|
Psycho
|
Quote:
Gandhi and King on the Mavi Marmara
by Dustin Howes | June 8, 2010, 1:22 pm
The recent attack on the Mavi Marmara has inspired discussions of the techniques of nonviolence in the mainstream media. Here at Waging Nonviolence, we have already lamented what appears to have been a lack of discipline on the part of the protesters. However, an interesting commentary by Lane Wallace in The Atlantic shows how misunderstandings about the basic principles of nonviolence play a role in skewing coverage of and opinion about the events.
Information is still murky, but what Wallace gets right in her piece is that Gandhi was insistent that one should always defend oneself with nonviolence, not physical force, if one is able. When the Israeli military raided the ship, they hoped to send the message that the blockade of Gaza would remain firm. In the aftermath, Israel has claimed the activists had terrorist connections.
By breaking from strict nonviolent discipline, the activists played into this narrative, giving it a measure of plausibility and shifting the field of interpretation. Wallace says, expressing the sentiments of many:
[T]here is at best a naivete, and at worst a disingenuousness, in provoking a fight and then complaining noisily that a fight broke out. The activists decided to take on the Israeli military. It doesn’t matter whether the military should have resisted their passage to Gaza, in a moral sense; the fact remains that Israelis had been very clear that they were going to take whatever measures were necessary to stop the boats. So the activists knew they were going to meet resistance. […] There are no lack of individuals, groups, or nations who use violence as a means to an end. But if you decide to step in that world, you can’t complain when your opponent uses violence in return.
Wallace is sympathetic to nonviolent activism and her piece is an indication of the extent to which the Free Gaza movement has lost control over the interpretation of the events. Even while inspiring worldwide condemnation of the unjust Gaza blockade, what has most disturbed me is the character of much of the outrage it has inspired. The Turkish president’s assertion that Turkey will “never forgive” the killing of the ten protesters, protests in Ankara featuring hardliners burning Israeli flags and offering chants of “death to Israel.” This in turn has predictably inspired protests by Israeli hardliners equating Turkey and Hamas and claiming, “We came with paint guns and got lynched.” Israel’s bellicose actions and statements are of course responsible for this, but the activists on the Mavi Marmara bear some responsibility as well.
However, Wallace makes a critical, faulty assumption in her analysis of nonviolence and one that is frequent among those who are casual observers of it. She writes that the problem with the flotilla was that it “went into the confrontation looking for conflict, to draw attention to their cause.” Citing Gandhi and King she says that “[q]uiet, uncomplaining courage is harder and less satisfying than provoking an opponent.” Unlike the Gaza protesters, when “Martin Luther King, John Lewis, the Freedom Riders and the rest of the non-violent protesters for civil rights set out, they knew what they were walking into. And if we admire their courage, it’s because they walked into a hailstorm without so much as a word of complaint.”
Both Dr. King and Gandhi were very keen to use nonviolence to inspire confrontation and they did so in conjunction with some of the most profound words of complaint the world has ever known. Even in particular instances of direct action, “complaining” was important (think of C.T. Vivian confronting Sheriff Jim Clark in Selma). They were also persistently held responsible for being agitators who caused violence. The purpose of nonviolence is to put the violence that is the lifeblood of segregation and colonialism on display and excavate the hatred and fear that drives it. The problem with the flotilla was not in provoking and revealing the character of Israel’s death grip on Gaza. The provocation worked perfectly in demonstrating that only deadly force can support Israel’s current policies. The problem is that by failing to stick to the principles of nonviolence the Free Gaza movement failed to take the opportunity that was given to them.
Nonviolent means usually have a more direct relationship to political outcomes than violent means. When militants fire rockets into Israel for the purpose of protesting the Gaza blockade, the substance of what they are doing is completely divorced from the political outcome. When a flotilla of aid tries to break the embargo, there is consistency between the means and the ends. But attacking commandos—even those trying to stop a flotilla—is not. Maintaining consistency in means and ends can be extremely difficult, but it is why Gandhi thought the methods were more truthful.
Wallace both underestimates how difficult it is to maintain nonviolent discipline in the face of highly trained uses of violence and misunderstands the purpose of nonviolent protests. But her impressions of nonviolence are not uncommon and something those of us who use nonviolent means should keep in mind going forward.
|
source: Gandhi and King on the Mavi Marmara / Waging Nonviolence
Non-violent protest, would it have drawn the deaths, would it have drawn the attention? It is easy to find the realities of this incident if you look beyond the surface rhetoric of media outlets that have numbers of viewers to gain, pointing out that these terrorism linked individuals mentality resides within the pro-violence sect of Islamic extremism is easy if you open your eyes to jihad mentalities, these are not your everyday peace loving activist trying to change the world for the better of humanity, these extremists thrive on terror and death as do hamas, al qaeda, hezbollah, the taliban, etc. These extreme terrorism regimes and their ideologies are what I am talking about.... these criminals are against personal freedoms and they deeply oppose a quilted religious world that can and does create humanities peaceful coexistence. These tyrannical regimes leaders and followers will use any means, any peoples, any reason to kill in the name of their self glorification and extreme ideologies. This is the reality of extremism in Islamic fundamental religious sects.
eventually I will learn how to embed pictures....... maybe, so if you wish to see the actual pictures you will need to go tho the sources listed, sorry. I am waiting for my husband to teach me, it may be a while.
