Max Ajl, who blogs at Jewbonics, responds to Matthew Taylor's post urging non-violence in the wake of the flotilla raid:
I thought the latest post by Matthew Taylor was out of touch. I have news for him: violence works. Violence pushed Israel out of southern Lebanon, and violence repelled the Israeli incursion into Lebanon in 2006. Violence let the Bielski partisans save our people during the Holocaust. Violence defined the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, one of the prouder moments of Jewish history. Non-violence can only be assessed conjuncturally, within a dense mesh of sociology, history, politics, and ideology. Each situation is different. There are no formulas. But we can use a rough typology of tactics. Non-violence must be pitched to appeal to either the world’s conscience, or the humanity of the oppressor. It can also function as widespread civil disobedience—a general strike, for example, that can jam up the machinery of violence. These tactics are not exclusive of one another, but nonetheless it is clear that non-violence is not a principle, as Taylor raises it to. It itself is a tactic.
Taylor extracts his principle from a mis-reading of Gandhi, who supported violent resistance, and a mis-reading of Indian history. The British presence in colonial India was less than .05 percent of the population. The colonial apparatus mostly relied on the native “sepoy” army. Gandhian non-violence intended to sway that army, not the British colonizers. And that didn’t work either. Japanese violence ended British colonialism, not Gandhi, and even Gandhi’s non-violence worked against the looming fist of violent resistance taking place around the rest of the subcontinent.
Consider the feasibility of those options on the Mavi Marmara. Could the passengers rely on appealing to the conscience of Israeli commandoes while they were firing bullets at the activists? Taylor thinks so: “the true power of nonviolence to persuade the oppressor is unleashed with a commitment to pursue acts of courageous love.” This seems wooly to me. Palestinian nationalism will be dead under a Merkava tank well before the oppressor is persuaded by local non-violent action (BDS globalizes non-violence in an ingenious way and creates a different correlation of forces, but plainly Taylor is not talking about this). Taylor instead is glossing his professor, Nagler. To say, “The point is that even if they were – while terribly difficult – the passengers could have resisted nonviolently by refusing to comply with the soldiers’ demands without making any attempt to injure them,” is ridiculous. When someone is shooting at you and your friends, you must disarm them, and probably use violence to do so. If you can’t disarm them, you must use violence to stop them from shooting, one way or another. The demand a bullet entering your skull makes on you is for you to die, and if there is a way to “refuse to comply” with that demand, Taylor and Nagler should fess up quick.
In terms of the appeal of non-violence aboard the Mavi Marmara to the world’s conscience, what is there to say? Israeli commandoes were authorized to use deadly violence, according to Michael Oren. The nine martyrs and the dozens of injured made this a major news-story, far bigger than if there had been no resistance of any sort. Did it appeal to the humanity of the world? Manifestly. There have been explosions of unrest in previously quiescent populations. The Egyptian opposition’s mobilizational capacity was quite low before the massacre. In its wake the opposition has organized many amazing actions. In Istanbul and in other Muslim countries, Palestine is at the forefront of every demonstration. The Spanish government is discussing how to end the blockade. Civil society will not stop sending ships until the blockade is broken. What sort of response is Taylor looking for? A sudden “moment” when Americans rise up and overthrow our thug government for its complicity in the ongoing Nakba? Not going to happen, not yet—and those accustomed to accepting whatever hasbara Israel emits would not have changed their minds if the activists had stuck to non-violence. They wouldn’t have noticed, most likely. Nagler, Taylor’s mentor, acknowledges this, writing, “why was there virtually no coverage of the flotilla in the international media until the tragedy? Do we want ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ journalism to continue shaping our cultural narratives, constantly putting sales appeal ahead of political cogency?” (“We” don’t own the press agencies. If “we” did, as Marcuse pointed out a long time ago, the revolution would have taken place a long, long time ago). Nagler wants impotent purism raised to an operational principle of the solidarity movement. Good luck with that.
Finally, in terms of jamming the machinery of occupation or violence: the passengers on the Mavi Marmara apparently did a great deal of this. They used water-hoses and repelling poles to keep commandoes off the deck. On other ships, some activists formed human chains, or jumped into the water to buy time, as Paul Larudee did. This can work, but, again, we run into the problem: the blurring of non-violence and violence. Where does disarming gun-toting commandoes fall? Violent or non-violent? Repelling their boarding vessels? Forceful or non-forceful? The Palestinian women who pushed Israeli soldiers at Budrus? Violent or non-violent? Taylor later writes that breaking windows constitutes violence. By this logic, blowing up unoccupied tanks is also “violent,” and certainly, using a hammer to hit a soldier spraying bullets into civilians is also violence. Can Taylor possibly be serious about this principle, or the trouble that results when one maps non-violence and violence onto the ethical and moral spheres, and creates precise alignments between “non-violence” and ethical and moral rectitude, “violence” and ethical and moral disarray?
Taylor probably thinks that resistance on the Rachel Corrie followed his proposed path (although he doesn’t mention the Rachel Corrie. Funny, that ship was barely in the news. Could that have had something to do with the presence or absence of forceful resistance?). Anyway, on the Rachel Corrie, the passengers were understandably scared and horrified, and resisted so little because they didn’t want to die. This is no judgment on their bravery. But the sort of non-violence Taylor supports is the sort that castrates resistance, and takes resistance out of the realm of history and into the realm of religion. What would Taylor have recommended to the Vietnamese? There is nothing nefarious about defending oneself from armed attack. Making it nefarious writes the Palestinian right to resist out of history, reserving righteous violence and force for the Western powers that already almost monopolize it. Taylor wants to turn the fact of an imbalance of forces into a principle: don’t resist. He wants to willfully “try to raise ourselves to such a cultural and moral level, both as individuals and as a community, that we would be able to control this reflex”—the resort to violence, as Chomsky wrote 40 years ago. But what Chomsky was talking about intra-communal oppression, and so intra-communal resistance.
Taylor is talking about something else entirely. He is talking about resistance to policies supported by an ideology that de-humanizes those whom it oppresses. Taylor thinks we should appeal to “Israeli public opinion,” and not act as if it is “irrelevant; to do so is both a strategic and moral blunder. There's a reason that so many Israelis demonstrated in support of the IDF's actions, and I think the violence of the resisters was a huge part of it.” Who is guilty of this blunder? Of course Israeli public opinion is relevant. That’s precisely what BDS targets. But it targets it using a measure of coercion, because the Palestinians can’t afford to wait while a militarized Sparta comes to its senses. Israeli articulate opinion is mostly upset that the assault on the Mavi Marmara didn’t conform to its expectations. Does Taylor read the mainstream and right-wing Israeli press? This is a thoroughly brainwashed, militarized population. Yes, scared, not eager to join the military to brutalize and be brutalized, except the hard-right Zionists who disproportionately occupy the officer corps and make operational decisions in combat situations, but with a bunker mentality, and often, deeply racist—last week MK Ahmad Tibi was nearly assaulted in the Knesset by racist thugs for trying to deliver concrete to people without homes. Taylor writes that “We must design our activism campaigns to both end the oppression of the Palestinians AND help Israelis to feel less scared and more recognized for their humanity.” What could he mean? Israelis aren’t acting in a humane manner, for the most part. We can’t recognize something that isn’t there. And we are fantasists if we choose to believe otherwise. It is not the job of solidarity activists to heal Israeli culture. Israel is not fence-sitting. It is actively carrying out horrible crimes with the passive or active complicity of the overwhelming majority of its population. The men who wield power in that society should be facing war crimes trials, not quibbles about whether the solidarity movement is hurting their feelings.
There is far more to say: on how Western media frames resistance, on how it accepts the Israeli narrative or the imperial narrative, on how to acknowledge this as we plan tactics and strategy until such time as we can control the narratives, on the nature of institutional and non-institutional racism vis-à-vis Western solidarity activist-based resistance and Palestinian resistance, on the naturalization of state violence, Israeli and American aggression rights, and the relentless transformation, via dominant narratives, of just resistance into unjust terror, a narrative that unfortunately Taylor strengthens.
Summing up, here’s what I think. Those who resisted violently were brave. Those who resisted non-violently were brave. All were right. All were just. Solidarity organizations can agree in advance to resist or not to resist, as Taylor instructs us. But most oppression in human history has been thrown off by horrible violence. Frankly, if a man has a gun pointed at my head on my own territory and has shot the person standing next to me, and I can disarm that man, I will disarm him. And there is something surreal, if not pitiful, to demand not only that I abjure that basic human response, but furthermore, abjure it when the gun is pointed not at my head but at the person standing next to me. Writing about it admittedly makes for good copy and good employment for those living and writing in Western countries where power is eager to dissolve an internationally-sanctioned right to resist. For those living under the gun, Taylor’s prescriptions may seem a little odder.
SPOT
ON.
I’m sure Mr. Taylor, to be fair, will have a response to this, as I’m sure he agrees with some of what you’ve said (at least I hope).
This week in South Korea, Shimon Peres was supposed to receive an honorary Doctorate degree at a local university.
In the aftermath of the Israeli massacre on board the Mavi Marmara and the siege on Gaza, Korea responded by withdrawing that honorary degree. Instead, upon his arrival in S. Korea, Peres was greeted by Korean demonstrators who called him a murderer and a criminal.
“… In the aftermath of the Israeli massacre on board the Mavi Marmara and the siege on Gaza, Korea responded by withdrawing that honorary degree. Instead, upon his arrival in S. Korea, Peres was greeted by Korean demonstrators who called him a murderer and a criminal.”
His is, Avi, always was and will always be; Erdogan called him right at Davos.
Peres’s hypocrisy figures prominentaly in Sasha Polakow-Suransky’s The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa, and the author is unabashed in calling it exactly that, hypocrisy.
That’s good news. Especially given the shift to the right in South Korean politics the last few years.
Also, Peres’ visit was degraded from state visit to work visit..
Today in the news: Barak’s visit to France canceled:
Israeli minister cancels trip to weapons fair in France after French activists threaten lawsuit
link to imemc.org
One thing about South Korean demonstrators is that they should not be taken lightly. Some of the most militant and dedicated cadres of oppositional protest movements I’ve ever seen. Fits into this discussion I think. They certainly used “violence” in opposition to the Dictatorship’s violence.
Good stuff, Max.
As I see it, the problem with violence is that it allows the oppressor to argue that it is a victim of terrorism, and that victim status justifies further both violent and nonviolent oppression. The sympathy of the rest of the world is a central factor here, and the spectre of non-violent resisters being shot or “Merkava’ed” is pretty powerful–especially when pictured. The world press needs to be present at these confrontations and broadcast them live. (We can be pretty sure that “lunch counter” provocation will need to be a part of nonviolent resistance, however. ) Kevin McDonald (link here: link to theoccidentalobserver.net
) has written a very interesting critique of Mearsheimer that includes arguing that nonviolence cannot be used effectively against Israel. In sum, I think the value of nonviolence in this particular case depends upon how the rest of the world reacts to Israel’s use of violence against Palestinian nonviolence. The Israelis don’t appear to care about Palestinians, but look at their panicky response to Goldstone (i.e., world opinion).
The occidentalobserver appears to be openly racist, whatever its argument about nonviolence.
The fact remains, Israel has been very effective at making sure actual non-violence by Palestinians doesn’t get any effective press and neither does huge amounts of violence and racism by Israel. Israel has to do a lot of orwellian language and straight-out lies to cover it up. I’m truly sorry it took 9 people being killed by Israel to get any word out on the siege of Gaza, but if that’s what it takes I’ll happily say that disabling a tank, defending a ship against armed commandos including disarming those commandos in a non-life-threatening way is non-violent resistance.
Kevin McDonald not only appears to be openly racist but is racist. His disciples occasionally show up here and do sound reasonable for awhile. But eventually, like with McDonald, the racist stench becomes unbearable.
I approve your correction
The headline that distinguishes between tactics and principles says it all.
I suspect that the US would be most distressed if Abbas’ armed forces laid down their weapons because they were won over by non-violence, even if the real reason was that the troops were not allowed to use them against their occupying enemy.
Lobewyper, from what we have seen of Israel’s actions over the past 62 years, violence is the only thing it reacts to. More often than not, it has reacted to the detriment of the Palestinians but without it, they would have been much worse off. Look how passive they are on the WB and what is it getting them? Israel has Abbas eating out of its hand but the killing never stops.
Walid, I don’t know the history so can’t really respond properly to your contentions. What I think I do know is that United States governments since 1967 have wanted the Israelis to be free of any serious armed resistance to the occupation so that they could devote their full attention to any US middle eastern concerns that might arise. Thus, viewing Israel as a strategic asset, the US has understood that the best way for Israel to deal with such possible resistance is by colonization, and covertly encouraged it. The flotilla murders have galvanized world opinion and led several countries to demand an end to the blockade. Two intifadas later, Israel has blockaded Gaza for several years and occupied ever more of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. My main point: we need to remember the role of the US government in what has been done to Palestine, and oppose that role.
I think we need to remember the subject under discussion, non-violence vs. violence to which Max has made a superb contribution which should be on the reading list of every political activist before she or he decides that one or the other is sacrosanct.
As for Lobewyoer’s comment that the US “wanted the Israelis to be free of any serious armed resistance to the occupation so that they could devote their full attention to any US middle eastern concerns that might arise,” I am surprised that anyone can believe, let alone write this after the major efforts it took by both Bush administrations to keep Israel, and Israel alone, out of both Gulf wars. The fact of the matter is that NO Israeli soldier has ever lifted a finger on Washington’s behalf and as Ariel Sharon once told Israeli army radio, they never will, and that the US knows it,
Jeffrey, I agree with Lobewyper’s views about America’s involvement and in calling the shots in the Middle East, Israel is a puppet of the US eventhough we all get the opposite impression. Bush and Bush kept Israel out of the Iraq wars only to keep the other Arabs on their side and nothing more than that. The first Bush opened the door wide open to Israeli busnesses in the Kurdish north and the second one opened the rest of Iraq to them that up to a couple of years back, there were 500 Israeli companies operating in Iraq. On the subject of Sharon, he was once said something to the Knesset to not worry about Washington as he couold personally handle any problem there. This is what the Americans wanted him to think. I believe that the siege on Gaza is an American decision as was the cutting off of all Arab and European funding to Gaza. Today, we read in Haaretz about Abbas having asked Obama (not Netanyahu) to NOT lift the siege of Gaza because it would undermine Abbas. This should tell you who is controling the siege. When Egypt shut the Rafah crossing during Israel’s massacres, it was not to please Israel but to go along with American policy of trying to snuff out Hamas. Lobewyper is right on when he says that was has been happening (or not happening) to the Palestinians is a direct result of American policy.
