British beaches - From Yahoo
1. Bournemouth, Dorset
Bournemouth benefits from 7 miles of pure gold. One of the best city beaches in the UK , its soft sand and acres of space are perfect for families. It's won awards for cleanliness and on a clear day you can see out to the Needles on the Isle of Wight . True, it's not a deserted paradise, but you can't ask for much more so close to a major town. And with the building of Europe's first artificial surf reef, the beach is set to become one of the UK 's premier surfing spots.
2. West Wittering, West Sussex
West Wittering near Chichester manages to please all comers with expansive sands, superior water quality and a thriving dune ecosystem. The beach shelves gently towards the sea making it ideal for safe swimming and when the tide is out you can bask in shallow tidal pools warmed by the sun. If you feel restless you can walk around East Head, a sandy spit populated by absorbing coastal flora and fauna.
3. Croyde Bay, North Devon
Hammering surf and excellent surf schools and shops have sealed Croyde Bay 's reputation as North Devon 's best beach for catching waves. The village has retained an old world charm despite the influx of young surfers keen to party and the beach is big enough for sunbathers and swimmers, too.
4. Holy Island, Northumberland
One of the most haunting and beautiful places in Britain , Holy Island was an early centre of Christianity in the UK . Cut off from the mainland twice a day by the tide, it has a castle, an evocative ruined priory and mile upon mile of deserted sand. If you're in a reflective mood, this is the one for you. Watch out for grey seals and rare birds.
5. Holkham, Norfolk
Draped in dunes, Holkham is a deliciously secluded beach backed by scented pine forest. Sunbathe, horseride or explore 3 miles of seemingly measureless, creamy sands. And if you come to Holkham, you'll be in illustrious company. The Queen likes to walk her Corgis here and Gwyneth Paltrow strode across the sands for the final scene of Shakespeare in Love.
6. Great Bay, St Martin's, Isles of Scilly
Short on Kiss Me Quick hats and sickly sticks of rock but with charm to spare, Great Bay is the best beach in the Scillys. You can only reach it on foot, so the holiday hordes generally stay away. It's only a 20 minute walk from the quay and the journey's certainly worth it. Offshore, kelp forests sheltering colourful fish wave lazily in a cobalt sea and the arcing white sands are distinctly tropical.
7. Blackpool, Lancashire
Ice creams, saucy postcards, fish ‘n' chips, rock, donkey rides and deckchairs – Blackpool beach is the essence of the traditional British seaside. Apart from miles of sand you'll find slot machines, shows and some of the biggest and scariest rollercoasters in the UK.
8. Abereiddi Blue Lagoon, Pembrokeshire
Not strictly a beach, the Blue Lagoon is actually an old quarry with a tidal channel to the sea. The quarry forms a satisfying circle, protecting and enclosing a disc of shimmering azure water. It's a romantic spot reached by walking passed ruined slate workers' cottages and quarry buildings. Surrounded by cliffs, it's popular with cliff jumpers and coasteerers.
9. Sinclair's Bay, Caithness
This all but deserted beach just south of John O'Groats has soft white sand that's lapped by waters tinged an otherworldly blue. It's hard to find a more atmospheric beach. This one's guarded by two 16 th -century castles and welcomes porpoises and whales. With 4 miles of uninterrupted sand you won't have any problems bagging a good spot.
10. Porthcurno, Cornwall
This glorious, unspoilt beach hugged by craggy cliffs has fine white sand made from sea shells. There are cliff-top paths, rock pools to discover and a stream trickling down the beach – ideal for paddling children. Nearby, the extraordinary Minnack Theatre hosts open-air plays with views of the ocean.
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Thursday, June 03, 2010
The wise humanitarian souls...
Grey power free Gaza - Guardian
The key figures of the Free Gaza movement are all women of pensionable age, who came out of the 1960s protest generation
They are the generation who protested in the 1960s and have girded themselves again to campaign for Palestinian rights. The Free Gaza movement, which chartered the Challenger yacht as part of the flotilla that was attacked by Israel on Monday, is led by a group of women of pensionable age.
Founding members of the organisation, which is also operating the MV Rachel Corrie, include a US-based 85-year-old Holocaust survivor, Hedy Epstein, and a 76-year-old grandmother originally from Bolton, Mary Hughes.
The four activists running Free Gaza's communications and legal operations from Cyprus during the flotilla are all women aged between 65 and 85.
"Part of it could be because we are children of the 1960s and we came out of the anti-Vietnam movement," said Greta Berlin, 69, also one of the founding members. Speaking from Bolton, Mary Hughes's brother, Brian Thompson, said he had not heard from her since an email last week. "Mary isn't a political person. This is not an anti-Israel stance she is taking, it is a humanitarian one," he said.
The key figures of the Free Gaza movement are all women of pensionable age, who came out of the 1960s protest generation
They are the generation who protested in the 1960s and have girded themselves again to campaign for Palestinian rights. The Free Gaza movement, which chartered the Challenger yacht as part of the flotilla that was attacked by Israel on Monday, is led by a group of women of pensionable age.
Founding members of the organisation, which is also operating the MV Rachel Corrie, include a US-based 85-year-old Holocaust survivor, Hedy Epstein, and a 76-year-old grandmother originally from Bolton, Mary Hughes.
The four activists running Free Gaza's communications and legal operations from Cyprus during the flotilla are all women aged between 65 and 85.
"Part of it could be because we are children of the 1960s and we came out of the anti-Vietnam movement," said Greta Berlin, 69, also one of the founding members. Speaking from Bolton, Mary Hughes's brother, Brian Thompson, said he had not heard from her since an email last week. "Mary isn't a political person. This is not an anti-Israel stance she is taking, it is a humanitarian one," he said.
Flotilla update
From the Guardian
• Released activists have said Israeli commandos opened fire before boarding Gaza flotilla. Turkish activist Nilufer Cetin said Israeli troops opened fire before boarding the Turkish-flagged ferry Mavi Marmara, which was the scene of the worst clashes and all the fatalities. Israeli officials have said that the use of armed force began when its boarding party was attacked.
• Israel's military may have sabotaged two boats carrying Free Gaza activists after both malfuntioned at the same time in the same way prior to the raid. The ships were forced into port in Cyprus on Friday evening when both their steering systems broke down on the journey from Heraklion in Crete, a campaign spokeswoman said.
• Egypt has temporarily lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip to allow aid into the area. Several thousand Gazans are reportedly making a dash to the Egyptian border, hoping to take advantage of a rare chance to escape the blockaded territory. Cars with suitcases piled on their roofs are streaming to the border, while many others are lugging overstaffed bags on foot. Dozens of Hamas police with automatic weapons are patrolling the area to maintain order.
• The MV Rachel Corrie, which was part of the Freedom Flotilla but had fallen behind, will still make for Gaza, according to the Free Gaza Movement. Spokeswoman Greta Berlin said the vessel would probably arrive next Monday or Tuesday. An unnamed Israeli marine lieutenant told Israel's Army Radio his unit was prepared to block the ship.
• Released activists have said Israeli commandos opened fire before boarding Gaza flotilla. Turkish activist Nilufer Cetin said Israeli troops opened fire before boarding the Turkish-flagged ferry Mavi Marmara, which was the scene of the worst clashes and all the fatalities. Israeli officials have said that the use of armed force began when its boarding party was attacked.
• Israel's military may have sabotaged two boats carrying Free Gaza activists after both malfuntioned at the same time in the same way prior to the raid. The ships were forced into port in Cyprus on Friday evening when both their steering systems broke down on the journey from Heraklion in Crete, a campaign spokeswoman said.
• Egypt has temporarily lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip to allow aid into the area. Several thousand Gazans are reportedly making a dash to the Egyptian border, hoping to take advantage of a rare chance to escape the blockaded territory. Cars with suitcases piled on their roofs are streaming to the border, while many others are lugging overstaffed bags on foot. Dozens of Hamas police with automatic weapons are patrolling the area to maintain order.
• The MV Rachel Corrie, which was part of the Freedom Flotilla but had fallen behind, will still make for Gaza, according to the Free Gaza Movement. Spokeswoman Greta Berlin said the vessel would probably arrive next Monday or Tuesday. An unnamed Israeli marine lieutenant told Israel's Army Radio his unit was prepared to block the ship.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Israel Flotilla Raid
More from the Guardian
3.53pm:
More reaction from those caught up in the flotilla violence. Tom Phillips is in Rio de Janeiro for the Guardian.
The Brazilian filmmaker Iara Lee, who was onboard the Mavi Marmara when it was stormed, claimed the Israeli troops had invaded the ship and "started shooting at people."
"It was a surprise because it happened in the middle of the night, in the darkness, in international waters, because we knew there would be a confrontation but not in international waters," she told Brazil's TV Globo on Tuesday.
"Their first tactic was to cut all of our satellite communications and then they attacked," Lee said, reportedly speaking from an Israeli prison in the city of Beersheva, 80km from Jerusalem, where she was under arrest.
"All I witnessed first hand was the shooting," said New York-based Lee, who has also lived in Iran and Lebanon. "They came onboard and started shooting at people."
Lee, a former director of the Sao Paulo film festival and whose film Synthetic Pleasures was nominated for a Sundance award in 1996, said the operatives then sent the women to a lower level of the ship.
"They said we were terrorists – it was absurd. They came into the part where the women were, lots and lots of them, dressed in black and with gigantic weapons as if they were in a war."
"They confiscated all of our telephones and all of our luggage that was on the ship and took everything out of the bags and put it on the floor."
Lee said she planned to return to Brazil and then to the US where she would continue her activism. "Justice will not come quickly, we will have to continue working," she said.
3.41pm:
The civil society organisation Avaaz has set up a petition calling for a full investigation into the flotilla incident and an end to the Gaza blockade.
The petition will be delivered to the UN and world leaders when it reaches 200,000 signatures, according to Avaaz.
"We call for an immediate, independent investigation into the flotilla assault, full accountability for those responsible, and the lifting of the Gaza blockade," the organisation says.
The petition has attracted 14,000 signatures in the last couple of hours and is growing fast.
Avaaz petition
3.53pm:
More reaction from those caught up in the flotilla violence. Tom Phillips is in Rio de Janeiro for the Guardian.
The Brazilian filmmaker Iara Lee, who was onboard the Mavi Marmara when it was stormed, claimed the Israeli troops had invaded the ship and "started shooting at people."
"It was a surprise because it happened in the middle of the night, in the darkness, in international waters, because we knew there would be a confrontation but not in international waters," she told Brazil's TV Globo on Tuesday.
"Their first tactic was to cut all of our satellite communications and then they attacked," Lee said, reportedly speaking from an Israeli prison in the city of Beersheva, 80km from Jerusalem, where she was under arrest.
"All I witnessed first hand was the shooting," said New York-based Lee, who has also lived in Iran and Lebanon. "They came onboard and started shooting at people."
Lee, a former director of the Sao Paulo film festival and whose film Synthetic Pleasures was nominated for a Sundance award in 1996, said the operatives then sent the women to a lower level of the ship.
"They said we were terrorists – it was absurd. They came into the part where the women were, lots and lots of them, dressed in black and with gigantic weapons as if they were in a war."
"They confiscated all of our telephones and all of our luggage that was on the ship and took everything out of the bags and put it on the floor."
Lee said she planned to return to Brazil and then to the US where she would continue her activism. "Justice will not come quickly, we will have to continue working," she said.
3.41pm:
The civil society organisation Avaaz has set up a petition calling for a full investigation into the flotilla incident and an end to the Gaza blockade.
The petition will be delivered to the UN and world leaders when it reaches 200,000 signatures, according to Avaaz.
"We call for an immediate, independent investigation into the flotilla assault, full accountability for those responsible, and the lifting of the Gaza blockade," the organisation says.
The petition has attracted 14,000 signatures in the last couple of hours and is growing fast.
Avaaz petition
The missing Scottish journalist...
Herald Scotland
Missing Scot had warned of bloody outcome
BACKGROUND: Alison Campsie
1 Jun 2010
The last message left by Hassan Ghani from on board a ship that formed part of the Gaza aid flotilla contained a clear warning of the threat he was facing: “Israeli ships sighted on radar. Approaching.”
Glasgow-born Ghani, 25, has not been heard from since. The update was posted on his Facebook page from the Mavi Marmara passenger ship on Sunday night, shortly before Israeli commandos dropped from a helicopter on to the deck, later opening fire on those on board.
The Stirling University graduate, now a London-based journalist for Iranian TV station PressTV, had been covering the Gaza aid attempt for the past week. His reports warned of a potential bloody confrontation should Israeli forces intercept it.
Now an information blackout has left Ghani’s family juggling conflicting reports about his safety. No Facebook updates have been made and mobile phones remain dead.
His father, Haq Ghani, yesterday drove 600 miles from England to Glasgow to be with his family as they desperately awaited official word on his son’s whereabouts.
Mr Ghani, 60, said: “I have been told that no British passengers are among those who have been murdered, but it has not been confirmed. I have tried contracting the Foreign Office, but they have no power or status in Israel.”
Ghani’s sister Khadija added: “There have been so many rumours, saying one minute that he’s dead and another that someone has heard he’s fine. We’re all over the place at the moment.”
The aid flotilla was one of the biggest ever to flout the blockade placed on Gaza, which has prevented all exports and confined imports to a limited supply of humanitarian goods.
The blockade has been in place since 2007 and aims to weaken the influence of Hamas, which seized power that year. The end result has been appalling living conditions for Gaza’s 1.5 million residents.
The UN has said that 60% of households are short of food, with the same proportion of residents having no daily access to water.
The Mavi Marmara was carrying 100 tonnes of cargo including concrete, medicines and children’s toys, some of which had been collected from the Scottish public. Ali El-Awaisi, 22, an estate agent from Dundee, but Palestine-born, was also on board the Mavi Marmara, chartered by Turkish humanitarian group Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), when it was attacked.
He was planning to deliver 13 palettes of goods collected in the city in just a fortnight, a load with an estimated value of £30,000. It was also a personal mission for El-Awaisi, who has never met his seven aunts who live in Gaza.
His brother, Dr Khalid El-Awaisi, said they were both due to travel on the convoy but he let Ali take the only available space on board.
The Dundee University history and politics lecturer, who last spoke to his brother on Friday, said: “I was hoping to go along with him but then we heard that only one person could go. Now I wish I was there with him, just to make sure he is all right.
“Everyone was in high spirits, everyone was happy, positive that they were trying to get the aid into Gaza. The worst [thing] for us now is being completely cut off from what is going on. We are completely distressed about what has happened to our brother.”
Post officer worker Theresa McDermott, 43, from Edinburgh, was sailing on a smaller passenger boat that was part of the flotilla.
She left for Crete two weeks ago to train up new recruits to the aid mission.
