I can only think to part of a response Orwell had for pacifists:
I am not interested in pacifism as a ‘moral phenomenon’. If Mr Savage and others imagine that one can somehow ‘overcome’ the German army by lying on one’s back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen. As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.
Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.
That's why I said democracies are vulnerable to non-violent resistance.
Democracies, like Israel, are the opposite of authoritarian governments. Developed democracies can withstand all the force you send at them because they rule with the consent of the governed and have much larger resources at their disposal.
They are more vulnerable to soft power. Hamas already has broadcast abilities. They should literally get rid of most weapons, and start broadcasting 24/7 about the hardships of living in the West Bank and Gaza. They have an unlimited amount of ammo because Israel genuinely makes people's lives terrible.
just because a place calls its self or even is a democracy doesn't mean it can't be despotic.
there is no inherent "democracy is not despotic" we have seen plenty of despotic democratic governments, almost all of them only toppled due to outside influence.
and a side point Democracies aren't more resistant to force, they are just a little less likely to collapse due to a general trust in the standing government, nothing to do with resources.
I can only think to part of a response Orwell had for pacifists:
Yeah, that's correct:
That's why I said democracies are vulnerable to non-violent resistance.
Democracies, like Israel, are the opposite of authoritarian governments. Developed democracies can withstand all the force you send at them because they rule with the consent of the governed and have much larger resources at their disposal.
They are more vulnerable to soft power. Hamas already has broadcast abilities. They should literally get rid of most weapons, and start broadcasting 24/7 about the hardships of living in the West Bank and Gaza. They have an unlimited amount of ammo because Israel genuinely makes people's lives terrible.
just because a place calls its self or even is a democracy doesn't mean it can't be despotic.
there is no inherent "democracy is not despotic" we have seen plenty of despotic democratic governments, almost all of them only toppled due to outside influence.
and a side point Democracies aren't more resistant to force, they are just a little less likely to collapse due to a general trust in the standing government, nothing to do with resources.