Taylor writes that “We must design our activism campaigns to both end the oppression of the Palestinians AND help Israelis to feel less scared and more recognized for their humanity.”
Israelis may feel scared, but that doesn’t excuse their thieving. Fear of someone who might steal one’s legitimate home deserves far more sympathy and empathy than fear of someone whose house one has stolen, and is living in squalor in the front yard.
I no longer have any sympathy for the vast majority of Israelis, and won’t until they stop using our financial, diplomatic, economic, and political support to steal from Palestinians, making us complicit in their crimes in the eyes of the rest of the world and increasing the danger to our innocent people.
If they want sympathy for and understanding of their fears, they need to stop stealing from, torturing, and murdering Palestinians. Until then I see their fear as a problem that they brought upon themselves, have the capacity to solve, and refuse to solve simply because they don’t want to stop plundering.
All this crap about being sensitive to Israeli needs is just mollycoddling that facilitates their slide into racist fascism. If their descent isn’t arrested by intense pressure from the American Jewish political establishment, realistically the only group that may have a chance, Israel as a Jewish state will either cease to exist or will become an irreparable abomination in the eyes of the world eventually including most Americans.
If the American Jewish political establishment chooses not to act, then it’s up to the rest of us to save ourselves by cutting the United States’ umbilical cord to Israel before they drag us down with them. We should welcome and help Israelis who want to escape and become Americans and ruthlessly (in self defense) prohibit public and private aid of any kind.
Spot on.
“It’s up to the rest of us to save ourselves by cutting the United States’ umbilical cord to Israel before they drag us down with them”
- I believe that is where we are headed. An internal war with a fifth column that either will need to adapt to reality, or a growing population (the rest of us) that will have to change it for them. When I use fifth column, I mean to say a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group, but are not aiding an enemy (unless you can consider themselves, their own worst enemy).
I think we need to remember that in situations like the relationship between Israel and the US, the most egregious things are done, and policies adopted, for the benefit of very few people. It does not necessarily imply the full faith and credit of the US government, so to speak. Just its susceptibility to well organised and funded special interests.
Another words, America and Israel relate the way they do not because so many people are for it, but because not enough people know about it and are against it.
Okay, that was a really inadequate analysis, but there’s an important point there, I think, maybe.
Max Ajl, thank you for this classic essay. Which everybody should copy & paste on every site and blog dealing with the ME. Or claiming to be “antiWar” etc.
Lobewyper, better wyp again, your brain still has some smudges.
Fools are worse than cowards, often worse than traitors. If the Palestinians wanted a clown to help them -they’d hire Bozo, not this Taylor amateur. Only one way to deal with rushing in: Give ‘em a swift kick out. To stop the Zionist Death Machine – You do whatever it takes.
I like you.
Excellent article that convincingly disproves the naive essay by Taylor.
Hey, teahee, I try to wype my brain daily, but my eyesight isn’t as good as it used to be. What do you think of the point I tried to make earlier, which I repeat below:
In sum, I think the value of nonviolence in this particular case depends upon how the rest of the world reacts to Israel’s use of violence against Palestinian nonviolence. The Israelis don’t appear to care about Palestinians, but look at their panicky response to Goldstone (i.e., world opinion).
This piece by Max Ajl is outstanding.
I agree with others here, e.g. lrb: spot on.
One of my favorite passages:
And there is something surreal, if not pitiful, to demand not only that I abjure that basic human response, but furthermore, abjure it when the gun is pointed not at my head but at the person standing next to me.
Concerning lobewyper:
As I see it, the problem with violence is that it allows the oppressor to argue that it is a victim of terrorism, and that victim status justifies further both violent and nonviolent oppression.
The problem is that “violence” is so easy to produce, as Max has brilliantly pointed out. … And from there simply move on to blaming the victims.
That must be the reason why our resident peace-snake-oil-salesmen knew there would be criminals, terrorists in advance. Everybody who dares to confront Israeli power must be one.
I’d like to know more about the victims, especially from people standing next to them when things happened.
Jeffrey wrote:
“As for Lobewyoer’s comment that the US “wanted the Israelis to be free of any serious armed resistance to the occupation so that they could devote their full attention to any US middle eastern concerns that might arise,” I am surprised that anyone can believe, let alone write this after the major efforts it took by both Bush administrations to keep Israel, and Israel alone, out of both Gulf wars. The fact of the matter is that NO Israeli soldier has ever lifted a finger on Washington’s behalf and as Ariel Sharon once told Israeli army radio, they never will, and that the US knows it,”
Jeffrey, I’m embellishing a point here that Norman Finkelstein has made on a number of occasions. I think your point is a good one, and I wonder what Finkelstein would say about it. I think I recall that it was the Arab countries that were the main impetus for allowing Israel to sit out the Gulf wars, but I’m not sure. (I think we wanted as broad an Arab participation as possible.) Thus, it still seems possible that the US has viewed Israel as a strategic asset, but maybe not in quite the way I implied…
With all due respect to Norman, he has tried to stay faithfully within the confines of what his mentor, Chomsky has determined to be US policy as well as prescriptions for resolving the I-P conflict which means he opposes a BDS policy that targets Israel proper (as opposed to the WB settlements) as well as the academic and cultural boycotts, he opposes the Palestinian right of return, supports two states as opposed to a single state, and, dismisses the power of the Zionist lobby over US Middle East policy, although at one point he did acknowledge that it has influence over US policy on the Israel-Palestine issue although it is hard for me to see how the two can be disconnected. He also wrote, at one time, that the neocons had no strong links to Israel. Obviously he spoke without doing the research but he wouldn’t be the first or won’t be the last to do so.
he opposes the Palestinian right of return, supports two states as opposed to a single state,
There was a video debate posted here on the site, conducted by RT, between Finkelstein and Morris. Finkelstein most definitely defended the ROR and the 1SS, if only as viable options on the table as supported by the international community and law.
I don’t know what his personal opinions on the matter are. Perhaps he has dismissed the ROR and 1SS solution somewhere in his writings, but it wasn’t apparent from his position in that particular debate as he seemed quite defensive of them.
Like Chomsky, he has said it ROR should not be taken off the table but that it is not realistic (which tends to undercut it). I didn’t see the interview but every other time he has defended the two state position.
He publicly abandoned the Gaza Freedom March steering committee a year ago when the Palestinians organizing it included reference to the ROR as well as BDS. Personall, I don’t engage in the one state vs two-state argument because not only is it not our business because, at the moment neither seems viable and there are more pressing issues that need to be addressed.
The following short debate between Petras and Finkelstein I think gives a good idea of where Finkelstein’s mind is on these issues in general, if not specifically on all of them.
The Pro-Israel Lobby Debate
by Hagit Borer, James Petras, and Norman Finkelstein
April 17, 2007
link to dissidentvoice.org
I came away from that debate wondering if Finkelstein was a serious thinker, at all.
I’m not sure about Finkelstein’s position on the one state solution, but I think this would be a bad one :
1/ Just remember what was voted and decided before the ’47 partition plan. The Arab League was OK with a 2 state solution, but not the one proposed by the UN. Trying now a one state solution would be erasing everything done for 50 years now (albeit it’s not much) and what the people living down there want, plus we’ll be raising a lot more of other issues : who would have control, etc….
2/ As a result of a one state solution, we might see a civil war appear, and I think (not sure about that) that the UN can’t take action in a civil war. However, I may be naive but I hope the UN will one day take its responsibility and send some armed forces to help finish the I/P conflict.
Sorry for disgressing about the subject of the article.
I see no reason to try to say, in one’s own words, something that another has said better. From M Van Creveld “They [Israeli soldiers] are very brave people… they are idealists… they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose-lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel… if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam… it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal.” Wikipedia.
The current Israeli policies doom it.
The Israeli army … did not use napalm”
No, they used White Phosphorous during Operation Cast Lead.
They didn’t “kill millions”; but they have killed thousands, in fact they’ve killed 6 thousand according to most accounts, since 2000, a 5-to-1 ratio to the approximately 1000 Israelis killed.
Other than that, I’m with you all the way Steve Laudig. It’s hard to end up looking like a hero when you are a nuclear power and a military power, and you’re shooting a 19 year old kid in the head 4 times at point blank range.
Violence really doesn’t “work” in my view; but if there is a definitive “war” waged using violence, and the tactic is shifted to non-violence, the public relations factor does work. To wit: Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness of the IRA led that organization to shift from violent struggle to a “political struggle” and claimed the moral high ground; they’ve not yet liberated the six counties of Northern Ireland from the British, but their position has strengthened over the course of time since the 1998 Agreement.
What bullshit from Crevald, and so typical of Wikipedia to allow it.
The Israelis used white phosphorous instead of napalm. It’s worse than napalm.
The Israelis killed 1400 of a 1.5 million population in three (3) weeks.
The Americans killed 3,000,000 of a 45 million population in 676 weeks.
When you do the math, it’s the equivalent of Israel killing 212,940,000 in 676 weeks.
von Crevald should not be dismissed. He is honest, he does not lie to promote whatever agenda he supports. In fact I believe he is a true intellectual and as a military historian and theoretician he is more interested in his reputation in those areas than in his devotion to zionism. He is extremely knowledgeable and one can learn from him without fear of being manipulated for some other political objective.
As horrible as white phosphorous is, if the Israel’s had used napalm on Gaza as the US did on insurgent villages during the Viet Nam war, the deaths of Palestinians would have been in the many tens of thousands, not 1400.
Israel simply couldn’t use napalm because it was banned for use against civilians in 1980 by the UN (Convention on Certain Conventionnel Weapons).
From Wikipedia :
With this convention, you can see that napalm is clearly banned, but white phosphorus can still be used with the excuse “it’s not primarily incendiary”. I wonder what was Israel’s defense at the time.
So white phosphorus is the “new” napalm. And it was probably made, or engineered, by the U.S. government which has as much culpability as the current Israeli administration since U.S. government funding causes Israeli actions. I am using a jurisprudential definition of “cause” in the sense that “but for” U.S. funding the Israeli government actions wouldn’t happen or that U.S. funding is a “significant factor” in the enabling the Israeli government to engage in the actions. A gangster’s banker is as culpable as the gangster.
White phosphorus (“willy pete”) was first used extensively by the British against the Kurds (around 1920) – I think the British are the first one to actually manufacture the grenades for tracers, and for plain use against targets. They have a good record of using that kind of thing (and gas) against “the natives” of the region.
I seem to remember we also used Gas against the Kurds.
Just found this little piece on The Guardian site (24 March 2010), about WP :
Using violence against the Jewish people cannot be a moral way to achieve peace.
It was violence in fact that lead to tragedy in this case. What if the IHH cell had not attacked the IDF soldiers with metal bars, knives and axes? True, the story would not have been as widely covered, but in my opinion, it’s better to have living people than so called martyrs.
I’d like to re-iterate that this concise comment does not violate the comments policy although it will wait in a moderation queue for quite a while until the conversation is significantly below it. This is a practice, aimed at silencing those who support the the Jewish nation, applied to all those who dissent with immoral arguments, even while the moderated people are respecting the comments policy
“Using violence against the Jewish people cannot be a moral way to achieve peace.”
Israel was achieved by using violence against the Palestinians people. Are you suggesting that Israel is immoral?
It was violence in fact that lead to tragedy in this case.
“What if the IHH cell had not attacked the IDF soldiers with metal bars, knives and axes?”
They didn’t attack. They defended their boat against piracy. What if the Israelis had not fired at the boat before boarding? What if the Israelis didn’t board the ships illegally in international waters and commit piracy?
“This is a practice, aimed at silencing those who support the the Jewish nation, applied to all those who dissent with immoral arguments, even while the moderated people are respecting the comments policy”
Go to hell you sick troll. If you want to support the the Zuifascist apartheid criminal state of Israel, do it somewhere else.
Liars like you are not welcome here.
From what I saw on Iara Lee’s 1 hour video (albeit we still don’t have a full uncut timeline), the IDF started the hostility by firing stun grenades and paintballs from the zodiacs, then they started aiming (not sure if they shot) at people using laser sight from the helicopter, well before the commandos landed on the deck. And I’m sure this laser sight was not attached to a paintball gun.
“Using violence against the Jewish people cannot be a moral way to achieve peace”
[expletives deleted] Nobody used any “violence” against “the Jewish people”, chump. People on a ship in international waters tried to defend themselves against boarding.
Nobody, I want to emphasise, did a thing to “the Jewish People”, just tried to defend themselves from Israeli thugs.
And I can prove it: Nobody has so much as given me a dirty look. The Jewish people are still safe!
Our reputation for intelligence, I can see, is in a high-risk position when you make comments like that, tho.
“I’d like to re-iterate that this concise comment does not violate the comments policy although it will wait in a moderation queue for quite a while until the conversation is significantly below it. This is a practice, aimed at silencing those who support the the Jewish nation, applied to all those who dissent with immoral arguments, even while the moderated people are respecting the comments policy”
C’mon man, don’t you have any pride? Are you trying to get a “disabled” plate for your yarmulke?
On, I forgot, you have specific evidence to back up your accusation of comment-moderation skull-duggery, which you will present in due time.
Expletive deleted? I shoulda known! I stay away for a couple of days, and it turns into a high-cless joint!
Okay, I give in! Let me see what I can do without expletives. Oh, I’ll be helpless, disarmed, a one-legged man in a battle of wits, but I’ll try.
i thought both articles were great…so…yeah…
i will say that when it comes to framing the narrative after the fact, it’s lose-lose; dead men tell no tales, but neither do those living in a dank israeli prison (just ask mordechai vanunu.)
it also comes down to proportion; for all the constant abuse by hasbara agents of the “david and goliath” analogy, israel has been the obvious giant in that contest for many years and it’s futile to go up against them with conventional tactics if you’re looking for anything but a pyrrhic “victory” (i.e. many neocons/zionists/etc. consider cast lead and lebanon 2006 to be “losses” because the IDF didn’t reach certain objectives, but the body count comparisons say otherwise.) the flotilla activists didn’t have m16s or apache gunships, so we’d be talking about casualties in the hundreds if they had gone for all out confrontation.
Excellent article, Max. I agree with everything you’ve written, but even if I didn’t, I would give a great deal of weight to what you had to say, knowing your are currently on the ground in Gaza, where these questions are far from abstract.
