Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Israelis Opened Fire Before Boarding Gaza Flotilla, say Released Activists
First eyewitness accounts of raid contradict version put out by Israeli officials
Survivors of the Israeli assault on a flotilla carrying relief supplies to Gaza returned to Greece and Turkey today, giving the first eyewitness accounts of the raid in which at least 10 people died.
Demonstrators wave the flags of Turkey and Palestine in a protest against Israel in Istanbul yesterday. The banners read 'Open sea pirate Israel' and 'Enough is enough'. (Photograph: Murad Sezer/Reuters) Arriving
at Istanbul's Ataturk airport with her one-year-old baby, Turkish
activist Nilufer Cetin said Israeli troops opened fire before boarding
the Turkish-flagged ferry Mavi Marmara, which was the scene of the
worst clashes and all the fatalities. Israeli officials have said that
the use of armed force began when its boarding party was attacked.
"It was extremely bad and very tough clashes took place. The Mavi Marmara is filled with blood," said Cetin, whose husband is the Mavi Marmara's chief engineer.
She told reporters that she and her child hid in the bathroom of their cabin during the confrontation. "The operation started immediately with firing. First it was warning shots, but when the Mavi Marmara wouldn't stop these warnings turned into an attack," she said.
"There were sound and smoke bombs and later they used gas bombs. Following the bombings they started to come on board from helicopters."
Cetin is among a handful of Turkish activists to be released; more than 300 remain in Israeli custody. She said she agreed to extradition from Israel after she was warned that conditions in jail would be too harsh for her child.
"I am one of the first passengers to be sent home, just because I have baby. When we arrived at the Israeli port of Ashdod we were met by the Israeli interior and foreign ministry officials and police; there were no soldiers. They asked me only a few questions. But they took everything – cameras, laptops, cellphones, personal belongings including our clothes," she said.
Kutlu Tiryaki was a captain of another vessel in the flotilla. "We continuously told them we did not have weapons, we came here to bring humanitarian help and not to fight," he said.
"The attack on the Mavi Marmara came in an instant: they attacked it with 12 or 13 attack boats and also with commandos from helicopters. We heard the gunshots over our portable radio handsets, which we used to communicate with the Mavi Marmara, because our ship communication system was disrupted. There were three or four helicopters also used in the attack. We were told by Mavi Marmara their crew and civilians were being shot at and windows and doors were being broken by Israelis."
Six Greek activists who returned to Athens accused Israeli commandos of using electric shocks during the raid.
Dimitris Gielalis, who had been aboard the Sfendoni, told reporters: "Suddenly from everywhere we saw inflatables coming at us, and within seconds fully equipped commandos came up on the boat. They came up and used plastic bullets, we had beatings, we had electric shocks, any method we can think of, they used."
Michalis Grigoropoulos, who was at the wheel of the Free Mediterranean, said: "We were in international waters. The Israelis acted like pirates, completely out of the normal way that they conduct nautical exercises, and seized our ship. They took us hostage, pointing guns at our heads; they descended from helicopters and fired tear gas and bullets. There was absolutely nothing we could do … Those who tried to resist forming a human ring on the bridge were given electric shocks."
Grigoropoulos, who insisted the ship was full of humanitarian aid bound for Gaza "and nothing more", said that, once detained, the human rights activists were not allowed to contact a lawyer or the Greek embassy in Tel Aviv. "They didn't let us go to the toilet, eat or drink water and throughout they videoed us. They confiscated everything, mobile phones, laptops, cameras and personal effects. They only allowed us to keep our papers."
Turkey said it was sending three ambulance planes to Israel to pick up 20 more Turkish activists injured in the operation.
Three Turkish Airlines planes were on standby, waiting to fly back other activists, the prime minister's office said.
- Posted in
225 Comments so far
Show AllA fair and unbiased, in house investigation of this "incident", will be conducted by Israel.
I wonder what their conclusions will be.
"But they took everything – cameras, laptops, cellphones, personal belongings including our clothes."
Theft on the high seas is what pirates do, especially pirates whose first concern is the evidentiary materials possessed by their victims.
It is not suprising that the US of I objected to the official UN condemnation. Absolutely disgusting!
