Israel has a problem. They better solve it, before the whole world (except a

few)comes down on them.

Or so the irrational obsessive Israel demonizers WISH.

Of course Israel has a problem.

So do many other countries, and often much worse.

But for some strange reason, so many are focused ONLY on Israel.

Hmm.

To the Israel demonizers Israel "solving" their problems translates as Israel giving up it's fight to exist.

Good luck with that.

Because it is perfectly acceptable for Arab to kill Arab. But when it's Israel well that's an excuse to bash Israel.

It is a shame there is no thread on ISIL over running the Yarmouk Refugee camp, and what is happening to the Palestinians in that camp, or how Abbas is happy to sit back and let it happen without even trying to defend his own people.

The hypocrisy!

Please note that Palestinian refugees in Syria are there because they had to flee Palestina under Israeli occupation and the IDF armed operations. Many of them lost their land due to new Israeli settlers projects.

To remember that IDF bombed more than once UN shelters and refugee camps.

For me, it's logical to find those Palestinian refugees in Syria and there's no much difference in being killed by IDF and/or ISIS if you acknowledge the Palestinian diaspora...and Israeli occupation in the same time !

Here again, a IDF bullet has killed another person...

They had to flee? i suppose having your head cut off just for fun or living in a camp is much worse than living in the presence of civilized IDF

For you no difference to being killed by ISIS or IDF? So you do not mind if someone just cuts your head of for the sake of it?

As oppose to being shot in response to your attack

Good to see you have balanced views and opinion

Israel has a problem. They better solve it, before the whole world (except a

few)comes down on them.

Or so the irrational obsessive Israel demonizers WISH.

Of course Israel has a problem.

So do many other countries, and often much worse.

But for some strange reason, so many are focused ONLY on Israel.

Hmm.

To the Israel demonizers Israel "solving" their problems translates as Israel giving up it's fight to exist.

Good luck with that.

Because it is perfectly acceptable for Arab to kill Arab. But when it's Israel well that's an excuse to bash Israel.

It is a shame there is no thread on ISIL over running the Yarmouk Refugee camp, and what is happening to the Palestinians in that camp, or how Abbas is happy to sit back and let it happen without even trying to defend his own people.

The hypocrisy!

Please note that Palestinian refugees in Syria are there because they had to flee Palestina under Israeli occupation and the IDF armed operations. Many of them lost their land due to new Israeli settlers projects.

To remember that IDF bombed more than once UN shelters and refugee camps.

For me, it's logical to find those Palestinian refugees in Syria and there's no much difference in being killed by IDF and/or ISIS if you acknowledge the Palestinian diaspora...and Israeli occupation in the same time !

Here again, a IDF bullet has killed another person...

That shows you miss the point entirely. A Palestinian has a choice if he decides to attack an Israeli. A Palestinian doesn't have a choice if his head is cut off because he practices the wrong type of Islam!

For you it's more important to bash Israel than to admit that there is hypocrisy. Even down to trying to equate ISIL and the IDF as the same.

And the refugee camps are there because way back in 1948 when they were first established the local governments refused to allow the arabs to assimilate into the local population. In short the Arabs have never recognised the Palestinians as equal citizens.

Tit for tat, and the usual, daily pound of flesh, such is life and existent in that part of the world, no amount of justifications from either side warrant the loos of life, alas, it's happening everyday.....

Tit for tat? That implies some sort of equivalency.....which is far from the reality.

We all know who is supplying arms to Israel, but who is supplying the Palastinians with rocks?

Well, Iran through its proxy has supplied Hizbollah and Hamas and other terrorist organizations with advanced weapons for decades. You forget that Hizbollah has a state within the state of Lebanon because of support from Syria and Iran. These two groups are at war with Israel and part of their strategy is to confront and attack Israel using civilians. Nothing gets the armchair socialists in a tizzy than a kid that is injured or killed during a confrontation. They heap abuse upon Israel but never ask why Hizbollah, Hamas and others encourage/force people to strap on suicide vests or organize these attacks. Israel builds and advances while the arab radicals sacrifice their people for nothing. I suppose when people reproduce in large numbers the loss of a couple of young'uns is easily discounted as they are easily replaced.

Tit for tat, and the usual, daily pound of flesh, such is life and existent in that part of the world, no amount of justifications from either side warrant the loos of life, alas, it's happening everyday.....

