Some people like to argue that only through violence can the Palestinians realize their rights.
Let's think about this claim for a minute. Let's look at the 90s as an example.
The first Intifada was basically over by the time the Rabin was elected. Rabin was elected over Shamir.
In 1996, Hamas suicide bombings led to a Bibi victory over Peres.
In 1999, years of relative quiet led to Barak beating Bibi.
In 2001, the Intifada caused Sharon's election.
What is the common thread between these dates? Israelis vote for the Left when the Palestinians are nonviolent, and vote for the Right when they act violently.
Let's look at it even more. The biggest cession of land to the Palestinians was the Gaza withdrawal.
Did Sharon withdraw during the height of the Intifada? No. He waited until it was dead in its tracks.
When Bibi signed Wye and Hebron, were suicide bombins raging in the streets? Not at all. The violence was at a minimum.
When Barak offered basically all of the West Bank, was that after years of violence? No, it was after 1999, the year when not a single Israeli was killed by terror.
Violence just hardens the Israelis, making territorial compromises more difficult to acheive (of course that's perfectly logical). The smart move for the Palestinians is to not be violent.