The case of fighting against an aggressive nation (situation three) is also interesting and instructive. Here the fighting which is involved in offering resistance to the aggression of the nation with no selfish motive or personal interest, but solely with the purpose of defending the weaker nation, may entail much injury and even destruction upon the aggressive nation. And the use of force is not only without the prior consent of the aggressive nation against which it is used, but it is definitely against its deliberate and conscious will. But even in this situation, we do not have a clear case of violence, since in spite of the injury and harm involved, the application of force is not only for the good of the weaker nation, which is its victim, but is also, in a very important sense, for the good of the aggressive nation itself, because through the resistance encountered in its aggression, it is gradually cured of its spiritual weakness or disease of having a tendency to invade and exploit the weaker nations. This violence is really not violent and so we call it “non-violent violence.”
Meher Baba then gave a comparison of an attacking aggressive nation:
The case of fighting against an aggressive nation is, in fact, very similar to the case of the operation of an infected body part. In the case of fighting with the aggressive nation, the good of the weaker nation appears to be the primary result, and the good of the aggressive nation (against which force is exercised) appears to be a secondary result. In the case of the operation, the good of the patient (against whom force is exercised) appears to be the primary result, and the good of others appears to be a secondary result. But this is only a minor difference and when the two situations are carefully analyzed and compared, it is found that they both equally promote the good of the target of force, as well as many others involved in the situation.
–www.lordmeher.org,p2781