Yes, the palestianians are indeed the only bad guys in the middle east.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I saw this video this morning and whilst it is deeply disturbing, the likelihood is that the soldier will be facing due process.

Whereas if he had been a member of Hamas, he'd be celebrated and would have been using real ammunition, not a rubber bullet.

The IDF are no angels, and there are many, many incidents like this not captured on film from the occupation. It's sad that young men are brutalised to this extent by the ongoing occupation and the necessity of imposing draconian rules to maintain it.

But if the Palestinian terrorists stopped killing Israeli citizens with gay abandon and embraced a non-violent resistance to occupation, the moral outrage felt at such breaches might actually have some merit.

My view--given the early history of Israel (Irgun, stern gang, deir yassin massacre etc) is that if the israelis were weak and the palastinians strong the situation would be reversed today, and you would now be calling the israelis terrorists.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Was this guy a terrorist? No? Then what does he have to do with the terrorists? His nationality? Are you responsible whenever some brit screws up?

Also, the investigation of this incident started after the video was known, even though there were high officers present.

As far as I am aware, the individual concerned was not a terrorist, but the point you picked upon was directed at the environment terrorism creates. Whether you like it or not, constant threat creates an environment of brutality wherein incidents like this become all too common. That constant threat is nurtured by the occupation, but created by the constantly violent response to that occupation directed at Israeli civilians.

When I was directing riot control in Northern Ireland, whilst we had very clear rules of engagement for the firing of baton rounds, it was not unusual for one or two to "go astray". As a fresh faced (aka naive newbie) officer at the beginning of my first tour, I was scrupulous in ensuring my troops followed the letter. After months of bricks, sniping, pipe bombs, little old ladies offering sandwiches full of ground glass, and sad to say, funerals of colleagues, I was somewhat less punctilious. The baton round of the day was a sturdy piece of plastic that had been designed to be fired into the ground so it ricocheted upwards into the rioter, persuading him to retire homeward. There were, I am ashamed to say, days when a direct shot to the groin area was considered more effective. None of my troop ever shot at the face, but there were those who did, and fatalities that resulted from that use of "plastic bullets".

That was a nasty, but not remotely comparable conflict. I note the above not to excuse, but to explain. Any of my soldiers who fired as the Israeli did would face a court martial and rightly so. But put young men into a constant state of menace where their friends and families are threatened and you get moments of madness. This applies to both sides of that conflict, which is why suicide bombers may be understood - but similarly not condoned.

My view--given the early history of Israel (Irgun, stern gang, deir yassin massacre etc) is that if the israelis were weak and the palastinians strong the situation would be reversed today, and you would now be calling the israelis terrorists.

I would in fact be calling many of the Israelis who founded their state terrorists. Unlike many, I do not consider the word perjorative, but descriptive. Several of my own relatives were terrorists. The tactic is not always one of weakness, nor is it always as efficacious as was seen in the establishment of Israel and the Republic of Ireland.

I have always advocated that the Palestinians (whose cause I am strongly in favour of) should reject terrorism on the utilitarian ground that it will not work in their current situation. Embracing non-violence - real martyrdom in the face of overwhelming force - would progress their cause far further and quicker. Perhaps some of their young men would die in the struggle - I doubt as many as currently and certainly fewer of the women and children - but the United States would blanch at supporting a regime that murdered peaceful protestors over any period of time. And I believe Israeli public opinion would also turn hugely in favour of the oppressed people rather than seek refuge in one-dimensional hard right politicians.

For sixty years violence and terror tactics have failed to achieve anything except the brutalisation of the youth of Israel and Palestine. Terror tactics finally worked against the British of the first half of the 20th century because they were a fundamentally decent people who really wanted to get out of the nasty business of ruling those who demanded independence. The Israelis however, have nowhere else to go, so they will fight back real nasty.

Time for a change; and that can only be by Palestinian hands because they have to prove they can co-exist peacefully with the sovereign state of Israel. Every last man-jack of them too, no room for madmen who prefer exploding themselves in restaurants to watching their children grow up happy and safe.

[Goofball]

I have always advocated that the Palestinians (whose cause I am strongly in favour of) should reject terrorism on the utilitarian ground that it will not work in their current situation. Embracing non-violence - real martyrdom in the face of overwhelming force - would progress their cause far further and quicker. Perhaps some of their young men would die in the struggle - I doubt as many as currently and certainly fewer of the women and children - but the United States would blanch at supporting a regime that murdered peaceful protestors over any period of time. And I believe Israeli public opinion would also turn hugely in favour of the oppressed people rather than seek refuge in one-dimensional hard right politicians.

