system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Israel had no alternative than to retaliate in the manner in which they did.

Firstly; I’m not Jewish and don’t feel particularly strongly about Jewish interests; and find the whole border story as contentious as many people. However I’m seeing such a pro-Palestine tilt in the media currently and I frankly don’t understand it. 

The facts as I see them presented are that a: the Palestinians were warned a day before not to proceed under threat of live fire,  and b: thousands of people were involved not a peaceful protest, but a siege of the border (evidenced by bombs; attempted fire stoking; Molotov’s , etc). 

What was the outcome people expected here?
gpt
>a: the Palestinians were warned a day before not to proceed under threat of live fire

I don't think this is fair to consider in your argument, it's almost circular reasoning. It's like saying "because they threatened you with gun violence, gun violence is acceptable". Just because people expected it, doesn't make it acceptable. They've been shooting people all month basically, this was just a particularly bad day.

>b: thousands of people were involved not a peaceful protest, but a siege of the border 

I haven't been able to find a solid account of what happened. Did the military shoot first and then the protestors/rioters retaliate with bombs? Did they show up with bombs and then get shot? Was this their response to being shot all month? 

This event will not be looked at favorably in the future when you compare it to other protests that ended in deadly shootings. Look up events like the Kent State protest, where several students died due to a harsh crack down. History generally does not favor the side that fired the gun.