This is a disaster for activists. There is no question that the blockade is illegal. There is no question that the occupation is illegal. But there is also no question that Israel and Hamas are in an ongoing and active state of low-level warfare, and the people who conducted the flotilla knew this going in. Civil disobedience is only effective so long as it remains civil. Nonviolence has long been practiced and codified. Multiple video recordings make it clear that the blockade runners not only failed to abide by the principles of non-violent resistance, but were prepared to not abide by them. You have to not be an idiot about these things unless you're a suicide resister planning to die or get hurt to generate press.
Non-violent resisters have to be pure. When you go out, you make sure you don't even have a paper clip in your pockets. You carry nothing but a piece of ID, or not, depending on whether accepting the consequences for not having ID is part of your plan going in. History shows non-violent resisters have no problem getting attacked (that's what the cops/guards/commandos are trained in), so you don't have to have instigation by physical means or verbal abuse as a stimulus to get them to go over the top -- you just refuse to follow their commands. In order to maximize sympathy for your victimization by enforcement agencies, you have to maintain absolute moral authority -- absolute, not even 98%. The problem with being physically confrontational is that it screws it up for the rest of us who try to do CD correctly. Every time something like this happens, it gives law enforcement justification to go into every protest totally on edge and expecting the worst. Whether you want to deal with this or not, law enforcement is staffed by human beings with spouses and children, and their goal -- and all the training they receive -- is to do their job and get home in one piece. When you give them cause to wonder if they're getting home in once piece, they're going to follow their training for that. That's why nonviolence has to be nonviolent. You can't just cop the term if you're not going to follow the rules. You can, of course, but then you're doing something selfish and grossly unfair to people around the world trying to develop effective (and reasonably safe) nonviolent movements. There is no such thing as "mostly nonviolent." You're either nonviolent, or you're not. That doesn't mean you don't have just cause -- it just means you're not nonviolent.
Please don't start yelling at me and calling me a racist Zionist, blah blah blah. I'm not excusing the Israelis. Everything about this situation is illegal, and it has to be stopped. But if you're going to stop it, you have to go about it the right way. This is going to have repercussions for other resistance efforts throughout the world, including in the good ol' USA. If you're going to do CD, get trained by experienced trainers. They're easy to find -- WRL, ACT UP alumni, several foundations. Do it right or don't do it at all, because the goal is to bring change -- not to get killed for the publicity. That part's going to happen now and then even if we don't push for it, and it goes much further when there's no ambiguity to get in the way.
Nonviolence is an absolute term. Learn it, know it, live it -- and teach it.
Steve Greenfield - Maybe your philosophy and methods are better, maybe not. The bottom line is that the flotilla people ACTED on their beliefs while we merely sit here and talk about it.
Speak for yourself. I have an arrest record, successful false arrest lawsuits against law enforcement, and did two and a half days in Guantanamo on the Hudson during the 2004 Republican convention -- all done with advance planning and training. I have raised eyebrows by holding CD trainings in my town. I have advocated for a civil disobedience-oriented resistance movement in these pages, to no avail, for years.
I also have low patience for message board typists (I'm not talking about anyone in particular, just the strain of thought when it appears) who condone violence from the comfort of their desk chairs via computers and cell phones purchased from our most rapacious corporations and domestic surveillance facilitators. They're not out there taking the risks. They don't stare down gun barrels. They don't know the trauma of injury and death beyond YouTube, or its impact on family and other survivors, and embarrass themselves by cheering it from the sidelines. So yes, I believe in nonviolence. And I'm one of the people who practices it, which should give me the right to recommend it. I wish there were more of us.
Steve, I applaud your commitment and acts. I applaud your posts here. I do not think I could be so completely non-violent, myself. I also think we live in a different world from that of Ghandi. I do not think the Israelis [or Hamas or Al Qaeda or US Marines] will stop killing if you are non violent. And the corporate owned news media will lie about it anyway, obviating the heroism of people like you. I wish I could see a clear way out of this.
Steve, I commend you on the lumps you have received doing your civil disobedience. Many of us have the same lumps to show. But you were not on that flotilla. You were not attacked. You were not provoked by seeing your family and friends killed, shocked, and otherwise mutilated.