This is a bit tangential, but since you mentioned the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, anyone who has not read Marek Edelman’s splendid account of that action and its effects should do so. A short version can be found here: link to writing.upenn.edu
Thank you for posting this link to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. It was very difficult to read without rage enveloping me and frankly at the end when they finally resisted I wanted every damn German dead. I’m ashamed I didn’t know more about the Warsaw Ghetto. There is absolutely no moral equivalence between what happen to the Jewish people in the Warsaw Ghetto and what is happening or has happen in Gaza as of yet. I think it’s important to be intellectually honest. I know the 2008-2009 Gaza Invasion was horrible and there is no excuse for it especially concerning the dead innocent civilians. It was just as bad, I understand. But proportionaly as bad as Gaza has been the Warsaw Ghetto experience was straight out of hell. Basically, every body was starved to death and sent off to the gas chambers and finally the last 30,000 out of 300,000 put up a fight. I wish everybody reads the link Lauradurkay posted. It does make the treatment of the Palestinians even more difficult to understand for me , however, I believe people need to quit stating that Gaza equals the Warsaw Ghetto. It doesn’t, it’s not even close. Gaza is definitely worse than S.A. aparthied and not near as bad as the Nazi’s. I believe everybody here desires for it not to get any worse. One last thing. The prisoners of the Warsaw Ghetto were able to get out to the Western Powers their situation in 1941 and their message was actually broadcast in London on Public Radio. And the West(America & Great Britian) did nothing about it, not even acknowledging it. Unbelievable.
Not to get too far into the business of comparing genocides, but I think conditions in Gaza are quite similar to the Warsaw Ghetto before it was “cleared,” ie. before the Nazi policy went from slow starvation and random repressive violence to systematic, mechanized killing. Joseph Glatzer has made that observation on this very blog: link to mondoweiss.net
Let us hope the comparisons can end there.
I agree.
The more I read into Taylor’s statements, and those of his mentor, Nagler, the more I find them to be apologists hiding under the cover of pseudo-Gandhist non-violence
Taylor writes:
“There’s a reason that so many Israelis demonstrated in
support of the IDF’s actions, and I think the violence of the resisters was a
huge part of it.”
Yeah, all the chants of “Death to Arabs” were certainly incited by the “violence of the resisters.” The fact that the demonstrators supporting the IDF actions blindly praised the violence of the IDF, in a bout of nationalist furor and professed “unity,” is entirely lost on him.
When the Israelis commit acts of violence, and the Israeli public popularly supports it, there is a “reason” behind it that is evident to Taylor. Yet, when the flotilla activists are descended on and attacked in the middle of the night, on the high seas – they are to blame for not quietly submitting to the violence of the commandos.
Taylor’s fundamental flaw is not one of misunderstanding Gandhi or using non-violence to as a means to subjugate the oppressed – although he is guilty of both. It is that of applying morality selectively. That Taylor not once even applies the same standards of the moral impetus onto the Israelis, instead sympathizing with their demonstrators who furiously call for the death of Arabs and glorify violence, and heavily taxing the Palestinians who do not conform to the most rigid standards of acceptable resistance in the face of violence and death, is what makes him a most bigoted commentator.
Taylor is the archetypal example of what is known as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Israel was created on the basis of violence. Israel would not exist were it not for violence.
Of course violence works.
It did create the country in the first place it is true.
Violence has not created a safe haven for Jews. It has not created a safe, secure country. It remains to be seen what violence accomplishes in the future. The future looks quite violent and unpleasant.
Looking at this example, violence can only be said to “work” if there is a very narrow goal that is desired.
Again,
The reality of the Mavi Marmara press is that BOTH Israel and the Free Gaza movement, look bad, look hypocritical.
The Free Gaza movement describes itself as a non-violent civil disobedience movement, which is betrayed by the films of the beatings of the Israeli paratroopers, that is more reminiscent of the treatment of Rodney King at the hands of the LA police, than of non-violent civil disobedience.
The world sees it, and most importantly government officials see it. They rationally conclude that the Palestinian solidarity movement is comprised of those that are willing to undertake “by any means necessary”, except those means that are effective at changing hearts and minds.
It seems that Phil and/or Adam are censoring based on content currently. A couple of my posts that were awaiting moderation have disappeared. I hope I’m wrong.
It conflicts with the stated goals of facilitating discussion.
“The reality of the Mavi Marmara press is that BOTH Israel and the Free Gaza movement, look bad, look hypocritical.”
Fuck off Witty.
You have no shame. What the hell are you doing back ion this forum you fascist scum bag?
The only films the Israelis have allowed the world to see, from those they confiscated, have selectively edited you pathetic liar.
You’re lycky you are even allowed to post here, you vulgar and hypocritical propagandist. Your message is dead and buried an no one will ever take you seriously again.
Get lost and take your stinking propaganda with you.
What a coward. Two weeks off because *you can’t handle the [flotilla] truth* and you slither back right on time.
As you said, it “The reality of the Mavi Marmara press”. press.
Disclaimer : I understand the word “press” as newspapers, medias, etc… English is not my native language, so I may not understand it quite right.
What the press, at least the mainstream one that 90% of the people rely on, is not objective and/or investigative. That’s all.
The press often fail to talk about the legal issue at hand, just using the words of, say, Erdogan saying “state piracy”. The press should and must contact lawyers and experts in the field to get the facts : this is not piracy, this is a declaration of war. This is invasion on at least one sovereign state territory (maybe not Turkey on the Mavi Marmara, because it was changed to be Comoros flagged just before the sail, but the other boats were Turkish, Greece, USA and Ireland flagged). The press often fail to do the burglar analogy and the self-defense from the passengers. The press often fail to compare this event with, say, pirates in Somalia, which, by the way, even armed with Kalashnikov and openly hostiles, can be boarded and arrested without one casualtie one either side.
“and you slither back right on time.”
He can’t stay away, and he knows it. And mark my words, before it’s all over Witty will be taking credit for the anti-Zionist movement. Oh, he won’t take credit for anti-Zionism, no, he’ll be preening himself for his wise counsels which kept Mondoweiss from becoming a Hamas outlet, or something like that. ‘I, Witty, stood foresquare in the path of maximalism, and thwarted it with green yarn of moderation’ or something like that.’
Witty, (expletive deleted), and you are an (expletive deleted) and you should (expletive deleted)! Let’s see if that gets past “swear-chek”.
Max, I could kiss you for this:
syvanen June 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm:
“Kevin McDonald not only appears to be openly racist but is racist. His disciples occasionally show up here and do sound reasonable for awhile. But eventually, like with McDonald, the racist stench becomes unbearable.”
Sure he’s a racist. Lots of people are. He is also sometimes spot-on about what’s happening in the I-P conflict–even though his primary interest is returning WASPs to their “rightful” position in American society. To dismiss everything he might have to say because you don’t like his politics seems to me both unwise and undemocratic.
Gotta disagree with you about Kevin McDonald’s “spot on.”
Moreover, it would be foolish for the Israelis to believe that the Palestinians would not hold a grudge against them for all that has happened if indeed the impossible dream of a bi-national democratic state comes to be. This is the same impossible dream that White Americans have when they think that the future multi-racial, multicultural, White-minority America will cease to hold historic grudges against the formerly dominant Whites and that it will retain all the institutional structures as when Whites were dominant. It won’t happen.
Does he really think Chinese-Americans and Mexican-Americans have a grudge against “Whites?” I don’t see it. And IMHO it’s rare among African-Americans who have perhaps the most reason for grudges against whites. There’s a ton of intermarriage going on between the groups. Even those of different religions. As for whether the Israelis should be scared in a society dominated by Palestinians, he has a point, but allowing equal rights and setting up the institutions for a just system as well as truth&reconciliation contributes infinitely towards reducing any need for fear. Since I think most Israelis were enticed there by false mythistory from the Zionist leadership I hold them relatively guiltless (sure many are in denial too) and should be allowed to stay. I’m not saying the ROR should be implemented without some assurances from Palestinian leadership that grudges won’t be acted on. In a fully democratic system, the Jews who stay would have sufficient voting power to assure their needs are met.
I don’t dismiss everything Kevin McDonald says, just his idea that ethnic politics is necessarily deadly. Only under certain conditions, the main one being that ethnic partisans call for it to be deadly.
“even though his primary interest is returning WASPs to their “rightful” position in American society”
Producing pretty, cheerfully submissive (yet incredibly practical) nymphomaniac daughters who can cook for Jewish guys to marry? That “rightful” position? I’m all for it!
P.S.: syvanen, don’t quit your day job to become a full-time psychologist
just yet.
lobbywiper: smudgy smudgy.
what a coincidence, the same ones applauding the “non-violence” fetish are the ones pushing the notion that Big Oil ordered the Zionist terrorists to attack the Flotilla. “Strategic Asset” my keister.
The only question is how long it will take for those with a stake in the continuance of US imperial power to realize what putting Isreali interests atop the US agenda is doing to the US position in the world. Or if, as seems likely, they already realize that Izzy & the ZPCs are dragging their “our sort” trip down the drain but are too scared to try to do anything about it.
For instance Gen Petraeus: he opened his mouth long enough to describe the emperor’s full monty, then chickened out.
I don’t know if anybody has seen Lauren Booth’s description of the Mavi Marmara survivor testimony, but what they say has a lot to bear on the subject of non-violence, especially in relation to israel and zionists:
Shocking Testimonials from the Mavi Marmara Survivors
by Lauren Booth / June 12th, 2010
(excerpts)
One of the most striking trends following the flotilla attack has been how quickly Israeli hasbara is being exposed by internet journalists. The doctored IOF audio clips, where amateurs with mock Arab accents hiss ‘Go back to Auschwitz’ to Israeli naval officers. Well they didn’t take long to pull apart did they? Then there are the (so-pathetic-they’re-almost-funny claims the flotilla was linked to Al Qaeda. I laughed out loud to read in an Israeli paper that humanitarian activist (and former US marine) Ken O’Keefe was going to Gaza to; ‘train a commando unit in Hamas.’ I know Ken fairly well. Quite frankly I’m not sure who should be more insulted by this stupidity him or Hamas? Either way flinging the words ‘Hamas’ ‘Jihadists’ and ‘Israel’s security’ around is no longer having the same shock and awe effect on journalists or the public at large.
The internet now shapes the world’s story, not the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
Now, evidence is emerging, that having been forced (by Turkish hard line diplomacy) to release all of the kidnapped passengers sooner than it would have liked; Israel is (as usual) taking revenge on the Palestinian relatives of activists onboard. Those who seek to non violently oppose Zionist policies of Apartheid violence are having loved ones interrogated by the Shabak as you read this for merely sailing with the Freedom Flotilla. I am not at liberty to say much more for fear of even further reprisals on innocent people. But as you should by now be aware, the Israeli machine specialises in collective punishment. This week a spokesman in the US said live on air that ‘Children in Gaza were under siege because their parents voted Hamas.’ Too much to say on that, so I’ll leave it hanging for you to take in
When the Israeli commandos attack began Jamal was wearing his pyjamas under a life jacket as were so many of the allegedly ‘prepared terrorists on board.’ Helicopters caused a near hurricane on the decks, all satellite phones were jammed (deliberately to stop SOS calls to the rest of the world). And, so the IDF hoped, any factual reports of what was about to occur.
At this point, just after four thirty am, Jamal saw a Turkish passenger shot in the top of his head. He spoke slowly and clearly to make sure he was understood by us all in the hall.
‘No Soldier was on the ship at this time’.
Quickly another passenger removed a white t-shirt from a bag and used it as a white flat of surrender. When gun shots rang out, greater numbers fell. It was clear calls for mercy were to be ignored. That a shoot to kill policy was in place.
An Israeli member of the Knesset and Lubna (an activist who also speaks Hebrew) took turns making announcements over the tannoy in English and then Hebrew. Announcements made at least 8 times;
‘We have critically injured people here, please can you come and get them. We are NOT armed. We SURRENDER!’
Soon the tannoy connection was cut off.
In Beersheva prison, he was placed in a cell, with a leader from the Turkish human rights group, IHH. They had no food for 24 hours, just a few sips of water. They had no idea if the world knew where they were or what had happened. In other parts of the prison, consular reps from Greece, France, Spain and Macedonia could be heard shouting at the Israeli captors demanding the release of their compatriots. Yelling that rights were not being respected, yelling for food, water, access to legal representation. From the British consul.
Nothing.
There was more much more from the survivors, which was videotaped and I will post as soon as it comes online. But let’s get back to the Zio-bots now. For alongside Press TV cameras and PSC workers filming the testimonies, there was the compulsory, sulky faced Zionist, shooting footage of the event for some organization opposed to justice, and free speech. Curiously, as the survivors described their horrors in depth, this woman’s camera was aimed NOT at the stage. But at my Press TV colleagues.
I went outside for a cigarette and there she was again. Instantly recognisable as a tight lipped Proto Zionist. She asked if I was with Press TV and would I speak to her for “Israeli TV?” Clearly she was not from any broadcaster — as no valid news channel accepts shaky, amateur hand held footage of the sort she was producing. Curious about her real intentions, I said ‘with pleasure.’
‘So do you think Press TV has done enough to give the Israeli side of events concerning the flotilla?’
Did I pause? It felt like a must have, just to have the time to process that after an hour of harrowing testimony about a massacre, this woman, had heard and felt – nothing.
‘The BBC has given Mark Regev enough space for your cause don’t you think,’ I replied
‘Yes but don’t you think Press TV ought to….’ and then it happened. The white rage. I heard children crying in Gaza, saw fishermen being shot along the coast, phosphorous plummeting onto schools and UNWRA food stores. I saw the massacre on the Freedom Fleet, the torture, the needless, avoidable death..
‘Go fuck yourself,’ I heard myself saying. And to make sure I couldn’t be misquoted I added.
‘Just fuck off.’
link to dissidentvoice.org
I strongly recommend reading the whole piece.
A wolf in sheep’s clothing (Matthew Taylor). Thank you, Sherbrsi. Under the guise of liberating the Palestinians – this vuntz wants to insure their anguish and suffering at the hands of the Israelies continues. What do you do with somebody like that? Seriously, if this was any other conflict…his head would be on a post and his body in the belly of a Great White in the Sea of Cortez.
Non-violence is a communication.
It communicates that our intent (say with the Mavi Marmara) is to:
1. Bring attention to the isolation of the Gazans, to European, to American, to Israeli to Islamic and other communities.
2. Point clearly to the issues and not distract to the politics of who harmed who, what occurred at what minute
That was NOT the case with the Mavi Marmara. It, simlarly to the early acts of terror of Munich and hijackings, brought some attention to the history and current concerns of Palestinians, but in a very bad light.
Everyone that has seen television or purused the internet on this issue has seen the films of the “non-violent” civil disobedients clubbing the Israeli commandos. They did so in a way that resembled the visual scene of the LA police beating Rodney King.
