I think you misunderstand what I’m trying to communicate - violence by itself accomplishes less than nothing, but for a peaceful movement, there must be people who support that movement who are willing to use the threat of violence for that movement to succeed. For your own examples, in Ireland, Sein Fein as a political movement would not have liberated Ireland if it wasn’t for the threat of continued and escalating violence from the IRA.

Both violence and non-violence must remain on the table as options, or else the non-violent movement can be completely ignored and the activists supporting it will just be oppressed, suppressed and victimized.

For some more examples, the civil rights movement wouldn’t have succeeded without the Black Panthers, and the LGBTQ+ movement needed the Stonewall Riots.

The role of the non-violent sect of the movement is to disavow the violence of the violent sect, so by all means, continue to disavow the violence, that may be the role you choose to play, but you should recognize that unless others are willing to escalate, then your non-violent movement is doomed to failure.