…I don’t think that I’m asking for a radical revision of human nature.

Right, human nature can accommodate new governmental forms, but I suspect that disassociating State legitimacy (as a particular governmental form) from violence is less likely. But I agree that relying on violence is usually bad policy regardless…

…Basically, for countries with all this military power to start looking much harder for nonviolent solutions to their problems. That is, I want the taboo against organized violence to grow much stronger.

I agree with the goal, although just think countries don’t see it in their interest to do so by definition. I agree, though, that that is clearly better policy as far as people are concerned (!). As G. A. comments of the Tiananmen photo you link to, “tanks will appear” (The Coming Community, p. 87) whenever State authority is truly under threat, whether a non-violent or violent threat…

I certainly didn’t mean to express great confidence for Obama. In fact, I bet the pundits are right that Obama was expressing support for Israeli retaliation. But I took a skewed reading of his works to give some picture of what it might be like if our leaders began taking violence off the table. And I do, actually, believe that presidents can make a difference here. Bush, for instance, defined the national reaction to 9/11. If he had taken it as a call for reconciliation, rather than for war, the whole of world history for the last 8 years would’ve been totally different. It was up to him.

Obama, by the way, has said a little more about Gaza. Still vague, but a little promising.

“We are going to engage effectively and consistently in trying to resolve the conflicts that exist in the Middle East,” he told reporters, adding that “the loss of civilian life in Gaza and Israel is a source of deep concern to me, and after January 20th I am going to have plenty to say about the issue.” (source)

As far as nonviolence goes, no need to begin with your family being murdered. I’m talking about how a bunch of old, rich, safe men in Washington choose to act toward a much weaker power on the other side of the world. Responding the assailants in one’s home nonviolently—which has been done many times—certainly requires great strength, discipline, and care. A worthy goal, but let’s take baby steps. Responding nonviolently to those at one’s mercy seems like it should be a much simpler proposition.

1) Was it Hamas who broke the cease fire? CNN reported on the situation and supplies evidence to the contrary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDBiycEz12s

2) I wish I could get more excited about Obama, but I cannot. When you quoted him in your article, it just shows that he’s up against a brick wall and can only really say one thing (i.e., the “right” answer). You point it out too… when Israel defends itself, it’s called self-defense, but when Hamas retaliates it’s called “breaking the cease fire”. It’s sad and disheartening that Obama acts like a douche, for lack of a better word, but spades are spades. Maybe he will bring change for this country and he’s certainly instilled hope, but he’s no different than Bush in many regards. Until the larger US government stops backing Israel uncritically, I’m not optimistic about what a president can do.

By the way, I’d say I’m a pretty strong advocate of non-violence, but then again, I’ve never seen my family murdered by merciless aggressors. If I had, I have no idea what I’d believe.

For now, what I’m calling for is to put nonviolent action on the table. Basically, for countries with all this military power to start looking much harder for nonviolent solutions to their problems. That is, I want the taboo against organized violence to grow much stronger. At this point, I don’t see any need not to allow groups of people to organize (i.e., as countries) and pursue their common interests—so long as serious efforts are made to act resolutely yet without counterproductive destruction.