The message, “they were defending themselves” rings slightly true, but not completely.
The claims by the Free Gaza movement itself that it was non-violent civil disobedience is permanently questioned now. The proponents will consistently have to explain whether they are non-violent and actually humanitarian, RATHER than speak of Gazans’ condition.
Consider the relative amount of attention that the Gazan civilians have received, even after this success.
We’ve had all the communication we need.
Israel are blockading Gaza to impose economic warfare on the population.
Israel started that they would use any means necessary to impose the blockade, including lethal violence and they proved it.
It communicates that our intent (say with the Mavi Marmara) is to:
Who harmed who, what occurred at what minute is absolutely essentially to this debate, as you have clearly accepted Israel’s censored version of the events, in spite fo the fact that Israel confiscated hundreds of video cameras and laptops, and jammed all radio signals.
It is repugnant and disgusting of you to compare these events to Munich. The Marmara was hijacked by the Israelis. And al but the insufferable Zionist apologists and propagandists believe that Israel were not 100% to blame.
The only similarity with the beating of Rodney King is that the relation fo the activists was incited by the murder of one of the passengers before any IDF commandos boarded the ship.
The message, “they were defending themselves” rings entirely true.
“The claims by the Free Gaza movement itself that it was non-violent civil disobedience is permanently questioned now.”
Not at all. In fact, there is overwhelming consensus that Israel attacked and attacked illegally in international waters. Eve4ry country in the world except he US and Italy condemned the attacks, and the real footage that Israel has confiscated hasn’t even been shown yet.
Like all Israeli shrills and liars, you are insisting that we wait for the evidence to show what happened while accepting Israel’s version of events.
Now do us all a favor and get the hell off this forum Witty. You are universally despised and your message is rejected. Israelis a sick and depraved society that cannot be reasoned with.
Go away.
I meant to post only one comment on the issue of non-violence, but the process of “awaiting moderation”, and my original posts somehow disappeared, then now reappeared.
Shingo,
Every nation came to understand that the blockade is occurring (before it was off their radar largely), and that the Gazan civilians are the victims of it much moreso than Hamas even. It is now known in the west and in Israel as an untenable current status.
In that sense, it took the deadly dramatic to accomplish that.
That is a good thing that the world is aware of the Gazans’ plight, and that they are seeking means to address that plight.
The significance of the violence, and specifically the clubbing and considered and attempted abduction of hostages, proved something different to the world, the same world.
The states in the world have not concluded that the blockade is by definition illegal, that Gaza should have an unmoderated port, or that Israel should not manage its ground borders. This even includes Turkey, considering their offer to monitor an international port in Gaza, committing to actively exclude the import of arms, and to even consider inquiry into the uses of metals, etc in that.
The message of undisciplined mob was also communicated.
A disciplined non-violent effort can confront even a potentially armed conflict. An undisciplined “non-violent” effort only confuses and in the context of armed conflict, confusion is not a good setting in battle.
One of the criticisms of the Free Gaza movement’s behavior, now exposing even people like Naomi Klein, is of hypocrisy.
‘Were you encouraging an intentionally non-violent civil disobedience effort, as you portrayed in word and published, or just any and all resistance?’
Rabbi Gottlieb?
Is this the weather underground all over again?
On Cowardice and Violence
I remember being asked during the TJP Human Shield Action to Iraq if I was a pacifist, I responded with a quote from Gandhi by saying I am not a passive anything. To the contrary I believe in action, and I also believe in self-defence, 100 per cent, without reservation. I would be incapable of standing by while a tyrant murders my family, and the attack on the Mavi Marmara was like an attack on my Palestinian family. I am proud to have stood shoulder to shoulder with those who refused to let a rogue Israeli military exert their will without a fight.
And yes, we fought.
When I was asked, in the event of an Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara, would I use the camera, or would I defend the ship? I enthusiastically committed to defence of the ship. Although I am also a huge supporter of non-violence, in fact I believe non-violence must always be the first option. Nonetheless I joined the defence of the Mavi Mamara understanding that violence could be used against us and that we may very well be compelled to use violence in self defence.
I said this straight to Israeli agents, probably of Mossad or Shin Bet, and I say it again now, on the morning of the attack I was directly involved in the disarming of two Israeli Commandos. This was a forcible, non-negotiable, separation of weapons from commandos who had already murdered two brothers that I had seen that day. One brother with a bullet entering dead center in his forehead, in what appeared to be an execution.
I knew the commandos were murdering when I removed a 9mm pistol from one of them. I had that gun in my hands and as an ex-US Marine with training in the use of guns it was completely within my power to use that gun on the commando who may have been the murderer of one of my brothers. But that is not what I, nor any other defender of the ship did. I took that weapon away, removed the bullets, proper lead bullets, separated them from the weapon and hid the gun. I did this in the hopes that we would repel the attack and submit this weapon as evidence in a criminal trial against Israeli authorities for mass murder. I also helped to physically separate one commando from his assault rifle, which another brother apparently threw into the sea.
I and hundreds of others know the truth that makes a mockery of the brave and moral Israeli military. We had in our full possession, three completely disarmed and helpless commandos. These boys were at our mercy, they were out of reach of their fellow murderers, inside the ship and surrounded by 100 or more men. I looked into the eyes of all three of these boys and I can tell you they had the fear of God in them. They looked at us as if we were them, and I have no doubt they did not believe there was any way they would survive that day. They looked like frightened children in the face of an abusive father.
But they did not face an enemy as ruthless as they. Instead the woman provided basic first aid, and ultimately they were released, battered and bruised for sure, but alive. Able to live another day. Able to feel the sun over head and the embrace of loved ones. Unlike those they murdered. Despite mourning the loss of our brothers, feeling rage towards these boys, we let them go.
link to counterpunch.org
He believes that he is a counterpoint to Phil, since they grew up together, but is an egomaniac who hid in the shadows for the last two weeks, likely cause he had no believable explanation, that even he thought he could peddle here.
I read his blog and he was ‘concerned about Israel behavior’ at the time of the Mavi. Lol!
I see you are applying some strong Hasbara Jedi Mind Tricks here.
I’m sure most of you already read this jewel by Frank Luntz for The Israel Project, but let me quote it for you, with some extracts from Richard’s text.
Every nation came to understand that the blockade is occurring (before it was off their radar largely), and that the Gazan civilians are the victims of it much moreso than Hamas even.
That is a good thing that the world is aware of the Gazans’ plight, and that they are seeking means to address that plight.
The significance of the violence, and specifically the clubbing and considered and attempted abduction of hostages, proved something different to the world, the same world.
The states in the world have not concluded that the blockade is by definition illegal, that Gaza should have an unmoderated port, or that Israel should not manage its ground borders.
Kuddos to you for trying, though, and applying the vicious methods that permits us to make our brains work, not like menachem for example, who couldn’t go past the handbook.
Please, Richard, stop being so blunt and think you’re right. Everyone, from the UN to a large panel of lawyers etc… said the blockade was illegal. Just one link, you’ll be able to find others.
And once again, the disproportionnality of the attack is not playing on your side. Civilians clubbing armed militaries repelling down an helicopter after launching stun grenades & firing paintballs (and possibly live ammo, still waiting for strong video evidence even though I’m sure it’s what happened) is impossible to qualify as a violent attack, I don’t know how your mind can be so twisted for not accepting this simple fact.
PS : Sorry for this long post mainly made of copy/paste, but I had to make it clear for Richard : he needs to learn to think by himself and not only apply the orders he read / been told. Maybe if he really put his neurons to work, he could be more credible.
“since they grew up together,”
No, they most certainly did not! I think Witty knows Phil’s parents to some degree. As I recall, they did not “grow up together”. And that’s pretty easily proven by the fact that one of them didn’t, not much at all.
You’ve heard the old saying which begins: “You can take an ass to an ashram…”
Phil and I spent parts of a couple summers together. We are family friends, and do see each other periodically at bar mitzvahs, weddings, and sadly, funerals.
My thoughts are my own, not a function of hasbara, not a repetition of media.
Did you see the video presented of multiple individuals striking other individuals out of site, repeatedly?
I get that you want non-violence to be a rejected paralyzing ideology. But, the Free Gaza movement is founded on and clearly defines itself as a non-violent civil disobedience.
Your enthusiasm made them into either liars or undisciplined.
It happens. This is a site in which those with shared enthusiasm for “resistance” congregate and pat each other on the back.
Multiple messages were communicated to the world. One was that Gazan civilians suffer.
The second is that Palestinian solidarity are less than disciplined, less than trustable.
Witty, who claims to be a friend of Phil’s, had declared Phil a traitor to the cuase for starting ths blog and has stated that his aim it to bring Phil’s career to an end,
You don’t have a clue, Shingo.
Phil is a human being, with a heart.
Some of his comments offend me (as I expect some of mine do him). Some I just differ with. Some I agree with.
I sincerely seek a mutually humane solution to these resolvable conflicts, that are otherwise made irresolvable by rhetoric and one-dimensional approaches.
We have plenty of clues you Ziofascist ingrate.
We have a paper trail of clues that you have vomited on thsi blog.
Yes, Phil is a human being, with a heart. You’re a human being with sociopathic condition.
You have no interest in mutually humane solutions, only is exclusive regard and concern for your apartheid state.
You digest me and everyone on this blog. Tend to your own blog Witty. No one here wants to listen to your lies and verbal diarrhea.
So, Rick, the Rodney King analogy is the new guideline in the Hasbara guide ? You already used it twice.
I wonder if menachem will use it too.
“So, Rick, the Rodney King analogy is the new guideline in the Hasbara guide ? You already used it twice.”
If you know anything about Witty, you’d knwo that he likes his buzz phrases for the week. Terms like maximalist, straw dog, mutul acceptance, self governance are others he has worn thread bare.
Sorry, I’m one of the new guys here. I’ve been fed up with the media coverage and wanted to read/hear other points of view.
I’ll take note of his writings, maybe we could publish a comedy piece out of it.
His entire shtick is really tragic, that border on quasi-sociopathic. If you can squeeze some comedy out of it, I ‘ll definitely be impressed. It’s more embarrassing that he is considered human. And yet he’s a self described liberal!
‘Live and Let Live’ is Richard’s favorite tune. I think it comes to mean, keep the occupation going.
“I’ll take note of his writings, maybe we could publish a comedy piece out of it.”
If you can work Witty’s heir and contribution to the haredim, his son, into it, it’ll be a sure fire hit. I’d love to write the episode “The Notebook”, (or “Advice from my Father”)
“If you can squeeze some comedy out of it, I ‘ll definitely be impressed”
Be fair, Chu. Witty is high-larious. Remember the time he said he had something in common with the Palestinians of the Nakba because he moved away from the house he grew up in and the neighborhood doesn’t feel the same? And the green yarn?
“Live and Let Live”
Absolutely. The Israelis will live, and if the Palestinians are lucky, the Israelis will let them live. A reading from the Book of Witty.
Melka, just rapidly scroll through it. That’s what I do.
Apologize for another post so soon, but how is it that these pullulating maggots the murdering coward yiddishe commandoes are any better than the Waffen SS? Actually, this group was having conniption fits as they murdered unarmed on the ground aid workers. At least the SS crews were stoic. And, the Israelies Matthew tells us were weeping, cheering, picking their noses because the aid workers had the Nerve to Resist being slain like Holocaust Jews. That was their real crime. The Palestinians are hated for the same reason. Their manifest bravery stands in stark contrast to the mostly icky sick cowardice of the Holocaust Jews.
this is a fantastic piece.
thank you
This is a very complex issue, and I think some of the vitriolic criticism of Matt Taylor is quite unfair. Wolf in sheep’s clothing who hopes to perpetuate the occupation? Calm down. At worst, he is a sheep where a wolf would be preferable. While I lean toward pacifism, I do not consider myself a total pacifist, but have a great deal of respect for those who do adopt that philosophy. I don’t see why it is necessary to vilify Taylor for leaning in that direction.
I think both Matt and Max had a number of good and bad points. I do disagree most strongly with Matt’s criticism of the ship’s passengers for failing to commit themselves to pacifism. But I do see his larger point that much of the violence perpetrated against Israelis, especially civilians, has been not only immoral but counter-productive. I honestly believe that Israeli leaders, especially Sharon, regularly instigated such violence, even knowing it would sacrifice some Jewish lives, which he held in infinitely higher regard than Arab lives. A few years ago, Ran HaCohen wrote an excellent analysis of these efforts. While Sharon was morally reprehensible (I wish I could think of stronger words), I do not find fault with his logic. The pathetic suicide bombings were a boon to Israeli leaders seeking to convince the world that Palestinians were savages who only understood violence. Taylor’s error is to use non-violence theory to assign blame to the party that was anywhere between 0.001% and 0.1% at fault in this particular confrontation.
Max Ajl’s analysis is more thoughtful, but he simplifies things as well. Violence works? Yeah, I guess sometimes, but it more often backfires, and often is morally indefensible. Max and other commenters raise the specter of a soldier who has killed and is threatening to kill again. All but the most committed pacifist would agree that disarming and even using force, perhaps lethal force, on the soldier is absolutely defensible. And true, Israelis might well have held onto South Lebanon forever had there been no violent resistance. It might even be argued that violence against Israeli civilians in the north influenced the IDF to withdraw both in 2000 and 2006, but there are some lines I am unwilling to cross, and lethal indiscriminate violence against civilians is on my “never do” list. That goes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which clearly were effective in ending WWII, and Dresden as well. I don’t know Max Ajl, but would be surprised if he would defend the A-bomb with the slogan “violence works.”
Also, Max focuses almost entirely on Taylor’s narrow point regarding the Mavi Marmara, and does not attempt to deal with the type of violence that has made Palestinians look awful in the eyes of the world, and even pathetic. Indeed, his article implies that the ship’s passengers did goad the Israelis into their murderous violence, and were right in doing so, because we finally have worldwide sentiment ignited against the Israelis. I’m not sure if he really means that, and I hope he does not. That is precisely the line we hear from the hasbarists.
The bottom line is that in the face of Israeli violence, which is used all day every day to enforce rule by people of one ethnicity over another, resistance must be measured by both its effectiveness and morality. Clearly distinguishing between violence against soldiers and civilians is a start, but only a start. All violence against Israeli civilians, and most violence against the IDF, will be met with brutal counter-violence of the type the world has unfortunately tolerated for many decades. One of the reasons for this tolerance has been sensationalism of Palestinian violence. Max is right that moral appeals to Israeli leaders are a ludicrous option, but his failure to adequately address limitations on the use of violence reads like a blanket endorsement of such means. Overall, Max’s analysis is more persuasive, but it is not perfect, and Matt does not deserve the treatment he is receiving here.