Tit for tat? That implies some sort of equivalency.....which is far from the reality.

We all know who is supplying arms to Israel, but who is supplying the Palastinians with rocks?

Well, Iran through its proxy has supplied Hizbollah and Hamas and other terrorist organizations with advanced weapons for decades. You forget that Hizbollah has a state within the state of Lebanon because of support from Syria and Iran. These two groups are at war with Israel and part of their strategy is to confront and attack Israel using civilians. Nothing gets the armchair socialists in a tizzy than a kid that is injured or killed during a confrontation. They heap abuse upon Israel but never ask why Hizbollah, Hamas and others encourage/force people to strap on suicide vests or organize these attacks. Israel builds and advances while the arab radicals sacrifice their people for nothing. I suppose when people reproduce in large numbers the loss of a couple of young'uns is easily discounted as they are easily replaced.

'Israel builds and advances'

Yes bulds and advances on land that is not their own and kicks out everyone living on that land, which the huge majority of the world considers criminal.

Israel builds and advances while the Palestinians refuse peace offer after peace offer and remain in a purgatory mostly of their own making.

Israel builds and advances while the Palestinians refuse peace offer after peace offer and remain in a purgatory mostly of their own making.

Yes again, builds and advances on land not their own.

While Israel refuses peace deals in order to keep building settlements. Israel keeps doing the same things and expects a different result. They will have to change the way they donthings if they want peace.

Israel builds and advances while the Palestinians refuse peace offer after peace offer and remain in a purgatory mostly of their own making.

Yes again, builds and advances on land not their own.

While Israel refuses peace deals in order to keep building settlements. Israel keeps doing the same things and expects a different result. They will have to change the way they donthings if they want peace.

Linky, i posted for you before, since you missed it will repost again

Hamas rejects 5-year Israeli truce in exchange for end to Gaza blockade http://rt.com/news/240209-hamas-rejects-truce-deal/

Tell me again, why Israel should be bending over backwards? Who is the superior power?

Of course there was a Palestine. Palestine was a conventional name, among others, used between 450BC and 1948AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands. It exported thousands of crates of Jaffa oranges, had universities, schools and its own currency. It would have got UN recognition had it not been stolen by European refugees.

That is currency from THE BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE with Hebrew, English and Arab writing. There has NEVER been an independent Arab country called Palestine.

Of course there was a 1_Palestine_Pound_1939_Obverse.jpgPalestine. Palestine was a conventional name, among others, used between 450BC and 1948AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands. It exported thousands of crates of Jaffa oranges, had universities, schools and its own currency. It would have got UN recognition had it not been stolen by European refugees.

That was British currency for British Mandated Palestine. 1927-1948. Nice try but really clutching at straws if you think that proves anything.

It proves that the British had the right to hand over land to Israel.

'After the funeral, Palestinians threw rocks at soldiers manning a watchtower on a road near the town, according to witnesses.

Israel's military said Palestinians threw rocks and firebombs, and rolled burning tires toward soldiers. It said troops used tear gas at first, but fired low-caliber bullets at the legs of four men after the soldiers felt their lives were in danger.'

He got just what he deserved, some of these people cannot even attend a funeral with dignity without having to resort to yet more violence. Idiots.

Of course there was a 1_Palestine_Pound_1939_Obverse.jpgPalestine. Palestine was a conventional name, among others, used between 450BC and 1948AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands. It exported thousands of crates of Jaffa oranges, had universities, schools and its own currency. It would have got UN recognition had it not been stolen by European refugees.

Nothing need be said.

Of course there was a 1_Palestine_Pound_1939_Obverse.jpgPalestine. Palestine was a conventional name, among others, used between 450BC and 1948AD to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands. It exported thousands of crates of Jaffa oranges, had universities, schools and its own currency. It would have got UN recognition had it not been stolen by European refugees.

This is a very clever distraction. People are discussing whether Palestine, as a state, existed and you submit this strawman. No one disputes "Palestine," Sham, Levant, existed for millennia. The fact remains, Palestine as a state suggested in some posts, never existed- period! Yet this is not the principle on which I'd form a protest. The land that Israel "occupies" is actually Israeli land in any event. The sheer fact that official Israeli position is not as I have stated above clearly suggests a willingness to trade land for peace. This land was never intended to be arab/muslim lands and the arabs of the region fully supported the framework which would then divide up lands that were never a state, always a region, and consistently owned by various empires, into tracts of land which would become Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, etc. The arabs entered into this agreement with wholly disingenuous intentions, a behavior which would prove the norm since the 1940's.

