The expulsion of Britain from India was a long process and had nearly been completed before WWII even started (independent governance had already been achieved), the war actually delayed it in some respects. And the tiny movement trying to fight back violently was an embarrassment entirely unrelated to the group fighting for independence and had been completely destroyed years before independence was achieved. The movement led by Congress (Gandhi's movement) was so devoid of violence that Gandhi would call off actions and go on hunger strikes if they weren't sufficiently practicing their principles.
Go look up how many British died TOTAL in the entire independence movement and that will give you an idea how much "violence" helped.
And if economic "collapse" was enough to bring down the USSR then they would have failed multiple times before, as would plenty of other countries. The Soviet Union was no worse off in 1989-1991 than many other world powers had been at many other points in the 20th century.
Exactly! What do you think led to this? The increased negative public sentiment in Israel has come right in step with the Second Intifada followed by the Hamas takeover of Gaza.
Like I said, the current Israeli elite are the Southern elite, and the American elite are the feds. If pressure from America came strong enough it would make a dramatic difference, and that pressure is possible.
It should, it sounds fukking horrible. But like I said this is distinctly different from what we were hearing 20 years ago. A series of events led to this, and we can't just give up and suggest there's no way to get back.
Again, the peaks in violence in all of those cases don't line up at all with the peaks in gains. The biggest most violent riots or actions in the South were around 1890-1920 in the late 1960s and early 1970s....which happen to be the exact same times that previous progress was getting rolled back. The ANC's highest period of violence was decades before they won freedom. India's main violent rebellions was EIGHTY YEARS before they got independence.
If the leaders weren't shook by the primary periods of violence, why would they be shook during far lesser periods? If the violence was the key, then the gains would have come during the deepest periods of violence, not during periods when that violence was a vague afterthought.
I haven't done a deep dive into the Palestinian situation but I can think of three main places where they can apply economic pressure right off the top.
#1: A significant # of Palestinians work in the Israeli economy.
#2: They can potentially cut off supplies to the settlements.
#3: The right movement as an appeal to Americans could eventually shut off the American guns-and-money spigot to Israel.
Lack of leaders has often been a deep issue. There are still millions of men in Palestine or from Palestine. And leadership doesn't always come from where you expect. I just started a book (Mighty Be Our Powers) about the deep impact women had in bringing peace to Libya. In recent years we've seen women and young people bring attention and leadership to issues in striking ways. I don't want to give up on all Palestinians.
Agreed. Sorry to come a little hard. I'm not saying I don't understand it, I'm just saying that there's a better way.
And they will always use Hamas violence as a cover for those crimes. We need to take away their cover.