The fact remains that this flotilla was for humanitarian aid, and was self proclaimed as that. Zionist Israel, it its paranoia and fascist thuggery, chose to attack it in international waters, and then try to cover up its actions with the same old bull-shit that it has used over and over again to justify ANYTHING it choses to do. Perhaps I'm not understanding your position, but it seems to me you are advocating that those in disagreement with this Israeli thuggery just stand by. It so reminds me of what happened in Nazi Germany to those Jews who went quietly and peacefully to their deaths, while the world pretended that nothing was amiss.
I suspect the flotilla organizers anticipated being boarded given that the other vessels were boarded apparently without resistance and without incident. If a group of passengers (even only a couple) on this vessel decided -- ad hoc -- to deliberately resist (as opposed to being "caught up in events" or some sort of reflexive "self-defense") imho, that was reckless. They endangered themselves and others and hijacked the mission as badly as any agent provocateur might.
As it is, international attention on the blockade and the humanitarian mission has been diverted and Israel has promised to be even LESS compromising wrt the next boat and the one after that and the one after .... while the usual anti-Zionist/anti-Israel chorus chants the same-old same-old litany of events and atrocities.
I've little idea how this "plays in Peoria" but this sort of incident does not seem to sway people's opinions, rather it just solidifies them. So, I agree that this is not good for activism, non-violent or otherwise.
If they had simply allowed the vessel to be boarded without incident, as the other vessels apparently did, we might be talking about Gaza and the Palestians, rather than Israel. Aside from the tragic loss of life, it also appears to be an opportunity lost.
I draw exactly the opposite conclusion as yours. This incident has fosused international attention on the blockade like nothing else!
We've already run you experiment. The last Gaza freedom-aid boats passively submitted to the Israelis and were hauled to an Isreali port and quietly imprisoned for few days. The result: near-zero media coverage, near-zero world attention. Then, this last winter, the Gaza freedom marchers attempting to enter by land, simply acquiesed to the Isreali/Egyptian forces. Result: near-zero media coverage, near zero world attention.
Please! give up you irratiopnal religion of passivity-borne-of-privlege called "nonviolence". IT DOESN'T WORK!
Unfortunately violence doesn't work very well either ... you seem to be advocating other people place themselves in a position to be slaughtered ...
oh and "terrorism" isn't very effective either -- and the blowback from terrorism is truly gruesome (see Operation Cast Lead) ...
Like they say, "Peace is the Way"
Susan, are you old enough to remember that women were advised in the past not to resist an attacker, as that was thought to minimise injury?
If you are, then perhaps you know that now women are advised to resist as strongly and violently as possible, as a way to minimise injury and possibly even abort the attack altogether.
It turned out that the pattern holds true in all known cases of aggression: there is nothing an aggressor likes better than for his (it's usually 'his') intended victim not to resist. The myth of attackers being excited by resistance is just that: myth.
Read it carefully, GM. There is a difference between standing still and "just standing by." Nonviolent resistance is anything but passive. Unlike the 1940s we play to the media today. The flotilla knew they were not going to reach Gaza, and they knew they were not going to beat up IDF. They were there to provoke a thuggish response from the Israelis in full view of world opinion, and they succeeded beautifully except for the couple of flotilla hotheads who ruined the video. It's too bad. They should have had better training.
Mr. Greeenfield, what is your reply to the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO and that an attack upon any member of NATO is to be considered an attack on all members of NATO? And that for the Israeli defense forces to have committed an act of piracy on the open seas against a clearly marked Turkish ship is an act of war against a NATO member?
Shouldn't Obama be ordering our Navy to do what is necessary to bring about an end to such piracy and also an end to the illegal blockade of the unfortunate impoverished citizens of Gaza?
Laws, treaties, none of that matters to the empire.
There will basically need to be a revolution of some kind in the US before we will ever lift a finger against Israel. Through bribery and blackmail they have gained a position of immense power over the US government. Through propaganda they have kept the average American completely clueless as to the reality of their situation, their crimes.
It appears this question has presented a bit of a quandry for Mr. GreenJeans...
A disaster for activists? Which activists? All of them?
1) Not all activists are or claim to be nonviolent.
2) Not all who prefer nonviolence accept your absolutist definition excluding self-defense.
You have every right to your own moral philosophy, of course. But you may face a few effectiveness issues and even sustainability problems dealing with totally violent corporate-sponsored global evil that doesn't really care much about ANY natural person's wishful morality. They're armed, and its doubtful that they'll even bother to inquire about your nonviolent creed prior to their initiation of some very serious and disastrous violence indeed.
