If David Cameron and William Hague say something, it must clearly be correct...
.....................
"No, I have never claimed it was self defence.
Who here ever has?"

It is completely irrelevant what you or anybody there might have said or failed to say. What is relevant is that the British Government did repeatedly back the claim that the soldiers on Bloody Sunday were defending themselves.

The point I was making is that "self defence" is always used to justify violence. It may well be that this is a perfectly sincere claim - but that does not mean it is an accurate expression. "Self defence" which results in continuing and escalating violence in response is no defence. And that is the situation in the Holy Land.

It is true that, as Lox wrote their, non-violent resistance by Palestinians (often with the backing of Israeli sympathisers) is met by violent repression, and goes unreported. But that does not mean that violence is a better alternative. The rockets fired at random merely provide a useful diversion which takes attention away from more relevant forms of resistance, and provides an opportunity for Israel's revanchists to strike once more, and so guarantee that the conflict continues to be carried out in their language