McDermott was detained last year in Ramleh Prison by Israeli forces who intercepted the Lebanese cargo ship on which she was travelling on another aid mission. She made a second voyage on another ship, Dignity, and was aboard when it was rammed by the authorities, Carl Abernethy, who co-founded Free Gaza Scotland with McDermott, said he strongly rejected reports from the Israeli Government that those on board the Mavi Marmara were armed when the forces landed on the ship.
“This voyage was about ending the siege of Gaza and if this huge operation was successful in doing this, then the idea was to do it every month,” Abernethy said. “It wouldn’t be in anyone’s interests to sabotage this one.”
Abernethy said goods taken to Ireland by McDermott before she joined the flotilla in Crete had been checked for weapons by port authorities there and by representatives of the Free Gaza movement.
Abernethy added: “Theresa was excited but she was worried that if she was arrested and not back in Edinburgh on time her job might be on the line.
“Our concerns now are not only the plight of the people of Gaza, but also the families of those on board who have been murdered.”
The shootings follow a number of failed attempts to get aid to Gaza. Last year, the Spirit of Humanity was surrounded by Israeli Navy gunboats and ordered to turn around and return to Larnaca in Cyprus.
Last June, the same ship was apprehended and taken into custody in Israel. Cargo and the vessel were confiscated and the crew and passengers arrested and deported.
An editorial in the Palestine Telegraph last month argued that the Free Gaza organisation was pushing the limits and putting volunteers in danger by going ahead with the latest voyage at a time when the Israel Navy was in training to deal with the flotilla.
Also on the board the flotilla stormed yesterday were 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire, of Northern Ireland, crime author Henning Mankell and Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein, 85.
Delivering aid: the reporter, estate agent, postal worker and IT specialist
Hassan Ghani
A 25-year-old Stirling University graduate, from Glasgow, who was reporting from the aid ship when it was attacked. Ghani was with PressTV, an Iranian cable channel. His father Haq, who lives in Partick, spoke at a pro-Palestinian rally in the city last night.
Ali El Awaisi
The 22-year-old Dundee estate agent was on the ship to deliver supplies collected in the city, including a large consignment of concrete. A Palestinian by birth, he moved to Scotland just over 20 years ago and is a former history and politics student at Dundee University.
Theresa McDermott
A postal worker from Edinburgh and a veteran campaigner for human rights in Palestine was imprisoned in Israel last year after the navy intercepted a cargo of aid. The 43-year-old was on a smaller vessel in the flotilla and had gone to Cyprus to train new recruits on the aid mission.
Hasan Nowarah
A father-of-three and a Glasgow-based campaigner who had collected medicines.
The IT professional, 45, was born in Palestine but moved to Scotland 20 years ago. He was known to be travelling with the flotilla, but it is not clear if his boat was attacked by Israeli forces.
Missing Scot had warned of bloody outcome
BACKGROUND: Alison Campsie
1 Jun 2010
The last message left by Hassan Ghani from on board a ship that formed part of the Gaza aid flotilla contained a clear warning of the threat he was facing: “Israeli ships sighted on radar. Approaching.”
Glasgow-born Ghani, 25, has not been heard from since. The update was posted on his Facebook page from the Mavi Marmara passenger ship on Sunday night, shortly before Israeli commandos dropped from a helicopter on to the deck, later opening fire on those on board.
The Stirling University graduate, now a London-based journalist for Iranian TV station PressTV, had been covering the Gaza aid attempt for the past week. His reports warned of a potential bloody confrontation should Israeli forces intercept it.
Now an information blackout has left Ghani’s family juggling conflicting reports about his safety. No Facebook updates have been made and mobile phones remain dead.
His father, Haq Ghani, yesterday drove 600 miles from England to Glasgow to be with his family as they desperately awaited official word on his son’s whereabouts.
Mr Ghani, 60, said: “I have been told that no British passengers are among those who have been murdered, but it has not been confirmed. I have tried contracting the Foreign Office, but they have no power or status in Israel.”
Ghani’s sister Khadija added: “There have been so many rumours, saying one minute that he’s dead and another that someone has heard he’s fine. We’re all over the place at the moment.”
The aid flotilla was one of the biggest ever to flout the blockade placed on Gaza, which has prevented all exports and confined imports to a limited supply of humanitarian goods.
The blockade has been in place since 2007 and aims to weaken the influence of Hamas, which seized power that year. The end result has been appalling living conditions for Gaza’s 1.5 million residents.
The UN has said that 60% of households are short of food, with the same proportion of residents having no daily access to water.
The Mavi Marmara was carrying 100 tonnes of cargo including concrete, medicines and children’s toys, some of which had been collected from the Scottish public. Ali El-Awaisi, 22, an estate agent from Dundee, but Palestine-born, was also on board the Mavi Marmara, chartered by Turkish humanitarian group Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), when it was attacked.
He was planning to deliver 13 palettes of goods collected in the city in just a fortnight, a load with an estimated value of £30,000. It was also a personal mission for El-Awaisi, who has never met his seven aunts who live in Gaza.
His brother, Dr Khalid El-Awaisi, said they were both due to travel on the convoy but he let Ali take the only available space on board.
The Dundee University history and politics lecturer, who last spoke to his brother on Friday, said: “I was hoping to go along with him but then we heard that only one person could go. Now I wish I was there with him, just to make sure he is all right.
“Everyone was in high spirits, everyone was happy, positive that they were trying to get the aid into Gaza. The worst [thing] for us now is being completely cut off from what is going on. We are completely distressed about what has happened to our brother.”
Post officer worker Theresa McDermott, 43, from Edinburgh, was sailing on a smaller passenger boat that was part of the flotilla.
She left for Crete two weeks ago to train up new recruits to the aid mission.
McDermott was detained last year in Ramleh Prison by Israeli forces who intercepted the Lebanese cargo ship on which she was travelling on another aid mission. She made a second voyage on another ship, Dignity, and was aboard when it was rammed by the authorities, Carl Abernethy, who co-founded Free Gaza Scotland with McDermott, said he strongly rejected reports from the Israeli Government that those on board the Mavi Marmara were armed when the forces landed on the ship.
“This voyage was about ending the siege of Gaza and if this huge operation was successful in doing this, then the idea was to do it every month,” Abernethy said. “It wouldn’t be in anyone’s interests to sabotage this one.”
Abernethy said goods taken to Ireland by McDermott before she joined the flotilla in Crete had been checked for weapons by port authorities there and by representatives of the Free Gaza movement.
Abernethy added: “Theresa was excited but she was worried that if she was arrested and not back in Edinburgh on time her job might be on the line.
“Our concerns now are not only the plight of the people of Gaza, but also the families of those on board who have been murdered.”
The shootings follow a number of failed attempts to get aid to Gaza. Last year, the Spirit of Humanity was surrounded by Israeli Navy gunboats and ordered to turn around and return to Larnaca in Cyprus.
Last June, the same ship was apprehended and taken into custody in Israel. Cargo and the vessel were confiscated and the crew and passengers arrested and deported.
An editorial in the Palestine Telegraph last month argued that the Free Gaza organisation was pushing the limits and putting volunteers in danger by going ahead with the latest voyage at a time when the Israel Navy was in training to deal with the flotilla.
Also on the board the flotilla stormed yesterday were 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire, of Northern Ireland, crime author Henning Mankell and Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein, 85.
Delivering aid: the reporter, estate agent, postal worker and IT specialist
Hassan Ghani
A 25-year-old Stirling University graduate, from Glasgow, who was reporting from the aid ship when it was attacked. Ghani was with PressTV, an Iranian cable channel. His father Haq, who lives in Partick, spoke at a pro-Palestinian rally in the city last night.
Ali El Awaisi
The 22-year-old Dundee estate agent was on the ship to deliver supplies collected in the city, including a large consignment of concrete. A Palestinian by birth, he moved to Scotland just over 20 years ago and is a former history and politics student at Dundee University.
Theresa McDermott
A postal worker from Edinburgh and a veteran campaigner for human rights in Palestine was imprisoned in Israel last year after the navy intercepted a cargo of aid. The 43-year-old was on a smaller vessel in the flotilla and had gone to Cyprus to train new recruits on the aid mission.
Hasan Nowarah
A father-of-three and a Glasgow-based campaigner who had collected medicines.
The IT professional, 45, was born in Palestine but moved to Scotland 20 years ago. He was known to be travelling with the flotilla, but it is not clear if his boat was attacked by Israeli forces.
Israel Flotilla Raid
Guardian blog - being updated regularly.
An excerpt from it thus far:
UN calls for inquiry into Israel's assault on Gaza flotilla
• Free Gaza Movement says it will send two more ships
• Egypt opens border crossing with Gaza
2.31pm:
Some of the people onboard the MV Rachel Corrie ship, which was part of the Freedom Flotilla but was not seized by Israeli troops after falling behind others in the fleet, have been named.
Gaza campaigner Ali Abunimah has named 11 of the passengers on his blog:
• Mairead Maguire, the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, from Belfast, Ireland
• Denis Halliday, Manhattan, NYC and Connemara, Ireland.
• Matthias Chang Wen Chieh, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
• MP Mohd Nizar bin Zakaria, a member of the Malaysian Parliament.
• Shamsul Akmar bin Musa Kamal 46, Selangor, Malaysia
• Mr. Shamsul Akmar bin Musa Kamal, Malaysian journalist
• Mohd Nizar bin Zakaria 41 , Perak, Malaysia
• Abdul Halim Bin Mohamed 29 , Selangor, Malaysia
• Abdul Halim, broadcast journalist for news and current affairs Malaysia TV3
• Mohd Jufri Bin Mohd Judin 33, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
• Mohd Jufri, cameraman for news and current affairs Malaysia TV3.
While the Press Association is reporting that there are five Irish people in total aboard the MV Rachel Corrie, also including Fiona Thompson, a film-maker from Dundalk.
The ship will still head for Gaza according to the Free Gaza Movement.
"We are an initiative to break Israel's blockade of 1.5 million people in Gaza. Our mission has not changed and this is not going to be the last flotilla," Free Gaza Movement activist Greta Berlin, based in Cyprus, told Reuters.
However an unnamed Israeli marine lieutenant told Israel's Army Radio today his unit was prepared to block the ship.
"We as a unit are studying, and we will carry out professional investigations to reach conclusions," the lieutenant said.
"And we will also be ready for the Rachel Corrie."
The Army Radio station reported that the ship would reach Gazan waters tomorrow, however Berlin said it might not attempt to reach Gaza until early next week.
"We will probably not send her till [next] Monday or Tuesday," she said of the 1,200 tonne cargo ship.
2.15pm:
Turkey's Foreign Ministry says four Turkish citizens have been confirmed dead on the Mavi Marmara, while another five of the dead are also believed to be Turks.
Israeli authorities say they are still trying to confirm the nationalities of the dead. More as we get it.
2.06pm:
Reuters is snapping the following sentence:
"UN chief Ban Ki-Moon says if Israel had heeded calls to lift Gaza blockade flotilla incident would not have happened"
I'm guessing this means there is a statement coming from Ban. More to follow.
1.25pm:
From the Guardian's Middle East editor, Ian Black, on Egypt opening the Rafah border crossing to the Gaza strip:
In one of the first signs of fallout from the Gaza Freedom Flotilla incident Egypt has announced that it is opening the the southern border of the Gaza Strip at Rafah to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.
The crossing normally opens once a month for a few days. The sudden decision seems to show Egyptian embarrassment at Arab charges of complicity with the the Israeli blockade.
President Hosni Mubarak is deeply hostile to Hamas, which has close links to the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest – and semi-outlawed – opposition group.
1.14pm:
Matthew Weaver emails with a summary of the day so far:
• The UN has called for an independent inquiry into the raid, but its compromise statement on the incident stops short of an outright condemnation.
• The Free Gaza Movement has sent more aid ships to the blockaded area despite warnings that they will be stopped by the Israeli military.
• The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, warned Israel not to test Turkey's patience. He called for Israel to be "punished" for the attack.
• More eyewitness accounts are emerging of what happened. Haneen Zuabi, a member of the Israeli Knesset who was on the Mavi Marmara, accused Israel of trying to "cause the largest number of fatalities" and said she did not hear any warning.
• The Foreign Office has confirmed that a British man was among the injured
• Israel has continued to insist that is troops were acting in self defence after they were attacked by activists.
12.23pm:
Haneen Zuabi, an Israeli-Arab MP in the Knessett who was on the Mavi Marmara, has accused her country of trying to "cause the largest number of fatalities".
She was released today after questioning and has been giving her version of events at a news conference, according to the Israeli news website ynetnews.com she told a conference.
"I entered the captain's room. He was asked to stop by the Israeli soldiers. He said, 'We are a Turkish ship.' We were 130 miles off. It was 11:30 pm. We saw four Israel vessels, they were at a distance because we were in international waters. At 4:15 am we saw the ships approaching.
"They were dinghies and choppers. At 4:30 am the forces landed quickly. I did not hear any warning from the ships, because noise was coming from the ships and the choppers. Within 10 minutes there were already three bodies. The entire operation took about an hour."
"There was not a single passenger who raised a club. We put on our life vests. There were no clubs or anything of the sort. There were gunshots, I don't know if they were live bullets or not. There were gunshots fired from the ships in our direction.
"A clear message was being sent to us, for us to know that our lives were in danger. We convened that we were not interested in a confrontation. What we saw was five bodies. There were only civilians and there were no weapons. There was a sense that I many not come out of it alive. Israel spoke of a provocation, but there was no provocation."
12.05pm:
Reuters has more from activists arriving at Athens airport – this is from Mihalis Grigoropoulos, who was steering one of the ships in the flotilla:
"They (Israelis) came down from helicopters and threw ropes from inflatable boats, climbing aboard. There was teargas and live ammunition.
"I was steering the ship, we saw them capture another ship in front of us, which was the Turkish passenger vessel with more than 500 people on board and heard shots fired.
"We did not resist at all, we couldn't even if we had wanted to. What could we have done against the commandos who climbed aboard? The only thing some people tried was to delay them from getting to the bridge, forming a human shield. They were fired upon with plastic bullets and were stunned with electric devices.
"There was great mistreatment after our arrest. We were essentially hostages, like animals on the ground.
"They wouldn't let us use the bathroom, wouldn't give us food or water and they took video of us despite international conventions banning this."
11.38am:
The news agency Reuters are running accounts of some of the activists in the flotilla.
Nilufer Cetin was travelling with her young son when the Israelli commandos boarded her ship.
"We stayed in our cabin and played games amid the sound of gunfire. My son has been nervous since yesterday afternoon ... I did not need to protect my son. They knew there was a baby on board. I protected him by staying in my cabin, then went to the bathroom. I put a gas mask and life jacket on my son. We did not experience any other problems on board, only a water shortage. We took walks on the deck, played games with my son. The curtains were drawn, so I did not see not the raid as it was happening. I only heard the voices. There are lightly and heavily wounded people.