Even Gandhi accepted the reality that it wouldn't help much against Hitler.
Nonviolence is more effective and more sustainable. History has shown that time and time again.
If you are really so overwhelmed from a force perspective, as you point out, what strategy is served by using violence as a tactic? It is, in fact, situations of overwhelming force disparity in which nonviolence is most essential, most effective, and most durable.
Again, what history are you referring to? The vast bulk of history is all about violence written by its most successful advocates and practitioners.
You believe whatever suits you. Personally, I prefer ghetto resistance, whatever the odds, over going quietly to the concentration camps and "Arbeit macht frei."
Greenfield, did you read the article? What would you do if a gang of goons stormed your home, guns blazing, and started zapping your kids with electric shocks?
The majority of the Turks on that boat reacted to a chaotic situation. I doubt they come from the same cushy suburban background as you, and so their first instinct was self-preservation.
We'll see how you react if you ever have the guts to confront the US's own goon squads with their noise cannons, pepper spray, tasers and clubs. I doubt you ever will, however. That would make for bad publicity for your next campaign.
Your pompous hand-wringing hypocrisy disgusts me. Pacifism doesn't mean passive stupidity.
Specifically in answer to your question, if prior to all that mayhem they'd said they wanted to search my basement, I'd have let them do it. That's because I don't have a like force in my house that could potentially repel them, and I don't want to even snap a twig on my porch and potentially have them murder my kids. But hey, that's just me. I guess you're the Alamo type. Look how well that worked out, during and after.
I have read the currently available reports, and I have also seen videos. There is nothing we here at our internet seats can conclude at this time. You have reached a conclusion about exactly what happened. I wasn't on the boat. Neither were you. The people on the boat have an agenda. So do the people who landed on the boat. It is clear that important segments of the videos supplied by both sides are missing. From where I sit right now, there's no reason for me to be predisposed towards drawing hard conclusions from any of them. Maybe as more information develops, but certainly not at this moment. I've already said both the occupation and blockade are illegal. That's the starting point.
But the people on the boat were not specifically humanitarian aid suppliers. They were blockade runners -- that's how they described their effort. Israel had invited them to dock for inspection for arms and to allow all the supplies through. That was rejected -- the goal was to beat the blockade, not just to get the supplies to the people who need them. So you know the landscape going in. You're running a blockade. Blockaders fire warning shots to get blockade runners to stop. That's how it's been done for centuries. But unlike traditional second steps, rather than just blowing the blockade runners out of the water with follow-up shots, Israeli commandos boarded the ship to arrest its progress, inspect its contents, or both -- not specifically to kill people. If that had been their goal, they could have easily done that from a safe distance.
The problem with armchair typists is you have no concept of a state of war, whether its a justifiable one or not. It is terrifying, irrational, and unforgiving. It is real blood and death, people on all sides motivated by just one thing -- getting home alive. If you insist on going in naive and untrained, bad things happen. Bad things happen anyway, but going in naive and untrained makes the risks greater and the results worse. I don't condone the bad things that happened. I utterly reject them. But I don't condone going in naive and untrained, either. That's not hypocrisy, and it's not hand-wringing. It's reasonable advice. You're free to flame to your heart's content, but it doesn't change what I actually said, nor does it change that you aren't going to Turkey to get on the next boat. Keep on typing.
"But the people on the boat were not specifically humanitarian aid suppliers. They were blockade runners -- that's how they described their effort. Israel had invited them to dock for inspection for arms and to allow all the supplies through. That was rejected -- the goal was to beat the blockade, not just to get the supplies to the people who need them."
This is pure hasbaric bullshit. There is absolutely no way that you could know the truth of such a claim.
You're just another zionist troll, Steve, pimping the IDF hardline nonsense.
q
So, Greenfield, your shilling purpose becomes clear:
"But the people on the boat were not specifically humanitarian aid suppliers. They were blockade runners -- that's how they described their effort. Israel had invited them to dock for inspection for arms and to allow all the supplies through. That was rejected -- the goal was to beat the blockade, not just to get the supplies to the people who need them. So you know the landscape going in. You're running a blockade. Blockaders fire warning shots to get blockade runners to stop. That's how it's been done for centuries. But unlike traditional second steps, rather than just blowing the blockade runners out of the water with follow-up shots, Israeli commandos boarded the ship to arrest its progress, inspect its contents, or both -- not specifically to kill people. If that had been their goal, they could have easily done that from a safe distance."
