I'm not sure what your point is Mgarvey. You imply that the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, but of what relevance is that to the debate? Indeed what is meant by corrupt? I am sure that there is not an administration in the world which is not "corrupt" by some standard. The main difference with Western nations is that we apply double standards here as elsewhere. Paying an official to ensure their co-operation is regarded as corrupt, but spending the same amount of money wining and dining them is perfectly acceptable, normal business practice. I am reminded of possibly apochraphyl story that GBS during a discussion on morals asked a lady if she would sleep with him for a million pounds, she said yes, so he offered her a fiver and suggested they went upstairs. When she indignantly asked what he took her for he replied that that had already been established and he was just haggling over the price.

To get back to Irwin's original point, the thought occurred to me after I wrote my last post that a contributory factor in the degree of reaction is that the IDF is percieved as a professional, well disciplined force and therefore the expectation of restraint on them is much higher than for an ad hoc collection of individuals no matter how well armed and combat experienced those individuals may be. Therefore to see the results of IDF personnel continuing to direct semi automatic fire at a target which is not a clearly identified threat is not only shocking because of the result, but because it is behaviour contrary to that expected. Before anyone raises the point I would also suggest that the use of suppressive fire is a valid action in a war situation. I would not think that anyone who has thought about believes it to be so in what is legally a civil disturbance, regardless of any casualties the forces of law and order are taking.

Again I would welcome comments from Irwin or anyone else.

Pete M