No sooner had the Mandate been agreed to that arab countries started expelling jews, and enticing arabs of the Levant to leave (arguably, an equal amount of jews were displaced as local arabs from the new state of Israel). Many left the lands to the lands that they were promised by Mandate, some were pushed from the land as Israel increasingly realized war clouds were gathering and they needed to protect their internal security apparatus (It should come as no surprise why the local arabs made for Jordan and why Jordan is made up primarily of arab stock from the West Bank area- Palestinians. It is because they are primarily Palestinians. This is among the lands they agreed to). The jews realized immediately the arabs would reneg on their agreement. Indeed, in islam there is no such concept as reneging. Islam provides any muslim the option of exiting any agreement solely because they find a better one of change their mind- See Treaty of Hudayiayyah and subsequent exegesis on muslims entering into agreements with kafirs.

Lo' and behold, Israel was correct and the arab nations made a beeline to destroy the nascent state. Repulsed, Jordan remained on this side of the West Bank occupying land they savaged from the jews. It was only in 1967 Israel reclaimed this land that was stolen from them. However, by this time the facts on the ground had changed so considerably that the population was clearly unable to be part of Israel proper as they would never assimilate. Yet, the land could not just be conceded without concessions. Yom Kippur, 1948, 1967... some manner of security needed to be achieved in return for surrendering Israeli lands.

Muslims will never recognize Israel as a state free to exist. It is impossible. In islam, any land that was at any time in history obtained, conquered, pledged, or sanctified as islamic remains so in perpetuity- See waqf. Furthermore, the entire fabric of shar'ia is predicated upon the inferior status of jews. There is no way any muslim would agree to what Israel insists upon, notwithstanding their words or promises.

There is no way any muslim would agree to what Israel insists upon, notwithstanding their words or promises.

Muslims are allowed to lie to infidels and stay within their religion.There is example after example, day after day, by the defenders of Islam on these very pages.

There is no way any muslim would agree to what Israel insists upon, notwithstanding their words or promises.

Muslims are allowed to lie to infidels and stay within their religion.There is example after example, day after day, by the defenders of Islam on these very pages.

More rubbish. Name muslims on this site that do that

That would be against the rules, but you certainly seem defensive. I have often pointed out blatant lies by the posters who post for the Islamic side consistently, along with evidence to prove the information was false. It is up to the reader to discern their true motivation in posting it, since Islam allows them to lie about it and lie about being Muslims at all.

That would be against the rules, but you certainly seem defensive. I have often pointed out blatant lies by the posters who post for the Islamic side consistently, along with evidence to prove the information was false. It is up to the reader to discern their true motivation in posting it, since Islam allows them to lie about it and lie about being Muslims at all.

So you have no idea if anyone on this forum is muslim yet you accuse the muslims on this site of lying.

Thats the type of logic one expects in a loony farm.

Doesnt surprise me though

Just to confirm something, we do have Muslims that belong to this forum. I know a few. I don't think they are active in posting, but they do read the forum.

Most of us don't have the privilege of coming from a country, or being raised in a religion that doesn't have a few dark spots in it's history.

Now, let's get back on topic.

"...Islam allows them to lie about it and lie about being Muslims at all."

I agree with you; one cannot superimpose western values upon islam and except similar outcomes or familiar truths; they will disappoint non believers every time. We could have a conversation about the supremacy of moral imperatives, but that is another discussion. What is quite relevant is islam simply has a different paradigm for interpersonal behavior, with the further caveat that anything which can be asserted (publicly or to self) to be in the furtherance of islam further mitigates their personal conduct. This unrestrained fiat allows every muslim to rearrange alliances, agreements, treaties, and even friendship as simply as the wind blowing. In fact, it is these same kinds of behaviors at the community, tribal, regional, and state level that have baffled outsiders for millennia. When they look you in the eye and tell a bold faced lie they have zero culpability. They simply have no sin, no guilt, no conscience because you are a non muslim. This point of behaving differently to non muslims is central to all of islam. Again, one can debate the values of relative cultures but I only want to state the formula islam guides its members to employ.

