I recognize this discussion has a lot of emotions and hard-and-fast positions and assumptions that are unlikely to change over internet conservations. I'll just say that when I was younger I used to be a huge fanboy of violent action and it took about 10 years for me to fully make the transition to nonviolence. It takes really deep-dives into the situation as well as into the broader history, it's nothing to be answered superficially.
I don’t think that article relates to what’s happening with Israel enacting an apartheid against Palestinians.
This one of Chenoworth’s pillars to successful non-violent resistance:
Can you see the Israeli military doing that? Or the Israeli elites?
Any argument that starts with "can you see" and then makes stereotypical assumptions about an entire broad people is bound to fail in reality. No one could see the Soviets giving up power willingly either...until they did so. The imperial brits committed atrocities far past anything the Israelis have done, and yet they still abandoned their #1 economic resource India in the end.
Even though direct "signs" aren't necessary to try to make it work, there are at least three major signs that an prolonged, well-organized nonviolent movement would be effective:
#1. Public opinion in Israel is malleable on the issue - at times up to 75% of Israeli citizens have approved of a two-state solution. And leaders in Israel are to a degree forced to respond to the desires of the Israeli public if those desires are strong enough. Unfortunately, rockets and bombings move public opinion against the Palestinians.
#2. Israel is not a monarchy or dictatorship, it's elites can change, and as I pointed out there is a heavy portion of the public who would be responsive to a different set of elites under the right circumstances. But even if you think the Israeli elites about beyond reaching, you have to remember they are not independent either. Just like the CRM movement went "over the heads" of the Southern elites in order to appeal to the greater public and the feds, the Palestinians can go "over the heads" of the Israeli elites and appeal to the American public and American leaders. Any Israeli government that defies both the Israeli public AND their American sponsors is in danger of being replaced.
#3. If you follow M. Scott Peck (military psychologist) and his research on atrocities committed by American troops during Vietnam, you'll see that there is at least one great advantage in appeals to the Israeli military. Peck found that the likelihood of atrocities decreased significantly among drafted troops as opposed to career military. Long-term career military personnel were far more likely to burn down villages and shoot women and children, either due to greater personal trauma, longer-term indoctrination, or greater personal commitment to the cause. Drafted troops were far less likely to engage in such behavior. When military troops are simply drafted from the population at large, it is much easier to appeal to their sensibilities. And Israel has drafted troops.
Also, a lot of non-violent resistance movements also has a violent threat from others.
In most cases that threat has been massively overblown by those simply seeking to discredit nonviolent resistance. Obviously by definition the "violent threat from others" was not large, otherwise it would be seen as the primary resistance. So it makes no sense that movements with violence as a primary method consistently fail at high rates, while nonviolent movements would somehow succeed just because some little fringe group on the side engaged in a relatively minor level of violence.
From what I’ve observed, Israel and the west have either killed or discredited non-violent Palestinian leaders over the last 50 years. And since half of the Palestinian population is under 18, who is the current non-violent group/leader?
Obviously they've done the same to violent Palestinian leaders. You have to start somewhere. There are millions and millions of Palestinians.
Any time I hear that Hamas is doing Palestinians a disservice, I think back to what happened prior and notice that the many times they have negotiated, Israel have not followed through and made life even more hell. Instead of blaming the Palestinians, and I am not saying you are doing that, we need to scrutinize the Israelis for their false promises and violence.
I agree 100% that the Israelis need to be scrutinized above all else. That's one of the issues - so long as Hamas's violence makes headlines, it will continue to distract from Israeli violence. That is one of many advantages of a nonviolent resistance - it focuses the attention on the violence of the oppressor instead of allowing them to hide behind excuses.
And I am not blaming the Palestinians - 90% of Palestinians have little say in the rockets and such. But I join many, likely most Palestinians when I do blame Hamas for poor decisions and ineffective leadership. Every report I've heard from the region suggests that Palestinians primarily blame Israel for their situation, but they don't think Hamas has responded effectively either.
This feels more and more like the German Holocaust, or the USA’s extermination of First Nations, than a simple protest movement.
I can't take you seriously on the subject if you use the phrase "simple protest movement". If you look at the history, violent and nonviolent resistance are on equal footings and effective at equal levels of atrocity. An effective nonviolent resistance is large, sustained, organized, and just as intense a campaign as a violent resistance.
Just ask this - has violent resistance gotten Hamas and company any closer to their people's freedom than before, or are they as far away as ever?
