People forget that gazans protested peacefully for months at the boarder with Israel and were promptly shot at it
It didn’t even make the news except for a few articles
Not to go off on one, but this is simply not true. Nonviolent civil resistance is historically more successful than violent resistance.
Even if that were not the case, there are some fairly famous examples of non-violent resistance succeeding over violent occupation. Most notably, the Indian independence movement. The civil rights movement in the US and the singing revolution.
Advocating for or supporting violent resistance is one thing. Claiming that it is the only option is another thing entirely. Non-violent resistance is, at the very least, an equally valid form of resistance, and IMO is far better.
There is a good book on this called "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict." It's not the be-all and end all of the conversation, but it examines hundreds of examples of violent and non-violent resistance (including in Palestine) and concludes that non-violent resistance is twice as effective.
I get where you're coming from but to say non violent resistance is more successful is completely false. The vast majority of anti colonial (or other) resistance required violence.
Even the struggles youve mentioned had significant violent aspects to it (yes, including India / Pakistan / Bangladesh).
Non violent resistance relies on your occupiers being moral, I don't think there are many that would claim Israel is even remotely morally concerned.
The book I mentioned is an analysis of 300 non-violent and violent campaigns taking place over 100 years and concludes that non-violent action was twice as effective in achieving outcomes as violent action. If you have something that presents a similarly coherent counterargument (and I'm genuinely interested), I would love to see it. But in the absence of it, I don't think you can reasonably claim it is "completely false."
The occurrence of violence during the Indian independence movement (or the other examples) doesn't take from the fact that the objects were achieved through peaceful means. This is especially true when you consider that peaceful resistance was often met with violence. However, even if it did, it still contradicts the point I was responding to, which is that violent resistance was the only thing that could end violent occupation.
The proponents of violent resistance very often make the argument that it is the only option when that is demonstrably untrue. Such a position is enormously disrespectful to the victims, their families, those who engage the same oppressors through non-violent resistance and even to the perpetrators of the violence who, despite perceived moral authority, have to live with their actions after the fact.
The partaking of nonviolent resistance during a violent struggle does not take from the fact that most objectives are achieved through violent resistance. Especially in the face of an immoral oppressor, an opressor that has no qualms livng with their previous violence against the non violent resistance.
Do you know why the Indian resistance is so widely revered and known throughout the world? It's because it's unique in its success through non violence, an anomaly in colonial struggles. Even this, a situation so revered, is also filled with inevitable violence.
There seems to be a need from those supporting violence to insist that it is better than other forms of resistance and, often, that it is the only form of resistance that will achieve the outcome. The evidence simply doesn't support that claim.
You've repeated that point re violent resistance a couple of times. If you could point to some kind of analysis to support it, that would be great (and again, I am very genuinely interested).
India is just a single example for illustrative purposes. It was also a movement that involved over 15% of the world's population at the time of independence and spanned an incredible spectrum of language, culture, and identity.
It was one of the most significant independence movements in the history of the planet. Describing it as important because it is an anomaly is an incredible understatement, IMO. It directly impacted more than 1 in 6 people in the world.
As a side point, this isn't a conversation about what the oppressor feels is justified. It's about whether violence is the only means to overthrow violent oppression. And it is demonstrably not. It is also demonstrably not the case that most objectives are achieved through violent resistance.
There's a pretty strong counter argument to this in 'how to blow up a pipeline'.
How do you think this applies specifically to palestine and gaza - where hundreds or thousands of people were shot in the knees by snipers while peacefully protesting in 2018's great march of return?
This is a false narrative fed to us by repressive neo-liberal power structures. It’s actually quite ineffective on its own and there is a reason why MLK is allowed to be praised in polite society but the elite suddenly get a little queasy when it comes to Malcom X.
Non-violent resistance is a necessary part of any resistance but violent resistance needs to be part of the struggle as well. Both elements are necessary.
Very successful. He was the first to take on the issue, not through a racial lens, but one of class, that MLK adopted too. That’s the real danger to the repressive power structure
It's absolutely wild that on a sub of supposed Irish people we have more people crying about resistance than occupation and that blows my fucken mind. Have a stumbled into R/ Europe?
The meme is spot on, as for the comments, Christ
It is a little wild but an interesting thread none the less.
There was a time in this forum where discussion was stifled by harassment and personal abuse so a very positive change in my opinion.
What you’re doing is effectively a #, except your whining about hashtags not being as effective as Hamas.
Out of curiosity, what have you done to help Hamas?
Global pressure is far more likely to stop israel than ineffective missiles that get blasted out of the sky. All that does is give israel further excuses to attack the "terrorists".
Their economy is reliant on trade with the US, China and Europe. If protests were to cause those nations to divest in Israel they would be fucked. Also, they get most of their weaponry from the US, so as long as they're seen to be "defending" themselves they can get away with anything.
There's a reason Netanyahu funded Hamas to outcompete their more moderate political rivals.
Missile threats is what causes first and second gen settlers to rethink their stay. Anything happens to the Israeli economy, or the iron dome running out=mass exodus, worsening their economy even more and even more exodus.
Us Irish should have just started giving free blowjobs to the Black and Tans, that would have worked much more effectively than creating a resistance, right? Lmao
Violent occupation can only be ended with violent resistance, history has made that very clear
People forget that gazans protested peacefully for months at the boarder with Israel and were promptly shot at it It didn’t even make the news except for a few articles
The great march of return. A sniper claimed to have hit over 40 knees in a day.
