veiled4allah: could a Palestinian non-violence movement work?

The discussion started with a post by Aziz Poonawalla, then continued with a post by Jonathan Edelstein. Should the Palestinians try non-violent methods?

Non-violence has in fact been proposed more than once. See Non-Violence and Civil Disobedience, A Plea for Realism, and Non-Violent Resistance in Palestine: Pursuing Alternative Strategies. The most notable proponent is Mubarak Awad, a Palestinian Christian. You can read a profile of him here.

Ali Abunimeh gives qualified support to the idea of a sustained, large-scale campaign of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience, but discusses some problems with the idea or with the suggestions that have been made.

One of the problems that Abunimeh mentions, and that I've seen myself, is when a call for non-violent resistance by the Palestinians implies that the Palestinians don't have a right of armed resistance. Abunimeh rejects this implication and so do I. The Palestinians are under military occupation by Israel. America's own Declaration of Independence recognizes the right to take up arms against an oppressive rule:

...but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government...

But when non-violence is used as a tactic in a struggle that is recognized to be legitimate, that is another matter, and that's what I particularly want to address here.

Non-violent resistance as a tactic has one huge benefit that no other kind of resistance does. Either Israel will have to refrain from violence in return and accede to Palestinian demands, or if Israel chooses to respond with violence the Palestinians would be in a position of unassailable moral superiority while Israel would face condemnation from most of the world. I personally would be interested to see what Israel would do in this case.

I also personally believe that non-violent methods should be tried first if possible and only if they fail (a lot of the discussion going on at both Aziz's blog and Jonathan's blog has to do with when non-violence as a tactic is likely to succeed) should violent methods be used.

And of course, armed struggle must stay within the bounds of what is lawful in war. Deliberate killing of civilians is forbidden in Islam. Better to remain in oppression in this world, and gain Paradise in reward for perseverance, than to claim victory in the world, only to have God declare it void because its means were unlawful. Victories in this world are fleeting and soon over. Victory in the Hereafter is the one that counts.

Update 1/31: Is there already some support for such a movement today?