There's a lot to criticize in the story that romanticizes rioting - for example, the blunt characterization of neighboring Halamish as being built entirely on Palestinian Arab-own private land, which is simply not true - but I found this part especially tasteless:
“We see our stones as our message,” Bassem explained. The message they carried, he said, was “We don’t accept you.” While Bassem spoke admiringly of Mahatma Gandhi, he didn’t worry over whether stone-throwing counted as violence. The question annoyed him: Israel uses far greater and more lethal force on a regular basis, he pointed out, without being asked to clarify its attitude toward violence. If the loincloth functioned as the sign of Gandhi’s resistance, of India’s nakedness in front of British colonial might, Bassem said, “Our sign is the stone.” The weekly clashes with the I.D.F. were hence in part symbolic. The stones were not just flinty yellow rocks, but symbols of defiance, of a refusal to submit to occupation, regardless of the odds.But Tamimi claims to be non-violent, and he claims that stone throwing is "non-violent." Israel never claimed that their response to violent rioters is Gandhi-like.
I wrote a comment; as of this writing is was not yet posted:
Too bad Mr. Ehrenreich didn't think of pushing back on Bassem Tamimi's irritation at justifying his idea that stone throwing is supposedly "non-violent."
Because today a three year old Israeli girl is in critical condition as a result of a stone-throwing attack.
Then again, that story cannot be found in the New York Times, so it must not be very important.
(h/t EBoZ)