There is a broader strategic understanding of power, such that an underdog doing violence can afford the authoritarian government political capital to retaliate disproportionately. A peer doing violence authorizes retaliation in kind. A superior force doing violence can only realistically be retreated from until the tables can be turned.
Oct 7th is a great case in point. Palestinians revolted and Israelis spent the next year paying them back with hellfire missiles into ambulances and machine gun rounds into NICU units, while their friends in the US and Germany and Russia and Saudi Arabia clapped. Yemen and Iran interceding on Gaza’s behalf might be seen as noble from a certain point of view, but it failed to halt the slaughter. Meanwhile, the Israelis and their American allies expanded the scope of violence into the West Bank, the Persian Gulf, Lebanon, and Syria.
Using violence doesn’t mean you’ll win. It means you’ll legitimize a reprisal (which threatens to legitimize a reprisal, etc, etc). Escalate far enough and you end up with the Twin Towers in flames or a mushroom cloud over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It ends with the obliteration of whole countries and the loss of millions of lives.
Who comes out ahead after all of this? Who benefits in the long run? I’m having a hard time finding any winners.
But also, a people can only retreat from a superior force for so long. When every olive branch is denied, when peaceful action is responded to with force, when people are too exhausted to know what else to do – violence becomes inevitable.
Oct 7th is a great case in point. For years, Palestinians protested Israeli settlements and soldiers with peaceful marches. And the IDF responded by sniping at the peaceful protestor’s kneecaps. All with little to no reaction from outside news outlets and governments.
When people’s back is against the wall, when their only choice is between a long, drawn out violence at the whims of others OR a sharp, intense violence with some semblance of agency – you really can’t blame them for picking the semblance of agency.
All with little to no reaction from outside news outlets and governments.
But that’s where they’re mistaken. Look at the reaction on campuses to Israel’s bombing - there was plenty of will in the west to back Palestinian rights. But because it started with a terror attack, it was easy for people to support silencing them.
What if it started with the equivalent of the George Floyd video instead of Oct. 7 and protests erupted without the anchor of Oct. 7 holding them back? Biden would’ve loved to take that opportunity to finally stick it to Netanyahu and cut off Israeli funding. It may be surprising, but with the sole exception of Trump every US president absolutely hated Netanyahu. But because Democrats can’t afford to lose Jewish voters they’ve tolerated continued aid. Give them the right excuse, and it ends (I mean not under Trump, but whoever the next guy is).
When two sides are fighting, and one uses violence and the other doesn’t, side using violence almost always wins.
There is a broader strategic understanding of power, such that an underdog doing violence can afford the authoritarian government political capital to retaliate disproportionately. A peer doing violence authorizes retaliation in kind. A superior force doing violence can only realistically be retreated from until the tables can be turned.
Oct 7th is a great case in point. Palestinians revolted and Israelis spent the next year paying them back with hellfire missiles into ambulances and machine gun rounds into NICU units, while their friends in the US and Germany and Russia and Saudi Arabia clapped. Yemen and Iran interceding on Gaza’s behalf might be seen as noble from a certain point of view, but it failed to halt the slaughter. Meanwhile, the Israelis and their American allies expanded the scope of violence into the West Bank, the Persian Gulf, Lebanon, and Syria.
Using violence doesn’t mean you’ll win. It means you’ll legitimize a reprisal (which threatens to legitimize a reprisal, etc, etc). Escalate far enough and you end up with the Twin Towers in flames or a mushroom cloud over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It ends with the obliteration of whole countries and the loss of millions of lives.
Who comes out ahead after all of this? Who benefits in the long run? I’m having a hard time finding any winners.
You’re not wrong.
But also, a people can only retreat from a superior force for so long. When every olive branch is denied, when peaceful action is responded to with force, when people are too exhausted to know what else to do – violence becomes inevitable.
Oct 7th is a great case in point. For years, Palestinians protested Israeli settlements and soldiers with peaceful marches. And the IDF responded by sniping at the peaceful protestor’s kneecaps. All with little to no reaction from outside news outlets and governments.
When people’s back is against the wall, when their only choice is between a long, drawn out violence at the whims of others OR a sharp, intense violence with some semblance of agency – you really can’t blame them for picking the semblance of agency.
What if it started with the equivalent of the George Floyd video instead of Oct. 7 and protests erupted without the anchor of Oct. 7 holding them back? Biden would’ve loved to take that opportunity to finally stick it to Netanyahu and cut off Israeli funding. It may be surprising, but with the sole exception of Trump every US president absolutely hated Netanyahu. But because Democrats can’t afford to lose Jewish voters they’ve tolerated continued aid. Give them the right excuse, and it ends (I mean not under Trump, but whoever the next guy is).
Sometimes violence just makes sure the other side doesn’t win either.