Ah, how kind, how civilized of those Israelis, not to have "blown the blockade runners out of the water!" Instead they the boarded the ship, in INTERNATIONAL WATERS, "not specifically to kill people." And how do you, at your keyboard, know this? And so the bulldozer ran over Rachel Corrie "not specifically to kill her?" And the Israeli's savagely bombed defenseless Gazans "not specifically to kill them"? How often indeed, do Israelis kill "not specifically to kill"? I'm sure the instances are endless, in your mind.
Amazing, too, that you come up with these excuses, all by yourself.
And so, we "armchair typists ... have no concept of a state of war, whether its a justifiable one or not." No, we're just ignorant fools who believe whatever the Zionist-skewed mass media tell us. And, tell me, what is YOUR concept of a state of war? And what's this about justification? Getting all Augustinian on us, are you? Who's justified, in this instance?
It seems to me that the more you clack away at your keyboard, the more your foot keeps finding its way into your enormous mouth.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
It isn't clear under what rubric of international law Israel gets to declare and enforce a blockade against Gaza. Gaza is supposed to be an independent, free-standing political entity run by its inhabitants, the Palestinians. Gaza only went under Israeli blockade when the Gazans had the temerity to select Hamas as their leadership. They did this in an election mandated by Israel and the US, which was recognized internationally for being free and fair. Israel and the US turned around and rejected the results and Israel established the blockade, after telling the Palestinians that there would be no peace until after the Israel-mandated and Israel-rejected elections.
You couldn't blame an outside observer for thinking he'd gone down the rabbithole at this point, but of course, as we all know, it gets much worse.
But let's say, for argument's sake, that Israel had some legal or military justification for the blockade. And say, that the flotilla decided to observe the blockade and submit to seach in an Israeli port. By doing so, doesn't the flotilla surrender on one of it's prime issues: that the blockade is illegal and immoral? Why should they do that? But again, for argument's sake, let's say they surrender this key point. Score one for Israel. Now the vessels enter Israeli waters where the government of Israel can do pretty much whatever it wants. This might include reneging on the search agreement and attacking the boats. Score one more for Israel. It might mean holding the boats and the cargo up in port for months. It might mean seizing the boats and contents permanently and imprisoning and deporting the participants. It would certainly mean gathering "actionable intelligence" on "enemies of Israel" around the world. Score three more for Israel; zero for the flotilla. Being categorized as an "enemy of Israel" can be a bad thing. They seem often to disappear or die younger than expected under mysterious circumstances.
So, the flotilla had ample reason not to entertain the alleged "offer" to dock and be searched at a port of the IDF's choosing. But, still for sake of argument, Israel wants to stop the flotilla because it's a provocation. Note that not even the most rabid rightwingers in the Israeli government called the flotilla a security risk; they called it a "provocation". So, what were Israel's options vs. the "provocation"?
How about sending a boat with a team of negotiators, leaving the armed IDF units several hundred yards away to wait, listen and observe? How about simply talking to the volunteers of the flotilla? How about calling for a regionally or internationally-sponsored mediation? How about a third party to deliver the humanitarian aid? Or, how about lifting the blockade and making all of this moot?
There is no small irony in the fact that pre-1948, the Zionists relied on illegal shipments of guns and material aid into Palestine, although the Zionists never had to face anything as harsh as the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
Anyway, you yourself say you weren't there. So how can you characterize the reaction of the flotilla's crews and passengers? You don't really believe anything coming out of the IDF? Do you?
UNSC Resolution 1860 renders the Zionist blockade illegal.
Excellent, well thought-out points. The whole point of the freedom flotilla was to defy illegal Israeli control of Gaza, and return control of Gazan ports to the Palestinians like any free poeple.
Steve, you make some good points. The flame throwers are blinded by rage.
"There is nothing we here at our internet seats can conclude at this time."
The best we can do is speculate.
Here is my speculation, knowing full well it is just that.