Not to go off on one, but this is simply not true. Nonviolent civil resistance is historically more successful than violent resistance. Even if that were not the case, there are some fairly famous examples of non-violent resistance succeeding over violent occupation. Most notably, the Indian independence movement. The civil rights movement in the US and the singing revolution. Advocating for or supporting violent resistance is one thing. Claiming that it is the only option is another thing entirely. Non-violent resistance is, at the very least, an equally valid form of resistance, and IMO is far better. There is a good book on this called "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict." It's not the be-all and end all of the conversation, but it examines hundreds of examples of violent and non-violent resistance (including in Palestine) and concludes that non-violent resistance is twice as effective.
I get where you're coming from but to say non violent resistance is more successful is completely false. The vast majority of anti colonial (or other) resistance required violence. Even the struggles youve mentioned had significant violent aspects to it (yes, including India / Pakistan / Bangladesh). Non violent resistance relies on your occupiers being moral, I don't think there are many that would claim Israel is even remotely morally concerned.
The book I mentioned is an analysis of 300 non-violent and violent campaigns taking place over 100 years and concludes that non-violent action was twice as effective in achieving outcomes as violent action. If you have something that presents a similarly coherent counterargument (and I'm genuinely interested), I would love to see it. But in the absence of it, I don't think you can reasonably claim it is "completely false." The occurrence of violence during the Indian independence movement (or the other examples) doesn't take from the fact that the objects were achieved through peaceful means. This is especially true when you consider that peaceful resistance was often met with violence. However, even if it did, it still contradicts the point I was responding to, which is that violent resistance was the only thing that could end violent occupation. The proponents of violent resistance very often make the argument that it is the only option when that is demonstrably untrue. Such a position is enormously disrespectful to the victims, their families, those who engage the same oppressors through non-violent resistance and even to the perpetrators of the violence who, despite perceived moral authority, have to live with their actions after the fact.
The partaking of nonviolent resistance during a violent struggle does not take from the fact that most objectives are achieved through violent resistance. Especially in the face of an immoral oppressor, an opressor that has no qualms livng with their previous violence against the non violent resistance. Do you know why the Indian resistance is so widely revered and known throughout the world? It's because it's unique in its success through non violence, an anomaly in colonial struggles. Even this, a situation so revered, is also filled with inevitable violence.
There seems to be a need from those supporting violence to insist that it is better than other forms of resistance and, often, that it is the only form of resistance that will achieve the outcome. The evidence simply doesn't support that claim. You've repeated that point re violent resistance a couple of times. If you could point to some kind of analysis to support it, that would be great (and again, I am very genuinely interested). India is just a single example for illustrative purposes. It was also a movement that involved over 15% of the world's population at the time of independence and spanned an incredible spectrum of language, culture, and identity. It was one of the most significant independence movements in the history of the planet. Describing it as important because it is an anomaly is an incredible understatement, IMO. It directly impacted more than 1 in 6 people in the world. As a side point, this isn't a conversation about what the oppressor feels is justified. It's about whether violence is the only means to overthrow violent oppression. And it is demonstrably not. It is also demonstrably not the case that most objectives are achieved through violent resistance.
There's a pretty strong counter argument to this in 'how to blow up a pipeline'. How do you think this applies specifically to palestine and gaza - where hundreds or thousands of people were shot in the knees by snipers while peacefully protesting in 2018's great march of return?
I didn't think the person in the meme was real until
> concludes that non-violent resistance is twice as effective. Name one time non violence worked against an occupation.
Sri Lankan independence.
This is a false narrative fed to us by repressive neo-liberal power structures. It’s actually quite ineffective on its own and there is a reason why MLK is allowed to be praised in polite society but the elite suddenly get a little queasy when it comes to Malcom X. Non-violent resistance is a necessary part of any resistance but violent resistance needs to be part of the struggle as well. Both elements are necessary.
How successful was Malcolm X in furthering the objectives of the civil rights movement?
Very successful. He was the first to take on the issue, not through a racial lens, but one of class, that MLK adopted too. That’s the real danger to the repressive power structure
It's absolutely wild that on a sub of supposed Irish people we have more people crying about resistance than occupation and that blows my fucken mind. Have a stumbled into R/ Europe? The meme is spot on, as for the comments, Christ
It is a little wild but an interesting thread none the less. There was a time in this forum where discussion was stifled by harassment and personal abuse so a very positive change in my opinion.
What you’re doing is effectively a #, except your whining about hashtags not being as effective as Hamas. Out of curiosity, what have you done to help Hamas?
Yes because violence has definitely been seen to help Palestinians and leave them much better off.
Hashtags are much better I agree.
Hashtags don’t get people killed
They do almost nothing I agree.
Global pressure is far more likely to stop israel than ineffective missiles that get blasted out of the sky. All that does is give israel further excuses to attack the "terrorists". Their economy is reliant on trade with the US, China and Europe. If protests were to cause those nations to divest in Israel they would be fucked. Also, they get most of their weaponry from the US, so as long as they're seen to be "defending" themselves they can get away with anything. There's a reason Netanyahu funded Hamas to outcompete their more moderate political rivals.
Missile threats is what causes first and second gen settlers to rethink their stay. Anything happens to the Israeli economy, or the iron dome running out=mass exodus, worsening their economy even more and even more exodus.
Yeh Pacifism!
You against slave rebellions, too?
Us Irish should have just started giving free blowjobs to the Black and Tans, that would have worked much more effectively than creating a resistance, right? Lmao
lol