"There are thousands, millions of babies in Gaza. My son and I wanted to play with those babies. We planned to deliver them aid. We wanted to say 'Look, it's a safe place, I came here with my baby-son'. I saw my husband from a distance, he looked OK. The ship personnel was not wounded, because they (the soldiers) needed them to take the ship to port. I will go again if another ship goes."
11.15am:
The Palestinian-led International Solidarity Movement is reporting that a US activist injured in protests in the West Bank yesterday has lost her eye.
An American solidarity activist was shot in the face with a tear gas canister during a demonstration in Qalandiya, today. Emily Henochowicz is currently in Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem undergoing surgery to remove her left eye, following the demonstration that was held in protest to Israel's murder of at least 10 civilians aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters this morning.
21-year old Emily Henochowicz was hit in the face with a tear gas projectile fired directly at her by an Israeli soldier during the demonstration at Qalandiya checkpoint today. Israeli occupation forces fired volleys of tear gas at unarmed Palestinian and international protesters, causing mass panic amongst the demonstrators and those queuing at the largest checkpoint separating the West Bank and Israel.
An excerpt from it thus far:
UN calls for inquiry into Israel's assault on Gaza flotilla
• Free Gaza Movement says it will send two more ships
• Egypt opens border crossing with Gaza
2.31pm:
Some of the people onboard the MV Rachel Corrie ship, which was part of the Freedom Flotilla but was not seized by Israeli troops after falling behind others in the fleet, have been named.
Gaza campaigner Ali Abunimah has named 11 of the passengers on his blog:
• Mairead Maguire, the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, from Belfast, Ireland
• Denis Halliday, Manhattan, NYC and Connemara, Ireland.
• Matthias Chang Wen Chieh, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
• MP Mohd Nizar bin Zakaria, a member of the Malaysian Parliament.
• Shamsul Akmar bin Musa Kamal 46, Selangor, Malaysia
• Mr. Shamsul Akmar bin Musa Kamal, Malaysian journalist
• Mohd Nizar bin Zakaria 41 , Perak, Malaysia
• Abdul Halim Bin Mohamed 29 , Selangor, Malaysia
• Abdul Halim, broadcast journalist for news and current affairs Malaysia TV3
• Mohd Jufri Bin Mohd Judin 33, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
• Mohd Jufri, cameraman for news and current affairs Malaysia TV3.
While the Press Association is reporting that there are five Irish people in total aboard the MV Rachel Corrie, also including Fiona Thompson, a film-maker from Dundalk.
The ship will still head for Gaza according to the Free Gaza Movement.
"We are an initiative to break Israel's blockade of 1.5 million people in Gaza. Our mission has not changed and this is not going to be the last flotilla," Free Gaza Movement activist Greta Berlin, based in Cyprus, told Reuters.
However an unnamed Israeli marine lieutenant told Israel's Army Radio today his unit was prepared to block the ship.
"We as a unit are studying, and we will carry out professional investigations to reach conclusions," the lieutenant said.
"And we will also be ready for the Rachel Corrie."
The Army Radio station reported that the ship would reach Gazan waters tomorrow, however Berlin said it might not attempt to reach Gaza until early next week.
"We will probably not send her till [next] Monday or Tuesday," she said of the 1,200 tonne cargo ship.
2.15pm:
Turkey's Foreign Ministry says four Turkish citizens have been confirmed dead on the Mavi Marmara, while another five of the dead are also believed to be Turks.
Israeli authorities say they are still trying to confirm the nationalities of the dead. More as we get it.
2.06pm:
Reuters is snapping the following sentence:
"UN chief Ban Ki-Moon says if Israel had heeded calls to lift Gaza blockade flotilla incident would not have happened"
I'm guessing this means there is a statement coming from Ban. More to follow.
1.25pm:
From the Guardian's Middle East editor, Ian Black, on Egypt opening the Rafah border crossing to the Gaza strip:
In one of the first signs of fallout from the Gaza Freedom Flotilla incident Egypt has announced that it is opening the the southern border of the Gaza Strip at Rafah to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians.
The crossing normally opens once a month for a few days. The sudden decision seems to show Egyptian embarrassment at Arab charges of complicity with the the Israeli blockade.
President Hosni Mubarak is deeply hostile to Hamas, which has close links to the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest – and semi-outlawed – opposition group.
1.14pm:
Matthew Weaver emails with a summary of the day so far:
• The UN has called for an independent inquiry into the raid, but its compromise statement on the incident stops short of an outright condemnation.
• The Free Gaza Movement has sent more aid ships to the blockaded area despite warnings that they will be stopped by the Israeli military.
• The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, warned Israel not to test Turkey's patience. He called for Israel to be "punished" for the attack.
• More eyewitness accounts are emerging of what happened. Haneen Zuabi, a member of the Israeli Knesset who was on the Mavi Marmara, accused Israel of trying to "cause the largest number of fatalities" and said she did not hear any warning.
• The Foreign Office has confirmed that a British man was among the injured
• Israel has continued to insist that is troops were acting in self defence after they were attacked by activists.
12.23pm:
Haneen Zuabi, an Israeli-Arab MP in the Knessett who was on the Mavi Marmara, has accused her country of trying to "cause the largest number of fatalities".
She was released today after questioning and has been giving her version of events at a news conference, according to the Israeli news website ynetnews.com she told a conference.
"I entered the captain's room. He was asked to stop by the Israeli soldiers. He said, 'We are a Turkish ship.' We were 130 miles off. It was 11:30 pm. We saw four Israel vessels, they were at a distance because we were in international waters. At 4:15 am we saw the ships approaching.
"They were dinghies and choppers. At 4:30 am the forces landed quickly. I did not hear any warning from the ships, because noise was coming from the ships and the choppers. Within 10 minutes there were already three bodies. The entire operation took about an hour."
"There was not a single passenger who raised a club. We put on our life vests. There were no clubs or anything of the sort. There were gunshots, I don't know if they were live bullets or not. There were gunshots fired from the ships in our direction.
"A clear message was being sent to us, for us to know that our lives were in danger. We convened that we were not interested in a confrontation. What we saw was five bodies. There were only civilians and there were no weapons. There was a sense that I many not come out of it alive. Israel spoke of a provocation, but there was no provocation."
12.05pm:
Reuters has more from activists arriving at Athens airport – this is from Mihalis Grigoropoulos, who was steering one of the ships in the flotilla:
"They (Israelis) came down from helicopters and threw ropes from inflatable boats, climbing aboard. There was teargas and live ammunition.
"I was steering the ship, we saw them capture another ship in front of us, which was the Turkish passenger vessel with more than 500 people on board and heard shots fired.
"We did not resist at all, we couldn't even if we had wanted to. What could we have done against the commandos who climbed aboard? The only thing some people tried was to delay them from getting to the bridge, forming a human shield. They were fired upon with plastic bullets and were stunned with electric devices.
"There was great mistreatment after our arrest. We were essentially hostages, like animals on the ground.
"They wouldn't let us use the bathroom, wouldn't give us food or water and they took video of us despite international conventions banning this."
11.38am:
The news agency Reuters are running accounts of some of the activists in the flotilla.
Nilufer Cetin was travelling with her young son when the Israelli commandos boarded her ship.
"We stayed in our cabin and played games amid the sound of gunfire. My son has been nervous since yesterday afternoon ... I did not need to protect my son. They knew there was a baby on board. I protected him by staying in my cabin, then went to the bathroom. I put a gas mask and life jacket on my son. We did not experience any other problems on board, only a water shortage. We took walks on the deck, played games with my son. The curtains were drawn, so I did not see not the raid as it was happening. I only heard the voices. There are lightly and heavily wounded people.
"There are thousands, millions of babies in Gaza. My son and I wanted to play with those babies. We planned to deliver them aid. We wanted to say 'Look, it's a safe place, I came here with my baby-son'. I saw my husband from a distance, he looked OK. The ship personnel was not wounded, because they (the soldiers) needed them to take the ship to port. I will go again if another ship goes."
11.15am:
The Palestinian-led International Solidarity Movement is reporting that a US activist injured in protests in the West Bank yesterday has lost her eye.
An American solidarity activist was shot in the face with a tear gas canister during a demonstration in Qalandiya, today. Emily Henochowicz is currently in Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem undergoing surgery to remove her left eye, following the demonstration that was held in protest to Israel's murder of at least 10 civilians aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters this morning.
21-year old Emily Henochowicz was hit in the face with a tear gas projectile fired directly at her by an Israeli soldier during the demonstration at Qalandiya checkpoint today. Israeli occupation forces fired volleys of tear gas at unarmed Palestinian and international protesters, causing mass panic amongst the demonstrators and those queuing at the largest checkpoint separating the West Bank and Israel.
Tom
(Previous post on Tom Hurndall)
His words:
'What do I want from this life? What makes you happy is not enough. All the things that satisfy our instincts only satisfy the animal in us. I want to be proud of myself. I want more. I want to look up to myself and when I die, I want to smile because of the things I have done, not cry for the things I haven't done. '
Tom Hurndall's sister, Sophie, talks to the Times
Tom Hurndall: his death was like a bomb going off in the middle of the family
As a TV drama examines the killing of Tom Hurndall by Israeli forces in Gaza; his sister talks for the first time about his death; the devastating impact that it had on the family and their campaign for the Palestinians
October 7, 2008, Penny Wark
In April, 2003, Tom Hurndall, a 21-year-old photojournalism student, was shot in the head by an Israeli Defence Forces sniper
Sophie Hurndall and her mother have found catharsis by working for charities involved in the Middle East
When a young person dies, the instinctive reaction of those who love him is to dwell on his qualities, often to a point where the lost one becomes a hero. He was extraordinary, courageous, determined to make a difference, they say. All those words have been used about Tom Hurndall and, as his sister Sophie likes to point out with amusement and affection, they are a considerable part of the truth, but not all of it.
“Tom is like every brother, he winds you up at times and seems like the most amazing person in the world at other times,” she says. “There's that constant balance of loving someone so much and not wanting to leave those irritating parts out.
“I say bad things about him because it makes me feel closer to him. You know, the pizza boxes covered in mould on his bedroom floor. For me these are the things that make him who he was. He was human and normal and sometimes very annoying and that's what made him real. The amazing things he did made him who he was as well. I need to see both to keep hold of him. I think if you put him on a pedestal you'd lose him. It wouldn't be him any more.”
In April, 2003, Tom Hurndall, a 21-year-old photojournalism student, was shot in the head by an Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) sniper as he tried to protect a group of Palestinian children in the Gaza strip. He died the following January without regaining consciousness. During those months and beyond the Hurndall family - dad Anthony, a solicitor, mum Jocelyn, a teacher, and Sophie, just out of university, (there are also two younger brothers, Billie and Freddie) - suspended their lives as they sought to discover how and why Tom had died, and in doing so they took on the IDF. Eventually the family's tenacious refusal to accept a cover-up forced the IDF to investigate and to acknowledge that Tom had been wearing the fluorescent jacket of a non-combatant and had not been caught in Palestinian crossfire. In 2004 Taysir Hayb, an IDF soldier, was convicted of Tom's manslaughter and sentenced to eight years in prison. Next week the Hurndalls' story will be the subject of a powerful Channel 4 drama-documentary, The Shooting of Thomas Hurndall. It has been made with the co-operation of his family and for Sophie, two years older than Tom, it is a way not only of pursuing his humanitarian agenda, but of feeling close to him.
We meet at her mother's home and sit in the patio garden Jocelyn created after Tom's death as a sanctuary for her family. Sophie is 29 now, outwardly cheerful and poised. As children she and Tom hurtled around together, climbing trees, exploring, exchanging the banter she regards as the sibling's way of being close without being cheesy. Tom would leave her lunchbox at the top of the highest tree (whether by design or absent-mindedness, she isn't sure) and claim that her toys were his, but at the North London family home he was her closest ally. Their parents' divorce six years before Tom was shot made them feel jointly protective of Freddie, who is 11 years Sophie's junior. She felt protective of Tom too, especially when, in 2003, he told her that he planned to go Baghdad to photograph the “human shields”. “I was angry, frustrated and afraid for him. I didn't want to come across as the typical big sister and say you can't go. It was hard. I tried to ask him a few questions to establish whether he knew what he was doing. I wanted to sow some doubt. It was things like, ‘Do you know what you would do if there were bombings around you? Do you know what you're getting yourself into?' He tried to laugh it off. It was bravado to make himself and me feel more at ease. There was some part of him that needed to put on a tough face for himself as well as for me to get through it.”
Sophie recognised that Tom was someone who wrote his own rulebook and that he was an idealist motivated by seeking truth. He had always intervened when he saw injustice, protecting bullied children at school, confronting a man mugging a child near his mother's home. He went to Iraq and later to the Palestinian terrortories, she believes, because he had become aware that abuse of civilians was being misreported. “I think that took a huge amount of courage. You almost delude yourself to get through and he was conscious he was doing that and writes in his diary about having to pretend things are OK just to do what you believe in.”
There were divisions in the family about whether to read his diaries; some have read bits, others haven't. “Through his diaries we know how he was making his decisions,” Sophie says. “In some ways his decision-making fills me with terror, but there's pride and admiration too. Also anger because I get pissed off with him sometimes.” She laughs. “Why the hell did you put us through this? But it wouldn't have been Tom to have done anything else.”
His death has changed her, of course. Initially she was angry about the IDF's dismissive response and threw herself into the family's campaign to seek accountability. “We did a lot of running around and trying to make a difference and being worthy in a crazy and intense way. It was like a bomb had gone off in the middle of the family. We rowed over things that didn't matter.
“It's taken a long time to get back to a point where we can be around each other and not be thinking ‘but Tom should be here too' - for that to be so painful that you don't want to look at your brothers because they remind you of him, or have a conversation with your mum who's going to talk about how much she misses him until you want to scream. I feel like after five years we're coming back together.”
Both Sophie and her mother have found catharsis by working for charities involved in the Middle East - Sophie, who once planned to be a psychotherapist, now works for Medical Aid for Palestinians (Map). Discovering that her brother is one of thousands of civilians killed by the Israelis in the occupied territories was shocking and salutary, she explains, and gives her job an emotional force she finds irresistible.
“That was almost more shocking than what happened to Tom and the loss and the grief and the pain and watching him dying and not being able to turn his life support machines off and fighting with the doctors over whether they could or couldn't. You can't use morphine, it has to be by the withdrawal of food and water, a hugely traumatic process. I can't put into words how awful that was. Not quite as bad was the number of Palestinian families that were coming to us saying this [Tom's shooting] is exactly what happened to my brother or my sister. That opened my eyes and I needed to do something to help to support Palestinian civilians who don't have any recourse to justice. What I find shocking is the consistency with which the IDF proactively covers up this kind of case.”
