Nelson Mandela said that it is the oppressor or agressor that determines whether violence is necessary. He claimed that Ghandi was not an absolute pacifist, but rather could achieve what he wanted through pacifism because by then the English knew better than to force subjugation on it's colonies using the military. Of course, both men responded with pacifism to small outbreaks of violent oppression. What makes Mandela special is that he held back his more violent supporters and prevented an escalation of violence that would normally have occured in that situation. He sought peaceful change above revenge and was willing to accept some 'losses' if his people suffered less overall.

The same thing applies on a more personal level - turn the other cheek. You have a lot of control over your personal interactions with other people and can turn what should have been a violent situation into a peaceful one, and vice versa. But you cannot be a pacifist in a violent state. Achieving collective change peacefully requires collective action.

I think you could apply this to the ongoing personal fights you see on online forums. Usually both people will claim victim status, but unless it is very obvious that only one person is behaving inappropriately - that is, unless you refrain from 'returning fire', then both people are to blame because it ends up being a 'tit for tat' exchange.

You need to have a hand in both camps... I endeavoured to instill in my children when they were young the twin principles of never starting a fight/bullying etc - while at the same time being able to defend selves if necessary.  Hence the Tae Kwon Do classes.... for both the skill and the discipline.  That ability to self-defend also instills self-confidence which means you can walk away from an idiot without a concern.

As a club bouncer I followed the principle that a person always was given room to see sense and back down - only in extreme circumstances was violence the order of the day.... and that was rare in my club.

HOWEVER - you need to know your opponent - some are not amenable to reason and must be chastised immediately and totally ... if a wild-eyed fanatic group were to enter the country armed with axes, our first duty would be to defend self and country - and then pity them afterwards at the funerals.

A mistake Israel made was not going for a quick solution to the Gaza problem.  Same with Hezbollah in Lebanon - and now Syria needs careful watching..... and I'm sorry to say - but Australia and The West must take a side.... either you support our allies or you don't....if you don't you lose all trust from the international community.

The Rubicon has been crossed........ long ago ... time for some decision-making and not sheila shilly-shallying.

I personally believe in pacifism.

You know, if someone has just run over there dog or daughter backing the car out it’s reasonable to understand that they are in a world of pain and lashing out.

Also if you have nobody in your life that can give you a bed for the night.
I’d be angry.
If you addicted to drugs, I rate alcohol and meth as the top two in Australia your got lot of pain and anger happening.

Our politicians and their systems are doing nothing ( but hey they all get good pay and the volunteered clean up the mess for them for free in many cases) in any real sense to help these people.
They shut down the mental institutions too pay for Olympics stadiums.

They now walk alone and scared among us!

That’s the politicians.
The mental ill are living with us too.

If the question is regarding on a global scale?
I’m still a pacifist, preferably with a thousand nuclear missiles armed and ready.

Assured Mutual destruction is always great starting point for friendly negotiation.