The two governing principles for this are taqiyya and the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. This concept and precedent establish firmly the outline of behavior muslims can interact with others regarding treaties, agreements, etc. Islam reserves for believers the right to back out, change, enter into other treaties, agreements, etc., for no more reason than the signer finds a better deal; this basic fact has nothing to do with furthering islam. When this traditional cover for action is cited (to self, etc) then there is effectively no limits to the lies and deceit a non muslim may encounter. In a number of situations the muslim might not even see what he is doing as wrong, because it is not self evident to him. It is not wrong in his culture! This makes for nearly intractable negotiations on any point- Israeli/local arab conflict, Iran/P5+1, etc. This is the very formula we will witness in real time unraveling with regard to Iran and its instructive as to what the Israel's can expect later.

It is for these reasons I believe the Israeli/local arab morass is intractable; it will not be resolved in any agreeable manner. The only possible light will be based on deceit, it will be temporary, and it will be as dubious as the Obama/Iran agreement from the start.

EDIT: One other significant influence upon the formula for truthfulness is taken from the example and admonishments of the prophet regarding hijra or migration. This began the original framework upon which to deceive others.

"...Islam allows them to lie about it and lie about being Muslims at all."

I agree with you; one cannot superimpose western values upon islam and except similar outcomes or familiar truths; they will disappoint non believers every time. We could have a conversation about the supremacy of moral imperatives, but that is another discussion. What is quite relevant is islam simply has a different paradigm for interpersonal behavior, with the further caveat that anything which can be asserted (publicly or to self) to be in the furtherance of islam further mitigates their personal conduct. This unrestrained fiat allows every muslim to rearrange alliances, agreements, treaties, and even friendship as simply as the wind blowing. In fact, it is these same kinds of behaviors at the community, tribal, regional, and state level that have baffled outsiders for millennia. When they look you in the eye and tell a bold faced lie they have zero culpability. They simply have no sin, no guilt, no conscience because you are a non muslim. This point of behaving differently to non muslims is central to all of islam. Again, one can debate the values of relative cultures but I only want to state the formula islam guides its members to employ.

The two governing principles for this are taqiyya and the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. This concept and precedent establish firmly the outline of behavior muslims can interact with others regarding treaties, agreements, etc. Islam reserves for believers the right to back out, change, enter into other treaties, agreements, etc., for no more reason than the signer finds a better deal; this basic fact has nothing to do with furthering islam. When this traditional cover for action is cited (to self, etc) then there is effectively no limits to the lies and deceit a non muslim may encounter. In a number of situations the muslim might not even see what he is doing as wrong, because it is not self evident to him. It is not wrong in his culture! This makes for nearly intractable negotiations on any point- Israeli/local arab conflict, Iran/P5+1, etc. This is the very formula we will witness in real time unraveling with regard to Iran and its instructive as to what the Israel's can expect later.

It is for these reasons I believe the Israeli/local arab morass is intractable; it will not be resolved in any agreeable manner. The only possible light will be based on deceit, it will be temporary, and it will be as dubious as the Obama/Iran agreement from the start.

EDIT: One other significant influence upon the formula for truthfulness is taken from the example and admonishments of the prophet regarding hijra or migration. This began the original framework upon which to deceive others.

You have met muslims that bear no semblance in reality to those I have met.

Though I do wish you would stop generalising about muslims and instead be honest that these are YOUR thoughts on what YOUR view is of what SOME muslims are like.

My experience is that the muslims I have met and live amongst are honest to a fault and very kind.

Though I do consider muslims in the middle east are not the same as muslims in other countries and areas.

That is why I would never say all muslims are good or all muslims are bad or all muslims think it is ok to lie.

That is patently false and a lie.

That is currency from THE BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE with Hebrew, English and Arab writing. There has NEVER been an independent Arab country called Palestine.

And when did the COUNTRY of Israel become existent?

Palestinians just want the same thing....self determination in a sovereign land.

There is no way any muslim would agree to what Israel insists upon, notwithstanding their words or promises.

Muslims are allowed to lie to infidels and stay within their religion.There is example after example, day after day, by the defenders of Islam on these very pages.

And on these very pages, you lie, and have been proven to lie, and are allowed to lie. So what's your point?