She cites the 13-year-old Palestinian girl shot on her way home from school, the woman refused help at a checkpoint as she was in labour (her baby died). She has often thought about how she would feel if she saw Taysir Hayb, whose actions have made her feel full-blown fury, she says. Almost as emotionally difficult is the prospect of visiting Gaza for her job - for the first time since Tom's death - next year. “I very much want to go and I'm terrified of going. Just to get through the checkpoint without shouting, punching, screaming is going to be very hard, knowing what Palestinians have to go through every day. I don't know how much strength it must take to get through that and not fight back.
“Tom has come to define my life. I still wear his ring. I'm terrified of losing it because I feel if I do I'll be losing the last thing of Tom. I've had several near misses. But I think working for Map and the film helps me to feel a bit like Tom's still alive.” She raises her voice in a question mark.
“I don't know that there's a feeling of obligation, but there is part of me that feels closer to Tom by following the path that he left for us. Once your eyes have been opened I don't think you can turn and go back.”
The Shooting of Thomas Hurndall, Channel 4, October 13, 9pm
Medical Aid for Palestinians: 020-7226 4114, http://www.map-uk.org/
His words:
'What do I want from this life? What makes you happy is not enough. All the things that satisfy our instincts only satisfy the animal in us. I want to be proud of myself. I want more. I want to look up to myself and when I die, I want to smile because of the things I have done, not cry for the things I haven't done. '
Tom Hurndall's sister, Sophie, talks to the Times
Tom Hurndall: his death was like a bomb going off in the middle of the family
As a TV drama examines the killing of Tom Hurndall by Israeli forces in Gaza; his sister talks for the first time about his death; the devastating impact that it had on the family and their campaign for the Palestinians
October 7, 2008, Penny Wark
In April, 2003, Tom Hurndall, a 21-year-old photojournalism student, was shot in the head by an Israeli Defence Forces sniper
Sophie Hurndall and her mother have found catharsis by working for charities involved in the Middle East
When a young person dies, the instinctive reaction of those who love him is to dwell on his qualities, often to a point where the lost one becomes a hero. He was extraordinary, courageous, determined to make a difference, they say. All those words have been used about Tom Hurndall and, as his sister Sophie likes to point out with amusement and affection, they are a considerable part of the truth, but not all of it.
“Tom is like every brother, he winds you up at times and seems like the most amazing person in the world at other times,” she says. “There's that constant balance of loving someone so much and not wanting to leave those irritating parts out.
“I say bad things about him because it makes me feel closer to him. You know, the pizza boxes covered in mould on his bedroom floor. For me these are the things that make him who he was. He was human and normal and sometimes very annoying and that's what made him real. The amazing things he did made him who he was as well. I need to see both to keep hold of him. I think if you put him on a pedestal you'd lose him. It wouldn't be him any more.”
In April, 2003, Tom Hurndall, a 21-year-old photojournalism student, was shot in the head by an Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) sniper as he tried to protect a group of Palestinian children in the Gaza strip. He died the following January without regaining consciousness. During those months and beyond the Hurndall family - dad Anthony, a solicitor, mum Jocelyn, a teacher, and Sophie, just out of university, (there are also two younger brothers, Billie and Freddie) - suspended their lives as they sought to discover how and why Tom had died, and in doing so they took on the IDF. Eventually the family's tenacious refusal to accept a cover-up forced the IDF to investigate and to acknowledge that Tom had been wearing the fluorescent jacket of a non-combatant and had not been caught in Palestinian crossfire. In 2004 Taysir Hayb, an IDF soldier, was convicted of Tom's manslaughter and sentenced to eight years in prison. Next week the Hurndalls' story will be the subject of a powerful Channel 4 drama-documentary, The Shooting of Thomas Hurndall. It has been made with the co-operation of his family and for Sophie, two years older than Tom, it is a way not only of pursuing his humanitarian agenda, but of feeling close to him.
We meet at her mother's home and sit in the patio garden Jocelyn created after Tom's death as a sanctuary for her family. Sophie is 29 now, outwardly cheerful and poised. As children she and Tom hurtled around together, climbing trees, exploring, exchanging the banter she regards as the sibling's way of being close without being cheesy. Tom would leave her lunchbox at the top of the highest tree (whether by design or absent-mindedness, she isn't sure) and claim that her toys were his, but at the North London family home he was her closest ally. Their parents' divorce six years before Tom was shot made them feel jointly protective of Freddie, who is 11 years Sophie's junior. She felt protective of Tom too, especially when, in 2003, he told her that he planned to go Baghdad to photograph the “human shields”. “I was angry, frustrated and afraid for him. I didn't want to come across as the typical big sister and say you can't go. It was hard. I tried to ask him a few questions to establish whether he knew what he was doing. I wanted to sow some doubt. It was things like, ‘Do you know what you would do if there were bombings around you? Do you know what you're getting yourself into?' He tried to laugh it off. It was bravado to make himself and me feel more at ease. There was some part of him that needed to put on a tough face for himself as well as for me to get through it.”
Sophie recognised that Tom was someone who wrote his own rulebook and that he was an idealist motivated by seeking truth. He had always intervened when he saw injustice, protecting bullied children at school, confronting a man mugging a child near his mother's home. He went to Iraq and later to the Palestinian terrortories, she believes, because he had become aware that abuse of civilians was being misreported. “I think that took a huge amount of courage. You almost delude yourself to get through and he was conscious he was doing that and writes in his diary about having to pretend things are OK just to do what you believe in.”
There were divisions in the family about whether to read his diaries; some have read bits, others haven't. “Through his diaries we know how he was making his decisions,” Sophie says. “In some ways his decision-making fills me with terror, but there's pride and admiration too. Also anger because I get pissed off with him sometimes.” She laughs. “Why the hell did you put us through this? But it wouldn't have been Tom to have done anything else.”
His death has changed her, of course. Initially she was angry about the IDF's dismissive response and threw herself into the family's campaign to seek accountability. “We did a lot of running around and trying to make a difference and being worthy in a crazy and intense way. It was like a bomb had gone off in the middle of the family. We rowed over things that didn't matter.
“It's taken a long time to get back to a point where we can be around each other and not be thinking ‘but Tom should be here too' - for that to be so painful that you don't want to look at your brothers because they remind you of him, or have a conversation with your mum who's going to talk about how much she misses him until you want to scream. I feel like after five years we're coming back together.”
Both Sophie and her mother have found catharsis by working for charities involved in the Middle East - Sophie, who once planned to be a psychotherapist, now works for Medical Aid for Palestinians (Map). Discovering that her brother is one of thousands of civilians killed by the Israelis in the occupied territories was shocking and salutary, she explains, and gives her job an emotional force she finds irresistible.
“That was almost more shocking than what happened to Tom and the loss and the grief and the pain and watching him dying and not being able to turn his life support machines off and fighting with the doctors over whether they could or couldn't. You can't use morphine, it has to be by the withdrawal of food and water, a hugely traumatic process. I can't put into words how awful that was. Not quite as bad was the number of Palestinian families that were coming to us saying this [Tom's shooting] is exactly what happened to my brother or my sister. That opened my eyes and I needed to do something to help to support Palestinian civilians who don't have any recourse to justice. What I find shocking is the consistency with which the IDF proactively covers up this kind of case.”
She cites the 13-year-old Palestinian girl shot on her way home from school, the woman refused help at a checkpoint as she was in labour (her baby died). She has often thought about how she would feel if she saw Taysir Hayb, whose actions have made her feel full-blown fury, she says. Almost as emotionally difficult is the prospect of visiting Gaza for her job - for the first time since Tom's death - next year. “I very much want to go and I'm terrified of going. Just to get through the checkpoint without shouting, punching, screaming is going to be very hard, knowing what Palestinians have to go through every day. I don't know how much strength it must take to get through that and not fight back.
“Tom has come to define my life. I still wear his ring. I'm terrified of losing it because I feel if I do I'll be losing the last thing of Tom. I've had several near misses. But I think working for Map and the film helps me to feel a bit like Tom's still alive.” She raises her voice in a question mark.
“I don't know that there's a feeling of obligation, but there is part of me that feels closer to Tom by following the path that he left for us. Once your eyes have been opened I don't think you can turn and go back.”
The Shooting of Thomas Hurndall, Channel 4, October 13, 9pm
Medical Aid for Palestinians: 020-7226 4114, http://www.map-uk.org/
The Israeli attack on humanitarian aid
Civilians from more than 30 countries were on those floatillas of humanitarian aid. More than 30 news agencies were aboard. There was only aid on those floatillas.
The situation could not be more clear cut.
videos of protests
guardian
UN calls for inquiry into Israel flotilla attack
UN security council stops short of full condemnation after pro-Palestinian activists killed in botched Mavi Marmara raid
Harriet Sherwood in Ashdod and Matthew Weaver guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 1 June 2010 07.55 BST
The UN security council has called for an impartial investigation into Israel's botched assault on a flotilla carrying aid supplies to the Gaza Strip, but it stopped short of an outright condemnation of the attack.
In a carefully worded compromise statement drafted after ten hours of debate the security also called for the immediate release of hundreds of civilians held after the raid.
At least nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed in the raid yesterday as Israeli naval commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara, the largest ship in the flotilla carrying passengers. Dozens more were wounded, including at least one British man. The injured were taken to Israeli hospitals. It sparked a wave of global condemnation and protests.
Israel said more than 10 of its troops were injured, two seriously, in the battle that began early yesterday in international waters, about 40 miles from the Gaza coast. Israeli officials say about 50 of the 671 activists aboard the flotilla have been taken to Israel's international airport for deportation.
The flotilla was trying to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which has been enforced for the past three years.
Organisers of the flotilla said today they are sending two more ships to the area within the next few days. Greta Berlin of the Free Gaza Movement said a cargo boat is already on the way to challenge Israel's blockade of Gaza and a second boat carrying about three dozen passengers is expected to join it.
After a 10-hour emergency meeting that stretched into the earlier hours of today, the 15 council members agreed on a presidential statement that was weaker than that initially demanded by the Palestinians, Arabs and Turkey.
They had called for condemnation of the attack by Israeli forces "in the strongest terms" and "an independent international investigation".
But the statement said: "The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families."
Last night Turkey, whose relations with Israel have been severely strained since the war in Gaza in 2008-09, called for Nato to convene over the military assault.
The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who ordered the recall of the country's ambassador to Israel, described the operation as "state terrorism" and said Israel had violated international law. "We are not going to remain silent in the face of this inhumane state terrorism," he said.
Israel immediately imposed a communications blackout on the detained activists – some were taken by bus to Beersheva prison in the south of Israel – while simultaneously launching a sophisticated public relations operation to ensure its version of events was dominant. Its prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who defended the assault, postponed today's meeting with Barack Obama at the White House back to deal with the crisis.
Activists with less serious injuries began to trickle into Israeli hospitals late yesterday afternoon. There were believed to be about 27 British civilians aboard the flotilla, and last night the Foreign Office confirmed that at least one had been injured. Most of the dead were reported to be Turkish nationals.
The deaths and injuries were condemned by the UN, EU and other countries. The US, in contrast, was restrained in its response, expressing regret and saying it was "currently working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy".
The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, condemned the violence and called for an investigation. "I am shocked by reports of killing of people in boats carrying supply to Gaza. I heard the ships were in international water. That is very bad," he said.
The prime minister David Cameron described the assault as "unacceptable". In a telephone conversation with Netanyahu last night, the prime minister insisted Britain remains committed to Israel's security, but called for a "constructive" response to "legitimate criticism" of its actions.
The foreign secretary, William Hague, issued a statement "deploring" the loss of life. "There is a clear need for Israel to act with restraint and in line with international obligations," he said.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, described the storming of the flotilla as a "massacre" and called for three days of national mourning. Israel's navy had promised to exercise restraint in dealing with the flotilla, and the bloodshed will inevitably leave Israel open to charges of a disproportionate response involving excessive force.
The Israeli government, however, defended its actions saying its troops had been provokedby activists aboard the Mavi Marmara.
However, some Israeli commentators expressed reservations about the operation, fearing it would leave Israel internationally isolated. Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to Turkey, told the Guardian the situation could have been averted. "Definitely we made mistakes and in retrospect anything would have been better – including letting the boats reach Gaza," he said.
The assault began at 4.30am as the convoy was heading to Gaza to deliver its aid cargo. According to a spokeswoman for the Israeli defence force (IDF), Avital Leibovich, officers aboard its warships gave the activists several warnings before commandos were winched from helicopters on to the deck of the Mavi Marmara.
"We found ourselves in the middle of a lynching," she told reporters in the Israeli port of Ashdod. About 10 activists had attacked commandos, taking their pistols, she said. "It was a massive attack," she said. "What happened was a last resort."
It was impossible to contact protesters on the ships, but the Free Gaza Movement, one of the organisers of the flotilla, said the IDF had started the violence, firing as soon as troops boarded the ship.
The Free Gaza Movement said later that one of the ships in the flotilla, the Irish-owned MV Rachel Corrie, was not intercepted, as it had been behind the rest of the vessels following a delay. Carrying among others the Northern Irish Nobel peace laureate Mairead Corrigan-Maguire and Denis Halliday, the Irish former UN assistant secretary, it remained in international waters off Gaza, pending a decision as to where it would head next.
The Mavi Marmara was brought into port at Ashdod, 23 miles north of Gaza City, last night following the earlier arrival of two other passenger ships. The area was closed to the media.
Activists were expected to be processed in a large white tent on the quayside, where they would be offered the choice of immediate deportation to their country of origin or going through the lengthy process of the Israeli courts system.
The Israeli authorities gave no details of the injuries to activists, but confirmed that nine were dead, although government sources said the figure could rise.
Israel advised its nationals in Turkey to leave the country for fear of reprisals.
Israeli police cancelled leave and the army was on high alert, saying it feared possible rocket attacks from Islamist militants in Gaza and southern Lebanon. Last night a rocket fired from Gaza landed in Israel. No one was injured.
foreign policy - well worth reading
Israel's latest brutal blunder
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Monday, May 31, 2010 - 11:10 PM
By now you'll all have heard about the IDF's unwarranted attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, a fleet of six civilian vessels that was attempting to bring humanitarian aid (i.e., medicines, food, and building materials) to Gaza. The population of Gaza has been under a crippling Israeli siege since 2006. Israel imposed the blockade after Gaza's voters had the temerity to prefer Hamas in a free election held at the insistence of the Bush administration, which then refused to recognize the new government because it didn't like the results.
Late Sunday night, IDF naval forces and commandos attacked one of the unarmed ships in international waters, killing at least ten of the peace activists and injuring many more. IDF spokesman claim that the use of force was justified because the passengers resisted Israel's efforts to board and commandeer the ship. Other Israeli officials have sought to portray the activists, whose ranks included citizens from fifty countries, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, a former U.S. ambassador, and an elderly Holocaust survivor, as terrorist sympathizers with ties to Hamas and even al Qaeda.
