Two, countries or world leaders might act with selfish motives. For instance, genocide might be ignored if that country is a valuable trading partner or a member of a strategic alliance.
Non-Violent Civil Disobedience
Discussion 1: Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr. And Nelson Mandela all organized massive movements based on non-violent solutions to major social crises. In each of these cases, non-violent solutions resulted in positive social change. Ghandi secured India's independence from British colonial rule; King bolstered the Civil Rights movement and helped break down institutionalized racism in the United States; and Nelson Mandela fought against apartheid even from within his prison cell. Each of these cases demonstrates the effectiveness of non-violence as a means to secure social change. Moreover, in each of these cases the non-violent movement brought the cause into the public arena. Ghandi, King, and Mandela garnered tremendous...
Some terrorism is motivated by more selfish aims but in many cases such as in Gaza, terrorism is used to achieve civil liberties. The most apparent difference between terrorism and non-violent protest is the use of force. Terrorists willingly and deliberately kill to get a point across whereas non-violent protesters refuse to do so. Non-violent protest might lead to breaking the law, but only laws that are perceived of as unjust such as the Jim Crow laws. Like non-violent protests, terrorists do achieve the goal of achieving international recognition. Yet rather than garner sympathy, terrorists usually attract negative press and may impede progress toward the intended goals. The Global community would and should respond more positively to non-violent protests than to terrorism.
