I specified the current governments for all the nations that I mentioned, not their prior history. For Europe that means that the UK, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, and the Vatican are the only countries whose pre-WWII governments have any relevance. Same thing goes for Japan and South Korea. Japan and Germany, for example, count as having their current governments set up by invading forces. The Nazi and Imperial Japanese governments would certainly qualify. Their post WWII governments set up by the US and UK not so much. Same goes for most of the rest of Europe, which hit the reset button after WWII. As far as Israel, my guess is that you’re thinking of the various foreign conflicts they’ve been involved in, including having the territory established by mandate of European powers. Again, I count that as separate from a violent internal revolution. In terms of Jewish state and Israel, I may be mistaken, but I think you’d have to go all the way back the Jewish revolt against the Romans back in the day to find a violent internal revolution. That event has no connection to the current Israeli government.
ETA. Ok, I forgot the Soviet Union for Europe. But most of the rest of Europe hit the reset button after WWII. France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, all the Eastern European countries that were conquered by the USSR, and so on.
ETA 2. I admit to forgetting Romania as well, with the overthrow of Caescescu in 1989. But the rest of Eastern Europe left the USSR peacefully.
I think you’re ignoring the fact that Israel’s 1947-1949 War of Independence, or at least its first part, was a violent civil war between Arabs and Jews - which was preceded by an armed insurrection by the Jews against the British government. The current State of Israel was very much born in blood.
I was attempting to make a distinction between violent conflicts in general vs. those conducted internally by revolutionaries like those I mentioned earlier (Castro, the Ayatollah, etc.). I admit that I wasn’t aware that the there was an armed insurrection by Jews against the British. The Jewish - Palestinian conflict I see as more like a foreign conflict, sort of like the wars between the US and the Native American tribes in the 19th century, rather than a true civil war.
ETA. My overall point being that those attempting to violently overthrow their own government had better make sure their leadership are good people. If not, they are likely to end up in a worse situation than what they started with.
Once we start getting into foreign conflicts, that’s a whole different ballgame, because the people getting invaded have no say in the matter. The violent revolutionaries, on the other hand, always have the option to not pick up arms in the first place.
I was thinking of the first independence in 1814. Small scale war, but not peaceful, even if the negotiations were swift.
In 1905, that was peaceful (even with some tension in 1895 about commerce)
As for the Jewish-Palestinian conflict, it was much more similar to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s - a fight between two ethnic groups living intertwined with each other:
One key assumption here is that there are only “twenty people behind climate change”, and once they’re assassinated, then everyone else will support efforts to control climate change. Because if it turns out that a lot more than these 20 people agree with them, then not only are you not going to accomplish anything by assassinating them, but you’ve let the genie out of the bottle in terms of supporters of these 20 people assassinating your guys.
It’s virtually inconceivable that one side of a broad public divide will allow the other side to resort to violence against them without taking up arms themselves.
So the key questions are: 1) how much bloodshed - on both sides - will realistically be involved before you win this violent struggle? And 2) how sure are you that you’re going to win altogether?
Right wing terrorism has been perpetuating violence since the Oklahoma City bombing. The list of violence from the right goes on and on, all the way to Jan 6th, and continues beyond.
There is very little mention of the left taking up arms to defend themselves, much less retaliate.
Who are you asking this of? I mean the right wingers seem to be happy to spill the blood of their opponents, and their terrorism is having the effect of shifting the public in their favor out of fear. OTOH, the left doesn’t want a civil war, both because they aren’t really willing to shed the blood of their political opponents, and because they know that no one really wins a civil war.
So, if violence for political change is seen as legitimate for one narrow subset of ideals, how long do you think it will take for that concept to generalize and do you want to live in that world?
Everyone talks about military this and military that but sectarian violence within a country is far more dangerous than those who fantasize about killing their political/ideological foes realize. It’s not a line of musketbeings shooting at another line of musketbeings. It’s families killed in their sleep because they are suspected of wrongthink.
We already live in that world. The question in this thread is, now that violence for political change has been embraced for one narrow subset of ideals, how do we respond to that?
I don’t understand why you exclude Ireland from this list. What discontinuity do you have in mind between its pre-WWII government and today? Ireland (alongside Finland) is a country whose origin as an independent democratic republic lies in armed insurrection followed by civil war.
Conversely, Spain and Portugal don’t belong on your list.
The fundamental problem in all these discussions is that it takes two sides to keep the peace, but only one to break it.
And when one side has decided to simply not listen to anything the other side has to say, how exactly are we supposed to “promote a society where political violence is not supported”?