That is currency from THE BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE with Hebrew, English and Arab writing. There has NEVER been an independent Arab country called Palestine.

And when did the COUNTRY of Israel become existent?

Palestinians just want the same thing....self determination in a sovereign land.

Do they? they sure know how to show it

This will be my final public notice on this. Stay on topic. The topic isn't about YOU. It is about a Palestinian killed in clashes with Israeli forces.

Enough with the personal remarks.

Your cooperation is needed to keep these topics on track.

I agree with you; one cannot superimpose western values upon islam and except similar outcomes or familiar truths; they will disappoint non believers every time. We could have a conversation about the supremacy of moral imperatives, but that is another discussion. What is quite relevant is islam simply has a different paradigm for interpersonal behavior, with the further caveat that anything which can be asserted (publicly or to self) to be in the furtherance of islam further mitigates their personal conduct. This unrestrained fiat allows every muslim to rearrange alliances, agreements, treaties, and even friendship as simply as the wind blowing. In fact, it is these same kinds of behaviors at the community, tribal, regional, and state level that have baffled outsiders for millennia. When they look you in the eye and tell a bold faced lie they have zero culpability. They simply have no sin, no guilt, no conscience because you are a non muslim. This point of behaving differently to non muslims is central to all of islam. Again, one can debate the values of relative cultures but I only want to state the formula islam guides its members to employ.

Sounds pretty much like commonly encountered western values to me. Heck, I think I might be able to replace Islam (and you do need to capitalize that word in English) with capitalism and get away with the same argument: anything which can be asserted (publicly or to self) to be in the furtherance of profits further mitigates their personal conduct.

"...Islam allows them to lie about it and lie about being Muslims at all."

I agree with you; one cannot superimpose western values upon islam and except similar outcomes or familiar truths; they will disappoint non believers every time. We could have a conversation about the supremacy of moral imperatives, but that is another discussion. What is quite relevant is islam simply has a different paradigm for interpersonal behavior, with the further caveat that anything which can be asserted (publicly or to self) to be in the furtherance of islam further mitigates their personal conduct. This unrestrained fiat allows every muslim to rearrange alliances, agreements, treaties, and even friendship as simply as the wind blowing. In fact, it is these same kinds of behaviors at the community, tribal, regional, and state level that have baffled outsiders for millennia. When they look you in the eye and tell a bold faced lie they have zero culpability. They simply have no sin, no guilt, no conscience because you are a non muslim. This point of behaving differently to non muslims is central to all of islam. Again, one can debate the values of relative cultures but I only want to state the formula islam guides its members to employ.

The two governing principles for this are taqiyya and the Treaty of Hudaybiyah. This concept and precedent establish firmly the outline of behavior muslims can interact with others regarding treaties, agreements, etc. Islam reserves for believers the right to back out, change, enter into other treaties, agreements, etc., for no more reason than the signer finds a better deal; this basic fact has nothing to do with furthering islam. When this traditional cover for action is cited (to self, etc) then there is effectively no limits to the lies and deceit a non muslim may encounter. In a number of situations the muslim might not even see what he is doing as wrong, because it is not self evident to him. It is not wrong in his culture! This makes for nearly intractable negotiations on any point- Israeli/local arab conflict, Iran/P5+1, etc. This is the very formula we will witness in real time unraveling with regard to Iran and its instructive as to what the Israel's can expect later.

It is for these reasons I believe the Israeli/local arab morass is intractable; it will not be resolved in any agreeable manner. The only possible light will be based on deceit, it will be temporary, and it will be as dubious as the Obama/Iran agreement from the start.

EDIT: One other significant influence upon the formula for truthfulness is taken from the example and admonishments of the prophet regarding hijra or migration. This began the original framework upon which to deceive others.

You have met muslims that bear no semblance in reality to those I have met.

Though I do wish you would stop generalising about muslims and instead be honest that these are YOUR thoughts on what YOUR view is of what SOME muslims are like.

My experience is that the muslims I have met and live amongst are honest to a fault and very kind.

Though I do consider muslims in the middle east are not the same as muslims in other countries and areas.

That is why I would never say all muslims are good or all muslims are bad or all muslims think it is ok to lie.

That is patently false and a lie.