The people on board the flotilla boats had every intention of getting the supplies to the systematically suppressed Palestinians in a peaceful fashion. I strongly doubt it was to bring weapons. Trusting the Israelis to confiscate and then distribute the goods would be foolhardy, besides, it's none of Israel's business. "Blockade running", ie, taking the supplies direct through open seas then Palestinian waters was the only option.
The masked Israeli commandos/pirates were to drop from the helicopters from ropes to board the ships. They are vulnerable during the drop, needing both hands to hold the rope. Flash bombs, tear gas and gunfire were used to clear room on the decks for the drops. People were injured during this tactical move, which motivated others to stand firm on deck and confront the pirates boarding their ship.
That said,
it is telling that no Israeli was killed.
It is foolish to blame the self sacrificing victims/heroes for trying to bring relief to people desperately in need.
OK, I'll not call you a racist Zionist. But you are absolutely wrong if you see this as being a disaster for activists. It's a case of humanitarian aid being attacked in international waters. It's pretty clear what happened, and the world is getting its face rubbed into it. If Zionist apologists don't like it (and you are that), too fucking bad. You talk about non-violent resistors obeying commands so that they will not be attacked. Try using this logic on what happened to Jews in Germany.
No, I talked about them DISobeying commands, and the likelihood of that drawing a violent reaction by the oppressors. That's what resistance means. I support resistance. I don't mind being attacked, but don't expect me to not point out that you're too much in a reactive hurry to attack to actually read.
99% of Jews in Europe didn't even try to leave, let alone resist. They made no effort to form a unified movement as their time of dire need came at hand. Bringing them up in this context is a total straw man. Many Palestinians are resisting, and have been doing so for a long time, as have many of their supporters. And resist they should. The strategy is sound. The germane questions therefore are tactical.
I'm interested in hearing from people typing here who are on the boats, or reacting to this awful news by flying to Turkey and getting on more boats. I already know there are millions of typists. My inbox has been getting flooded for the last twelve hours from all kinds of people from all perspectives who know exactly what happened. This is typical, but it's also bullshit. None of you who are flaming me with the "what would you do if they came after you with guns" stuff have ever had to answer that question yourself. I've been come after with guns. I know what I'd do. This story isn't about me or my family. It's about the people in the boats, and what they're trying to accomplish, and whether or not (and to what degree) they'll succeed. So if this situation has motivated you to get up from your computer and fly to Turkey, please text us from the taxi on your way to the airport. But before you get on a boat, you might want to ask its other passengers what plans they have, because there's merit to living to fight another day when circumstances indicate that's the best path. That's all I'm saying.
The rest of you, sending profits to Dell and Verizon to purchase overwhelming force against your own interests -- keep typing.
Steve Greenfield: “I'm interested in hearing from people typing here who are on the boats, or reacting to this awful news by flying to Turkey and getting on more boats.”
Oh, I see, to rebut your mostly irrelevant comments we have to fly to Turkey and get on more boats.
If you only want to talk to people on boats, what are you doing here? Go to a marina.
Activists Nilufer Cetin and Kutlu Tiraki were on the boats. Didn't you read their accounts? "The attack came in an instant. . . they attacked with 12 or 13 attack boats and three or four helicopters."
This was not orderly "civil" disobedience where everything is planned in advance and everyone knows how to passively resist. This was real life and real people were killed and injured. Please don't blame the victims.
Greenfield: "Nonviolence is an absolute term. Learn it, know it, live it -- and teach it."
Tell that to the peaceful Palestinian protesters who have been killed or imprisoned by Israel. Tell that to the young Jewish-American protestor who lost an eye in the West Bank yesterday when an IDF fascist shot a tear-gas canister directly at her face. Tell it to Rachel Corrie's folks.
You're simply looking for an excuse to "blame both sides." You remind me of the NYT's articles of the 1980s when the School of the Americas' death squads were running rampant in Central America and all that silly newspaper's stenographers could do was "deplore the violence on both sides."
I'm a pacifist myself, friend, but that doesn't mean I'm blind. And I'll certainly not be led like a lamb to the slaughter, which is what will happen to those who fail to stand up to Israel.
Hey Steve,
I can just see you standing over your childhood friend who had just been shot and lay dying. Look I have no paper clips in my pocket. I am non violent. I know you are just doing your job and I am not following Steve's definition of protest. People like you Steve who sit back and criticize those who risk and sacrifice their lives in the name of Justice. You probably don't even know you are a racist zionist, Steve.
