My patience with Aung San Suu Kyi has run out completely. Too little said, too little done, too late for anything else.
Normally, yes, but there are several violent buddhist groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Karen_Buddhist_Army
There's a slight subtlety to this. Buddhist ethics are very different to Judeo-Christian ethics. The Buddhist equivalent to "thou shalt not kill" is the first of the five precepts, "panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami", which loosely translates to "I undertake the rule of training to refrain from killing living beings". This is not so much an absolute proscription as a broad axiomatic principle.
In western terms, Buddhist ethics are most closely aligned with negative utilitarianism - broadly speaking, Buddhists seek to minimise net suffering. One study found that, when presented with the trolley car problem, Buddist monks were drastically more likely to push the man off the footbridge than Americans.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/how-d...
The main religious support for the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya comes from monks affiliated with Ma Ba Tha, a hardline nationalist group. From their perspective, the Rohingya represent an existential threat to the Rakhine people and the republic of Myanmar. If this assessment were true, then the expulsion of Rohingya people could be interpreted as the least-harm option, even if it involves substantial violence. Although the vast majority of Buddhists condemn the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, it is not intrinsically incompatible with Buddhist ethics.
This conflict is not new. Rohingya Islamist groups have been fighting the government of Myanmar/Burma since 1947, with the aim of establishing an Islamic regime in Rakhine state. The current crisis was most likely precipitated by an attack on border guards in 2016, which Islamist militant groups claimed responsibility for. There is clear evidence that Rohingya guerrilla groups are being trained in Bangladesh; there is also substantial evidence of ties between Al-Qaeda and militant Islamists in Myanmar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_insurgency_in_Western...
I strongly disapprove of the oppression of the Rohingya people and the silence from the civilian government, but I do think that the western media has presented a grossly over-simplified narrative that frames the actions of the Myanmar people as senseless and unprovoked. I would ask the reader to consider how their country would react if Islamist guerrillas were active in their own back yard, sponsored by a neighbouring Muslim nation.
For the level of Buddhism practiced in this area (Theravada) it is incompatible, there’s clearly nothing good that can come from it. They were clearly taught not to do this, there’s no ambiguity.
Additionally monks have no authority, they are not saints or have even the slightest clue about anything, anyone can put on a robe and be a monk. This isn’t understood in the West, where a monk is considered to be a title, but it’s really a zero, like saying your child got into pre-school.
The locals did seem to treat it as more deference to the station than the person, I met someone who had been a monk and quit three times and his family treated him as a monk when he was a monk and as a regular guy when he wasn't. Beyond all that there are still obvious cults of personality where different monks gain a following that can be quite fervent.
What you're seeing in Thailand is respect for Buddhism itself, and a way to keep people interested in Buddhism. In Buddhism there are levels of realization, and a monk is a zero on that scale. Not sure how else to clarify. There are other titles, normally translated as Venerable, which should indicate at least some modest level of accomplishment. But to cite a monk as having any idea at all is fantasy, you just put on a robe, and anyone is suddenly a monk, no education or knowledge required, let alone realization.
Anyone in the US can run for a local political position, they are not powerless just because anyone can do it.
To say that it is intrinsically incompatible is just plain wrong, to give an example even the Buddha didn't meddle in political affairs. You just gave a really good example of people bending the rules to make them more aligned with what they believe is right. It's like saying that the Bible is not incompatible with machismo and patriarchy. And on the topic of Buddhism, any "Buddhist" country who promotes violence is like IS to me, they just use a religion for self interest.