israel Defense Forces and the Israeli Defense Ministry in the Haifa District Court, seeking US$324,000 in compensation.[SUP][79][/SUP] The case began in Haifa on March 10, 2010.[SUP][80][/SUP]  Judge Oded Gershon presided over the case. On October 21, 2010, the  bulldozer driver who had run over Corrie testified for four hours, and  was questioned by the Corries' attorney.[SUP][81][/SUP]  In addition, four experts, including an expert on the behalf of the  Corrie family testified during the trial, and concluded that the  bulldozer driver could not see Corrie.[SUP][82][/SUP]  Four ISM witnesses testified during the case. However, the Palestinian  physician from Gaza who had examined Corrie's wounds on the scene was  unable to testify after Israel refused him an entry visa and rejected an  application for him to testify by video link.[SUP][83][/SUP]
نقل قول: The court ruled against Corrie's family on August 28, 2012. In a  62-page verdict, the judge ruled that Corrie's death was an accident for  which she was responsible, and absolved the 
IDF of any wrongdoing.[SUP]
[3][/SUP][SUP]
[84][/SUP][SUP]
[85][/SUP]  According to the judge "The mission of the IDF force on the day of the  incident was solely to clear the ground.... The mission did not include,  in any way, the demolition of homes."[SUP]
[86][/SUP][SUP]
[87][/SUP]  The court invoked the principle of the combatant activities exception,  as the IDF was attacked in the same area where Corrie was killed a few  hours earlier; that Corrie could have avoided the danger and that  defendants were not at fault as there was neither intent nor negligence  involved in her death.[SUP]
[3][/SUP]  Judge Oded Gershon said that the IDF did not violate Corrie's right to  life because Corrie had placed herself in a dangerous situation, that  Israel's investigation was appropriate and did not contain mistakes, and  also criticized the U.S. government for failing to send a diplomatic  representative to observe Corrie's autopsy.[SUP]
[88][/SUP]  Gershon said: "I rule unequivocally that the claim that the deceased  was intentionally hit by the bulldozer is totally baseless. This was an  extremely unfortunate accident.[SUP]
[85][/SUP]  I reached the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of  the bulldozer driver. I reject the suit. There is no justification to  demand the state pay any damages. She [Corrie] did not distance herself  from the area, as any thinking person would have done. She consciously  put herself in harm's way."
Furthermore, Gershon pointed to three different entry bans, and also pointed out that the 
Philadelphi route  was effectively a war zone and was formally declared a closed military  zone when Corrie died. Gershon also noted that the United States had  issued an Israel travel advisory warning to avoid Gaza and the West  Bank. In addition, Gershon said that the ISM "abuses the human rights  discourse to blur its actions which are de facto violence" and  specialized in disrupting IDF activity, which "included an army of  activists serving as 'human shields' for terrorists wanted by Israeli  security forces, financial and logistical aid to Palestinians including  terrorists and their families, and disruption of the sealing of suicide  bombers' houses".[SUP]
[89][/SUP] The Corrie family laywer, Hussein Abu Hussein, said they were "now studying our options", in regards to a possible appeal.[SUP]
[90][/SUP]
While rejecting the Corrie family's claims to damages, the judge also waived the Corrie family's court costs.Haifa District Court spokeswoman Nitzan Eyal said that her family  could appeal the ruling. The amount sought was a symbolic US$1 and legal  costs.