Quote:
Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive
By Ed Barnes
Published June 08, 2010
On the left, the uncropped photo. On the right, Reuters' released photo. (Reuters)
The British-based Reuters news agency has been stung for the second time by charges that it edited politically sensitive photos in a way that casts Israel in a bad light. But this time Reuters claims it wasn’t at fault.
The news agency reacted to questions raised by an American blogger who showed that Reuters' photo service edited out knives and blood traces from pictures taken aboard the activist ship Mavi Marmara during a clash with Israeli commandos last week. Nine people were killed and scores were injured in the clash.
The pictures of the fight were released by IHH, the Turkish-based group that sponsored the six-ship fleet that tried to break Israel's blockade of Gaza.
In one photo, an Israeli commando is shown lying on the deck of the ship, surrounded by activists. The uncut photo released by IHH shows the hand of an unidentified activist holding a knife. But in the Reuters photo, the hand is visible but the knife has been edited out.
The blog “Little Green Footballs” challenged Reuters' editing of the photo.
“That’s a very interesting way to crop the photo. Most people would consider that knife an important part of the context. There was a huge controversy over whether the activists were armed. Cropping out a knife, in a picture showing a soldier who’s apparently been stabbed, seems like a very odd editorial decision. Unless someone was trying to hide it,” the blog stated.
In a second photo the unedited print issued by IHH showed blood along the ship's railing and a hand holding a knife as an Israeli soldier lies on the deck. Both the blood and the knife were missing in the photo that Reuters released.
Reuters on Tuesday denied it intended to alter the political meanings of the photographs.
“The images in question were made available in Istanbul, and following normal editorial practice were prepared for dissemination which included cropping at the edges," the news agency said in a statement. "When we realized that a dagger was inadvertently cropped from the images, Reuters immediately moved the original set as well."
Reuters has yet to respond to charges about the second photo.
This is the second time Reuters has been accused of manipulating photos. In 2006 a Reuters photographer, Adnan Hajj, doctored several photos of the destruction caused by Israel's bombing of Beirut. In one he added smoke to a panoramic picture of South Beirut to make the damage look more severe than it was. In a second photo, he showed a woman whose home had supposedly been destroyed in the same raid, but an investigation revealed that the woman's house had been destroyed prior to the Israeli strike.
Reuters later removed all of Hajj's more than 900 photos from distribution and severed its relationship with him. A photo editor also was fired.
What happened on the Mavi Marmara and who was responsible for the killing and bloodshed on the ship is still a matter of debate. Activists charge that Israeli commandos fired first and provoked the skirmish. Israeli commandos say they were compelled to use deadly force after they were attacked by people on board the ship.
|
source and you can see the two images here: FOXNews.com - Reuters Admits Cropping Photos of Ship Clash, Denies Political Motive
But of course this is FOX, so whether Reuters admits to cropping or not, just because FOX released it, it must be wrong, right? Truths can be ascertained in common sense and history of conflict also, this conflict and the ME connections with Islamic extremism needs to be taken into account when trying to understand the realities of this incident. This is not the first time ships have sailed for Gaza under intentions of humanitarianism and have been stopped exposing tons of heavy weapons on-board (I am not referencing the Mavi Marmara.....).
If you wish to see another different cropped image, visit here: Little Green Footballs - Another Cropped Reuters Photo Deletes Another Knife - And a Pool of Blood
It seems to me perspective is less in the eye of the beholder and more in the eyes of the seller, it just depends on what side you wish to purchase your brand of truth from. As I have said before, I read it all, and make my decisions based on my own perceptions of history and the stories of both sides, mixed in with what I consider to be common sense and from that, I still will never say I am 100% right, but I am still 100% hungry for understanding WHY, WHY the fuck humankind has to treat each other this way, it baffles me. But then extremism within religious ideologies in this day in age baffles me too, however, I was given the opportunity for a free education from the time of my birth, something many humans are not blessed with in this world today, especially many middle easterners. Where I feel education is the answer to humanities cohesiveness, I believe many Muslims view education (outside of the Koran) as the end to their perceived way of life, especially the basic education of ALL Muslim women, though this is just my opinion.
__________________
you can tell them all you want but it won't matter until they think it does
p.s. I contradict my contradictions, with or without intention, sometimes. 
|