Lessons From Tahrir Sq.

Excerpt:

To the Palestinians I would say: You believe the Israelis are stiffing you because they think they have you in box. If you resort to violence, they will brand you terrorists. And if you don’t resort to violence, the Israelis will just pocket the peace and quiet and build more settlements. Your dilemma is how to move Israel in a way that won’t blow up in your face or require total surrender.

You have to start with the iron law of Israeli-Arab peace: whichever party has the Israeli silent majority on its side wins. Anwar Sadat brought the Israeli majority over to his side when he went to Israel, and he got everything he wanted. Yasir Arafat momentarily did the same with the Oslo peace accords. How could Palestinians do that again today? I can tell you how not to do it. Having the U.N. General Assembly pass a resolution recognizing an independent Palestinian state will only rally Israelis around Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, giving him another excuse not to talk.

May I suggest a Tahrir Square alternative? Announce that every Friday from today forward will be “Peace Day,” and have thousands of West Bank Palestinians march nonviolently to Jerusalem, carrying two things — an olive branch in one hand and a sign in Hebrew and Arabic in the other. The sign should say: “Two states for two peoples. We, the Palestinian people, offer the Jewish people a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders — with mutually agreed adjustments — including Jerusalem, where the Arabs will control their neighborhoods and the Jews theirs.”

If Palestinians peacefully march to Jerusalem by the thousands every Friday with a clear peace message, it would become a global news event. Every network in the world would be there. Trust me, it would stimulate a real peace debate within Israel — especially if Palestinians invited youth delegations from around the Arab world to join the marches, carrying the Saudi peace initiative in Hebrew and Arabic. Israeli Jews and Arabs should be invited to march as well. Together, the marchers could draw up their own peace maps and upload them onto YouTube as a way of telling their leaders what Egyptian youth said to President Hosni Mubarak: “We’re not going to let you waste another day of our lives with your tired mantras and maneuvering.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/opinion/25friedman.html

Although there are some that wont budge when they should.

Function not data. And about far more situations then just Israel peace treaties.
For instance, I can be as peaceful as anyone, will the billionaires break up there consolidations, and send the beer and travel money that is due, by me being peaceful.

I have posted this all before, they want you to take it from them, but that is not what I want to achieve, I want them to understand the problems it causes, but they can't by claiming some superiority. Or wanting to use some idea they are superior to justify the problems there consolidations cause.

So the next step usually ends up smashing them, but that is leveling paradox, they won't budge if there neighbor is smashed, they will say they are still special. And if you smash them, they can't correct the beer and travel money. So they have to have the money moved from them. But they say that is how they got the money.


It is why I realized I could not correct the problem of how many people choose to act by stealing free will, and instead enjoy, and like to post lots of good music. Because when in the wrong place, not by my fault, those musicians and songs were always there, when many other people were not.


Bonnie Raitt - I Can't Make You Love Me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW9Cu6GYqxo

Bonnie Raitt - Nick of Time
http://www.123video.nl/playvideos.asp?MovieID=407128


Anyway, do you see how great this song is, it not only is part of the many narratives and stories currently being told, it is also the story of Abraham and his son. And that is really a great honor for her being given that song to sing. And it is full of hope and love, so posting it again.

But anyways, what else can be said.

:loveya:

Can you provide a pithier summary?

http://www.fair.org/blog/#post-18362

In today's New York Times (5/25/11), columnist Tom Friedman issues yet another call for Palestinians to practice non-violence:

The implication--a familiar one in corporate media--is that there's never been much Palestinian non-violent resistance. This is false--see here, here, here, or especially here--a piece by Yousef Munayyer titled,"Palestine's Hidden History of Nonviolence: You Wouldn't Know It From the Media Coverage, but Peaceful Protests Are Nothing New for Palestinians."