My first question when I heard the news was: "What could Israel's leaders have been thinking?" How could they possibly believe that a deadly assault against a humanitarian mission in international waters would play to their advantage? Israel's government and its hard-line supporters frequently complain about alleged efforts to "delegitimize" the country, but actions like this are the real reason Israel's standing around the world has plummeted to such low levels. This latest escapade is as bone-headed as the 2006 war in Lebanon (which killed over a thousand Lebanese and caused billions of dollars worth of damage) or the 2008-2009 onslaught that killed some 1300 Gazans, many of them innocent children. None of these actions achieved its strategic objective; indeed, all of them are just more evidence of the steady deterioration in Israel's strategic thinking that we have witnessed since 1967.
My second question is: "Will the Obama administration show some backbone on this issue, and go beyond the usual mealy-mouthed statements that U.S. presidents usually make when Israel acts foolishly and dangerously?" President Obama likes to talk a lot about our wonderful American values, and his shiny new National Security Strategy says "we must always seek to uphold these values not just when it is easy, but when it is hard." The same document also talks about a "rule-based international order," and says "America's commitment to the rule of law is fundamental to our efforts to build an international order that is capable of confronting the emerging challenges of the 21st century."
Well if that is true, here is an excellent opportunity for Obama to prove that he means what he says. Attacking a humanitarian aid mission certainly isn't consistent with American values -- even when that aid mission is engaged in the provocative act of challenging a blockade -- and doing so in international waters is a direct violation of international law. Of course, it would be politically difficult for the administration to take a principled stand with midterm elections looming, but our values and commitment to the rule of law aren't worth much if a president will sacrifice them just to win votes.
More importantly, this latest act of misguided belligerence poses a broader threat to U.S. national interests. Because the United States provides Israel with so much material aid and diplomatic protection, and because American politicians from the president on down repeatedly refer to the "unbreakable bonds" between the United States and Israel, people all over the world naturally associate us with most, if not all, of Israel's actions. Thus, Israel doesn't just tarnish its own image when it does something outlandish like this; it makes the United States look bad, too. This incident will harm our relations with other Middle Eastern countries, lend additional credence to jihadi narratives about the "Zionist-Crusader alliance," and complicate efforts to deal with Iran. It will also cost us some moral standing with other friends around the world, especially if we downplay it. This is just more evidence, as if we needed any, that the special relationship with Israel has become a net liability.
In short, unless the Obama administration demonstrates just how angry and appalled it is by this foolish act, and unless the U.S. reaction has some real teeth in it, other states will rightly see Washington as irretrievably weak and hypocritical. And Obama's Cairo speech -- which was entitled "A New Beginning" -- will be guaranteed a prominent place in the Hall of Fame of Empty Rhetoric.
How might the United States respond? We could start by denouncing Israel's action in plain English, without prevarication. We could help draft and push through a Security Council resolution condemning Israel's action and calling for an international commission of inquiry to determine what happened. And if American intelligence was monitoring the flotilla -- and it should have been -- we should make any information we collected available to the commission. We could also cancel or suspend elements of our military aid package to Israel. And we could say loudly and clearly that the blockade of Gaza is illegal, inhumane and counterproductive, and openly press Israel and Egypt to lift it immediately.
But even strong measures like these won't solve the underlying problem, which is the conflict itself. I've learned not to expect much from this administration when it comes to pushing the two sides toward a settlement, as Obama talks a good game, but doesn't follow through by putting meaningful pressure on the two sides. This latest incident, however, might convince Obama that he was right to put the Israeli-Palestinian issue on the front burner when he took office, and wrong to cave into Netanyahu when the latter dug in his heels last summer (2009) and again this past spring. The result of those retreats was a waste of precious time, while the situation in the Occupied Territories deteriorated.
Because time is rapidly running out on a two-state solution, Obama should seize this opportunity to explain to the American people why a different approach is needed and why bringing this conflict to an end is a national security priority for the United States. He should also explain why using U.S. leverage on both sides is in Israel's interest as well as America's interest. And he will need to bring some new people on board to help him do this, because the team he's been using has spent more than a year without achieving anything. (If his economic team was this decisive, our economy would still be spiraling into the abyss.) Getting the so-called "proximity talks" restarted doesn't count, because those discussions are a step backwards from earlier face-to-face negotiations and because they are likely to fail.
A third thought has to do with Israel itself, and especially its present government. How are we supposed to think about a country that has nuclear weapons, a superb army, an increasingly prosperous economy, and great technological sophistication, yet keeps more than a million people under siege in Gaza, denies political rights to millions more on the West Bank, is committed to expanding settlements there, and whose leaders feel little compunction about using deadly force not merely against well-armed enemies, but also against innocent civilians and international peace activists, while at the same time portraying itself as a blameless victim? Something has gone terribly wrong with the Zionist dream.
Fourth, this incident is a litmus test for the "pro-Israel" community here in the United States. One of the reasons why Israel keeps doing foolish things like this is that it has been insulated from the consequences of these actions by its hard-line sympathizers in the United States. AIPAC spokesmen are already bombarding journalists and pundits with emails spinning the assault, and we can confidently expect other apologists to prepare op-eds and blog posts defending Israel's conduct as a principled act of "self-defense." And if the Obama administration tries to proceed in any of the ways I've just suggested, it can count on fierce opposition from the most influential organizations in the Israel lobby.
In this context Peter Beinart's recent article in the New York Review of Books is even more salient, especially his question:
The heads of AIPAC and the Presidents' Conference should ask themselves what Israel's leaders would have to do or say to make them scream "no." ... If the line has not yet been crossed, where is the line?"
Over the next few days, keep an eye on how politicians and pundits line up on this issue. Which of them thinks that Israel "crossed a line" and deserves criticism -- and maybe even sanction -- and which of them thinks that what it did was entirely appropriate? Ironically, it is the former who are Israel's friends, because they are trying to save that country before it is too late. It is the latter whose misguided zeal is leading Israel down the road to further international isolation -- and maybe even worse.
The FT - a slightly more right wing take on the matter:
Israel faces global backlash
By Tobias Buck in Jerusalem and Daniel Dombey in,Washington
Published: June 1 2010 03:00 Last updated: June 1 2010 03:00
Israel faced furious international condemnation yesterday after naval commandos attacked a convoy of ships carrying aid to the Gaza Strip, killing at least nine pro-Palestinian activists and wounding many more.
Three of the boats were flying the Turkish flag and several of the passengers killed are believed to have been Turkish citizens. Turkey's government recalled its ambassador from Israel and gave warning that relations between the two countries had suffered irreparable damage.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, accused Israel of "inhuman state terror" and last night Ankara was leading a push at the United Nations for an international inquiry.
The Israeli forces attacked the flotilla of six vessels from helicopters and warships just before dawn, in international waters between Cyprus and the Gaza coast. Israeli officials said the troops opened fire only after coming under attack by activists, who charged them with knives and sticks, and allegedly fired live rounds.
Footage released by the Israeli authorities showed soldiers leaving a helicopter and abseiling on to a ship, only to be set upon by activists and beaten to the deck.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, said the soldiers "had to defend themselves and defend their lives or else they would have been killed". Seven of the Israelis were wounded.
However, the organisers of the convoy accused the commandos of firing "directly into the crowd of civilians asleep".
The incident put an end to the most ambitious attempt yet to break Israel's blockade of Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group.
But analysts warned that the assault by the naval Shayetet 13 commando unit was likely to carry a significant political price. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, said he was "shocked" by the killings, stressing that the boats had been in international waters.
The UN Security Council was in emergency session last night seeking to agree a formal statement. Turkey said such a declaration should not just back an inquiry but also demand an Israeli apology and the release of the ships. Although such a move would fall short of a Security Council resolution, any UN backing for an international investigation would be deeply unwelcome to Israel.
While France called for an investigation that met international standards, the US, Israel's closest ally, did not endorse an international inquiry. US diplomats said they wanted to avoid any action that could jepoardise Middle East peace talks.
Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey's foreign minister, told the Security Council that Israel had "lost its legitimacy as a respectful [sic] member of the international community" and called for the country to "be held accountable for its crimes". In its testimony to the council, Israel said the flotilla's organisers were connected to terrorists.
Mr Netanyahu cut short an official visit to Canada and the US to return to Israel to deal with the crisis, postponing a planned meeting today with Barack Obama, the US president, in Washington. Mr Obama spoke to the Israeli leader on the telephone, saying that he "understood" Mr Netanyahu's decision to return home and deeply regretted the loss of life.
William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary, called for an "impartial investigation" into the incident and said one British citizen had been wounded.
Israeli leaders defended the assault and blamed the casualties on the activists. Danny Ayalon, Israel's deputy foreign minister, described the flotilla as "an armada of hate and violence" and accused its organisers of a "premeditated and outrageous provocation". He said Israel had offered to allow aid into Gaza through the usual channels, but the convoy had been seeking a new route for weapons shipments to militants.
The situation could not be more clear cut.
videos of protests
guardian
UN calls for inquiry into Israel flotilla attack
UN security council stops short of full condemnation after pro-Palestinian activists killed in botched Mavi Marmara raid
Harriet Sherwood in Ashdod and Matthew Weaver guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 1 June 2010 07.55 BST
The UN security council has called for an impartial investigation into Israel's botched assault on a flotilla carrying aid supplies to the Gaza Strip, but it stopped short of an outright condemnation of the attack.
In a carefully worded compromise statement drafted after ten hours of debate the security also called for the immediate release of hundreds of civilians held after the raid.
At least nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed in the raid yesterday as Israeli naval commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara, the largest ship in the flotilla carrying passengers. Dozens more were wounded, including at least one British man. The injured were taken to Israeli hospitals. It sparked a wave of global condemnation and protests.
Israel said more than 10 of its troops were injured, two seriously, in the battle that began early yesterday in international waters, about 40 miles from the Gaza coast. Israeli officials say about 50 of the 671 activists aboard the flotilla have been taken to Israel's international airport for deportation.
The flotilla was trying to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which has been enforced for the past three years.
Organisers of the flotilla said today they are sending two more ships to the area within the next few days. Greta Berlin of the Free Gaza Movement said a cargo boat is already on the way to challenge Israel's blockade of Gaza and a second boat carrying about three dozen passengers is expected to join it.
After a 10-hour emergency meeting that stretched into the earlier hours of today, the 15 council members agreed on a presidential statement that was weaker than that initially demanded by the Palestinians, Arabs and Turkey.
They had called for condemnation of the attack by Israeli forces "in the strongest terms" and "an independent international investigation".
But the statement said: "The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families."
Last night Turkey, whose relations with Israel have been severely strained since the war in Gaza in 2008-09, called for Nato to convene over the military assault.
The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who ordered the recall of the country's ambassador to Israel, described the operation as "state terrorism" and said Israel had violated international law. "We are not going to remain silent in the face of this inhumane state terrorism," he said.
Israel immediately imposed a communications blackout on the detained activists – some were taken by bus to Beersheva prison in the south of Israel – while simultaneously launching a sophisticated public relations operation to ensure its version of events was dominant. Its prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who defended the assault, postponed today's meeting with Barack Obama at the White House back to deal with the crisis.
Activists with less serious injuries began to trickle into Israeli hospitals late yesterday afternoon. There were believed to be about 27 British civilians aboard the flotilla, and last night the Foreign Office confirmed that at least one had been injured. Most of the dead were reported to be Turkish nationals.
The deaths and injuries were condemned by the UN, EU and other countries. The US, in contrast, was restrained in its response, expressing regret and saying it was "currently working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy".
The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, condemned the violence and called for an investigation. "I am shocked by reports of killing of people in boats carrying supply to Gaza. I heard the ships were in international water. That is very bad," he said.
The prime minister David Cameron described the assault as "unacceptable". In a telephone conversation with Netanyahu last night, the prime minister insisted Britain remains committed to Israel's security, but called for a "constructive" response to "legitimate criticism" of its actions.
The foreign secretary, William Hague, issued a statement "deploring" the loss of life. "There is a clear need for Israel to act with restraint and in line with international obligations," he said.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, described the storming of the flotilla as a "massacre" and called for three days of national mourning. Israel's navy had promised to exercise restraint in dealing with the flotilla, and the bloodshed will inevitably leave Israel open to charges of a disproportionate response involving excessive force.
The Israeli government, however, defended its actions saying its troops had been provokedby activists aboard the Mavi Marmara.
However, some Israeli commentators expressed reservations about the operation, fearing it would leave Israel internationally isolated. Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to Turkey, told the Guardian the situation could have been averted. "Definitely we made mistakes and in retrospect anything would have been better – including letting the boats reach Gaza," he said.
The assault began at 4.30am as the convoy was heading to Gaza to deliver its aid cargo. According to a spokeswoman for the Israeli defence force (IDF), Avital Leibovich, officers aboard its warships gave the activists several warnings before commandos were winched from helicopters on to the deck of the Mavi Marmara.
"We found ourselves in the middle of a lynching," she told reporters in the Israeli port of Ashdod. About 10 activists had attacked commandos, taking their pistols, she said. "It was a massive attack," she said. "What happened was a last resort."
It was impossible to contact protesters on the ships, but the Free Gaza Movement, one of the organisers of the flotilla, said the IDF had started the violence, firing as soon as troops boarded the ship.
The Free Gaza Movement said later that one of the ships in the flotilla, the Irish-owned MV Rachel Corrie, was not intercepted, as it had been behind the rest of the vessels following a delay. Carrying among others the Northern Irish Nobel peace laureate Mairead Corrigan-Maguire and Denis Halliday, the Irish former UN assistant secretary, it remained in international waters off Gaza, pending a decision as to where it would head next.
The Mavi Marmara was brought into port at Ashdod, 23 miles north of Gaza City, last night following the earlier arrival of two other passenger ships. The area was closed to the media.
Activists were expected to be processed in a large white tent on the quayside, where they would be offered the choice of immediate deportation to their country of origin or going through the lengthy process of the Israeli courts system.
The Israeli authorities gave no details of the injuries to activists, but confirmed that nine were dead, although government sources said the figure could rise.
Israel advised its nationals in Turkey to leave the country for fear of reprisals.
Israeli police cancelled leave and the army was on high alert, saying it feared possible rocket attacks from Islamist militants in Gaza and southern Lebanon. Last night a rocket fired from Gaza landed in Israel. No one was injured.
foreign policy - well worth reading
Israel's latest brutal blunder
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Monday, May 31, 2010 - 11:10 PM
By now you'll all have heard about the IDF's unwarranted attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, a fleet of six civilian vessels that was attempting to bring humanitarian aid (i.e., medicines, food, and building materials) to Gaza. The population of Gaza has been under a crippling Israeli siege since 2006. Israel imposed the blockade after Gaza's voters had the temerity to prefer Hamas in a free election held at the insistence of the Bush administration, which then refused to recognize the new government because it didn't like the results.