For sixty years violence and terror tactics have failed to achieve anything except the brutalisation of the youth of Israel and Palestine. Terror tactics finally worked against the British of the first half of the 20th century because they were a fundamentally decent people who really wanted to get out of the nasty business of ruling those who demanded independence. The Israelis however, have nowhere else to go, so they will fight back real nasty.

Time for a change; and that can only be by Palestinian hands because they have to prove they can co-exist peacefully with the sovereign state of Israel. Every last man-jack of them too, no room for madmen who prefer exploding themselves in restaurants to watching their children grow up happy and safe.

Good Lord yes!

I am probably as staunch a supporter of Israel as you will find. But I guarantee you, were the Palestinians to put forward a leader like Ghandi, as opposed to on like ol' Yasser, then pursue a course of non-violent protest and civil disobedience, but were still met with violence from the Israelis, my support for Israel would quickly disappear and be replaced by support for the Palestinians.

And I suspect I would not be the only one...

[Dâriûsh]

...then pursue a course of non-violent protest and civil disobedience, but were still met with violence from the Israelis, my support for Israel would quickly disappear and be replaced by support for the Palestinians.

Okay, this has been mentioned enough times now.

Believe it or not people, but just because you never read about them doesn’t mean they don't occur. These peaceful protests, be they hunger strikes, human chains along the separation barrier, or rallies, are far more common than the violent uprising you see on TV. But peaceful or not, they still get met with the occasional tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.

[Tribesman]

But peaceful or not, they still get met with the occasional tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.

What you mean like that peaceful protest about the destruction of their farmland last year where a tank commander thought it would be a great idea to fire a shell into them because a wall was obstructing his view ?
Its a wonderful thing about peaceful protests isn't it , it only takes one dickhead on either side to make it a violent incident

[Banquo's Ghost]

Okay, this has been mentioned enough times now.

Believe it or not people, but just because you never read about them doesn’t mean they don't occur. These peaceful protests, be they hunger strikes, human chains along the separation barrier, or rallies, are far more common than the violent uprising you see on TV. But peaceful or not, they still get met with the occasional tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets.

Indeed they do happen, and get responses as you describe.

But the violence takes the lion's share of coverage because violence always does - and because of an utter failure of leadership. Palestinian leaders fail to condemn the violent responses unequivocally, which would allow them to both highlight peaceful protest and facilitate its use. The men of violence have to be shunned for peace to work.

When Gandhi's resistance led to violent responses from the British authorities, and thence to a violent reaction back, he condemned that reaction utterly, withdrew the non-co-operation campaign and took to a fast that nearly killed him to show his utter disgust at his countrymen's indiscipline. He even said that the violence showed him that maybe Indians were not ready to be given independence.

There are few Gandhis about, but the principles are the same. Palestinians will never achieve their aim of an independent homeland by force of arms. They are completely outclassed militarily, have few friends (indeed most countries who offer "support" do so entirely for their own ends) and unrealistic goals. They are as screwed as any people in history.

They need leaders that recognise this, and who can focus the undoubted courage and perseverance of the Palestinian people towards a non-violent solution that will have the unanswerable force of moral certitude. They do not face callous dictatorships but a democracy, backed by a democracy, that would be very vulnerable to such moral pressure.

[Dâriûsh]

A Gandhi in Jerusalem.

[Banquo's Ghost]

A Gandhi in Jerusalem.

Defeatist article which glosses over the fact that throughout that time of "failed non-violent protest", Palestinian terrorism was always threatening Israel's people and existence.

Non-violence is a hard road, and yes, may well be ignored. But as the Mahatma noted, the purpose of a civil resister is to provoke a response.

And if non-violence has not gotten anywhere, the violence most certainly hasn't - and won't. Non-violence cannot be effective whilst violence runs alongside. Unless someone can tell me just how constant terrorism against civilians will bring Israel to its knees I will continue to advocate peaceful protest as the only way forward.

We already have a brutalised generation on both sides. How many more will it take for the penny to drop?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Palestinian cry when Isreails do something to them, but it's ok other way around?