While I lean toward pacifism, I do not consider myself a total pacifist, but have a great deal of respect for those who do adopt that philosophy. I don’t see why it is necessary to vilify Taylor for leaning in that direction.
Taylor has not adopted towards anything.
When he starts practicing what he preaches, perhaps he will gain some credibility.
After all he is advising activism. His words mean nothing if he himself does not engage in them himself. So, when can we see Taylor’s fractured skull when faced with violence, like we saw of O’Keefe, who was brutally injured by the IDF, and despite reigning in on one of their soldiers, committed the “vile” act of disarming them?
What credibility does Taylor have to advise those who have lost their lives in a humanitarian effort? What has he ever engaged in except for flouting Gandhi’s philosophy from some class he probably took once, and is now preaching without any evidence of following it himself? He’s just another third-rate “liberal” with the preserved interest of defending the status quo and the oppressors (whom Taylor identifies very strongly and expressly with in his article). Nothing more.
You make a good point, sherbrsi, but it applies to all of us who were not on that ship. Let’s face it. We spend a lot of time on this website passing around our thoughts, but very few of us put our lives on the line. Max Ajl might be much more in the cross-hairs, but commenters who recommend violence knowing that they will not be victimized by Israel’s counter-violence are in the same position as Matt Taylor. If “credibility” comes from doing what O’Keefe did, almost all of us come up far short, regardless of whether we like Matt or Max more.
I think it’s clear from my comment that I was turned off by Matt’s application of non-violence to the Mavi Marmara, but found the larger principle to have a great deal of merit. And I still disagree with your accusation that he is “defending the status quo and the oppressors.” If you want to accuse him of unfairly criticizing hundreds of incredibly brave people who boarded that ship knowing what Israel was capable of, I’m with you.
If “credibility” comes from doing what O’Keefe did, almost all of us come up far short, regardless of whether we like Matt or Max more.
That is not true. We are not the ones chastising the activists for doing whatever they did. Taylor on the other hand, is asserting the moral ground, and that of the most righteous terms as well, to those who risked their most precious commodity in their cause – their lives.
And he can’t escape that liability.
Taylor in his article mentioned the Dharasana salt demonstration.
As a proponent of Gandhi, he should be aware that the primary reason for such a demonstration was not only to confront violence in the most non-violent manner, but to make martyrs out of those who sustained the brutal violence. Yes, Gandhi’s philosophy does explicitly encourage and glorify martyrdom in the way of non-violence. That lesson should not be lost on Taylor, that in the realm of activism in general actions speak louder than words, and in the advocacy of Gandhi’s satyagraha that is even more so true for it promotes confrontation and active engagement.
You mention others commentators here being on the sideline. That is against a misrepresentation. Ajl’s stand on the issue, as is apparent to me from his article, and I reckon of those who agree with him here, is the OBSERVATION that violence works. That is not a suggestion or encouragement of violence, but a recognition of historical facts and social movements that have proved fruitful in liberation struggles and conflicts. And Ajl applied the same thinking to this conflict, and his facts stand true (and the repelling of forces the occupied Lebanese territories, as is acknowledged by you).
You are welcome to disagree with that standpoint, but I do believe that you are mis-characterizing Ajl’s viewpoint of violence, and of those who agree with him here.
And I don’t have the time or interest to dissect your other arguments, but the fundamental flaw in your reasoning that I am seeing is that you are objecting to advocacy of violence on MORAL grounds (or principle) when the thesis of Max’s work is that non-violence (or conversely violence) is not a principle, but a tactic, and it is one that those who are being oppressed by military occupation have the full right to.
“This is a very complex issue, and I think some of the vitriolic criticism of Matt Taylor is quite unfair. Wolf in sheep’s clothing who hopes to perpetuate the occupation? Calm down. At worst, he is a sheep where a wolf would be preferable. While I lean toward pacifism, I do not consider myself a total pacifist, but have a great deal of respect for those who do adopt that philosophy. I don’t see why it is necessary to vilify Taylor for leaning in that direction.”
These soft-sellers of the zionist status quo always seem to start out with the same exact spiel. That 1st para tells me right off that the rest will be a clever defense of something designed to keep positive change from happening.
I’m a soft-seller of the zionist status quo? You’re relatively new here, hayate, but if you review my posts (and comments) from long before you arrived, I think you’d take that back. My criticism of the status quo, for which I supply detailed and concrete reasoning rather than sloppy and lazy generic remarks, and my explicit support for a one-state solution, are a matter of record. “Same exact spiel” as whom? You give me the back-hand compliment that my “defense” is clever – was it too clever to argue against? Because you certainly passed up the opportunity. And my “defense” of what? And exactly how do you propose to implement “positive change”? Making anonymous posts?
I have on a few occasions gotten into cyber-arguments with people on the same side, and I have to say I hate it. But your attack on me is drivel. I certainly don’t think my analysis is beyond legitimate criticism, and I have sometimes reacted to such criticism by changing my mind, but you don’t even try to engage.
David Samel June 13, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Where have I heard that line before in defense of a soft-sell marketing job? Gee, I’ll have to scratch me ‘ead for a while.
“and Matt does not deserve the treatment he is receiving here.”
IE: the whole point of that dishonest spiel. When are you lot going to realise that what you open with and what you end with is what gives you guys away? I’m only telling you this so that your efforts to undercut opposition to zionism/israel will become more effective. Honest guv. ;D
hayate,
David Samel is one of the most honest and insightful commenters on this blog. His comment here (like all his comments) is thoughtful, nuanced and eloquently expressed. I also happen to agree with his careful assessment of both articles. Take issue with him, by all means. I’m sure he would welcome the discussion, but please don’t question his motives or his sincerity.
OK Shmuel, I’ll go into more detail. From David Samel June 13, 2010 at 9:39 pm:
“Max Ajl’s analysis is more thoughtful, but he simplifies things as well. Violence works? Yeah, I guess sometimes, but it more often backfires, and often is morally indefensible. Max and other commenters raise the specter of a soldier who has killed and is threatening to kill again. All but the most committed pacifist would agree that disarming and even using force, perhaps lethal force, on the soldier is absolutely defensible. And true, Israelis might well have held onto South Lebanon forever had there been no violent resistance. It might even be argued that violence against Israeli civilians in the north influenced the IDF to withdraw both in 2000 and 2006, but there are some lines I am unwilling to cross, and lethal indiscriminate violence against civilians is on my “never do” list. That goes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which clearly were effective in ending WWII, and Dresden as well. I don’t know Max Ajl, but would be surprised if he would defend the A-bomb with the slogan “violence works.”
He starts the para off decently and does stick to the meaning of Ajl’s piece, but from “It might even be” on he goes off into typical zio-misdirection never never land. There is no place where Ajl advocated/defended attacks on civilians and that rubbish doesn’t even relate to what Ajl wrote. And beyond that, the rubbish about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden war crimes ending the war is american propaganda. Dresden ended the war against Germany? Ffs! The Soviet declaration on Japan and swift conquest of Manchuria and Northern Korea and the Soviet army occupying Berlin are what ended the war, not the gratuitous and criminal slaughter of civilians towards the end. Not only that, the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were demonstrations to instill fear into the Soviets, not the people bombed. They were the opening salvos of the cold war. In fact, these war crimes are much more akin to modern israeli war crimes of demonstration violence. This is no accidental mix-up on the part of ds, he knew exactly what he was doing there.
Throughout that post by ds, he misrepresents the argument in similar ways, subtly to the detriment of Ajl’s pov and in favour of taylor. As I originally wrote, ds’s opening and ending lines stated the purpose of the post. The rest was filler to support that pov.
And then there was this para:
“Also, Max focuses almost entirely on Taylor’s narrow point regarding the Mavi Marmara, and does not attempt to deal with the type of violence that has made Palestinians look awful in the eyes of the world, and even pathetic. Indeed, his article implies that the ship’s passengers did goad the Israelis into their murderous violence, and were right in doing so, because we finally have worldwide sentiment ignited against the Israelis. I’m not sure if he really means that, and I hope he does not. That is precisely the line we hear from the hasbarists.”
That in no way, shape or form describes the pov expressed by Ajl. Those opinions are an invention by ds (a strawman) he can then shoot down. This is dishonest and typical of sayanim/hasbarat internet debate tactics.
Shmuel, that is certainly the nicest thing anyone I never met has said about me. Like many others on this blog, I feel that you are the single most valuable commenter here, and the best reason to read comments at all. I very much appreciate seeing you return some of the great respect I have for you.
Hayate, it is somewhat tiresome to have to defend myself from the charge of being a “soft-seller of the zionist status quo” who uses “sayanim/hasbarat internet debate tactics.” I suggested you look at my previous posts, but since you apaprently were too lazy to do so, I’ll help you with some links:
link to mondoweiss.net
link to mondoweiss.net
link to mondoweiss.net
link to mondoweiss.net
link to mondoweiss.net
link to mondoweiss.net
link to mondoweiss.net
link to mondoweiss.net
Of course, I do not expect you to rummage through my greatest hits collection; so I will make it easier still with two quotes from my very first post here:
“How can we American Jews, who rightfully demand equality in the land of our birth and country of our citizenship, and demand the same for other US minorities as well, defend or even tolerate a system in which others are denied that same basic equality? This is especially true where this discriminatory policy favors Jews and is maintained in the name of Jews everywhere.”
AND
“Israel and its defenders have done a remarkable job in disguising the true nature of the conflict. It is not between Jews who want to live in peace and Arabs who cannot stomach their presence. It is between those who insist on Jewish domination and superiority over others, and those who insist on a resolution based on true equality.”
If you still think I’m a Zionist shill, you must think I went to extraordinary lengths to establish my creds, in a long-term strategy to eventually undermine criticism of Zionism by denouncing violence. You’re not that crazy, are you?
Why am I not surprised that you misinterpreted my remarks about Hiroshima and Nagasaki ending the war? (I did add Dresden but did not say that ended the war.) Somehow, you take my condemnation of these bombings as endorsement. In fact, I used them as examples of “violence works” that I was pretty sure Max would not share. I intended to demonstrate that that slogan could be misused with horrifying consequences.
You say that Max does not advocate violence against civilians. True, and I don’t accuse him of it. What I do say is that he never condemns such violence, and his remarks could be misinterpreted as advocacy, at least in certain circumstances. With respect to Lebanon, which he does reference by saying that “violence repelled the Israeli incursion into Lebanon in 2006,” much but not all of that violence was shelling of northern Israeli population centers. I think he is saying that this shelling contributed to popular pressure on Israel to end the war. I tend to agree with that, but cannot bring myself to share Max’s enthusiasm for such tactics, even if they paled in comparison to the far greater evil of Israel’s violence against Lebanon. It is a line that should not be crossed, and while I can understand if you or Max disagree, I find it hard to believe that a reasonably intelligent person would consider my position a defense of Zionism.
You accuse me of setting up a straw man when I wrote that Max’s article “implies that the ship’s passengers did goad the Israelis into their murderous violence, and were right in doing so, because we finally have worldwide sentiment ignited against the Israelis.” Here is what Max said:
“The nine martyrs and the dozens of injured made this a major news-story, far bigger than if there had been no resistance of any sort. Did it appeal to the humanity of the world? Manifestly. There have been explosions of unrest in previously quiescent populations [in Egypt, Istanbul and in other Muslim countries, and Spain too]. . . Taylor probably thinks that resistance on the Rachel Corrie followed his proposed path (although he doesn’t mention the Rachel Corrie. Funny, that ship was barely in the news. Could that have had something to do with the presence or absence of forceful resistance?).”
I don’t think I was being at all unfair when I said that Max “implies that the ship’s passengers did goad the Israelis into their murderous violence,” and I added: “I’m not sure if [Max] really means that, and I hope he does not. That is precisely the line we hear from the hasbarists.” If you haven’t heard this line from genuine hasbarists (that the passengers provoked the violence to score PR points), you haven’t been paying attention.
You think I make unfair inferences about Max’s article? Not one hundredth as unfair as the inference you make that I am an apologist for Zionism. The fact is that I found both articles wanting. Matt took a general principle that I agree with – that violence against Israel, particularly its civilians but also its military – gives valuable PR material to the grossly dishonest but sometimes effective Israel mouthpieces, and he inappropriately applied it to the Mavi Marmara incident. Max reasonably took issue with this, but discussed the use of violence in general, glowing terms that I think are dangerous. Some of the commenters not only preferred Max’s analysis to Matt (which I did too) but found one to be perfect and the other to be worthless or even worse. I thought it was important to voice my disagreement.
“Those opinions are an invention by ds (a strawman) he can then shoot down. This is dishonest and typical of sayanim/hasbarat internet debate tactics.”
I agree with a lot of what you’ve had to say here, for example :
but accusing David of being dishonest is over the top. He has basically nothing but good and relevant things to say. It’s easy to fall into the trap of advocating for one “side” or the other, but the two arguments here are not mutually exclusive, and your accusation (sayanim/hasbarat internet debate tactics) is uncalled for.
This is a difficult question, as Max himself has said in the article above. We all agree that violence in self defense is legitimate, and is sometimes the only solution one is left with – and that there is a gradual spectrum of violence that offers no real distinction between “violent” and “non-violent”.
lareineblanche June 14, 2010 at 8:09 am
“This is a difficult question, as Max himself has said in the article above. ”
Yes, but Max didn’t then go on to misrepresent what taylor/nagler wrote as ds did of what Max Ajl. It’s enough to disagree with a pov and explain why. Misrepresenting what the person says to make your own pov then seem the correct one is not a very honest way to engage in a discussion. Now why would an “honest” person do that?
hayate, I submitted a lengthy post this morning that apparently is awaiting moderation because I provided links to too many of my prior posts. I don’t think it appears on the website, so at the risk of repeating it unnecessarily, here it is:
Hayate, it is somewhat tiresome to have to defend myself from the charge of being a “soft-seller of the zionist status quo” who uses “sayanim/hasbarat internet debate tactics.” I suggested you look at my previous posts, but since you apaprently were too lazy to do so, I’ll help you with some links:
link to mondoweiss.net
[other links omitted]
Of course, I do not expect you to rummage through my greatest hits collection; so I will make it easier still with two quotes from my very first post here:
“How can we American Jews, who rightfully demand equality in the land of our birth and country of our citizenship, and demand the same for other US minorities as well, defend or even tolerate a system in which others are denied that same basic equality? This is especially true where this discriminatory policy favors Jews and is maintained in the name of Jews everywhere.”
