"No David, the soldiers were the targets.
Weeks before the Great March, Gazans terrorists were planting anti-personnel bombs to kill and maim soldiers.
Stop being a baby, David."
A very strange example to cite, for the following reasons:
(1) The article dates from 2012 (you didn't notice that, did you?), so it has nothing whatever to do with devices being planted "weeks before the Great March".
(2) Even in 2012, the only example of such a device that the article provides is actually one that it acknowledges as a fake. We only have the IDF's word for it that other such devices that were not fakes were planted at earlier times.
(3) Even in 2012, we also only have the IDF's word for it that these makeshift devices were an attempt to hurt soldiers, not to damage the fence. (Why would you fall for such an obviously propagandist attempt to project intentions into the minds of the enemies of the people who wrote the article?)
(4) Even if they were an attempt to hurt soldiers, as I pointed out, attacking soldiers on active duty is NOT TERRORISM (except, of course, in the perverted minds of Israeli propagandists).
Is that really the best you can do?
I too have no particular interest in debunking a story about the planting of explosives, though, like Donald, I would note that the fence rather than any people appears to have been the target. I would, however, add a couple of points to Donald's response.
First, according to the Ynet article, those explosives were planted over a period of 6 weeks (or 8 weeks, if one follows the headline rather than the body of the text), so it does not appear to have much to do with the killing of 61 mostly unarmed people and the wounding of more than 1000 others in a single day.
Second, I thought the following paragraph in the article was very revealing:
"16 terrorist activities took place in the past six weeks in the Gaza Division's territory, including setting off charges, firing at Israeli forces, downing of a handful of army drones and sabotaging military and civilian infrastructures, such as the three times the Kerem Shalom goods border crossing had been torched."
In other words, in the 6 week period running up to the Monday protests, there were just 16 examples - around one every 3 days - of what the Israelis called "terrorism", including the setting off of explosives (presumably most of the 100 explosives allegedly planted didn't even go off), and most of which appear to have been aimed at soldiers and military on active duty, and hence not "terrorism" at all. Again, it is hard to see how this can be considered even a vague justification for the mass killing and shooting of mainly unarmed protesters.
I don't think you understand what Beinart is arguing here. He is not - repeat, NOT - claiming that only Jews who study Torah should be allowed to criticize Israel. He is saying that, in practice, IF a Jew wants to criticize Israel AND still remain actively Jewish and part of the US Jewish community, s/he needs to study Torah - because otherwise they will be ostracized and will have no plausible comeback. But if you don't care whether or not you are actively Jewish or whether you are ostracized, then of course there is no reason why you shouldn't criticize Israel without studying Torah.
For what it is worth, I agree with Beinart wholeheartedly on this (though not on everything else he said on the panel - e.g. on the two-state solution, I am on the side of `Atef, as quoted by Phil here). And my own experience bears Beinart out. I'm not a public figure the way he is (and have absolutely no wish to be, which is why I comment here anonymously), but in my own community in New York there is no secret about my critical views on Israel and Zionism. And it is very hard for people who know me to accuse me of being a "self-hating Jew", or to deny me a place in the community, when they know perfectly well that I am more observant of halacha and more knowledgeable about the Torah and Talmud than at least 90% of the rest of the community is.