News Briefs - Thailand and Israel

Having written something on Thailand's political crisis several weeks ago, I'd like to comment briefly on the end of the Red Shirt protests. Not having seen enough of the real evidence (as opposed to secondhand reports and hearsay), I can't be sure whether the Thai government used disproportionate force in clearing out the protest area and arresting the Red Shirt leaders. Certainly indiscriminate firing (which there were some reports of) was unjustifiable, and it is questionable whether they should have been using live ammo at all, as for the most part the protesters were much more lightly armed (though we shouldn't underestimate the damage that even their makeshift weapons could cause).

However, it is clear that there were at least some well armed and violent people mixed in among the protesters. In the violence near Democracy Monument in April, there apparently was video showing grenades being shot into the ranks of soldiers. Then there was the incident were grenades landed among groups of anti-Red Shirt protesters around the top of Silom Road, across from Lumpini Park and near the edge of the Red Shirt area, causing a number of deaths and injuries. While both sides blamed the other, it is hardly credible that the military would have attacked the pro-government protesters. as there only possible motivation would have been to create an excuse to attack the Red Shirts -- and as they didn't launch any attack, this reason doesn't hold water. Then there was the invasion of Chulalongkorn Hospital by some Red Shirts which forced many patients to be evacuated (and which their leaders apologized for). So it seems clear that there was an armed and violent element among the Red Shirts, though they probably weren't representative of the protesters as a whole, and in any case, even their presence wouldn't justify excessive force.

As with the motivations and goals of the two sides in Thailand's political divide, there are no obvious heroes and villains in the violence accompanying the end of the protest. It is worth noting, however, that while in principle even one death is always too many, the number of deaths in the crackdown was not nearly as high as might have been expected. Certainly it can't compare to similar violence in Burma recently, or the Tiananmen Square massacre in China. So while the Thai government's actions should be scrutinized closely, their use of force was not so blatantly excessive as that of other governments in the past, and given the amount of coverage, including by Western journalists and residents in Bangkok, it would have been difficult for them to hide an overly brutal crackdown (unlike the situation in places like Burma and Tibet).

Regardless of who deserves most of the blame, for me the violence in Bangkok had more meaning to me personally than similar violence elsewhere, simply because much of it occurred in places I have been to many times. CentralWorld (formerly World Trade Center), a large shopping mall that we went to on numerous occasions (mostly music and book shopping, and for meals), had already been closed for weeks, since it was at the center of the Red Shirt protest area. But in the final violence, some of the rioters set it on fire, and judging from the few photos I've seen, it was pretty thoroughly gutted, with some parts collapsing. In Siam Square, one of Bangkok's last single-screen theaters, the Siam Theatre, was also burned. Though we never watched a film there, we often passed by it or waited for buses in front (the nearby Scala, where we once saw 12 Monkeys, survived and is now the last stand-alone cinema in Bangkok). Of course even without this destruction, Bangkok is constantly changing. But these two places have been there every time I've gone in the past, and it will be strange to see those locations without them (though I believe they intend to rebuild/renovate CentralWorld). Regardless of the legitimate complaints of the Red Shirts (and they did have some), those few who rioted and caused this destruction get little sympathy from me.

Another incident in which there seems to less black and white than shades of gray occurred just the other day in the Middle East. I'm referring to the Israeli attack on the flotilla of ships carrying supplies to Gaza, and the resulting deaths of 10 activists (or nine in some reports). I don't want to get into all the rights and wrongs of the whole Israeli-Palestinian struggle, but I will say that on the one hand I sympathize with the Israeli desire to protect themselves, while having no sympathy whatever for their building of settlements in the Palestinian territories (including Arab parts of Jerusalem). Regarding the latter, I think the US should be prepared to cut aid to Israel severely if the building doesn't stop completely. As for the blockade of Gaza, I am dubious about the need for such a rigorous blockade, though I don't really have enough information to have a definite view on the matter. Certainly Israel could do more to ensure humanitarian supplies get through in sufficient amounts.

But as for the activist flotilla and the Israeli attack on it, from what I've seen, things are not so black and white as some of those protesting against Israel are saying. To be sure, there are a lot of black marks against Israel in the affair. For one, the Israeli seizure of the ships appeared to have taken place in international waters, and so was of questionable legality. As some Israeli military experts pointed out (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100601/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians), the Israeli military could have used non-lethal weapons such as tear gas, and a former general asked why they didn't just sabotage the boats' engines instead of sending commandos to board them. And in the final analysis, whatever the provocation, the Israeli soldiers killed people, and it's always hard to justify that.

However, it does seem that there was more than a little provocation. I've seen the video released by the Israeli military, and it clearly shows the activists on board the ship swarming the Israeli soldiers as soon as they landed and attacking them with clubs, and in one case throwing a soldier overboard. While it is possible that the soldiers somehow managed to attack first, perhaps by shooting as they landed, it doesn't look very likely. It certainly appears that the activists simply attacked them. It's also notable that all or at least nearly all the violence took place on one ship, with others simply surrendering. Unless it just happened that the soldiers landing on that one ship were unusually trigger happy, it seems probable that the activists on the ship started the fighting. This doesn't necessarily excuse killing them, but I have to admit that if a bunch of people attacked me or my friends with clubs and I was carrying a gun, I'd probably use it on them. Of course all the evidence has to be examined closely, and as I said Israel most likely deserves condemnation for launching the raid in the first place, and thus creating a confrontational situation (not to mention the question of the morality of the blockade itself). But it isn't absolutely clear to me that the activists themselves don't have to take at least a little of the blame.