Curious Christian

Reflections on culture, nature, and spirituality from a Christian perspective

What are your thoughts on Gaza?

Published by

Matt Stone

2010-06-02

I have to admit that I’m uneasy about the whole thing.

On the one hand, the Israeli response to the flotilla was disproportionate, illegal and ill conceived. Why the hell did the Israelis not wait till the flotilla reached Israeli territorial waters? Why the hell did the Israelis not arm themselves with non-lethal crowd dispersal equipment so they’d have alternatives to gunning down mace and knife weilding protestors? It shows arrogance and indifference to life. It also shows clearly why it is unwise to send an army to do police work.

On the other hand, I’m dissappointed with the activist community, who seem to have naively conflated anti-Zionism with pro-peacemaking and unwittingly allowed militant activists to infiltrate their otherwise peaceful ranks. Photos of protestors hitting soldiers with iron rods does nothing to enhance the movement’s moral authority. Sorry, but I gotta say it. The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend. Enemies of peace stand on both sides of that line in the sea. We need to be clear about carving out a third way and show discipline.

No side won this week.

Tags Violence

8 responses to “What are your thoughts on Gaza?”

Johno

2010-06-02

The sad irony is that on seeing the footage, I have to say that (putting myself in the place of the commando leader) I’d have probably given the order to fire. Boarding the ship in international waters was stupid and illegal, yes . . but once the commandos were there, the leader’s first responsibility is to safeguard his men, and if he hadn’t ordered them to fire I’d say they may well have been in lethal danger.

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2010-06-02

“The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.” (Martin Luther King, Jr., The Trumpet of Conscience, 1967.)
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction….The chain reaction of evil – hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars – must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.” (Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength To Love, 1963.)
Let us not enter the dark abyss of annihilation by following pro-Israel soldiers and anti-Israel rioters in their violence.

LikeLike

Reply
Robin Vestal

2010-06-03

Great quotes.

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2010-06-03

Here’s a response I wrote to someone else recently:
While I join the rest of the world in condemning Israel’s actions, I’m hesitant to give the activists my unqualified support given the photographic evidence of violent resistance by elements of the group. Activists they were, but clearly not all were of the peaceful kind. I think we need to speak out against violence whatever side it comes from, pro-Palastinian or pro-Israeli, and be wary of polarizations that would draw us into association with Hamas, tacit or otherwise. There are at least three sides in this conflict, not two. The flotilla seemed confused on this. Our condemnations of Israel need to be balanced with a call for activists to exercise disciplined nonviolence.

LikeLike

Reply
Alex

2010-06-09

I’ve just read your letter in the latest mailing. I should acknowledge before I go any further that I went to Gaza for the Gaza Freedom March late last year, and that (largely at my instigation) City Baptist Church, Launceston is a sister church of Gaza Baptist Church.
You seem to be unaware of the evidence from eye witness accounts and photographs that – The Israeli commandos who rappelled down on to the ship were firing live ammunition before they even reached the ship. It is not surprising and is understandable that the activists tried to defend themselves.
– The first three commandos were indeed overpowered and disarmed almost as soon as they landed
– They were taken to a safe place in the ship, their injuries were treated, and they were protected
– The activists who were shot by the Israelis were left to die in their blood, repeated requests for help were ignored by the Israelis, and the activists were beaten and tightly hand cuffed
Perhaps you could have a look at
http://warincontext.org/2010/06/06/all-i-saw-in-israel-was-cowards-with-guns/
http://warincontext.org/2010/06/06/hurriyet-photos-of-disarmed-israeli-commandos/
I’m not very good with computers or blogs. Would you be so kind please as to transmute the above email to a posting on your blog?
Regards, Alex

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2010-06-09

Alex
No problem. And in answer, no, I was not aware of the eyewitness accounts of live fire by the Israeli commandos prior to boarding. But it makes little difference to what I’ve said, for I said up front that I condemn Israel’s actions.
I gather from your line of reasoning that you think my subsequent questioning of the protester’s action lessens the force of that initial statement. Let me assure you it doesn’t. I condemn Israel’s actions unreservedly. If I were explore this incident from a just war perspective I would most certainly side with the protesters. Have little doubt of that.
But the point you seemed to have missed is that I am not commenting from a just war perspective, I’m commenting from a pacifist one. What I was questioning in the AAANZ letter was the pacifist credentials of the protestors. I have to ask, what sort of pacifist brings a weapon to a peace action?
That the humanitarian activist interviewed in the first article you linked explicitly denies he was a pacifist merely serves to underline my comment: “activists they were, but clearly not all were of the peaceful kind.” And I find this saddening, because a nonviolent response to Israeli violence would have exposed the brutality of the Israelis much more starkly.

LikeLike

Reply
Alex Bell

2010-06-10

Thanks for your response and for putting my message on the blog. And please accept my apology if I over reacted and read things in your AAANZ letter which weren’t there.
If I understand you correctly your central question is ‘what kind of pacifist brings a weapon to a peace action’.
The response of course is that there is no evidence whatever that they did bring weapons. There is abundant evidence that the ships were searched by local authorities before they left port, and no weapons were found. And (as it was on the Gaza Freedom March) each participant was required to commit to non-violent methods.
I acknowledge that under the stress of seeing some of their friends being murdered without warning that some of them lost it, and used whatever lay to hand to defend themselves. I acknowledge that it would have more pacifist to just stand there and be slaughtered.
I just don’t know what I would have done. Do you know what you would have done?
Regards, Alex

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2010-06-10

Alex
Hey, this blog is about dialogue. And yes, that is a reasonable summation of my central question. It’s the preparedness for violence that some protestors displayed that gets me questioning their nonviolent credentials.
Now I would qualify this somewhat. I agree that the Israeli accounts of gun wielding protestors are yet to be substantiated (and most likely never will be) and I’m open to new evidence on the seized knives (I myself once accidently and successfully got a knife through airport security so it’s not perfect, but on the other hand planting would be easy too) but it’s the clear video evidence of one protestor weilding an iron bar and another throwing a soldier from one deck to another that really gets me questioning. I find it difficult to reconcile such actions with pacifism.
As the video interview of the American showed, the commitment to pacifism was clearly provisional for some of them. Indeed, it would seem some abandoned nonviolence and started making preparations to repel the commandos as soon as their boarding intentions became clear. Where were the de-escalation tactics? Where was the commitment to nonviolence action in the face of violence no matter what? I just didn’t see it.
I know it’s difficult. My house was recently robbed while myself along with my wife and young kids were asleep in it. I know the temptations.
But you see, that’s exactly the argument of the Israelis as well. “Oh, we were afraid when our commrades fall so we acted to defect ourselves.” Once we roll out the self defence argument we’re talking the same language as the commandos. We’re talking just war, not pacifism. Can’t we write a different script?
This is my basic contention: some at least were just war activists, not peace activists. And this is my concern, that it could all descend into a polarized argument about who is suffering more injustice in the Middle East, or alternatively, acting more just: Hamas or Israel. I think we need to transcend such polarizations altogether. In fact I believe peace demands we do. Ultimately we need to dream of a day when we can call both Hamas and Israel brothers, when they cal call each other brothers. This action did not seem aimed at such an outcome. It seemed far more partisan than that. It is not a case of black versus white in Palastine, its a case of gray versus gray. White can only come when the darkness in both sides is challenged.

LikeLike

Reply