AND
“Israel and its defenders have done a remarkable job in disguising the true nature of the conflict. It is not between Jews who want to live in peace and Arabs who cannot stomach their presence. It is between those who insist on Jewish domination and superiority over others, and those who insist on a resolution based on true equality.”
If you still think I’m a Zionist shill, you must think I went to extraordinary lengths to establish my creds, in a long-term strategy to eventually undermine criticism of Zionism by denouncing violence. You’re not that crazy, are you?
Why am I not surprised that you misinterpreted my remarks about Hiroshima and Nagasaki ending the war? (I did add Dresden but did not say that ended the war.) Somehow, you take my condemnation of these bombings as endorsement. In fact, I used them as examples of “violence works” that I was pretty sure Max would not share. I intended to demonstrate that that slogan could be misused with horrifying consequences.
You say that Max does not advocate violence against civilians. True, and I don’t accuse him of it. What I do say is that he never condemns such violence, and his remarks could be misinterpreted as advocacy, at least in certain circumstances. With respect to Lebanon, which he does reference by saying that “violence repelled the Israeli incursion into Lebanon in 2006,” much but not all of that violence was shelling of northern Israeli population centers. I think he is saying that this shelling contributed to popular pressure on Israel to end the war. I tend to agree with that, but cannot bring myself to share Max’s enthusiasm for such tactics, even if they paled in comparison to the far greater evil of Israel’s violence against Lebanon. It is a line that should not be crossed, and while I can understand if you or Max disagree, I find it hard to believe that a reasonably intelligent person would consider my position a defense of Zionism.
You accuse me of setting up a straw man when I wrote that Max’s article “implies that the ship’s passengers did goad the Israelis into their murderous violence, and were right in doing so, because we finally have worldwide sentiment ignited against the Israelis.” Here is what Max said:
“The nine martyrs and the dozens of injured made this a major news-story, far bigger than if there had been no resistance of any sort. Did it appeal to the humanity of the world? Manifestly. There have been explosions of unrest in previously quiescent populations [in Egypt, Istanbul and in other Muslim countries, and Spain too]. . . Taylor probably thinks that resistance on the Rachel Corrie followed his proposed path (although he doesn’t mention the Rachel Corrie. Funny, that ship was barely in the news. Could that have had something to do with the presence or absence of forceful resistance?).”
I don’t think I was being at all unfair when I said that Max “implies that the ship’s passengers did goad the Israelis into their murderous violence,” and I added: “I’m not sure if [Max] really means that, and I hope he does not. That is precisely the line we hear from the hasbarists.” If you haven’t heard this line from genuine hasbarists (that the passengers provoked the violence to score PR points), you haven’t been paying attention.
You think I make unfair inferences about Max’s article? Not one hundredth as unfair as the inference you make that I am an apologist for Zionism. The fact is that I found both articles wanting. Matt took a general principle that I agree with – that violence against Israel, particularly its civilians but also its military – gives valuable PR material to the grossly dishonest but sometimes effective Israel mouthpieces, and he inappropriately applied it to the Mavi Marmara incident. Max reasonably took issue with this, but discussed the use of violence in general, glowing terms that I think are dangerous. Some of the commenters not only preferred Max’s analysis to Matt (which I did too) but found one to be perfect and the other to be worthless or even worse. I thought it was important to voice my disagreement.
Misrepresenting what the person says to make your own pov
There is a distinction to be made between misrepresenting someone’s words and extrapolating to make an argument. The Hiroshima argument and the indiscriminate shelling of civilians are relevant examples, because they deal with the moral problem of whether or not inflicting violence in the short term will ultimately avoid even more violence in the long term. This is a good question to ask, and is surely a question the Hamas and Hizbollah leaders have asked themselves time and again. David is not willing to cross that line. In the case of Hiroshima, obviously that was not the goal, the goal was to impress and intimidate the rest of the world into submission, to make it clear who the new “boss” was. In the case of Hamas and Hizbollah, it is not clear that without the indiscriminate violence that the state of Israel would have budged from its immovable, granite-like position – this is an open question.
There is no reason that one has to stay within the strict framework of an article in order to discuss the issues it brings up.
zio-misdirection never never land
This is kind of an ad-hominem attack, no?
PS hayate, do you not see the irony in complaining that I have misrepresented what Max said, when you accuse me of being a hasbarist defender of Zionism, with absolutely no evidence to support that claim? Are you really that dense?
Thanks, lrb. This guy is really pissing me off. What is his problem? other than being a self-righteous Robespierre policing the comments section for signs of deviation from orthodoxy.
“a self-righteous Robespierre”
David, this is an ad-hominem att- just kidding.
No, lrb, you’re right, my reference to Robespierre was ad hominem. I got so pissed, I guess I lost my head.
Apologies to all for having the same long comment appear twice. I knew that would happen.
David Samel June 14, 2010 at 9:28 am
I see you are back at misrepresenting what people write in order to make yourself look rosy:
“Why am I not surprised that you misinterpreted my remarks about Hiroshima and Nagasaki ending the war? (I did add Dresden but did not say that ended the war.) Somehow, you take my condemnation of these bombings as endorsement. In fact, I used them as examples of “violence works” that I was pretty sure Max would not share. I intended to demonstrate that that slogan could be misused with horrifying consequences.”
I never said anything of the sort, this what I wrote:
“He starts the para off decently and does stick to the meaning of Ajl’s piece, but from “It might even be” on he goes off into typical zio-misdirection never never land. There is no place where Ajl advocated/defended attacks on civilians and that rubbish doesn’t even relate to what Ajl wrote. And beyond that, the rubbish about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden war crimes ending the war is american propaganda. Dresden ended the war against Germany? Ffs! The Soviet declaration on Japan and swift conquest of Manchuria and Northern Korea and the Soviet army occupying Berlin are what ended the war, not the gratuitous and criminal slaughter of civilians towards the end. Not only that, the bombing of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden were demonstrations to instill fear into the Soviets, not the people bombed. They were the opening salvos of the cold war. In fact, these war crimes are much more akin to modern israeli war crimes of demonstration violence. This is no accidental mix-up on the part of ds, he knew exactly what he was doing there.”
What ds characterised as what I wrote is not even close to it. The part where a real misunderstanding could have occurred is the bit about Dresden ending the war. His original:
“That goes for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which clearly were effective in ending WWII, and Dresden as well.”
If he didn’t mean it helped end the war, his writing is sloppy, and his inclusion of the act, with the other two, then, is unclear, as he doesn’t associate the Dresden bombing with anything else. But as it is written in his post, it clearly looks to me ds meant that the Dresden bombing did help end the war.
He then goes on to repeat his misrepresentations of the Ajl and to slyly infer meaning that Ajl did not express and which meanings, by one of those strange coincidences, always seem to make ds look rosy and sweet smelling and Ajl look, at best, confused, and at worst, advocating the opposite of what he intended. Original:
“Also, Max focuses almost entirely on Taylor’s narrow point regarding the Mavi Marmara, and does not attempt to deal with the type of violence that has made Palestinians look awful in the eyes of the world, and even pathetic. Indeed, his article implies that the ship’s passengers did goad the Israelis into their murderous violence, and were right in doing so, because we finally have worldwide sentiment ignited against the Israelis. I’m not sure if he really means that, and I hope he does not. That is precisely the line we hear from the hasbarists.”
Then repeated in a slightly changed form above:
“You say that Max does not advocate violence against civilians. True, and I don’t accuse him of it. What I do say is that he never condemns such violence, and his remarks could be misinterpreted as advocacy, at least in certain circumstances.”
Ds uses a technique where lays out the misrepresentation, draws attention to it, and then later “Oh, I hope he really didn’t mean that”, when it is obvious Ajl didn’t mean that. The only reason ds invented the implication was to imply Ajl did and then make ds’s misrepresentations look correct so ds could then shoot them down. I don’t remember the specific name for this debating trick, but I’ve run into it frequently when discussing things related to zionism and israel. Ds went about it in a very clever manner, pretending he agreed with Ajl’s basic humanity, and then slyly drawing Ajl’s humanity into question with innuendo and misrepresentation of what the man wrote. In the context of this discussion, it’s obvious that discrediting Ajl’s pov, and promoting that of nagler/taylor is in zionist/israeli interests. Obviously, ds has a bit of experience at this, so instead of convincing me you are for real, ds, you’ve only convinced me further that my initial gut reaction to your sleazy trickery was correct. Congratulations.
Funny how when discussing zionist/israeli subjects, one finds posters working together in packs more intent on defending each other, rather than honestly debating the subject. Now why would people do that?
I concede, hayate. Your powers of deduction are truly formidable, and my feeble attempts to fool you are no match. My “sleazy trickery” is usually so effective, but you saw through it, and even recognized that I’m working in tandem with other Zionists. Damn, you’re good!
hayate – cool it will you? ..or at least read a few weeks [months] of posts at Mondoweiss to work out who thinks what before you start criticising people. You undercut your own statements by attacking people (such as David Samel) known by MW regulars to be genuine.
If you want disingenuous look out for Richard Witty, who poses as a dove but is an Eretz Israel zionist to the core.
I’m a Zionist, and a dove.
I see human beings.
And, I see poor judgements.
Sumud June 14, 2010 at 3:58 pm
“hayate – cool it will you?…..known by MW regulars to be genuine.”
Ok, Sumud, he’s genuine, but just likes to misrepresent what others write….
;D
David Samel June 14, 2010 at 3:48 pm
A couple of years ago, I accused craig murray of being a conduit for mi6 propaganda. He was repeating mi6 disinformation verbatim, I didn’t have much choice in the matter. ;D
(But to his credit, he didn’t deny it, though. )
:D
You didn’t see Furkan Dogan, Witty.
You didn’t even see Emily Henochowicz.
David, you’re privy to raw MI6. Data prior to. Dissemination? That is truly a bad jacket :.(
Richard Witty June 14, 2010 at 9:07 pm
“And, I see poor judgements.”
You could always change your ways, you know. Though, depending on the crimes you’ve committed, you may just want to lay low, rather than come forth with full disclosure. But it’s up to you.
I see poor judgements mostly coming from those that are zealous, overly zealous.
It is not just Zionists that have bias.
Mutual humanization compels reviewing the assertions, the reasonings of the opponent, to determine if elements of them are valid.
Its NOT an either/or proposition, “which side are you on?”.
That is an attitude only appropriate during war.
Are you at war? Or, is this a conflict to be resolved?
demize, shhh…
We seem to be avoiding the meat of the issue here. Lives have been lost. A girl has been blinded. The siege continues with no end in sight.
What did the resistance on the Mavi Marmara accomplish? It raised public awareness. But is this actually useful? I don’t see how. We have been ‘raising public awareness’ for 60 years. Most of the world is now bitterly opposed to Israel and its Nazi-inspired policies. This pubic awareness has produced absolutely zero in the way of positive changes on the ground.
Personally, I don’t see the point in engaging in battles that are lost before they start. Engagement with the trained and highly armed thugs of the IDF is a losing proposition. Why fight in a battle on their terms? It makes no sense.
There is one place however where Palestinians have an advantage. They are used to living in perpetual fear, perpetual chaos. They have been doing so for decades. The Israelis on the other hand are a pampered society that really has almost no experience with violence whatsoever. Israeli society is a target that can be effectively attacked. This is the only place that I can see where violence can have something other than a merely token effect. To make life utterly unlivable for the Israeli people, so that peace becomes preferable to incessant terror is one approach to the current impasse, and obviously has been applied in other liberation struggles.
Getting in fights with the IDF is just getting people killed, to no good end that I can see. I’m not advocating this particular strategy, which may very well be counter-productive–no one has a crystal ball. I only point out that it has a chance for success, where other forms of violent resistance will only get more activists and Palestinians killed, with no resulting benefit that I can see.
decentjew June 13, 2010 at 11:57 pm
I cant agree with that. Attacking israeli civilians like that wont get them off Palestinian backs, it will cause the israelis to ramp up their genocide/ethnic cleansing policies in an effort to remove Arabs from the region faster. It will also aide the israeli pr machine in getting opinion on their side, both in israel (granted, they pretty much already got that sewed up), but also around the world. In short, it will make the job of the israeli fascists much easier as they will just go into full nazi mode and the world wil use the israeli civilian deaths to excuse the israeli’s genocidal behaviour.
I’m aware of the argument, which seems to be the common wisdom on the matter. On the other hand, consider this:
“Attacking civilians is an accepted, indeed vital part of our agenda and public opinion beyond our borders is a matter of utter indifference to us.”
This is the mindset of the people who are winning in this conflict.
“Violent resistance MAY be acceptable, but only against uniformed soldiers, who are essentially invulnerable, due to their overwhelming military superiority and weaponry. Any other use of violence could hurt our image.”
This is the mindset of the people who are losing in this conflict.
..as a follow up, I would ask why the most powerful military on earth is leaving Iraq after flushing 3 trillion dollars down the drain and accomplishing absolutely nothing other than helping to empower Iraq’s neighbor Iran?
I think we can give a one word answer. Terrorism. That is what defeated the United States in Iraq. Our supply lines were cut to pieces and our GIs were cut to pieces, with no end in sight–all thanks to simple, inexpensive and highly lethal IEDs. We couldn’t take it any more, so we’re getting the hell out.
decentjew June 14, 2010 at 12:55 am
I think everyone is aware of the brutality of the israelis. I personally don’t consider them to be any different that the WW2 nazis. And that’s why I think attacking them more will do anything more than bring the zionist hammer down upon Palestine faster.
The WW2 French resistance is glorified, but do you know how much they accomplished? Not very much, and they got a lot of French civilians killed in the nazi retributions. The reason why is they were not powerful enough to prevent the retributions. The French resistance was never remotely strong enough to repel the nazis or do serious damage to their war machine. At most, they were a nuisance.
Likewise, the Palestinians are not powerful enough to repel israeli war crimes against them and they are not powerful enough to seriously threaten israel in any military manner. It would be futile and suicidal to try and nobody would come to their rescue.
In my opinion, the only chance the Palestinians have is to get the world on their side and active against israel. Killing israeli civilians would prevent that from happening.
As for defending yourself when attacked, that’s different, and I wont presume to tell anyone what to do under those circumstances.
decentjew June 14, 2010 at 1:04 am
That’s a different scenario. The u.s. was in Iraq, Iraqis were not going to the usa and killing civilians. Those were attacks on an invading army, upon their soldiers. That is similar to Palestinians repelling israeli army attacks in Gaza. But you’ll notice that the Iraqis are not attacking american soldiers nearly as often as they were before. I think why is that they realised the Iraqis killed in the retributions were not worth it. The americans were not leaving, but digging in. I think they decided to lay low and wait the americans out. Eventually, public support for the war, and the depression, would force the americans to leave, as in S.E. Asia. Fewer attacks would give the americans less reason to stay and er…”stablise the country for democracy”.
