Is it possible to fight against violence without violence?

This question was discussed long time ago between a group of pacifist trying to find a sense to the modern wars like Israel controlling Middle East countries or US taking revenge from the 09/11 in Afghanistan and Iraq. In these wars the fights against violence by violence is a paradox.

From the discussion Violence can be divided in three segments:

1. Violence can be useful in a defence situation. Its important to preserve the inside violence for auto defence. Running away is also considered like auto defence from a conscientious analysis of the chances to win. Running away is however temporal because of the necessity of justice.

2. On the other hand the use of violence should be balanced with the respect of the others. That is complex but necessary to establish good relations between the parts. Sometimes communication should go through violence to be effective. Why this is not possible?

3. The Jude Christian culture impedes us to accept our predator nature. This nature is both positive and negative: destruction for creation, desire and violation, conquest and domination. This culture explains the paradox of the modern wars. The desire of conquest is seen like negative and then is difficult to explain the destruction for the simple desire of control. The moral prejudices generate chaos.

The violence is not only shown in war, from the previous arguments I would like to advance a hypothesis: Singapore is a violent country in the sense that the economical desire generates violence into society; other ways of violence can then be expected like a form of defence…