You hold the common belief that insurgency is motivated by revenge, but history does not support it. The historical record is full of extremely brutal conquerors who faced little to no sustained resistance after their initial invasion. It’s harder to say what does lead to insurgency but it appears to be simply the weakness of the central government, regardless of its brutality or lack thereof. (Local cultural factors are also important but they are not decisive.) The example of the USA in Iraq is illustrative: the USA overthrew Saddam Hussein with relatively little loss of civilian life and ended his brutal practices. One might think that Americans really would have been greeted as liberators, but in fact they faced a far more persistent insurgency than Hussein ever did.
The American victories over Germany and Japan in the second world war involved massive civilian casualties, including from deliberate indiscriminate attacks against population centers. Despite this, American occupation of both countries had none of the problems that the occupation of Iraq did, and in fact the USA was able to turn both countries into strong allies during the lifetime of the people who had experienced the war. The difference seems to be that the USA co-opted existing power structures in Germany and Japan, whereas it dismantled Hussein’s power structures and then failed to rebuild its own.
One relevant example of an invader actually triumphing over an insurgency is Russia in Chechnya, where Russia was extremely brutal. Israel faces a similar challenge but with far more restrictions on its treatment of the Palestinians (despite many critics’ foolish use of the word “genocide”). I’m not sure that Israel will succeed, but if it fails then that would not be because of the reason you expect.
Hard disagree with your speculations wrapped in a wordy response. Insurgency and “terrorism” are fomented by asymmetrical warfare (genocidal terrorism). Always has been.
Also you tipped your hand when refusing to call what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people as genocide. Doubt many people upvoting you got that far in your comment.
Let’s put the issue of Israel aside and consider slavery in the USA before the Civil War. There was plenty of oppression but effectively no resistance. The deadliest slave revolt (for white people) involved about 60 casualties before all the slaves involved were quickly captured and executed, and this revolt was so out of the ordinary that it shocked the nation. Almost all human beings do not in fact rise up against their oppressors when they think that doing so will just get them killed. When there’s no power vacuum left by a weak central government, an organized insurgency has no room to form and so people will tolerate anything.
The idea that human nature includes an unquenchable flame of defiance may be appealing but it is simply false. Otherwise we’d see insurgents in North Korea.
You hold the common belief that insurgency is motivated by revenge, but history does not support it. The historical record is full of extremely brutal conquerors who faced little to no sustained resistance after their initial invasion. It’s harder to say what does lead to insurgency but it appears to be simply the weakness of the central government, regardless of its brutality or lack thereof. (Local cultural factors are also important but they are not decisive.) The example of the USA in Iraq is illustrative: the USA overthrew Saddam Hussein with relatively little loss of civilian life and ended his brutal practices. One might think that Americans really would have been greeted as liberators, but in fact they faced a far more persistent insurgency than Hussein ever did.
The American victories over Germany and Japan in the second world war involved massive civilian casualties, including from deliberate indiscriminate attacks against population centers. Despite this, American occupation of both countries had none of the problems that the occupation of Iraq did, and in fact the USA was able to turn both countries into strong allies during the lifetime of the people who had experienced the war. The difference seems to be that the USA co-opted existing power structures in Germany and Japan, whereas it dismantled Hussein’s power structures and then failed to rebuild its own.
One relevant example of an invader actually triumphing over an insurgency is Russia in Chechnya, where Russia was extremely brutal. Israel faces a similar challenge but with far more restrictions on its treatment of the Palestinians (despite many critics’ foolish use of the word “genocide”). I’m not sure that Israel will succeed, but if it fails then that would not be because of the reason you expect.
Hard disagree with your speculations wrapped in a wordy response. Insurgency and “terrorism” are fomented by asymmetrical warfare (genocidal terrorism). Always has been.
Also you tipped your hand when refusing to call what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people as genocide. Doubt many people upvoting you got that far in your comment.
Insurgency is motivated by oppression. Apartheid and genocide are fundamental to zionism. Thus there will always be resistance.
Let’s put the issue of Israel aside and consider slavery in the USA before the Civil War. There was plenty of oppression but effectively no resistance. The deadliest slave revolt (for white people) involved about 60 casualties before all the slaves involved were quickly captured and executed, and this revolt was so out of the ordinary that it shocked the nation. Almost all human beings do not in fact rise up against their oppressors when they think that doing so will just get them killed. When there’s no power vacuum left by a weak central government, an organized insurgency has no room to form and so people will tolerate anything.
The idea that human nature includes an unquenchable flame of defiance may be appealing but it is simply false. Otherwise we’d see insurgents in North Korea.