Your point is well taken and valid on its own merit. It had value without needing to impugn me personally. My commentary above is valid. It is scriptural. It is textual. It is unambiguous. That people like you (and me) have experiences with muslims contrary to what I state above does not disprove my point. There are over a billion muslims in the world and many have never heard of the things I mentioned above. They just believe in their faith and some more, some less, will have inculcation regarding deceiving others but for the most part it is simply a cultural variance. I assert without reservation that the points I made are most certainly central to arab Statecraft and diplomacy. It cannot be otherwise. For this to be otherwise would be wholly unislamic. Let me repeat: Islam has a highly developed formula for deceit, feigning, statecraft, and deception amongst or with non believers. This has been formulated by no one less than their prophet himself. It was extrapolated and added to, refined, and made central as early as the 7th century. It is an integral part of islam's interaction with the dar al harb, House of War. It is not considered lying to muslims. Muslims know what lying is; it just does not apply to non muslims.

Whether this distills down to your observational level or not is meaningless. It remains true!

I am confident my bona fides allows me to have a position regarding this. Had I not spent decades in muslim countries and also been an officer in an arab army my points above would still remain accurate. That I have never had a muslim directly lie to me does not neutralize the highly developed rules for interacting with non muslims. Though I have been protected, comforted, made comfortable and secure in many muslim lands does not discount the above facts. These facts exist independent of an ability to articulate a rational rebuke without ad hominen. As stated elsewhere one billion muslims is not one billion devout muslims. It is the orthodox muslims that are islamists and jihadists, and this is why they turn first on apostate muslims, such as the ones you "have met and live[d] amongst."

It is this formula that Israel most certainly wrestles with. It is this framework that we watch Iran disassemble the west in negotiations.

(NOTE: It is not lying. Lying or not is relative and pointless from a western perspective. It is not considered lying and until this is understood one cannot deal responsibly with such state actors).

I agree with you; one cannot superimpose western values upon islam and except similar outcomes or familiar truths; they will disappoint non believers every time. We could have a conversation about the supremacy of moral imperatives, but that is another discussion. What is quite relevant is islam simply has a different paradigm for interpersonal behavior, with the further caveat that anything which can be asserted (publicly or to self) to be in the furtherance of islam further mitigates their personal conduct. This unrestrained fiat allows every muslim to rearrange alliances, agreements, treaties, and even friendship as simply as the wind blowing. In fact, it is these same kinds of behaviors at the community, tribal, regional, and state level that have baffled outsiders for millennia. When they look you in the eye and tell a bold faced lie they have zero culpability. They simply have no sin, no guilt, no conscience because you are a non muslim. This point of behaving differently to non muslims is central to all of islam. Again, one can debate the values of relative cultures but I only want to state the formula islam guides its members to employ.

Sounds pretty much like commonly encountered western values to me. Heck, I think I might be able to replace Islam (and you do need to capitalize that word in English) with capitalism and get away with the same argument: anything which can be asserted (publicly or to self) to be in the furtherance of profits further mitigates their personal conduct.

I dont disagree with you. The difference is that western deceit has as its reference point the scriptural injunctions to honesty and accountability and mutual social welfare. It is from the absence of following this that western honesty or dishonesty has its landmark. Following or not following such admonishments defines one as honest or not.

Islam has as its landmark the previously mentioned framework, originally derived from the prophet himself from the lessons learned in the migration to Medina. Taqiyya is the reference point for islam. Taqiyya are the injunctions to deceive. The original needs to deceive were due to the sense of persecution. It was so successful it developed into a blueprint for migration jihad.

The differences could not be more glaring.

NOTE: I do not need to capitalize "that" world in English; thank you.

Regarding the OP ... I am not getting why it is remarkable.

There were soldiers with weapons that soldiers have.

There was provocation from a crowd of hostiles.

Things went south.

It's hardly surprising.

It's not like the story in the U.S. of the guy getting shot in the back by a cop just for running away where there was no provocation or threat to the cop.

Regarding the OP ... I am not getting why it is remarkable.

There were soldiers with weapons that soldiers have.

There was provocation from a crowd of hostiles.

Things went south.

It's hardly surprising.

It's not like the story in the U.S. of the guy getting shot in the back by a cop just for running away where there was no provocation or threat to the cop.

Because any opportunity to bash Israel is a good one, no matter if the incident or circumstances were reasonable or not