The other part of Friedman's argument is that media would pay this movement serious attention. Again, we don't need to imagine what might happen if Palestinians were to take Friedman's advice. Regular non-violent protests against the West Bank separation wall are ignored in the U.S. media, as Patrick O'Connor documented in 2005. A 2009 Guardian report is a reminder of what often happens in response to such demonstrations. As the subhead put it, "Palestinian demonstrations intended to be peaceful met with Israeli teargas, stun grenades and sometimes live ammunition." And one of the most prominent non-violent Palestinian activists is Adeeb Abu Rahma, who was held in an Israeli prison for 17 months before being released late last year.

Read more: http://www.fair.org/blog/#post-18362

...is non-violent, right?

As were the activists caught on camera on the flotilla beating the hell out of the IDF officers?

All peaceful, non-violent?

Come on, now.

People have a right to defend themselves. The Aid flotilla was totally non-violent before Israel made it violent, which can be said about a lot of non-violent protests in Palestine.

They went looking for it.They wanted violence.They counted on the Israelis being passive though.That was their mistake.
The thugs on the ship were the architects of their own misery.

They were humanitarian workers and peaceful activists. Israeli commandos circled their vessels in helicopters and fired rubber bullets, teargas canisters, and live ammunition onto the ship before landing. Autopsy reports revealed that many of the dead activists had been shot from behind, or at point blank range. They came under assault from highly trained Israeli commandos, who were illegally boarding their ship in international waters. They defended themselves and were completely justified in doing so. Period.

FAIR: At Wall Street Journal, Reporting Assault Through Israel's Eyes

...While it's true that activists on board the Mavi Marmara tried to defend themselves against Israeli naval commandos and fought with the Israelis (War in Context, 6/6/10), the Journal’s framing of the incident gets what happened on board the ship backwards, implying that it was the activists who first started the clash.

Regardless of who initiated the violence on board the ship first--and witnesses claim that soldiers started shooting even before they landed on the Turkish ship (Common Dreams, 6/5/10)--when heavily armed commandos invade a ship in international waters without legal authorization to do so, that in itself constitutes an attack. The Israeli navy attacked the boat in international waters even as it was moving away from Gaza’s coast (Ali Abunimah, 6/7/10)...

Read more: http://www.fair.org/blog/2010/07/13/at-wall-street-journal-israels-word-is-truth/

Common Dreams: Gaza Boat Activists Deny Israeli Story

...Among those offering a contradictory account was Ed Peck, a former U.S. ambassador and deputy director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism during the Reagan administration, who was on board the Sfendoni vessel of the Freedom Flotilla.

"The first thing we knew was the sound of footsteps, and my eye lids flicked open, and there they were, heavily armed," said Peck, who was one of the first hostages to be released. "The Israeli government keeps referring to the paint guns, but the paint guns were attached to the automatic weapons and the stun grenades and the pepper spray and the tasers and everything else that these guys carry."

While the Israelis claim they were attacked violently by Al Qaeda and Hamas-connected "terrorists," very few soldiers were wounded, and none died. Israeli officials showed off knives and some home-made weapons that allegedly were used by the Mavi Marmara defenders. No firearms were found on the ships...

Read more: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/05-0

Craig Murray: Former British Ambassador and Specialist on International law calls Israeli raid illegal

...A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.

Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place

on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody’s territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities...

Read more: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/05/the_legal_posit/

Gaza flotilla participants invoked the killing of Jews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk

Flotilla Rioters Prepare Rods, Slingshots, Broken Bottles and Metal Objects to Attack IDF Soldiers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU

It's exactly like a liberal PEACE NOW protest!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyZF6uEJsQc

Whodathunk ultra-conservative, theocratic, radical rightwingers could be trusted to do non-violent peace protests just like their liberal leftwing counterparts??

:eyes:

I think there were many peaceful protesters but also some who were seeking a violent confrontation.

