Non violent resistance only works against a humane enemy. Israel is not humane as it is actively trying to ethnically cleanse Palestinians
That's just one of those Hallmark talking points that bears no relation to reality. Are you saying the Southern Segregationists were humane? That the South African Apartheid government was humane? How about
Slobodan Milošević? You feel that Charles Taylor was humane, or were LURD the humane ones? Was Ferdinand Marcos a humane dictator? What about the Soviet leaders in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States? Was Hosni Mubarak humane, that was the weakness that let him down?
Even your name is pissing me off, because Nkrumah knew nonviolence could work against the British despite seeing all the horrific shyt they had just pulled in Kenya and India, but now you want to kiss 1950s British ass as some special "humane" leadership.
Claiming that Netanyahu, or Israelis in general, are some particular case of inhumanity such that nonviolence couldn't possibly work despite having worked against all those other brutal dictators is uninformed. Even in the midst of the Nazi takeover in Europe, nonviolence where it was used achieved significant victories even against Nazis. Look at the nonviolent resistance in Le Chambon or Denmark or (later in the war) the Netherlands. Did that only work against "humane" Nazis?
Harvard Professor Erica Chenoweth discovers nonviolent civil resistance is far more successful in effecting change than violent campaigns.
news.harvard.edu
It's my experience that most people who criticize nonviolence have never actually studied at on any objective level. They've never read a single full book on it, much less taken a course or earned a degree in the subject. They enter the discussion of nonviolent resistance on some cherry-picking bullshyt. "If nonviolence failed once that proves it can't work", which ignores the thousands of times that violent resistance fails to work. "If violence was ever used even once in the conflict, that proves violence was the solution", which ignores that 98% of the strength of the movement came from nonviolent actions. Nonviolence can only be disparaged if it's held to a completely different standard than violent resistance is held to.
The truth is, NOTHING works all the time, NOTHING is guarantied. Failure is always an option. But when actual objective study is done, nonviolence campaigns are statistically far more likely to succeed than violent campaigns, result in far lower casualties to their participants than violent campaigns, and when they win, they're far more likely to result in democratic governments afterwards than when violent rebellions win. That's just objective statistical data, and I'd be interested to see any objective counter that doesn't come from cherry-picking or emotional appeals.