I never ever accepted or believed Western liberal calls for Palestinians to resort to non-violence. I knew that those calls aim only at the total surrender of Palestinians. I also know that the Palestinians (foolishly if you ask me) resorted to non-violent struggle against Israel from 1948 to mid-1960s. During that period, according to right-wing Israeli historian Benny Morris in his book Righteous Victims, Israeli terrorists managed to kill thousands of Palestinians at the border area--many were just wanting to check on their lands and farms and homes. So look how the West reacts to Palestinian non-violence, and notice how they manage to make Palestinian non-violence violent, while they make Israeli violence/terrorism as non-violence. Look carefully at the language of the New York Times. First, note the headline (in the hard copy of the paper but not the on-line version: it talks about protests "draw" Israeli fire. So the blame for violence is non-violence. That is the cause and effect for New York Times. So if Isabel Kershner or her Zionist bosses were reporting on the holocaust, she would have said: "Jewish communities draw concentration camps." Now the civilian protesters yesterday were clearly non-violent, so how do you make them violent? You insert verbs of violence to the story. Look at this: "and tried to attack the border fence." So they tried to attack a fence. Can you imagine the outrage if in the West, protesters who were trying to "attack" a...wall, were shot at with live ammunition? That is not it. In the opening paragraph, the story talks about "deadly confrontations". And notice how Israeli propagandists are permitted to dispute casualty figures without any evidence or basis: "By nightfall, the Syrian news agency SANA reported that 22 protesters had been killed and more than 350 had been wounded. Israeli officials said that they had no information on casualties but suggested that the Syrian figures were exaggerated." In another section of this most journalistically laughable story, it refers to non-violent protests as "assaults," as in: "The protest, on the anniversary of the start of the 1967 Middle East war, followed a larger, coordinated assault by demonstrators three weeks ago on four fronts..." And when you know, as Isabel Kershner must know, that her propaganda efforts are so blatant and her language and the language of her bosses are so laughable, they basically resort to what the New York Times does on those occasions: they either have someone lie for Israel (just as in a story on the first border protest cited the account of a a Syrian in Washington, DC, who is quoted in every story on Syria in the New York Times, when he claimed that he saw buses loading protesters), or they themselves lie for Israel. Look at this section: "Still, the protesters said they counted the day a success because they drew Israeli fire on unarmed demonstrators." When, O Isabel Kershner, did the protesters say that they counted their dead and injured as "success"??? And when did those protesters say that they "drew" Israeli fire??? Did you just make that up, or did you editing boss for Zionism make it up?? And finally, notice that the story quoted so many Israelis and yet quoted one Palestinian protesters who talked about a master "plan." I won't be surprised if this unknown guy is linked in a later story to Hitler's Final Solution, and if a picture is produced for this 25-year old shaking hands with Himmler. Are you kidding? With the New York Times, all sorts of lies are to be expected on Arab-Israeli issues. It is to be trusted as much as one trusted Goebbels' Der Angriff on Jewish matters.