a non-violent high moral ground

A friend of mine said this regarding the terrorist acts commited by muslims in Palestine: "...it is difficult to talk about without being in that situation... seeing your close friends, family, neighbors, little children getting abused or killed. I think that would awaken a rage in anyone, especially when the world has not done anything about it..." ...- True. it definately would awaken a rage, but... his words suggested that those acts are OK. that non-violence need not be advocated and/or will not work. that, the Palestinian's tactics should not be criticized as unjust because they are excusable. some go as far as to say that they are allowable. a few make them required.... so, is this how it works: considering that we MUST support any part of our ummah that suffers, we should excuse and/or support their violent reactions.... and the only reason i would not support them is because i've been influenced by THE MAN who's world i've sold out to; and THE MAN always thinks HE knows better than all of us poor folk out here suffering. How arrogant of THE MAN to define the moral high ground.... - NO! i like to think of it this way: my argument has nothing to do with being opposed to suicide in particular. its about being militant vs. being non-violent... the King vs the X... the Mahatma vs skinney brown men swinging fists and axes.... - Can we say that MLK or Gandhi did not experience the suffering and the rage? NO! i've heard Gandhi-lovers say that non-violence is not passive resistance it's an active engagement with the enemy using universal teachings of love not hate. his method was clear and has been applied by people of all religions throughout the world. I hear, Gandhi's efforts brought the British to there knees. why can't we analyze his approach as an option in Palestine. i've recently come to learn: one of Gandhi's greatest supporters was a practicing muslim. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan - aka Badshah Khan (king of khans), i'm reading a book about him right now. a noble and pious non-violent warrior who, aside from ridding his land of British occupiers, desired his muslim pathan people stop killing each other over every petty dispute. he wanted to show them that there is more to being human than a violent code of honor. he was a muslim freedom-fighter that could've let rage guide him. but he didn't, and is now considered by some pathans as a noble champion of pathan independance. also... we complain that the media doesn't tell us the whole truth. and we somehow tend to think that because we know some people who fight in the resistance, we have a clearer picture. but maybe we fail to see the other efforts which are also going on and could be supported. maybe there is a group of non-violent palestinians who have a better solution. hamas/PLO/jihad/PLFP these are about political affiliation, only a few speak of spiritual affiliation. we rarely hear of the few muslim activists who choose none of the above, they want independance and affiliate themselves with a universal higher moral ground. i say "universal" because almost all scriptures and philosophies believe in that love is greater than hate. and muslims believe that god's mercy is greater then his wrath. peace and love.