Late Sunday night, IDF naval forces and commandos attacked one of the unarmed ships in international waters, killing at least ten of the peace activists and injuring many more. IDF spokesman claim that the use of force was justified because the passengers resisted Israel's efforts to board and commandeer the ship. Other Israeli officials have sought to portray the activists, whose ranks included citizens from fifty countries, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, a former U.S. ambassador, and an elderly Holocaust survivor, as terrorist sympathizers with ties to Hamas and even al Qaeda.
My first question when I heard the news was: "What could Israel's leaders have been thinking?" How could they possibly believe that a deadly assault against a humanitarian mission in international waters would play to their advantage? Israel's government and its hard-line supporters frequently complain about alleged efforts to "delegitimize" the country, but actions like this are the real reason Israel's standing around the world has plummeted to such low levels. This latest escapade is as bone-headed as the 2006 war in Lebanon (which killed over a thousand Lebanese and caused billions of dollars worth of damage) or the 2008-2009 onslaught that killed some 1300 Gazans, many of them innocent children. None of these actions achieved its strategic objective; indeed, all of them are just more evidence of the steady deterioration in Israel's strategic thinking that we have witnessed since 1967.
My second question is: "Will the Obama administration show some backbone on this issue, and go beyond the usual mealy-mouthed statements that U.S. presidents usually make when Israel acts foolishly and dangerously?" President Obama likes to talk a lot about our wonderful American values, and his shiny new National Security Strategy says "we must always seek to uphold these values not just when it is easy, but when it is hard." The same document also talks about a "rule-based international order," and says "America's commitment to the rule of law is fundamental to our efforts to build an international order that is capable of confronting the emerging challenges of the 21st century."
Well if that is true, here is an excellent opportunity for Obama to prove that he means what he says. Attacking a humanitarian aid mission certainly isn't consistent with American values -- even when that aid mission is engaged in the provocative act of challenging a blockade -- and doing so in international waters is a direct violation of international law. Of course, it would be politically difficult for the administration to take a principled stand with midterm elections looming, but our values and commitment to the rule of law aren't worth much if a president will sacrifice them just to win votes.
More importantly, this latest act of misguided belligerence poses a broader threat to U.S. national interests. Because the United States provides Israel with so much material aid and diplomatic protection, and because American politicians from the president on down repeatedly refer to the "unbreakable bonds" between the United States and Israel, people all over the world naturally associate us with most, if not all, of Israel's actions. Thus, Israel doesn't just tarnish its own image when it does something outlandish like this; it makes the United States look bad, too. This incident will harm our relations with other Middle Eastern countries, lend additional credence to jihadi narratives about the "Zionist-Crusader alliance," and complicate efforts to deal with Iran. It will also cost us some moral standing with other friends around the world, especially if we downplay it. This is just more evidence, as if we needed any, that the special relationship with Israel has become a net liability.
In short, unless the Obama administration demonstrates just how angry and appalled it is by this foolish act, and unless the U.S. reaction has some real teeth in it, other states will rightly see Washington as irretrievably weak and hypocritical. And Obama's Cairo speech -- which was entitled "A New Beginning" -- will be guaranteed a prominent place in the Hall of Fame of Empty Rhetoric.
How might the United States respond? We could start by denouncing Israel's action in plain English, without prevarication. We could help draft and push through a Security Council resolution condemning Israel's action and calling for an international commission of inquiry to determine what happened. And if American intelligence was monitoring the flotilla -- and it should have been -- we should make any information we collected available to the commission. We could also cancel or suspend elements of our military aid package to Israel. And we could say loudly and clearly that the blockade of Gaza is illegal, inhumane and counterproductive, and openly press Israel and Egypt to lift it immediately.
But even strong measures like these won't solve the underlying problem, which is the conflict itself. I've learned not to expect much from this administration when it comes to pushing the two sides toward a settlement, as Obama talks a good game, but doesn't follow through by putting meaningful pressure on the two sides. This latest incident, however, might convince Obama that he was right to put the Israeli-Palestinian issue on the front burner when he took office, and wrong to cave into Netanyahu when the latter dug in his heels last summer (2009) and again this past spring. The result of those retreats was a waste of precious time, while the situation in the Occupied Territories deteriorated.
Because time is rapidly running out on a two-state solution, Obama should seize this opportunity to explain to the American people why a different approach is needed and why bringing this conflict to an end is a national security priority for the United States. He should also explain why using U.S. leverage on both sides is in Israel's interest as well as America's interest. And he will need to bring some new people on board to help him do this, because the team he's been using has spent more than a year without achieving anything. (If his economic team was this decisive, our economy would still be spiraling into the abyss.) Getting the so-called "proximity talks" restarted doesn't count, because those discussions are a step backwards from earlier face-to-face negotiations and because they are likely to fail.
A third thought has to do with Israel itself, and especially its present government. How are we supposed to think about a country that has nuclear weapons, a superb army, an increasingly prosperous economy, and great technological sophistication, yet keeps more than a million people under siege in Gaza, denies political rights to millions more on the West Bank, is committed to expanding settlements there, and whose leaders feel little compunction about using deadly force not merely against well-armed enemies, but also against innocent civilians and international peace activists, while at the same time portraying itself as a blameless victim? Something has gone terribly wrong with the Zionist dream.
Fourth, this incident is a litmus test for the "pro-Israel" community here in the United States. One of the reasons why Israel keeps doing foolish things like this is that it has been insulated from the consequences of these actions by its hard-line sympathizers in the United States. AIPAC spokesmen are already bombarding journalists and pundits with emails spinning the assault, and we can confidently expect other apologists to prepare op-eds and blog posts defending Israel's conduct as a principled act of "self-defense." And if the Obama administration tries to proceed in any of the ways I've just suggested, it can count on fierce opposition from the most influential organizations in the Israel lobby.
In this context Peter Beinart's recent article in the New York Review of Books is even more salient, especially his question:
The heads of AIPAC and the Presidents' Conference should ask themselves what Israel's leaders would have to do or say to make them scream "no." ... If the line has not yet been crossed, where is the line?"
Over the next few days, keep an eye on how politicians and pundits line up on this issue. Which of them thinks that Israel "crossed a line" and deserves criticism -- and maybe even sanction -- and which of them thinks that what it did was entirely appropriate? Ironically, it is the former who are Israel's friends, because they are trying to save that country before it is too late. It is the latter whose misguided zeal is leading Israel down the road to further international isolation -- and maybe even worse.
The FT - a slightly more right wing take on the matter:
Israel faces global backlash
By Tobias Buck in Jerusalem and Daniel Dombey in,Washington
Published: June 1 2010 03:00 Last updated: June 1 2010 03:00
Israel faced furious international condemnation yesterday after naval commandos attacked a convoy of ships carrying aid to the Gaza Strip, killing at least nine pro-Palestinian activists and wounding many more.
Three of the boats were flying the Turkish flag and several of the passengers killed are believed to have been Turkish citizens. Turkey's government recalled its ambassador from Israel and gave warning that relations between the two countries had suffered irreparable damage.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, accused Israel of "inhuman state terror" and last night Ankara was leading a push at the United Nations for an international inquiry.
The Israeli forces attacked the flotilla of six vessels from helicopters and warships just before dawn, in international waters between Cyprus and the Gaza coast. Israeli officials said the troops opened fire only after coming under attack by activists, who charged them with knives and sticks, and allegedly fired live rounds.
Footage released by the Israeli authorities showed soldiers leaving a helicopter and abseiling on to a ship, only to be set upon by activists and beaten to the deck.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, said the soldiers "had to defend themselves and defend their lives or else they would have been killed". Seven of the Israelis were wounded.
However, the organisers of the convoy accused the commandos of firing "directly into the crowd of civilians asleep".
The incident put an end to the most ambitious attempt yet to break Israel's blockade of Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group.
But analysts warned that the assault by the naval Shayetet 13 commando unit was likely to carry a significant political price. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, said he was "shocked" by the killings, stressing that the boats had been in international waters.
The UN Security Council was in emergency session last night seeking to agree a formal statement. Turkey said such a declaration should not just back an inquiry but also demand an Israeli apology and the release of the ships. Although such a move would fall short of a Security Council resolution, any UN backing for an international investigation would be deeply unwelcome to Israel.
While France called for an investigation that met international standards, the US, Israel's closest ally, did not endorse an international inquiry. US diplomats said they wanted to avoid any action that could jepoardise Middle East peace talks.
Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey's foreign minister, told the Security Council that Israel had "lost its legitimacy as a respectful [sic] member of the international community" and called for the country to "be held accountable for its crimes". In its testimony to the council, Israel said the flotilla's organisers were connected to terrorists.
Mr Netanyahu cut short an official visit to Canada and the US to return to Israel to deal with the crisis, postponing a planned meeting today with Barack Obama, the US president, in Washington. Mr Obama spoke to the Israeli leader on the telephone, saying that he "understood" Mr Netanyahu's decision to return home and deeply regretted the loss of life.
William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary, called for an "impartial investigation" into the incident and said one British citizen had been wounded.
Israeli leaders defended the assault and blamed the casualties on the activists. Danny Ayalon, Israel's deputy foreign minister, described the flotilla as "an armada of hate and violence" and accused its organisers of a "premeditated and outrageous provocation". He said Israel had offered to allow aid into Gaza through the usual channels, but the convoy had been seeking a new route for weapons shipments to militants.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Israel attack humanitarian convoy
Guardian stream - more later. More than 35 international news organisations were on this unarmed convoy of humanitarian aid, which had been checked by international auditors to check the convoy was ok and legal prior to setting off.
So far, 19 innocents dead. RIP.
The free Gaza movement
Civilians Under Attack by Israel Written by Free Gaza Team 31 May 2010
Posted in Press releases
(Cyprus, June 1, 2010, 6:30 am) Under darkness of night, Israeli commandoes dropped from a helicopter onto the Turkish passenger ship, Mavi Marmara, and began to shoot the moment their feet hit the deck. They fired directly into the crowd of civilians asleep. According to the live video from the ship, two have been killed, and 31 injured. Al Jazeera has just confirmed the numbers.
Streaming video shows the Israeli soldiers shooting at civilians, and our last SPOT beacon said, “HELP, we are being contacted by the Israelis.”
We know nothing about the other five boats. Israel says they are taking over the boats.
The coalition of Free Gaza Movement (FG), European Campaign to End the Siege of Gaza (ECESG), Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), the Perdana Global Peace Organisation , Ship to Gaza Greece, Ship to Gaza Sweden, and the International Committee to Lift the Siege on Gaza appeal to the international community to demand that Israel stop their brutal attack on civilians delivering vitally needed aid to the imprisoned Palestinians of Gaza and permit the ships to continue on their way.
The attack has happened in international waters, 75 miles off the coast of Israel, in direct violation of international law.
So far, 19 innocents dead. RIP.
The free Gaza movement
Civilians Under Attack by Israel Written by Free Gaza Team 31 May 2010
Posted in Press releases
(Cyprus, June 1, 2010, 6:30 am) Under darkness of night, Israeli commandoes dropped from a helicopter onto the Turkish passenger ship, Mavi Marmara, and began to shoot the moment their feet hit the deck. They fired directly into the crowd of civilians asleep. According to the live video from the ship, two have been killed, and 31 injured. Al Jazeera has just confirmed the numbers.
Streaming video shows the Israeli soldiers shooting at civilians, and our last SPOT beacon said, “HELP, we are being contacted by the Israelis.”
We know nothing about the other five boats. Israel says they are taking over the boats.
The coalition of Free Gaza Movement (FG), European Campaign to End the Siege of Gaza (ECESG), Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), the Perdana Global Peace Organisation , Ship to Gaza Greece, Ship to Gaza Sweden, and the International Committee to Lift the Siege on Gaza appeal to the international community to demand that Israel stop their brutal attack on civilians delivering vitally needed aid to the imprisoned Palestinians of Gaza and permit the ships to continue on their way.
The attack has happened in international waters, 75 miles off the coast of Israel, in direct violation of international law.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
The rescue!
Turkey: Boy Saved From Escalator Plunge
Shopkeeper sees 4 year old grab hold of escalator, and rise up on the OUTSIDE, and dangle dangerously. He rushes over, positioning himself below the 4 year old hanging from the floor above, poised ready to catch the child if he fell. Child lost grip. Child fell. Shopkeeper caught child. Child went home from mall with his father.
Respect to you shopkeeper Ali Apari!
Shopkeeper sees 4 year old grab hold of escalator, and rise up on the OUTSIDE, and dangle dangerously. He rushes over, positioning himself below the 4 year old hanging from the floor above, poised ready to catch the child if he fell. Child lost grip. Child fell. Shopkeeper caught child. Child went home from mall with his father.
Respect to you shopkeeper Ali Apari!
Capturing a time...
... reflecting on a period. How much things have changed. How much things haven't changed.
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner , a film worth watching. This is the monologue at the end of the film, which summarises much of the film, and ties it together beautifully. Although obviously, the whole film needs to be watched to do it justice.
As a by the by, a quote from one of the actresses:
"There are a lot of movies out there that I would hate to be paid to do, some real demeaning, real woman-denigrating stuff. It is up to women to change their roles. They are going to have to write the stuff and do it. And they will."
Beah Richards
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner , a film worth watching. This is the monologue at the end of the film, which summarises much of the film, and ties it together beautifully. Although obviously, the whole film needs to be watched to do it justice.
As a by the by, a quote from one of the actresses:
"There are a lot of movies out there that I would hate to be paid to do, some real demeaning, real woman-denigrating stuff. It is up to women to change their roles. They are going to have to write the stuff and do it. And they will."
Beah Richards
Friday, May 28, 2010
Poem : "Hope" is the thing with feathers
"Hope" is the thing with feathers
"Hope" is the thing with feathers—
That perches in the soul—
And sings the tune without the words—
And never stops—at all—
And sweetest—in the Gale—is heard—
And sore must be the storm—
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm—
I've heard it in the chillest land—
And on the strangest Sea—
Yet, never, in Extremity,
It asked a crumb—of Me.
Emily Dickinson
"Hope" is the thing with feathers—
That perches in the soul—
And sings the tune without the words—
And never stops—at all—
And sweetest—in the Gale—is heard—
And sore must be the storm—
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm—
I've heard it in the chillest land—
And on the strangest Sea—
Yet, never, in Extremity,
It asked a crumb—of Me.
Emily Dickinson
Sunday, May 16, 2010
mind stunting technology
Confessions of a Tech Apostate - newsweek
President Obama says devices like Apple's iPad are rotting our brains. He's right.
