What if just a few peace activists on the boat did use violence?

Comment

Comment by All-Party Group Conflict Issues on August 24, 2010 at 10:49am

Hi Jan.

Your point is acute and highly pertinent. My good friend (and advisor to the APPGCI), TV journalist Jane Corbin, made a recent 'Panorama' for the BBC that showed quite clearly that a group of about 40 of the activists on the Mavi Marmara were spoiling for a fight before the Israelis boarded, and did indeed arm themselves with knives, clubs and metal bars (cut from the ship's railings); the survivors were proud of their actions.

This does not justify the Israeli action of boarding the ship in international waters but does underline the point that non-violent action has to be - well - non-violent. If it departs from this basic principle it not only undermines its moral legitimacy, it also leads to more harm and even - as in this case - death.

Jane's report can be seen here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00thr24

Comment by Stellan Vinthagen on June 18, 2010 at 1:40pm

Sorry for my statement of "(which I am sorry if you are not part of)", since I very well know you make it clear in the beginning of your text that you condemn the attack by Israel. What I do mean is that this text seems to be the only one you make on the issue, and then you decide to distribute moral responsibility without knowing the situation, which I do find strange. It would be more helpful to ask; HOW should an even more nonviolent action be made next time? What is your advice Jan?

Comment by Stellan Vinthagen on June 11, 2010 at 1:40am

Dear Jan,
I don't understand how you can discuss this as a conflict between two equal parties, who may or may not have used violence in their quarrel. Of course the condemnation of the attack by Israel (which I am sorry if you are not part of) is possible to make out of the known facts: 1) threat of violence by Israel 2) the attack on international waters 3) the result: several activists are dead and wounded. None of this is denied by Israel. Of course the questioning of the activists is possible to make, but if you want to discuss their seemingly contradictory behavior, according to Israeli sources or some individual witnesses among the 700 who took part, before the facts are known, THEN you rely on Israeli monopoly of information in your criticism, exactly what Israel wants with this information strategy. That is a basic trap that I didn't expect you to fall into Jan. I think you are not so much doing the peace researcher job here Jan, but the work of the moral philosopher, asking: What IF Israeli propaganda is right?!

My problem is that I don't understand your urgency to distribute moral responsibility to the weaker part in the conflict (the non-armed, the attacked, the killed, the imprisoned) before the facts are known.

About the money: There are over a million different contributors to the flotilla so far. I don't have the overview. But I can tell you about the ship we in Ship to Gaza owns (Sofia, which is now stolen by Israel). It is a ship that was possible to buy with the help of ordinary donations on the street by citizens, its donations from trade union groups and similar groups in Sweden and Greece.

Other major donors to the Flotilla should be made public of course. You are right about that. I will come back to you when I have the overview.

Lastly, the whole point with the action was to create a dilemma situation (as described by George Lakey) for Israel. That was created by combining the humanitarian goal of supporting the Palestinians in Gaza, with the political goal of breaking the blockade. By sending a humanitarian aid transport in a way that was peaceful and legal (controlled ships, open loading of the cargo, sailing only on non-Israeli waters, etc) Israel ended up choosing between two bad options: stop the aid transport and look brutal, or let it go through and lift the blockade. They then decided to do something worse ... kill the aid workers on international waters ...

You can't be non-political about humanitarian aid when the humanitarian crisis is politically created. Giving aid to someone that is in a prison, is political, since it is forbidden by those in power. Resisting a blockade that is imposed by those in power by sending aid ships, is humanitarian, since the blockade is what produces the humanitarian crisis.

Best,
Stellan

Comment by Esta Tina Ottman on June 7, 2010 at 12:55pm

wonder if you have seen the latest Mondoweiss http://mondoweiss.net/2010/06/okeefe-gandhi-would-have-defended-the-mavi-marmara.html

Comment by Esta Tina Ottman on June 7, 2010 at 11:35am

hi Jan, am awash with flotilla 'information' right now: wanted to say, thank you for introducing an actual element of debate on this aspect. Everything else I have read attempts to ascribe blame 100% either way but there is a genuine question lurking at the heart of the Marmara incidents that remains unclear. Two wrongs - or is that three? - do not make a right.

Comment by Jan Oberg on June 7, 2010 at 10:12am

Dear Stellan

Thanks for your response. But it is only to one of the three questions I raised my doubts about - the violence on board, where the money came from and, third, whether it is such a good idea to mix humanitarian aid with other, more political motivations. But that is allright. To stay with your own emphasis on the empirical side - how come that we need a big new internatinal investigation before we can say anything about possible violent behaviour among activists, whereas none of those who gave Israel 100% (and no less) of the blame made their condemnation without first requiring some empirical investigation. If it is true that Israel has a complete monopoly on images/videos - there are at least witnesses and some of them dispute your approach to it. Her is a Turkish doctor's account:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/world/europe/05reconstruct.html?pagewanted=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a4

What I seem to hear is that - with a false dichotomy - that if the Israeli account is untrue, then there is no big problem on the other side. I am really not happy to see you use Gandhi to explain (away) whatever violence activists seem to have used. I wonder whether researcher Vinthagen was overruled by activist Vinthagen in the heat of the battle? Best, always - Jan

Comment by Stellan Vinthagen on June 6, 2010 at 1:59pm

Dear Jan, your are right, in principle and theory, but not in empirical reality, I would say. So far, facts speaks against this speculation of moral responsibility. IF we get other information from independent reliable sources, THEN I am prepared to discuss your points. 1) As you say we are looking on a monopoly of information from Israel. Israeli soldiers did steal or destroy all films, mobiles, photos and have selected some information (possibly edited) and released, as the ONLY source of information. 2) We need an independent and international investigation of what really did happen. If such an investigation shows something in the line of what you say, it would be, not just theoretically, but also empirically, worth considering. 3) During an attack on international waters of about four hours, in the dark, with commando soldiers from helicopters, speed boats, and navy ships, on a boat with 600 passengers, I would expect, and morally defend, panic reactions of self-defense. 4) All the "evidence" in terms of photos of "weapons" are such tools as exist on any ship of this size. 5) Israel threatened with the use of violent force before the event, the Flotilla declared openness through constant TV-livestream, peaceful behavior, had trainings before in order to make peaceful behavior possible, used an independent organizations that inspected the cargo, accepted an UN inspection if requested, a security check of all passengers before entering the ship, a identity check of all before accepted to enter the ship, etc. MY CONCLUSION is that facts speaks against the Israeli version, but as said, if an independent reliable source would prove something else, you are right. The only thing I can accept right now, is that we could have trained people even more, prepared people even more for the panic reaction, had peace keepers on board, etc. All in order to avoid strong over reactions. In that respect we have responsibility, but that is, in light of the level of violence and type of tactic used by the Israeli elite soldiers, not very relevant. We are no Gandhi-types, and also Gandhi did have regular problems with the use of violence among his own movement activists. We have even made it a point of not having a group of like-minded people on board. I guess this is the price you pay then. Lastly, also Gandhi advocated the use of violence in situations of violent threat if you can't find any nonviolent solution, e.g. in order to defend others from being killed. We don't know yet, it might have been what was happening. Again, an investigation is what we need, if we want to distribute moral responsibility, not speculation based on Israeli propaganda.