Had those activists been buck naked the result would have been the same.
Finally, Greenfield, as for this being a "disaster for activism," you seem unaware that most activism itself has been treated as if it were illegal by the increasingly tyrannical state powers, though your experience at the RNC should have taught you otherwise. What DO you think of those "free speech zones," anyway?
No, the Israeli action, while typically Israeli, was also typical of the sort of police-state actions we see across the globe these days, especially in the US and the UK. As I wrote in one of these threads yesterday:
"Peaceful protest has become impossible. Charity has become a threat to the state. International opinion has become something to be killed. People ask, 'Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?' Now we know where, if we didn't already. Six feet underground, or at the bottom of the sea."
See you on the barricades, chum.
Steve, you are reframing the debate.Israel's army attacked an aid convoy and killed people who wanted to break the inaction and silence that allows the siege of Gaza to continue.
Will it have repercussions for activists around the world? Governments and the police will always find excuses.("Security")
Some activists will refrain from actions until the conditions are perfect. Others will respond to the immediate need for action.The Free Gaza movement is not about "getting killed for publicity", it wants "to bring change" by exposing Israel as the aggressor and occupier.
Steve Greenfield: “Multiple video recordings make it clear that the blockade runners not only failed to abide by the principles of non-violent resistance, but were prepared to not abide by them.”
The activists on the Mavi Marmara were under fire for five minutes before that video was taken, according to Hanin Zoabi, a member of the Israeli parliament (see my post @ 11:34 am). How could you possibly take IDF videos and testimony at face value, since the IDF commandos were the perpetrators of the lethal attack on unarmed activists in international waters? The video may be authentic, it may not be. The IDF typically only produces evidence that corroborates their lies.
Steve Greenfield: “Non-violent resisters have to be pure....Do it right or don't do it at all, because the goal is to bring change -- not to get killed for the publicity.”
Are you suggesting that the activists wanted to get killed for publicity? If so, the allegation seems gratuitously inflammatory. Also, what right do you have to sanctimoniously lecture unarmed civilians on board the Marmara if they reacted violently under fire? Or even if they weren't under fire, for that matter. The victims killed no one, when they would have been justified in doing so under the circumstances.
The Palestinians are being subjected to slow starvation and ethnic cleansing, for the love of God. Try to stay focused on the perpetrators’ atrocities, not the victims’ attempts to defend themselves.
You are 100% wrong. The aid convoy was trying to implement UNSC Resolution 1860 that carries the force of International Law, and they certainly have the right to self-defense. So enough of your BS.
Utter bullshit -- even Gandhi didn't think this way, unless you believe in some mythical form of Gandhiism that has been peddled to Americans as some sort of mystical and assymetric standard for "peace" activists when they are getting brutalized. No wonder Malcolm X had such contempt for this position and no wonder it such a standard that is easily coopted by the oppressors who can do anything in turn.
And there is plenty of dead giveaways in this text that put the entire onus of "moral" behavior on the activists.
Please cite some examples where your pathological passivity has EVER provided gains for the down-trodden?
It is self-rigetous, arrogant peace-pigs like you who destroyed out own activism center here in Pittsburgh, by arrogantly trying to tell others how they should conduct themselves and destroying respect for diversity of tactics. It is only YOUR opinion, poorly supported by historical facts, that you tactic of hyper-pure passivity is effective. So please take your arrogant preaching - from a position of rich white privlege - somewhere else.
As far as this incident, did not their resistance - which likely happend, if it happened at all, after they were already being fired upon, garner vastly, more world attention and media coverage and outrage than if they had just sat quietly and let the ships be seized? Do you think this would be in the news at all if they had followed your strategy?
Absurd reasoning in this case.
The activists were not armed with weapons. But they know all to well how the IDF operates. Attacking any unarmed civilians is their forte'. Staying on guard about was smart of them.
Besides, what the hell right did the IDF have in taking over this ship? Zero.
International waters, period. So, that blows whatever claim Israel made afterwards. The captain of any ship has a duty to protect his passengers, too, but the IDF immediately killed him.
Israel always get's so upset when people actually defend themselves.
Why is that? Cowards? Bullies?