President Obama has been taking some heat in techie circles over comments he made at a commencement address over the weekend about iPods and iPads and other digital distractions. Because of these things, he said, "information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation." To his critics, it made him sound, well, like a Luddite, not the cool, tech-friendly, BlackBerry-carrying president they thought he was.
I hate to say this, but he's right. In fact I'd expand his list of distractions to include Web sites like Facebook and Twitter. And I'd go further on the notion of emancipation and say that in many ways our digital tools serve only to enslave us. This may sound like heresy coming from a technology editor but hear me out.
Remember when computers were supposed to save us time? Now it seems just the opposite. The Internet just keeps giving us more ways to do nothing.
We have more information than ever before. We're never away from it. The air around us fairly hums with it. Computers are all around us too—they're on our desks, in our pockets, on our coffee tables.
And yet I can't shake the sense that we are all becoming stupider and stupider—and that we are, on average, less well informed today than we were a generation ago.
I mean, look at us, lining up outside Apple stores like a bunch of kooks. Or walking around, staring down at our phones. We've been turned into zombie people.
Oh, but we're very, very busy zombies. We're reading e-mail. We're tweeting and retweeting. We're downloading apps, and uploading photos. We're updating our Facebook status and reading our news feeds and telling the whole world what we like and don't like, because for some reason we imagine that the whole world actually cares. You know what we're not doing? We're not thinking. We're processing. There's a difference.
We're putting our brains into neutral, and revving the engine. We're digitally dithering, clicking on links and swimming through a torrent of useless garbage being thrown at us by idiots and self-promoters, pundits and PR flacks and marketing people.
We're immersing ourselves in games like Farmville and Mafia Wars, obsessing about earning energy packs, spending billions of dollars on virtual gardening tools.
We're turning the world around us into a videogame, using sites like Foursquare to tell our friends where we're eating lunch, and competing to see who can become "mayor" of some restaurant.
Meanwhile, in the midst of all this, Glenn Beck has become an influential television commentator, and Sarah Palin is a credible candidate for president in 2012. You think this is a coincidence?
No way. What's happening is this: we are being so overwhelmed by the noise and junk zooming past us that we're becoming immune to it. We've become a nation of Internet-powered imbeciles, with an ever-lower threshold for inanity.
Beck and Palin are the inevitable outcome of that devolution. They are what we deserve. They are, in fact, what we've created.
We have amazing new systems and tools for communicating information. The problem is we've become so fascinated with the means of transmission that we've lost sight of what's actually passing along over the wires and airwaves.
Sadly, I don't see that changing any time soon. If anything, I imagine it will get worse.
Daniel Lyons is also the author of Options: The Secret Life of Steve Jobs and Dog Days: A Novel.
© 2010
President Obama says devices like Apple's iPad are rotting our brains. He's right.
President Obama has been taking some heat in techie circles over comments he made at a commencement address over the weekend about iPods and iPads and other digital distractions. Because of these things, he said, "information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation." To his critics, it made him sound, well, like a Luddite, not the cool, tech-friendly, BlackBerry-carrying president they thought he was.
I hate to say this, but he's right. In fact I'd expand his list of distractions to include Web sites like Facebook and Twitter. And I'd go further on the notion of emancipation and say that in many ways our digital tools serve only to enslave us. This may sound like heresy coming from a technology editor but hear me out.
Remember when computers were supposed to save us time? Now it seems just the opposite. The Internet just keeps giving us more ways to do nothing.
We have more information than ever before. We're never away from it. The air around us fairly hums with it. Computers are all around us too—they're on our desks, in our pockets, on our coffee tables.
And yet I can't shake the sense that we are all becoming stupider and stupider—and that we are, on average, less well informed today than we were a generation ago.
I mean, look at us, lining up outside Apple stores like a bunch of kooks. Or walking around, staring down at our phones. We've been turned into zombie people.
Oh, but we're very, very busy zombies. We're reading e-mail. We're tweeting and retweeting. We're downloading apps, and uploading photos. We're updating our Facebook status and reading our news feeds and telling the whole world what we like and don't like, because for some reason we imagine that the whole world actually cares. You know what we're not doing? We're not thinking. We're processing. There's a difference.
We're putting our brains into neutral, and revving the engine. We're digitally dithering, clicking on links and swimming through a torrent of useless garbage being thrown at us by idiots and self-promoters, pundits and PR flacks and marketing people.
We're immersing ourselves in games like Farmville and Mafia Wars, obsessing about earning energy packs, spending billions of dollars on virtual gardening tools.
We're turning the world around us into a videogame, using sites like Foursquare to tell our friends where we're eating lunch, and competing to see who can become "mayor" of some restaurant.
Meanwhile, in the midst of all this, Glenn Beck has become an influential television commentator, and Sarah Palin is a credible candidate for president in 2012. You think this is a coincidence?
No way. What's happening is this: we are being so overwhelmed by the noise and junk zooming past us that we're becoming immune to it. We've become a nation of Internet-powered imbeciles, with an ever-lower threshold for inanity.
Beck and Palin are the inevitable outcome of that devolution. They are what we deserve. They are, in fact, what we've created.
We have amazing new systems and tools for communicating information. The problem is we've become so fascinated with the means of transmission that we've lost sight of what's actually passing along over the wires and airwaves.
Sadly, I don't see that changing any time soon. If anything, I imagine it will get worse.
Daniel Lyons is also the author of Options: The Secret Life of Steve Jobs and Dog Days: A Novel.
© 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Poem: 'Gaudeamus Igitur,'*
'Gaudeamus Igitur,'* by John Stone
For this is the day of joy
which has been fourteen hundred and sixty days in coming
and fourteen hundred and fifty-nine nights
For today in the breathing name of Brahms
and the cat of Christopher Smart
through the unbroken line of language and all the nouns
stored in the angular gyrus
today is a commencing
For this is the day you know too little
against the day when you will know too much
For you will be invincible
and vulnerable in the same breath
which is the breath of your patients
For their breath is our breathing and our reason
For the patient will know the answer
and you will ask him
ask her
For the family may know the answer
For there may be no answer
and you will know too little again
or there will be an answer and you will know too much
forever
For you will look smart and feel ignorant
and the patient will not know which day it is for you
and you will pretend to be smart out of ignorance
For you must fear ignorance more than cyanosis
For whole days will move in the direction of rain
For you will cry and there will be no one to talk to
or no one but yourself
For you will be lonely
For you will be alone
For there is a difference
For there is no seriousness like joy
For there is no joy like seriousness
For the days will run together in gallops and the years
go by as fast as the speed of thought
which is faster than the speed of light
or Superman
or Superwoman
For you will not be Superman
For you will not be Superwoman
For you will not be Solomon
but you will be asked the question nevertheless **
For after you learn what to do, how and when to do it
the question will be whether
For there will be addictions: whiskey, tobacco, love
For they will be difficult to cure
For you yourself will pass the kidney stone of pain
and be joyful
For this is the end of examinations
For this is the beginning of testing
For Death will give the final examination
and everyone will pass
For the sun is always right on time
and even that may be reason for a kind of joy
For there are all kinds of
all degrees of joy
For love is the highest joy
For which reason the best hospital is a house of joy
even with rooms of pain and loss
exits of misunderstanding
For there is the mortar of faith
For it helps to believe
For Mozart can heal and no one knows where he is buried
For penicillin can heal
and the word
and the knife
For the placebo will work and you will think you know why
For the placebo will have side effects and you will know
you do not know why
For none of these may heal
For joy is nothing if not mysterious
For your patients will test you for spleen
and for the four humors
For they will know the answer
For they have the disease
For disease will peer up over the hedge
of health, with only its eyes showing
For the T waves will be peaked and you will not know why
For there will be computers
For there will be hard data and they will be hard
to understand
For the trivial will trap you and the important escape you
For the Committee will be unable to resolve the question
For there will be the arts
and some will call them
soft data
whereas in fact they are the hard data
by which our lives are lived
For everyone comes to the arts too late
For you can be trained to listen only for the oboe
out of the whole orchestra
For you may need to strain to hear the voice of the patient
in the thin reed of his crying
For you will learn to see most acutely out of
the corner of your eye
to hear best with your inner ear
For there are late signs and early signs
For the patient's story will come to you
like hunger, like thirst
For you will know the answer
like second nature, like first
For the patient will live
and you will try to understand
For you will be amazed
or the patient will not live
and you will try to understand
For you will be baffled
For you will try to explain both, either, to the family
For there will be laying on of hands
and the letting go
For love is what death would always intend if it had the choice
For the fever will drop, the bone remold along
its lines of force
the speech return
the mind remember itself
For there will be days of joy
For there will be elevators of elation
and you will walk triumphantly
in purest joy
along the halls of the hospital
and say Yes to all the dark corners
where no one is listening
For the heart will lead
For the head will explain
but the final common pathway is the heart
whatever kingdom may come
For what matters finally is how the human spirit is spent
For this is the day of joy
For this is the morning to rejoice
For this is the beginning
Therefore, let us rejoice
Gaudeamus igitur.
* Therefore, let us rejoice
** 1 Kings 3:16-27
For this is the day of joy
which has been fourteen hundred and sixty days in coming
and fourteen hundred and fifty-nine nights
For today in the breathing name of Brahms
and the cat of Christopher Smart
through the unbroken line of language and all the nouns
stored in the angular gyrus
today is a commencing
For this is the day you know too little
against the day when you will know too much
For you will be invincible
and vulnerable in the same breath
which is the breath of your patients
For their breath is our breathing and our reason
For the patient will know the answer
and you will ask him
ask her
For the family may know the answer
For there may be no answer
and you will know too little again
or there will be an answer and you will know too much
forever
For you will look smart and feel ignorant
and the patient will not know which day it is for you
and you will pretend to be smart out of ignorance
For you must fear ignorance more than cyanosis
For whole days will move in the direction of rain
For you will cry and there will be no one to talk to
or no one but yourself
For you will be lonely
For you will be alone
For there is a difference
For there is no seriousness like joy
For there is no joy like seriousness
For the days will run together in gallops and the years
go by as fast as the speed of thought
which is faster than the speed of light
or Superman
or Superwoman
For you will not be Superman
For you will not be Superwoman
For you will not be Solomon
but you will be asked the question nevertheless **
For after you learn what to do, how and when to do it
the question will be whether
For there will be addictions: whiskey, tobacco, love
For they will be difficult to cure
For you yourself will pass the kidney stone of pain
and be joyful
For this is the end of examinations
For this is the beginning of testing
For Death will give the final examination
and everyone will pass
For the sun is always right on time
and even that may be reason for a kind of joy
For there are all kinds of
all degrees of joy
For love is the highest joy
For which reason the best hospital is a house of joy
even with rooms of pain and loss
exits of misunderstanding
For there is the mortar of faith
For it helps to believe
For Mozart can heal and no one knows where he is buried
For penicillin can heal
and the word
and the knife
For the placebo will work and you will think you know why
For the placebo will have side effects and you will know
you do not know why
For none of these may heal
For joy is nothing if not mysterious
For your patients will test you for spleen
and for the four humors
For they will know the answer
For they have the disease
For disease will peer up over the hedge
of health, with only its eyes showing
For the T waves will be peaked and you will not know why
For there will be computers
For there will be hard data and they will be hard
to understand
For the trivial will trap you and the important escape you
For the Committee will be unable to resolve the question
For there will be the arts
and some will call them
soft data
whereas in fact they are the hard data
by which our lives are lived
For everyone comes to the arts too late
For you can be trained to listen only for the oboe
out of the whole orchestra
For you may need to strain to hear the voice of the patient
in the thin reed of his crying
For you will learn to see most acutely out of
the corner of your eye
to hear best with your inner ear
For there are late signs and early signs
For the patient's story will come to you
like hunger, like thirst
For you will know the answer
like second nature, like first
For the patient will live
and you will try to understand
For you will be amazed
or the patient will not live
and you will try to understand
For you will be baffled
For you will try to explain both, either, to the family
For there will be laying on of hands
and the letting go
For love is what death would always intend if it had the choice
For the fever will drop, the bone remold along
its lines of force
the speech return
the mind remember itself
For there will be days of joy
For there will be elevators of elation
and you will walk triumphantly
in purest joy
along the halls of the hospital
and say Yes to all the dark corners
where no one is listening
For the heart will lead
For the head will explain
but the final common pathway is the heart
whatever kingdom may come
For what matters finally is how the human spirit is spent
For this is the day of joy
For this is the morning to rejoice
For this is the beginning
Therefore, let us rejoice
Gaudeamus igitur.
* Therefore, let us rejoice
** 1 Kings 3:16-27
Quote on illness and health
Illness is the night-side of life, a more onerous
citizenship. Everyone who is born holds dual
citizenship, in the kingdom of the well and in
the kingdom of the sick. Although we all prefer
to use only the good passport, sooner or later
each of us is obliged, at least for a spell, to
identify ourselves as citizens of that other place
Susan Sontag
citizenship. Everyone who is born holds dual
citizenship, in the kingdom of the well and in
the kingdom of the sick. Although we all prefer
to use only the good passport, sooner or later
each of us is obliged, at least for a spell, to
identify ourselves as citizens of that other place
Susan Sontag
Poem: I Stepped Past Your Room Today
I Stepped Past Your Room Today
- Gerry Greenstone, M.D.
I stepped past your room today
Rushed to a crammed office
Rather than endure
The eerie calm of Palliative Care
It’s been three days now
Since I visited you
And that’s not good.
I was there from the beginning
When we split your belly
To find cancer
Erupting everywhere
The liver’s glistening surface
Ridged and spotted as the moon.
Then came the radiation
Malignant clusters beamed with cobalt
Bombarded with pions
In a cellular explosion.
And chemotherapy
Specialized molecules
To invade you like tissue
And work their complex chemistry.
But in the end
Our white-coated arsenal
Was powerless
Against the long trajectory
Of disease.
Now you lie there
Shriveled husk of a man
So pale and trembling
With barely enough weight
To press against the sheets.
In the harsh glare of those white sheets
I see the impotence
Of myself as a physician
Whose energy is aimed
At cure and renewal.
Can you understand
What it means to face you
Like this,
Your courage against my fear?
Let me not lose sight
Of what you once were
And still are
A man and a father
Who did the things fathers do
Watched your daughter at ballet
Her leaps and pirouettes
Cheered your son at his soccer games
Stood shivering in the rain.
To respect your humanity
To preserve your dignity
Because if I can hold you clear enough
There’s nothing more to fear.
- Gerry Greenstone, M.D.
I stepped past your room today
Rushed to a crammed office
Rather than endure
The eerie calm of Palliative Care
It’s been three days now
Since I visited you
And that’s not good.
I was there from the beginning
When we split your belly
To find cancer
Erupting everywhere
The liver’s glistening surface
Ridged and spotted as the moon.
