One point which has been completely missed in this whole episode is that what makes something "Police brutality" is not an opinion and not subject to politics. In a society based on the rule of law the police are given by law specific authority to use force in specific situations. Public order requires that policemen be legally allowed to resort to force under certain circumstances even though such force would be illegal for a regular citizen. However, democracy requires strict limits on the use and circumstances of such force to protect its citizens from potential abuse.
I am a volunteer policemen with the Civil Guard ("Mishmar Ezrachi"). I serve once a week for a couple of hours and have done so for about 4 years. I wear a police uniform and carry a police rifle. During the time I am serving (but not at any other time) I am "musmach k'shoter b'chol davar" -- invested with the authority of a policeman in all matters. Because I wear a police uniform I went through a longer induction/education program with the police than a non-uniformed volunteer does.
During this program we were taught about how to arrest people and about the use of "reasonable force". We were told that the police are allowed by law to use "reasonable force", if necessary, in the performance of their duties. "Reasonable force" means just that, the amount of force necessary to get the job done. No more.
What this means is that anything beyond "reasonable force" - anything - is a criminal act, even if the victim "started it" or "asked for it" or "deserved it" in any way. An order from above that commands a policeman to use force that is beyond "reasonable" is an illegal order and must be disobeyed. That is what the "rule of law" that is being trumpeted by government leaders is supposed to be all about.
In Amona there were very few arrests and massive evidence of police brutality, namely the use of force that was not "reasonable" to get the job done. The authority of the police does not extend to "teaching lessons" and the like. For example, if the police needed to evacuate people but they did not have sufficient manpower, using a shortcut such as hitting a passive protestor with a baton to reduce his ability to resist evacuation would not be acceptable and in fact would be criminal. In such a case more manpower would have to be brought; the only excuse for using force in such a case would be where there is a threat to the safety of persons or property resulting from such a delay. For example, if a terrorist is running around with a knife then a policeman can and should use force immediately to subdue that person lest someone be injured. However, there is clear proof that in at least some cases excessive force was used on passive protesters who were unarmed and not a risk to anyone. Such force is not "reasonable" and therefore is criminal.
If anyone can explain how it is "reasonable force" for a mounted policeman to trample a demostrator or a Member of Knesset, for example, then they should do so. Otherwise the rule of law demands that the policemen who used excessive force be tried, convicted, and punished just like any other criminals.
It is assumed that there was a chain of command that approved of or encouraged this police violence. If that is proven correct then every link in that chain of command from top to bottom needs to tried, convicted and punished just like any other criminals. Period. That is what the rule of law demands.