Addressing Problematic Jerusalem Post Article on Judea-Samaria Incident
Judea-Samaria, Israel, Sunday Morning: According to Jerusalem Post article published this morning on March 8th, an incident occurred between a handful of Jewish and Arab civilians within Judea-Samaria.
However, that's not quite how TJP framed it. While I once recognized it as a fairly reliable source of information, its latest post surrenders to the globalized antisemitic lexicon, and presents a violently skewed narrative.
You can read the article here.
First, the article posits "Israeli settlers" attacked "Palestinians" in the "West Bank."
As we know, the term "Palestinian" is fabricated. It exists for no other reason than to demonize Jews and to destroy the Jewish State of Israel. The reason why this framing is problematic is because it validates a terrorist narrative, whether by accident or on purpose. Verified historical data confirms the illegitimacy of the term "Palestine" and "Palestinian," and objective information is what every person should strive to adhere to.
The greatest irony, of course, remains the absence of the letter P in the Arabic language, which leads to very curious questions about how an "Islamic Palestine" could have ever existed if Muslims cannot even pronounce the name in their native language, no matter the dialect. They have always substituted the letter P for the letter F in their propaganda.
Arab settlers in Israeli territories are of Egyptian and/or Jordanian origins. There has never been a "Palestinian" identity. At least, not an Islamic one. Israel and Palestine used to be synonyms for The Jewish Homeland, where Israel is the indigenous name, and Palestine is the one imposed onto Israel by the Roman Empire as part of their imperialist conquest and attempt to erase Jewish ties to Israel.
The other glaring issue is the reframing of indigenous Jews as "Israeli settlers." This one is especially egregious considering The Jerusalem Post is an Israeli news outlet.
Jews and Israelis are NOT settlers in their own homeland. Israelis and Jews are indigenous to these territories. The wording is inaccurate and almost people-pleasingly misleading, which is a dangerous stunt to pull in 2026. With the rise of antisemitism worldwide, providing unnecessary ammunition to radical leftist marxists and alt-right fascist grifters is far from wise.
A settler is, by definition, someone who does not indigenously belong to a particular homeland, especially if one has occupied it by force. That definition does not apply to Jews, but it certainly does to Muslims in most of the Middle East and North Africa.
Last, and most certainly not least, the term "West Bank" is a colonial remnant imposed by Muslims. The indigenous name is Judea-Samaria. As Zionists, we boast a reliance on objective truth, representing an insurmountable advantage; therefore, we should seek to deligitimize the antisemitic lexicon plaguing media outlets and modern literature.
With this in mind, if we take the information presented by the article at face value, then the objective framing is as I said: an incident occurred between a handful of Jewish and Arab civilians within Judea-Samaria.
Secondly, the article is misleading not only with its lexicon, but with the information presented in it.
As per The Jerusalem Post, "Three Arabs killed in Judea-Samaria by Jewish civilians." There is not enough data to support the framing that this was an unprovoked scuffle between civilians instigated by Jews.
Before addressing the falsity of this claim, I must stress that the alleged violent act, if true, is NOT a representation or proof of systematic, widespread "Israeli aggression," and there is no evidence to support this particular conspiracy. In fact, there's a massive body of counterevidence. What matters is that those are individuals who made individual choices, and it could have been any other ethnic background. Unfortunately, people have already begun using the article to serve their own antisemitic agenda. Israelis are not violent towards their neighbors - it's quite literally the other way around.
Arabs in Judea-Samaria often engage in violent attacks, such as throwing stones at passing cars or even people, assaulting Jewish civilians, and more. The likelihood of the incident being unprovoked and instigated by Jews is next to none, and this is supported by the presence of the IDF in the scene.
Get this - the IDF are not a police force. They are a military one. In order for an incident to necessitate IDF intervention with tear gas, which the article itself confirms to have happened, then the incident must have been far from a random, unprovoked kerfuffle between Jews and Arabs initiated by Jews, and there is much more to this story than The Jerusalem Post lets on.
Commenter Mark Levin posted the following under the article:
"When soldiers are firing tear gas this wasn’t a few innocent Arabs doing nothing. The fact that the military was there tells me there is a whole lot more to this story. Why is it being published without substantive facts? Because those isn’t journalism. It is propaganda."
And commenter Matria was even more specific about the nature of the incident:
"Hardly that. The most moral army in the world arrived at the scene of an Arab riot after Jews called for help, were attacked by the rioters, and shot some of them. Other news outlets published the truth within a few hours."
This remains a claim for now, as I personally do not have evidence to confirm this is what happened with certainty - but neither does TJP's article provide evidence for its own narrative, so all that remains is epistemology.
- What is more likely to be the case, given the confirmed events? The IDF does not roll into a quiet and peaceful olive grove and start firing tear gas at "innocent people doing nothing." Tear gas is a crowd-dispersal munition used during violent riots and clashes.
- Is this take supported by historical events? "Arabs in Judea-Samaria often engage in violent attacks, such as throwing stones at passing cars or even people, assaulting Jewish civilians, and more." When this is corroborated with the IDF's presence and use of tear gas, it means that this must have happened during a riot, and it's much more likely that the fight was not unprovoked. It was either started by Arabs/Muslims, or by individuals from both groups present.
- Is this supported by the IDF's Code of Conduct (Purity of Arms)? Indeed, the IDF do not harm innocent civilians, nor do they resort to munitions like tear gas unless a situation absolutely necessitates it.
Epistemologically, the narrative proposed by Matria is significantly more likely as opposed to The Jerusalem Post's presentation.
Finally, people trying to satirize the righteous denial of Israeli/Jewish violence on Arabs are maliciously citing an unconfirmed, isolated incident to serve their own antisemitic agenda.
Many commenters are writing inflammatory accusations that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
Even if a murder was what actually took place, these are individuals. They do not represent the Jewish State of Israel, nor its entire population comprising 20.9% Arabs no less, nor do they represent Israel's legislations. Criminals exist everywhere - let's not pretend otherwise just to score a few antisemitic points.
"There will be no consequences for the Israelis" is emotional reasoning based on nothing. The Court punishes any criminal regardless of their background, and this is easily confirmed by the strenuous act of Googling it.
Journalists have a responsibility to remain objective and not give into the antisemitic lexicon, and readers are equally responsible to read through their news articles with a critical lens.
Sufian M'Barki
serious politics analysis journalism israel
Loading witnesses...