Was the Freedom Flotilla a peaceful protest before its members were attacked by Israeli commandos? Was there any violent action towards Israel or any Israeli prior to the boarding? You're saying that some of the passengers were seeking a violent confrontation. But even if that is true (I personally don't believe it is), it's irrelevant once you understand that the Israelis boarded their ship, and not the other way around. Any violence on the part of the passengers only came after Israel's initial aggression

The "Freedom Flotilla" was a mix of people who were peaceful and violent. Some were planning a non-violent protest, others wanted to provoke a violent confrontation. This is evidenced by the reactions on the various ships. The ones that were filled with peaceful protesters (which was the majority of the ships) did not result in violent confrontation. The one ship that had people on board who were looking for violence, did.

There was no violence from any passengers on the other ships that were boarded. This is because they were filled with peaceful protesters.

The Mavi Marmara had some people are board who were not in that category, and thus the outcome was very different on that ship (and only that ship).

It still doesn't answer the question. Which is: who initiated the "violent confrontation"? It wasn't the passengers. They were fired upon with rubber bullets and live ammunition before the Israelis boarded the ship.

Whether or not those on the flotilla were looking for a fight is irrelevant, but even if it were how can you assume they were looking for a fight. You mention that 4 out of the 5 ships were taken without incidents; so what was so different about the 5th one? You say the difference is that the passengers on the 5th boat were violent, but why do you assume that is the difference? There's no serious evidence to support that claim.

Why couldn't it be the fact that the other 4 ships in the convoy carried around 40 to 10 passengers each while the Mavi Marmara carried nearly 600, making a different kind of target than the other ships? Why couldn't it be that Israeli tactics were different on 1 of the 5 ships? Furthermore, how do you explain the autopsy reports which are entirely inconsistent with the IDF's claims that they only acted in self defense? Why do you so eagerly blame the victims of the IDF's brutality with so little evidence?

As you mentioned, it carried a lot of people, but no aid. All of the aid was on four of the other ships. Thus, the Mavi Marmara was not a humanitarian aid ship. It was a ship containing a group of people who wished to make a political statement about the blockade.

Reports of what took place on that ship are contradictory. However, the reaction from the passengers to the IDF was definitely very different from the reaction of the passengers on the other ships.

Here is an article from the NY Times that I would encourage you to take a look at.

It includes direct statements from individuals who were on board that ship.

Excerpt:

The crack of an Israeli sound grenade and a hail of rubber bullets from above were supposed to disperse activists, but instead set them in motion. And when three Israeli commandos slid down ropes out of helicopters to take over the ship, a crowd set upon them.

“They ran at them without pause or hesitation,” Dr. Coskun recalled.

One soldier was stabbed and two were beaten. From that moment on, the attempted takeover turned into an armed assault, with angry Israeli commandos opening fire. Within an hour, the commandos had taken control of the ship, and nine Turks, including one who also had American citizenship, were dead.

Dozens of interviews in Israel and Turkey suggest that Israel’s decision to stop the flotilla at all costs collided with the intention of a small group of Islamic activists from Turkey, turning a raid on a ship of protesters in international waters into a bloodbath — and a major international event.

<snip>

It was a small group of aggressive activists on the upper deck who overwhelmed the first soldiers, wrenching away their weapons and, according to Dr. Coskun and video images supplied by the Israeli military, beating them with wooden poles and metal rods that they had ripped or sawed off the side of the boat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/world/europe/05reconstruct.html

Passive, non-violent resistance was not the approach used by some of the passengers on this particular ship.

It was on the others, where no one was killed.

It doesn't contradict what I said, the activists attacked after they were fired on by the Israelis. You continue to avoid this simple truism. Whether or not you believe the activists had malevolent intentions is completely irrelevant once you recognize that the Israeli's attacked first. After that, any force directed at the boarding commandos can be viewed as justified self defense. Furthermore, the reports coming from the passengers of the Mavi Marmara are not contradictory. The reports only become contradictory when you include the story pushed by the IDF, which isn't a reliable source.

You'll see that some ultra-religious rightwing extremists on the Marmara were itching for a confrontation with the hated Jews who they were anxious to confront.

And the IDF did not fire first on the Marmara anymore than they fired first on any other ship in the flotilla. Here's a video before the IDF boarded where they're being relentlessly attacked on a speedboat next to the Marmara...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24&feature=player_embedded