In the absence of favourable media coverage, US and Israel seek distortion of facts

While Israel’s snipers continue to extract Palestinian lives from the Great Return March protests, it has also failed to sell its usual narrative to media outlets, causing US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman to lash out at journalists, accusing them of bias against the settler-colonial state: “Just keep your mouths shut until you figure it out.”

According to the Times of Israel, Friedman stated that nine out of 10 articles were critical of Israel and its use of lethal force against Palestinians protesting at the Gaza border. Calling the protests “unprecedented”, Friedman stated: “Without this comparative analysis, all the reporting is completely superficial.”

Bloodshed, however, fits another narrative, and one that has stood the test of comparative analysis since Israel’s inception. The analysis Friedman is after consists of parroting Israel’s propaganda of terrorism and security concerns. Refusal to adhere to Israel’s trajectories is classified as “creating impressions that have no basis in fact”, in Friedman’s words.

Yet the bullets, injuries and deaths speak for themselves, as does Israel’s premeditated decision to execute Palestinians clamouring for their right of return. Israel has not invented snipers on the border – they operate upon direct orders. Neither have Palestinians invented the extrajudicial killings of their comrades by sniper fire. On the other hand, the Israeli army has not hesitated to blame the killings on Hamas which, according to Friedman’s rhetoric, would be justified as expert opinion.

Today it’s the Golan Heights, tomorrow it will be Medina

Such expert opinion as desired by Friedman would also classify the Palestinian right of return as “infiltration”. Non-lethal means of crowd dispersal, according to the US ambassador, would have been ineffective at the border.

To take up Friedman’s request of comparative analysis, it is not the protests that should be analysed, but the means used by Israel to entrench its colonial presence and violence.

Israel does not choose lethal means of containment as a last resort. Its penchant for bloodshed is an integral part of its foundation. Hence, for Israel, there is historical justification for violence based upon its fabricated narratives of ownership and expansion. Despite Friedman’s allegations of bias, a significant portion of the current reporting is still tethered to the Israeli narrative due to it being divested from the historical context that rendered Palestinians refugees and therefore within their rights to return to their lands.

Razan Al-Najjar: a white coat stained with blood

It is convenient for Friedman to seek comparisons only within the immediate context in which, he rightly states, there is no precedent. To overcome that intentionally-restrictive impediment, comparing and bringing forth trends of Israeli violence since 1948 would work well in portraying Israel’s dependence upon killing Palestinians to safeguard its existence.

The nature of these protests and Israel’s response has triggered a new wave of awareness internationally. Whereas, in previous years, Gaza’s prominence was tied to the periodic aggressions waged by Israel against the enclave and thus dominated by misattributions of purported war as opposed to colonial violence, the protests have exposed Israel’s ultimate aim of maintaining its policy of killing Palestinians as part of its expansionist plans. The Great Return March protests have exposed the Israeli agenda while setting a precedent with regard to an understanding of the Palestinian right of return. For Friedman to dedicate a considerable portion of his speaking time denouncing a different approach in reporting, it is clear that Palestinians have surpassed a major obstacle in terms of disseminating their anti-colonial struggle, while Israel has remained entrenched in its atrocities, refined to the point of eliciting global revulsion.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.