Incidentally, the usa did accomplish what it wanted in Iraq, or more accurately, what israel wanted. Which was the destruction of Iraq as a country that could oppose anything israel wanted or did. The usa has not left Iraq yet, and despite obama rhetoric to the contrary, there is no concrete signs it will soon.
All quite reasonable. You may be entirely right on both matters (resistance in Iraq and Palestine).
I do think that recent events including Cast Lead/Goldstone and the flotilla massacre need to be fully taken stock of, and I don’t think they really have been.
The US under the most liberal leadership the country can ever expect to have, extends carte blanche to Israel for war crimes and even the murder of US civilians. I think it’s clear that the US position is ‘Israel uber alles’ and absolutely nothing can change that fact. If that is true, then world opinion is utterly irrelevant and recruiting public sentiment to the cause can not work as a strategy.
In any case, public sentiment worldwide is already with the Palestinians and against the Israelis and this had been the case even before the latest outrages. The law is entirely on the side of the Palestinians. The World Court supports the Palestinians. The overwhelming majority of UN member states support Israel’s complete withdrawal to the 67 borders. As Finkelstein accurately notes, it’s the whole world on one side, Israel/US on the other.
But the US is not going to budge and if that is the case, I really can’t see any other way for the Palestinians to save themselves from extermination than a war of attrition that identifies the entire state of Israel as a military base.
decentjew June 14, 2010 at 1:30 am
I agree about the u.s. being the main problem here. And you may be right about the u.s. never budging. But did you know that one of the major reasons the usa got out of S.E. Asia was world pressure? If it was done once, it can be done again. Even if zionists control the u.s. now. The current depression is much greater than the recession of the 70′s and the usa is much more dependent upon foreign countries now than in the 70′s. The zionist hold on the usa is a surface thing. It would not take much to blow it wide open. The zionists know this, hence their absolute refusal to allow any rebellion against israeli dominance in the u.s. media. If americans got to experience in their media the sorts of discussions the zionists had in their own media, the game would be up for israel. The americans cant hold out against the rest of the world indefinitely.
decentjew, I think what you have to remember here, is that not many have ever been involved here in any type of tough resistance. I mean, even having your head busted open a few times and your teeth knocked out in resistance (for other cause) does not qualify for the same suffering which the Palestinians are enduring. Hell, some cannot even rightly distinguish between self-defense and violence as a means of liberation here (you can tell be the posting).
You are right about the Palestinians going toe to toe with the fourth most powerful armed forces on the planet, than again to make all of Israel a military base may not be profitable. I think there is an alternative way, and that is the involvement of elements, revolutionary in form (not merely a rag tag resistance) that needs to be employed, by participation from different parts of the world where they have passed through to their own liberation. I am not just talking about the region, but from Europe and other parts of the world. The world needs to stop standing by watching this carnage and doing nothing of import.
It needs to be made known that we will not stand by and watch another settler state exterminate their indigenous population in the 21st century. I think this is what is implied frankly by the extended Jilani family – “What world is this? More importantly I challenge everyone who reads this to say ‘NO MORE’.”
ANY MEANS NECESSARY
I think anybody who reads history regarding the civil rights resistance, that thinks it was just non-violence that moved the USA needs to go get an education again, because the one that he has is skewed. The only thing that essentially moved this country was not merely the articulation and marching of MLK, but the fear that the riots which exploded in mostly black areas were going to spread to white residence. And since this was so here (and the same case scenario all over the world when real change has taken place), than it is certainly true in Palestine, more so, and what I am talking about is long overdue. So DJ, you are not alone in your concerns.
Good post VR. I mostly agree. Without some optimism, some glimmer of hope, things are lost, though it is sometimes very difficult to feel hopeful. I don’t see a compelling reason why Israel won’t complete its task of forcing Palestinians into ever-shrinking enclaves, stealing what land they covet and leaving the people to suffer in what amounts to a concentration camp.
As to the “demographic threat” within Israel, I have less and less difficulty imagining the Israelis expelling their non-Jewish population on some trumped up “security” pretense. The world will look on aghast, there will be outraged editorials and some marches in the street, but they’ll get away with it. I mean–who knows, but that doesn’t seem far fetched any more. I take issue with all the talk about “Israel shooting itself in the foot” or “Israel painting itself into a corner.” Israel is winning. I think we have to start with that tragic fact, if we are not to lose our way in fantasy.
There are many aspects of this that need rethinking, in my opinion. Some central tenets of the movement may simply be wrong. For example, it’s an article of faith that our dreadful mainstream media is largely to blame for the perpetuation of this disaster. It’s the fault of idiots like Thomas Friedman, Ethan Bronner and so forth. If Americans were better informed, there would be far more opposition to Israel’s unconscionable behavior. That seems so obvious as to hardly bear repeating and yet, I don’t see the evidence for it. On the contrary, you have quite a bit of seething hostility in America to Israel’s abominable conduct, in spite of the lousy to non-existent news coverage, as opposed to Israel, where one can read astonishing pieces in Ha’aretz about Israel’s Nazi rampages through the Occupied Territories, the blind cruelty on display, yet the citizenry are more homogeneously militarist and murderous than ever. Again, public awareness doesn’t necessarily lead to a change of heart, and as you rightly stated, in the civil rights movement, the fear of riots and uncontainable unrest may have been a greater engine of change than people’s guilty conscience over the fundamental injustices black’s faced.
All quite depressing.
An excellent post decentjew,
You have summarized what many of us feel, but I for one am not sure if the matter is quite as black and white as you suggest.
Here are my reasons.
1. Open discussion and criticism of Israel has only become a recent pehomenan, and most obvious since the 2006 Lebanon conflict. I might speak for myself, but prior to that, the anti semitism accusation was very intimidating. This is no longer the case. The cracks are appearing is what has been until now, a very fiercely controlled message.
2. What may appear as Israel’s arrogance and contempt could just as easily be a display of desperation on Israel’s part. You might say that public opinion doesn’t matter to Israel or has little effect, but if that were so, then why is Israel so forcefully engaged in it’s media blitz and propadanda campaigns. Why does Israel consider critricism to be an effort to delegitimize Israel?
3. Murdering 1.400 Palestinians is one thing, but puching 2.5 million Palestinians out of the West Bank and east Jerusalem would be a seismic event. Erdogan isn’t simply facing the Israelis down for personal reasons. He’s respnding to the seathing anger in his country. The same exists in Egypt, Jordan and the rest of the Middle East. For Israel to carry out such a barbaric act, it would place the leaders of these countries in jeopardy.
The Europeans are biting the lips, but their patience is fast running out. Asia wants nothing to do with Israel. It will take one miscalculatino from Israel before it finds itself not only diplomatically isolated, but financially and economically too.
I recall from biology courses that anytime the host to a parasite is weakened, the parasite’s metabolism increased, hastening the demise of its host and destroying itself in the process. We are now witnessing this phenomenon with Israel and US. Israel’s best years are behind it, but it’s arrogance and desperation are going to drive it toward making huge and self destructive mistakes.
i shingo
..gotta run here. just a couple things. I was referring to the expulsion of non-Jews from within the green line to Gaza and the far side of the apartheid wall, not expulsion from the OT.
I don;t think the utterly senseless, violent attack on the flotilla can be squared in any way with Israel’s supposed concern with its public image. Indeed, it seemed calculated to produce maximum public outrage for almost no benefit. It’s true they invest a lot in image-burnishing efforts too, so there’s clearly some contradiction. Thanks to the US, they have more cash than they know what to do with, so why not blow a few million on PR?
Finally, I have maybe gotten a rap on Mondoweiss as ‘Mr. Violence.’ I try to reiterate that I have no grand scheme at all. I just see a horrifying stasis and after the flotilla event and US response, feel other tactics ought to be discussed and considered.
Hell–we should even consider the ZIONIST solution! I’m serious. Get the Arab states to take in the Palestinians!
On first blush, this seems crazy–neither the Arab states nor the Palestinians would ever go for it. I’m not so sure. It would be easier to get the US government to put pressure on the Arab states than on Israel. We could offer various enticements for them to make this humanitarian gesture.
As to the Palestinians, doubtless they would say ‘hell no we won’t go.’ At least at first. But if the offer were closer to reality and not just an idle theory, I’m not so sure most wouldn’t relocate to a place where their children had some hope for a future and a semblance of a life.
It goes without saying this would be monstrously unjust. It would be a triumph for Israel, a triumph of the most despicable tactics. But at least the poor Palestinians could live without bombs falling on them and tanks crushing their homes. My 2 cents.
“My 2 cents.”
So the guy who started out as Mr. Violence, encouraging everybody to write murderous threats against the Israelis, now reveals himself as a proponent of Palestinian “transfer”, saying, “It’s their only chance”! Oh, it’s “monstrously unjust”, but up against actually making Israel do something, it’s no contest, huh?
Why am I not surprised at all?
I didn’t encourage you to write a damn thing, mooser. Write whatever the hell you want. Whatever your strategy is, it’s been a complete and utter failure.
The Palestinians were just fine until violent criminals moved into the neighborhood. They have tried every legal means to remedy the situation for 60 years. Things have only gotten worse and will plainly continue to get worse, all of your ‘consciousness raising’ efforts notwithstanding. Are you saying you stand firmly against making a place for these beleaguered people when you have NO proposal whatsoever for getting the Israelis to make a place for them, something that is NEVER going to happen, unless the United States suddenly collapses?
“They have tried every legal means to remedy the situation for 60 years. ”
These never included agitating for statehood during the 19 years Egypt and Jordan occupied the West Bank and Gaza.
Jordan’s annexiation was as a trustee, asked for by and in agreement with Palestinians.
Not according to Rashid Khalidi.
But according to the Jewish Virtual Library and their listing of the Arab Leage sessions, yes.
and no UN Security Council Resolution against Jordan’s annexion, by the way.
sorry, I forgot to link to the piece from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Thank you, talknic
I’m not sure I’m comfortable discussing this on a public forum, but surely there are political “targets” in the US. And UK. This is where the discussion becomes less of an abstraction. Prominent Zionist enablers, The JINSA’s, the AIPACS, even The Hadassahs, The ADL. the funders of settlers right here on Madison ave. The more obnoxious propogandists. Not to mention traitorous politicians. If there is to be any militantcy than truely at home as well as abroad.
That should have read: “If there is to be any militantcy than the war is truely at home as well as abroad.
Max Ajl is great. His title is absolutely the central point that needs to be made in this debate.
But we need to recognize that it’s a point that cuts both ways. I agree with David Samel that we’re not being fair to Matthew Taylor by and large. I read him as being committed to the same goals we all are — Palestinian freedom and equality. He was making a case, mostly, for the effectiveness of non-violence. One way or another, that’s exactly the kind of case we need to consider. He earned Max’s critique to the extent that he did portray nonviolence as sacrosanct more than constructive.
But we cannot assume, as too many people seem to be doing, that more intensely violent tactics are more effective tactics. We cannot afford to answer tactical questions on faith alone. The specific realities of the situation must be our central consideration there.
Let’s recognize that those who advocate nonviolent tactics in good faith — as I believe Taylor did — are not doing so to prolong Palestinian suffering, but to end it more quickly. Let’s move beyond orthodoxies and questions of motivation to answer the real-world question of, how can we best leverage our efforts to liberate the people of Palestine?
I personally don’t know enough to answer that question with any certainty. No one can do so with total certainty. But by engaging with it we allow ourselves to achieve more.
Robin, I happen to believe that today the Palestinians can win using the tactics of non-violence. That is my pragmatic assessment of their situation. However, if I see the IDF shoot and kill a Palestinian teenager for throwing a rock at at an Israeli tank, I will not, not ever, direct my moral outrage at that teenager for violating some Ghandian principle of non-violence. I respect Taylor’s principles, but as others here have stated, he is not in a position to criticize those Turks who resisted the violent Israeli attack.
I completely agree with you.
So do I, syvanen and robin, though my extended discussion was perhaps not as crystal clear as yours.
I don’t think the Palestinians are the ones making the choices about violence. They ain’t got very much.
The Palestinians can be pushed into a position of futile self-defense by the Israelis, that is true, but to say that the Palestinians have any choice about violence is to adopt hasbara framing.
Sure, Max, violence works. It’s nice to hear that kind of honesty; sweeps away the bullshit that the IHH ship was full of humanitarian activists, or that humanitarian activists in the territories are non-violent. It’s complete nonsense. If Israel responded non-violently to the terrorists who seek to kill Israeli babies, there would be many more Israelis dead.
The question is what exactly violence has gotten the Palestinians. Remember them? The people you’re supposedly working for, as you have your esoteric debate on tactics. They’re still where they are, and they are where they are because they have spent their time being violent rather than building working government institutions. They haven’t gotten an inch of land. And they won’t, so long as they keep telling themselves how much violence works. Sure, the Israelis are scared long-term, but day-to-day, Israel is a vibrant democracy where people can go out and have a good time. And it has an army that will use violence to defend itself.
So, yeah, Max, violence works. The question is for who.
“If Israel responded non-violently to the terrorists who seek to kill Israeli babies, there would be many more Israelis dead.”
But Israel does not respond, Israel murders Palestinians for the hell of it, and peakign of babies, they have a particulasr atste for children.
I guess your reference to babies was simply Ziofacist projection.
The onyl reason the violence hasn’t gotten the Palestinians very far, is that they haven’t had a rich sugar daddy to give them free state of the art weaponry.
Israel have spent just as much time being violent as the Palestinians have, but the reality is that for Israel, there are no consequences to their violence and thuggery. They don’t have to concern themselves with a more powerful adversary taking them on.
So, is it any surprise that withouth F-16′s, tanks, Apache helicopters, the Palestinians have not had any success winning territory over the ethnic cleasing, murderous, Nazi like oppressors?
After all, how well did the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto do without weapons?
Israelis are cowards who have confused military hardware for bravery. Even as we speak, the Israeli Dough Boy brigade is asking it’s sugar daddy for even more free military hardware. It seems these gultess pussies need 1000 times more than anyone else to feel like bad asses.
“The onyl reason the violence hasn’t gotten the Palestinians very far, is that they haven’t had a rich sugar daddy to give them free state of the art weaponry.”
Israel develops its own weapons. Join the 21st century. Israel exports technology all over the world. It doesn’t survive on a few billion dollars a years from the US.