I saw the video a few hours after it happened and Israel started pirating the info and spinning the truth. The IDF came propelling down a rope, waving kind of rod type weapon in hand, flailing like mad as they hit the deck. They attacked people who were just staring, clearly in shock at what was happening. Till they got smashed in the head.
The IDF proceeded to beat everyone in sight. When some people tried to stop them, the grabbed their guns (real guns, not paint guns) pointed them at people and ordered them around. Meanwhile I could hear gunfire in the background.
I suppose the activists should have just let the IDF beat their friends over the head, or better yet, use them as target practice like the the Palestinians.
Why don't you watch something other than Zionist propaganda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR2GQQBGTlY&feature=player_embedded
If you want to listen to some real Zionist propaganda, turn on your radio right now. They are not talking about the plight of Gaza or about the outrage of the Israeli siege. They are not talking about the unprovoked and deadly attack of the flotilla. They are debating the question of whether, considering the "violence" of some of the passengers, their soldiers were justified in their lethal response. I am greatly saddened by that, that the courageous people with whom I make common cause are crippled due to stupid mistakes like that.
Feelings are running high right now, but I think the response to Mr. Greenfield's remarks by many of you is unnecessarily harsh. He is not a Zionist shill and he is making an important point. I am saddened by this also, that people who are on the same side can't conduct a civil discourse.
As none of us can possibly know with certainty Mr Greenfield's underlying motives, his passionate advocacy of "nonviolence" for just one of the parties involved in the central core of this story is equivalent to "shilling" is and must remain a matter of opinion. To me it seemed mostly like a distraction from that core into some very wide-ranging philosophical and historical diversionary territory.
I will certainly admit my own contribution to that long-winded distraction, for which I apologise. I do think, however, that you may be mistaking some very strong disagreement for incivility.
Your responses are more controlled than most RV, better than most of mine.
Listen... It does not make a damn what actually happened on that ship. What matters is how the world perceives what happened. That was the point of the flotilla. And the whole point of disciplined non-violence is precisely that it is perceived to be one sided, peaceful us, belligerent them. Done properly it is a sucker punch, and the Israelis went for it hook line and sinker, just like those pigs down in Alabama did in the sixties. Were the passengers "right" to defend themselves? Of course they were. Were they smart to do it? I don't think so. It didn't save any lives. It may have cost some. And most importantly it may have scuttled the mission. I hope not, but watch how this plays out in the news. I'll bet Hillary gets up and praises the IDF for defending themselves against those hostile passengers, and the rest of her dittoheads will follow suit.
Fair enough. As for my own comments, some of us "youngsters" have been around long enough to recognise that immoderate positions on anything seldom win many converts. :^)
Pax vobiscum.
Turn on my radio to what???? Limbaugh??? The US corporate media??? The utter discreditable and discredited NPR??? And if they had done nothing, there would be no talk at all in the US media. Would that be better???
Do you thing such media framing and discussion are taking placein Greece, Turkey, Sweden, the UK or other properly functioning democracies?
I saw the videos of activists clubbing Israelis, too. Or is that what was really going on? How do we know those shadowy figures swinging clubs were activists at all? Maybe they were Israelis dressed up as activists. The video was shot by Israelis--how can you be so sure it is authentic? Israelis have a history of misrepresenting events. I need better proof than that presented so far.
I agree, and made the same point yesterday at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/01, with a similar response from my CD colleagues. Listen, people, we are in absolute agreement in all respects except this one very important procedural issue - that the operation would have been much more successful if a few hotheads had not handed the Israelis video evidence, however bogus, that their murderous deed was justified.
Another idiot.
The commandos were shooting before they came on board. I repeat the commandos were shooting before they came on board.
They had put up a white flag, but the commandos continued firing.
You are saying the people should have put up their hands too to be shot quietly.....
They are not hot heads, and they have every right on earth to defend their lives with anything they can against assassins and pirates in international waters.
Stop watching FOX and regurgitating crap!
Steve and I are neither disputing nor talking about what really happened, you dyslexic boob! We are talking about the media perception and all-important world opinion that is going on right now. That the passengers will be perceived as hotheads defeats their purpose. Why is that single point so difficult for you to understand?
Going forward on this odd string, I'll be happy to get down in the wallow and sling mud if you insist. I do enjoy it and I'm awfully good at it, but ... oh the hell with it. I'm going to fix breakfast.