When you say "the Jews in Europe were notoriously non-violent, apparently believing that keeping a low profile would help.", I think we're looking at two sides of the same coin. Were the Jews non-violent because they are/were passive people? Or because they guessed that violence would be useless against unrestrained state-sponsored violence?

Look at what the Janjaweed accomplished in '03-'04 in Darfur. It is now 4 years after the bulk of the genocide, and the indigenous people haven't even formed a substantive militia yet. The Janjaweed, further, are a bunch of cattle-herds on horses with guns. Imagine what a real military force would have done.

I think the reason why so many believe that "violence never solves anything" is because they're used to the modern style of restrained and rationalized violence. If one were to say that "half-measures never solve anything", or "unrestrained state-sponsored violence is horrible and shouldn't be used to solve anything", I would agree with them, but not the former. You can't have problems without people.