Then came the radiation
Malignant clusters beamed with cobalt
Bombarded with pions
In a cellular explosion.
And chemotherapy
Specialized molecules
To invade you like tissue
And work their complex chemistry.
But in the end
Our white-coated arsenal
Was powerless
Against the long trajectory
Of disease.
Now you lie there
Shriveled husk of a man
So pale and trembling
With barely enough weight
To press against the sheets.
In the harsh glare of those white sheets
I see the impotence
Of myself as a physician
Whose energy is aimed
At cure and renewal.
Can you understand
What it means to face you
Like this,
Your courage against my fear?
Let me not lose sight
Of what you once were
And still are
A man and a father
Who did the things fathers do
Watched your daughter at ballet
Her leaps and pirouettes
Cheered your son at his soccer games
Stood shivering in the rain.
To respect your humanity
To preserve your dignity
Because if I can hold you clear enough
There’s nothing more to fear.
Poem: Night on call
Night on Call
- Rita Iovino, M.D.
There are sometimes such moments of magic,
when the sky and mountains melt into the dawn
when the blue-purple horizon yields to the sun,
and the trek home
becomes a moment of epiphany.
Everything is still
and only the faint noise of sparrows
permeates the air.
The exhaustion and sweat and scrubs
become an exclamation of rebirth.
The gift of being a doctor
is magnified like dandelions blowing in the wind,
and one knows the skill of giving life,
the gift of alleviating pain;
the long night suturing becomes a dream
because now one more person
becomes whole by your latex gloves.
The sun breaks into a million bright lights
as you go home to sleep.
- Rita Iovino, M.D.
There are sometimes such moments of magic,
when the sky and mountains melt into the dawn
when the blue-purple horizon yields to the sun,
and the trek home
becomes a moment of epiphany.
Everything is still
and only the faint noise of sparrows
permeates the air.
The exhaustion and sweat and scrubs
become an exclamation of rebirth.
The gift of being a doctor
is magnified like dandelions blowing in the wind,
and one knows the skill of giving life,
the gift of alleviating pain;
the long night suturing becomes a dream
because now one more person
becomes whole by your latex gloves.
The sun breaks into a million bright lights
as you go home to sleep.
Poem: Walking the dog
Walking the dog
John L. Wright, MD
She weighed
three hundred pounds.
Fat and high sugars
were killing her,
I thought.
So,
I thought.
So,
I gave her a puppy
with dark curly hair;
nothing else
had worked.
Walking the dog
twice a day,
I thought
might persuade,
might motivate.
She was pleased
with my prescription,
she laughed,
she rocked
from side to side.
She lived
for twelve years
hugging
that little black dog
while her lean husband
walked it faithfully,
twice a day.
John L. Wright, MD
She weighed
three hundred pounds.
Fat and high sugars
were killing her,
I thought.
So,
I thought.
So,
I gave her a puppy
with dark curly hair;
nothing else
had worked.
Walking the dog
twice a day,
I thought
might persuade,
might motivate.
She was pleased
with my prescription,
she laughed,
she rocked
from side to side.
She lived
for twelve years
hugging
that little black dog
while her lean husband
walked it faithfully,
twice a day.
Quote
One of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine.
Sir William Osler
Sir William Osler
Poem: A sentiment
A SENTIMENT
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
A TRIPLE health to Friendship, Science, Art,
From heads and hands that own a common heart!
Each in its turn the others' willing slave,
Each in its season strong to heal and save.
Friendship's blind service, in the hour of need,
Wipes the pale face, and lets the victim bleed.
Science must stop to reason and explain;
ART claps his finger on the streaming vein.
But Art's brief memory fails the hand at last;
Then SCIENCE lifts the flambeau of the past.
When both their equal impotence deplore,
When Learning sighs, and Skill can do no more,
The tear of FRIENDSHIP pours its heavenly balm,
And soothes the pang no anodyne may calm
May 1, 1855.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
A TRIPLE health to Friendship, Science, Art,
From heads and hands that own a common heart!
Each in its turn the others' willing slave,
Each in its season strong to heal and save.
Friendship's blind service, in the hour of need,
Wipes the pale face, and lets the victim bleed.
Science must stop to reason and explain;
ART claps his finger on the streaming vein.
But Art's brief memory fails the hand at last;
Then SCIENCE lifts the flambeau of the past.
When both their equal impotence deplore,
When Learning sighs, and Skill can do no more,
The tear of FRIENDSHIP pours its heavenly balm,
And soothes the pang no anodyne may calm
May 1, 1855.
Poem: The stethoscope song
On the perils of blindly trusting new-fangled technologies (this was written in the 1800's).
THE STETHOSCOPE SONG
A PROFESSIONAL BALLAD
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
THERE was a young man in Boston town,
He bought him a stethoscope nice and new,
All mounted and finished and polished down,
With an ivory cap and a stopper too.
It happened a spider within did crawl,
And spun him a web of ample size,
Wherein there chanced one day to fall
A couple of very imprudent flies.
The first was a bottle-fly, big and blue,
The second was smaller, and thin and long;
So there was a concert between the two,
Like an octave flute and a tavern gong.
Now being from Paris but recently,
This fine young man would show his skill;
And so they gave him, his hand to try,
A hospital patient extremely ill.
Some said that his liver was short of bile,
And some that his heart was over size,
While some kept arguing, all the while,
He was crammed with tubercles up to his eyes.
This fine young man then up stepped he,
And all the doctors made a pause;
Said he, The man must die, you see,
By the fifty-seventh of Louis's laws.
But since the case is a desperate one,
To explore his chest it may be well;
For if he should die and it were not done,
You know the autopsy would not tell.
Then out his stethoscope he took,
And on it placed his curious ear;
Mon Dieu! said he, with a knowing look,
Why, here is a sound that 's mighty queer.
The bourdonnement is very clear,--
Amphoric buzzing, as I'm alive
Five doctors took their turn to hear;
Amphoric buzzing, said all the five.
There's empyema beyond a doubt;
We'll plunge a trocar in his side.
The diagnosis was made out,--
They tapped the patient; so he died.
Now such as hate new-fashioned toys
Began to look extremely glum;
They said that rattles were made for boys,
And vowed that his buzzing was all a hum.
There was an old lady had long been sick,
And what was the matter none did know
Her pulse was slow, though her tongue was quick;
To her this knowing youth must go.
So there the nice old lady sat,
With phials and boxes all in a row;
She asked the young doctor what he was at,
To thump her and tumble her ruffles so.
Now, when the stethoscope came out,
The flies began to buzz and whiz
Oh ho! the matter is clear, no doubt;
An aneurism there plainly is.
The bruit de rape and the bruit de scie
And the bruit de diable are all combined;
How happy Bouillaud would be,
If he a case like this could find!
Now, when the neighboring doctors found
A case so rare had been descried,
They every day her ribs did pound
In squads of twenty; so she died.
Then six young damsels, slight and frail,
Received this kind young doctor's cares;
They all were getting slim and pale,
And short of breath on mounting stairs.
They all made rhymes with "sighs" and "skies,"
And loathed their puddings and buttered rolls,
And dieted, much to their friends' surprise,
On pickles and pencils and chalk and coals.
So fast their little hearts did bound,
The frightened insects buzzed the more;
So over all their chests he found
The rale sifflant and the rale sonore.
He shook his head. There's grave disease,--
I greatly fear you all must die;
A slight post-mortem, if you please,
Surviving friends would gratify.
The six young damsels wept aloud,
Which so prevailed on six young men
That each his honest love avowed,
Whereat they all got well again.
This poor young man was all aghast;
The price of stethoscopes came down;
And so he was reduced at last
To practise in a country town.
The doctors being very sore,
A stethoscope they did devise
That had a rammer to clear the bore,
With a knob at the end to kill the flies.
Now use your ears, all you that can,
But don't forget to mind your eyes,
Or you may be cheated, like this young man,
By a couple of silly, abnormal flies.
(It appears I last randomly found this back in 2006: http://thoughtfulwander.blogspot.com/2006/10/poem-stethoscope-song.html)
THE STETHOSCOPE SONG
A PROFESSIONAL BALLAD
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
THERE was a young man in Boston town,
He bought him a stethoscope nice and new,
All mounted and finished and polished down,
With an ivory cap and a stopper too.
It happened a spider within did crawl,
And spun him a web of ample size,
Wherein there chanced one day to fall
A couple of very imprudent flies.
The first was a bottle-fly, big and blue,
The second was smaller, and thin and long;
So there was a concert between the two,
Like an octave flute and a tavern gong.
Now being from Paris but recently,
This fine young man would show his skill;
And so they gave him, his hand to try,
A hospital patient extremely ill.
Some said that his liver was short of bile,
And some that his heart was over size,
While some kept arguing, all the while,
He was crammed with tubercles up to his eyes.
This fine young man then up stepped he,
And all the doctors made a pause;
Said he, The man must die, you see,
By the fifty-seventh of Louis's laws.
But since the case is a desperate one,
To explore his chest it may be well;
For if he should die and it were not done,
You know the autopsy would not tell.
Then out his stethoscope he took,
And on it placed his curious ear;
Mon Dieu! said he, with a knowing look,
Why, here is a sound that 's mighty queer.
The bourdonnement is very clear,--
Amphoric buzzing, as I'm alive
Five doctors took their turn to hear;
Amphoric buzzing, said all the five.
There's empyema beyond a doubt;
We'll plunge a trocar in his side.
The diagnosis was made out,--
They tapped the patient; so he died.
Now such as hate new-fashioned toys
Began to look extremely glum;
They said that rattles were made for boys,
And vowed that his buzzing was all a hum.
There was an old lady had long been sick,
And what was the matter none did know
Her pulse was slow, though her tongue was quick;
To her this knowing youth must go.
So there the nice old lady sat,
With phials and boxes all in a row;
She asked the young doctor what he was at,
To thump her and tumble her ruffles so.
Now, when the stethoscope came out,
The flies began to buzz and whiz
Oh ho! the matter is clear, no doubt;
An aneurism there plainly is.
The bruit de rape and the bruit de scie
And the bruit de diable are all combined;
How happy Bouillaud would be,
If he a case like this could find!
Now, when the neighboring doctors found
A case so rare had been descried,
They every day her ribs did pound
In squads of twenty; so she died.
Then six young damsels, slight and frail,
Received this kind young doctor's cares;
They all were getting slim and pale,
And short of breath on mounting stairs.
They all made rhymes with "sighs" and "skies,"
And loathed their puddings and buttered rolls,
And dieted, much to their friends' surprise,
On pickles and pencils and chalk and coals.
So fast their little hearts did bound,
The frightened insects buzzed the more;
So over all their chests he found
The rale sifflant and the rale sonore.
He shook his head. There's grave disease,--
I greatly fear you all must die;
A slight post-mortem, if you please,
Surviving friends would gratify.
The six young damsels wept aloud,
Which so prevailed on six young men
That each his honest love avowed,
Whereat they all got well again.
This poor young man was all aghast;
The price of stethoscopes came down;
And so he was reduced at last
To practise in a country town.
The doctors being very sore,
A stethoscope they did devise
That had a rammer to clear the bore,
With a knob at the end to kill the flies.
Now use your ears, all you that can,
But don't forget to mind your eyes,
Or you may be cheated, like this young man,
By a couple of silly, abnormal flies.
(It appears I last randomly found this back in 2006: http://thoughtfulwander.blogspot.com/2006/10/poem-stethoscope-song.html)
Friday, April 02, 2010
Medicallly related things to read...
List of things I want to read that widen the perspective on practising medicine:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-moral-education-of-doctors
http://lifeinthefastlane.com/2008/10/top-eleven-books-well-rounded-physician/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/health/chen10-23.html?_r=3 -
Stories in the Service of Making a Better Doctor
Empty pockets
http://www.annals.org/content/139/6/525.full.pdf+html
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-moral-education-of-doctors
http://lifeinthefastlane.com/2008/10/top-eleven-books-well-rounded-physician/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/health/chen10-23.html?_r=3 -
Stories in the Service of Making a Better Doctor
Empty pockets
http://www.annals.org/content/139/6/525.full.pdf+html
Sunday, March 28, 2010
From penguin publishing....
Via Boing Boing
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/17/future-of-publishing.html
Saturday, March 20, 2010
On feeling so...
The Onion is a satrical american website. This article is on, like, feeling, urm, like, total vagueness, you know? Right?
http://www.theonion.com/articles/sometimes-area-woman-just-feels,17072/
http://www.theonion.com/articles/sometimes-area-woman-just-feels,17072/
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Tokyo City Promotion
http://www.tcp2010.com/
Tokyo City Promotion - exhibition in London on visiting Tokyo. Was brilliant. Really want to visit Tokyo now!!
Watched Tokyo magnitude 8.0 - well told tale - and now I want to watch the rest of it! The frustrations!
Tokyo City Promotion - exhibition in London on visiting Tokyo. Was brilliant. Really want to visit Tokyo now!!
Watched Tokyo magnitude 8.0 - well told tale - and now I want to watch the rest of it! The frustrations!
Friday, January 29, 2010
POEM: Encounter on the stairs
http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2007/08/poetry-from-nurses-and-doctors-part-i.html
The link has a set of poems written by doctors and nurses in a Boston hospital (USA). The one below caught me in the heart.
ENCOUNTER ON THE STAIRS
By Warner V. Slack, MD
Next to Children’s Hospital, in a hurry
Down the stairs, two at a time
Slowed down by a family, moving slowly
Blocking the stairway, I’m in a hurry
I stop, annoyed, I’m in a hurry
Seeing me, they move to the side
A woman says softly, “sorry” in Spanish
I look down in passing, there’s a little boy
Unsteady in gait, holding onto an arm
Head shaved, stitches in scalp
Patch over eye, thin and pale
He catches my eye and gives me a smile
My walk is slower for the rest of the day
The link has a set of poems written by doctors and nurses in a Boston hospital (USA). The one below caught me in the heart.
ENCOUNTER ON THE STAIRS
By Warner V. Slack, MD
Next to Children’s Hospital, in a hurry
Down the stairs, two at a time
Slowed down by a family, moving slowly
Blocking the stairway, I’m in a hurry
I stop, annoyed, I’m in a hurry
Seeing me, they move to the side
A woman says softly, “sorry” in Spanish
I look down in passing, there’s a little boy
Unsteady in gait, holding onto an arm
Head shaved, stitches in scalp
Patch over eye, thin and pale
He catches my eye and gives me a smile
My walk is slower for the rest of the day
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Transcript of Obama's Nobel speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe/11prexy.text.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
Published: December 10, 2009
Following is the transcript of President Obama's speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo on Wednesday, as released by the White House:
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.
I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)
Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Published: December 10, 2009
Following is the transcript of President Obama's speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo on Wednesday, as released by the White House:
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.
I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)
Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)