non-violence or armed resistance?

Ken O'keefe describing use of armed resistance to defend the Mari Marmara against attack by IDF soldiers using multiple six man "defense teams" armed with "bars". Is this consistent with the non-violence used by MLK or Ghandi? No. Protestors who claim they are non-violent protestors give up the right to defend themselves when they place themselves in harms way. Armed resistance has no place in a peace movement. Those of us who wish for peace, will never archive our goals by using violence.
The unedited version of Ken's talk from which these excerpts came from can be seen here: http://www.vimeo.com/15166081

Quote from www.MKGandhi.org :

Gandhi said that the non-violent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause. And in fact, during India's struggle for independence, hundreds of Indians were killed by the British.

The difference was that the non-violent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill.

Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward's way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ken O'keefe
• violence
• non-violence
• Mavi Marmara

[Abatior13]

thanks for the post, i had no idea that this was a situation until this video. i googgled some stuff and now i know a lot more about it. youtube needs more videos like this!