“Israel have spent just as much time being violent as the Palestinians have, but the reality is that for Israel, there are no consequences to their violence and thuggery. They don’t have to concern themselves with a more powerful adversary taking them on.”
There are considerable consequences. Targeted assassination drove Hamas underground. Winning wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973 established the state as a reality in the Middle East.
Of course, most time now is spent on coming up with non-violent solutions to problems, with violence used as a last resort. The rockets flew for many years before Israel finally responded.
“But Israel does not respond, Israel murders Palestinians for the hell of it, and peakign of babies, they have a particulasr atste for children.”
Learn to spell. You make this up as you go along.
“After all, how well did the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto do without weapons?”
I reject the comparison. The Warsaw ghetto uprising was directed at soldiers, not civilians.
“Israelis are cowards who have confused military hardware for bravery. Even as we speak, the Israeli Dough Boy brigade is asking it’s sugar daddy for even more free military hardware. It seems these gultess pussies need 1000 times more than anyone else to feel like bad asses.”
I’m glad to see the comments policy is being enforced.
Don’t know why you’re under the impression that the military hardware Israel receives is free. They pay for all of it.
The problem with Hasbara monkeys like yourself is that you assume that everybody is as stupid as you are. Israel gets military aid packages gratis from different budgets, over and above the $3 billion it gets in foreign aid on an annual basis. It also receives military technical parts from the US and other western countries that it is dependent on and can’t produce itself. It also purchases advanced military technology and equipment from the US on a regular basis because it doesn’t produce these at home such as the new iron dome. However, that doesn’t stop it from holding out the begging bowl on a regular basis and whining for more freebies. We won’t go into the millions of dollars in loan guarantees Israel receives on an annual basis, over and above the foreign aid, most of which is not repaid and which helps fund the settlements and their “security”. As for the killing of civilians Israel has far more blood on its hand than the Palestinians. Israel accusing the Palestinians of targeting civilians is a bit like Jack the Ripper accusing somebody of being a male chauvinist.
“Israel develops its own weapons. Join the 21st century. Israel exports technology all over the world. It doesn’t survive on a few billion dollars a years from the US.”‘
False.
If Israel developed it’s won wepaons, it wouldn’t require on the many billions in arms it receives from the US. Most fo the wepoans it produces are based on stolen military secrets anyway.
“There are considerable consequences. Targeted assassination drove Hamas underground. Winning wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973 established the state as a reality in the Middle East.”
How does winning an election amount to being driven underground? Israel started the wars in 1967 that allowed it to steal land. It would have lost in 1973 had the US not come to Israel’s rescue.
Of course, most time now is spent on coming up with non-violent solutions to problems, with violence used as a last resort. The rockets flew for many years before Israel finally responded.
Aboslutely false in every sense. As we saw in the Gaza massacre, vilence is Israel’s first option.
In Gaza, Israel chose to break the ceasefire and attack Gaza after 4 months of no rocket attacks. Tzpi Livni explained that the reason for this was beasue “‘a long ceasefire was not in Israe’s strategic interests”.
Israel has started every war since 1948, with the possible exception of 1973, which was a hangover of 1967.
“‘I reject the comparison. The Warsaw ghetto uprising was directed at soldiers, not civilians.”‘
Who cares if you reject the comparison. The comparison is entirely appropriate. The Warsaw ghetto uprising was directed at soldiers, becasue soldiers were the only targets.
“‘Don’t know why you’re under the impression that the military hardware Israel receives is free. They pay for all of it.”
if they paid for all of it, they woldn’t be receiving at least 3 billion in aid every year (and now asking for more), not to mention the many more billions in loan guarantees (ie. loand that Israel doesn’t repay) and the massive caches of munitions that the US store in Israel, which Israel then pilfers anyway.
“How does winning an election amount to being driven underground? Israel started the wars in 1967 that allowed it to steal land. It would have lost in 1973 had the US not come to Israel’s rescue.”
The targeted assassinations and subsequent 2002 invasion of the West Bank resulted in a diminution of suicide bombing. So winning an election and ultimately ruling Gaza, where few suicide bombers came from because of the fence that has been there since before the Intifada, doesn’t really figure into my analysis.
You can believe that Israel “started” the 1967 war if you want to. I think that’s a very simplistic reading of history, as is the conjecture that Israel would have lost in 1973 without US support.
“Aboslutely false in every sense. As we saw in the Gaza massacre, vilence is Israel’s first option.”
As we saw in the several years of rockets that preceded Gaza without an invasion, it is far from Israel’s first option.
“Israel has started every war since 1948, with the possible exception of 1973, which was a hangover of 1967.”
Again, if you choose to adopt wholesale the Palestinian narrative, I can’t stop you. But it’s a little silly. The Jews did not invade themselves in 1948, the closing of the Straits of Tiran and evicting of the UN was taken by many to be a casus belli, and in 1973, the Arabs launched their attack on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.
“Who cares if you reject the comparison. The comparison is entirely appropriate. The Warsaw ghetto uprising was directed at soldiers, becasue soldiers were the only targets.”
It’s a terrible comparison, in no way valid here both because the Palestinians are not in Warsaw ghetto conditions or anything like them and because the Palestinian strategy of targeting civilians is completely different.
“The targeted assassinations and subsequent 2002 invasion of the West Bank resulted in a diminution of suicide bombing. So winning an election and ultimately ruling Gaza, where few suicide bombers came from because of the fence that has been there since before the Intifada, doesn’t really figure into my analysis.”
False. Hamas declared an end to suicide bombings in 2006. Why would a suicide bomber, determined to martyr themselves be concerned with targeted assassination?
“You can believe that Israel “started” the 1967 war if you want to.”
So does Menachem Begin, so did Yitzak Rabin,
“I think that’s a very simplistic reading of history, as is the conjecture that Israel would have lost in 1973 without US support.”
No, it’s pretty obvious. Israel were cauight off guard and outsmarted. egypt gave Israel a taste of it’s own medicine.
“As we saw in the several years of rockets that preceded Gaza without an invasion, it is far from Israel’s first option.”
Rubbish, Israel fired more shells into Gaza that the number of rockets Hamas fired into Israel. In fact, Israel fired 7,700 shells into Gaza over a 10 months duration after it “withdrew from Gaza”.
” Again, if you choose to adopt wholesale the Palestinian narrative, I can’t stop you. But it’s a little silly.”
No it’s not a littel sily, it’s a whoel lot of history. No one invaded Israel in 1948. The war took place outside fo Israel’s borders at the time.
The closing of the Straits of Tiran only affected 5% of shipping and even then, Nasser made a number fo offers to ease the tension.
1) Nasser offered to allow Iseli ships to pass so liong as they didn’t fly the Israeli falg. Israel rejected the offer.
2) Nasser propsed that the legality of the blockade be decided by teh ICJ. Israel rejected the offer.
3) Based on the observatuions of the highest ranked UN officila in the region at the time, the blockade lastes no more than a week
Nor was evicting of the UN a casus belli. Israel could have just as easily invited the UN to it’s side of the border but chose war for land istead.
“in 1973, the Arabs launched their attack on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.”
So what? Israel’s atatck on Gaza coincidd with children retuning home from school, so ensure maximum casualties amiong the young.
“It’s a terrible comparison, in no way valid here both because the Palestinians are not in Warsaw ghetto conditions or anything like them and because the Palestinian strategy of targeting civilians is completely different.”
It’s a terribly sitaution byut an excellent comparison. The Palestinians are condition that aer every bit as horrible as the Warsaw ghetto conditions.
How can there be any dispite that ISrael has become the new Nazi Germany?
“False. Hamas declared an end to suicide bombings in 2006. Why would a suicide bomber, determined to martyr themselves be concerned with targeted assassination?”
What does that have to do with what I said? There was a big decrease after the 2002 invasion, and frankly, why should I believe what Hamas says anyway?
“Rubbish, Israel fired more shells into Gaza that the number of rockets Hamas fired into Israel. In fact, Israel fired 7,700 shells into Gaza over a 10 months duration after it “withdrew from Gaza”.”
Don’t bother to cite a source.
“No it’s not a littel sily, it’s a whoel lot of history. No one invaded Israel in 1948. The war took place outside fo Israel’s borders at the time.”
Really, it’s called spellcheck. You should try it. At any rate, the Yishuv did not invade itself, so you’ll have to explain to us exactly what the Arab armies were doing there.
“1) Nasser offered to allow Iseli ships to pass so liong as they didn’t fly the Israeli falg. Israel rejected the offer.
2) Nasser propsed that the legality of the blockade be decided by teh ICJ. Israel rejected the offer.
3) Based on the observatuions of the highest ranked UN officila in the region at the time, the blockade lastes no more than a week”
Whatever. Michasel Walzer says the preemptive strike was just. I’ll take his opinion over your revisionist history about Nasser’s “offers.”
“So what? Israel’s atatck on Gaza coincidd with children retuning home from school, so ensure maximum casualties amiong the young.”
Absolutely no evidence to support that blood libel conclusion.
“It’s a terribly sitaution byut an excellent comparison. The Palestinians are condition that aer every bit as horrible as the Warsaw ghetto conditions. ”
Thousands of people died every day in the Warsaw ghetto. You are an ignoramus.
“How can there be any dispite that ISrael has become the new Nazi Germany?”
Again, thank you for making it so easy for me not to take you seriously.
“ There was a big decrease after the 2002 invasion, and frankly, why should I believe what Hamas says anyway?”
Becasue what Hamas says coincides with the end of suicide attacks, not Israel’s increased violence.
“Don’t bother to cite a source.”
Dnon’t bother to look up HRW.
link to google.com.au
“ At any rate, the Yishuv did not invade itself, so you’ll have to explain to us exactly what the Arab armies were doing there.”
“Whatever. Michasel Walzer says the preemptive strike was just. I’ll take his opinion over your revisionist history about Nasser’s “offers.””
You’re entitled to your opinion, not your own facts.
“Yitzhak Rabin, who served as the Chief of the General Staff for Israel during the war stated: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
Menachem Begin stated that “The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
Former Chief of Staff of the armed forces, Haim Bar-Lev (a deputy chief during the war) had stated: “the entrance of the Egyptians into Sinai was not a casus belli,” but argued instead that the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran ultimately caused the war.
Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was “a bluff which was born and developed only after the war… …”When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn’t go to war —what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today.” [77] Peled also stated that “To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military).”
link to en.wikipedia.org
“Absolutely no evidence to support that blood libel conclusion.”
Of course, there is. The time of the attack coincided with school children returning home, and children (the IDF’s favourite target of choice ) were the largest percentage of victims.
“Thousands of people died every day in the Warsaw ghetto. You are an ignoramus.”
Every day? According to what statistics? Don’t bother to cite a source.
“Again, thank you for making it so easy for me not to take you seriously.”
You’re assuming that I am concerned about you taking me seriously.
Violence works for Israel. 60 years proves this to be so.
The question is where has violence has gotten the Israelis?
It got them a new country, but gained a group of refugees that created a multitude of problems for the Zionism dream.
But, violence backfired on the IDF during Cast Lead. They were forced to defend and defend their heavy-handed assault of a defenseless population. Overall, did you think that operation Cast Lead was a success or a failure?
Thank you everyone for the comments.
There is far more to say on tactical issues, and how to frame non-violence vs. violence. Especially important is that even putting to the side the right to resist, mainstream media will make non-violent resistance invisible–and non-violent resistance requires media visibility for its effectiveness. “We” on the outside help determine the power of non-violence vs the power of non-violence, and we can determine it non-violently.
There was a bit of speculation about my own life and views on violence and what “could be construed” from my comment (which was explicitly limited in scope). I will not reply to it.
-Max
I don’t think that Israel or its supporters will respond to any non-violent tactics other than economic sanctions. In the end, I still think it comes down to violence in this case.
On a side note, I find bigots bashing “racists” interesting. Is one worse than another? From my own experience, bigots are usually nastier and more sanctimonious than racists.
I posted this under the bromwich article, but really, it applies more to this piece by Ajl:
What I liked about the Ajl piece was it was not polemic, but practical oriented. Once you adopt a rigid framework to operate in, your opponent need only use that to nullify what you are trying to do. Resistance to an occupying colonial power is a war, and those resisting need to be able to adapt their tactics to their circumstances and use the criteria of whether the tactics are working and if they can actually use the tactic.
With non-violent resistance, publicity is a large part of its effectiveness. If there is no publicity, non-violence will not help much in the face of a violent oppressor. Likewise, if one is grossly outmatched, violent resistance is likely to just result in the resistance’s annihilation.
First off, one needs to maneuver themselves into a position where they can pick and chose their “battles”, and not always be subjected to being reactive and on the defensive. That requires flexibility and a toolkit that allows one to adjust and change their tactics at will.
I agree with the premise of Ajl that these are tactics, not some philosophical framework of laws that must be adhered to (for lack of being able to think of a better way of putting it at the moment).
On the headline.
Non-violence, to Hamas and to some of the “by any means necessary” solidarity here is merely a tactic, a tactic to be falsely presented as guiding, and therefore exploited, for purpose of victory.
Of course, always stated in the name of opposing injustice.
To others, non-violence is a superior tactic, requiring discipline and consistency to be an effective one.
To others, non-violence is a value, THE content of dissent, of peace-making (rather than of victory-making).
Values once stated are then judged. That is the case with the Free Gaza effort. It looks hypocritical now, even for the 5/6 that did not fight. Maybe solidarity can recruit some alienated youth, but unlikely those youth that are relatively mature and compassionate over an extended period. The discipline to biased story just has too many holes.
It will be possible, desirable, to attract engaged youth to demand healthy political and economic setting for Gazans and West Bank and diaspora Palestinians. But, that is a different approach than simply resistance, more enduring, more endearing, more trustable.
Like I said earlier Witty,
Get lost and go polute your own blog with your verbal diahrrea. No one gives a crap what you have to say, and n o one has the stomach for your insufferably pompous preaching.
“Non-violence, to Hamas and to some of the “by any means necessary” solidarity here is merely a tactic, a tactic to be falsely presented as guiding, and therefore exploited, for purpose of victory.”
Predictable racist garbage from from our resident pathological liar in chief.
Fascists like Witty hang their hats on incendiary rhetoric from the likes of Hamas to prove they are evil, but when those same parties behave responsibly or make benevolent statements the Witty’s of this world then insist we cannot trust what they say or how they behave.
It’s a tactic used by fascist Zionists like Witty to justify the status quo and stonewall any resolution or argue against peace.
What Witty is really suggesting is that Arabs and Muslims are sub human and cannot be trusted. What more evidence do we need that witty is a Zionist extremist and a fraud?