An incident that took place earlier this week between the Jewish community of Shiloh and the Palestinian village of Qaryut in the Binyamin region reveals a great deal about Palestinian propaganda and its servants in the Israeli press, as well as about the ongoing struggle in Judea and Samaria over control of the open areas.

First, what happened:

In the wake of the clear lessons drawn from the disaster of October 7, a broad effort is underway throughout Judea and Samaria and the Gaza envelope to expand the security perimeters around Israeli communities. As part of this effort, on Monday an Israeli bulldozer began clearing a security road in the open area surrounding the community of Shiloh in the Binyamin region.

In a video documenting the bulldozer’s work, filmed by a Palestinian—apparently a resident of the nearby village of Qaryut—he can be clearly heard encouraging local Arabs to come to the area and attack the bulldozer operator.

Moreover, screenshots from a Telegram group of Qaryut residents indicate organized incitement and calls for the village’s residents to come down to the area and confront the bulldozer operator.

Indeed, dozens of Arab rioters approached the bulldozer and began pelting it with rocks. Feeling that his life was in danger, the bulldozer operator called for military assistance. The army arrived, rescued him using live fire, and left at the scene two bodies of Arab residents of Qaryut who had left their home and joined the rioters.

There is no dispute about these basic facts between the Jewish residents and the IDF (which defined the incident as a “friction event”). The only question is whether the shooting at the rioters was carried out according to regulations. An investigation has been opened, and the army has not yet published its findings.

Second, how the incident was covered:

The headline published by Israel’s public broadcaster Kan News left no doubt as to who the villain of the story was:

“Two Palestinians shot dead in Binyamin; police: the shooter is a soldier“

Just like that—shot dead, meaning executed—without cause and without any preceding event.

Kan reporter Roy Sharon went a step further. His headline read:

“Jews shot two Palestinians dead in the village of Qaryut in Samaria“

Sharon turned the “soldier” into “Jews,” in my view not by accident, but in order to hint that the ones who killed the two innocent Palestinians were settlers rather than soldiers acting in the course of a military response.

To his report, Sharon attached a video that appears to have been filmed from within the village of Qaryut, showing people—apparently Jews—firing weapons near one of the village’s houses. In other words, the video was filmed by Palestinians, made its way to Sharon, who then published it along with a sweeping accusation that two Palestinians had been arbitrarily executed by “Jews” without any reason.

Anyone who hears the details of the incident can judge for themselves whether the way Israel’s public broadcaster chose to describe it was appropriate.

Third, the broader context and lessons:

One of the most common techniques used by enemy propagandists, who are doing everything they can to fabricate the narrative of “settler violence,” is to feed their useful allies in the Israeli media a half-truth—namely, describing incidents from the middle, from the point of the Jewish response, rather than from the beginning, from the Arab attack.

This is indeed the enemy’s version—for example that of Hamas (which, incidentally, quickly published posters of the two dead men, presenting them as martyrs killed while carrying out a jihad mission). It was precisely this version that Sharon and Kan hurried to present as fact.

We will wait and see what the investigation concludes. But already it is clear that the first violence was carried out by the residents of Qaryut, who attempted to carry out a lynching of the bulldozer operator. Based on countless similar incidents in the past, it is likely that the investigation will again show that the Jewish version of events is the accurate one, while the Arabs—true to form—are lying.

The way the incident was presented by Kan and Sharon stems from a widespread belief on the radical left that it is plausible that settlers would simply murder Arabs for no reason.

But we know the settlers—and we know the Arabs as well—and therefore we suspect that once again, as has happened so many times before, we are dealing with an incident described from the middle rather than from the beginning, as part of the ongoing campaign of falsehoods about “settler violence,” a campaign that Kan and Roy Sharon serve faithfully.

In my view, this is despicable, ugly, and above all deeply unprofessional. And if this is what the public broadcaster has to offer us—paid for with our own tax money—then we have no need for it.

Finally, the broader strategic context:

It is important to understand the wider context of this incident: the struggle over the open areas that is taking place throughout Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley.

Until October 7, the open terrain was effectively under Palestinian control. Jews hardly dared to venture into these areas, while Palestinians moved about freely and treated them as their own. We all also remember the shocking cases of horrific murders carried out against Jews who dared to go out into the open area without protection. Following the massacre in the Gaza envelope, a decision was made to expand the security perimeters around Jewish communities and move into the open areas in order to push the Palestinians out of them.

This struggle is already bearing fruit, largely thanks to the network of agricultural outposts, and the open areas of the Jordan Valley and Judea and Samaria are gradually returning to their rightful owners—the Jewish people.

At its core, therefore, the hostile coverage of this incident reflects, in my view, a deep discomfort on the part of Kan News and Roy Sharon with the transfer of control over the open terrain from Arab hands to Jewish hands. They would prefer that Jews remain confined within their communities while Palestinians continue to dominate the open areas, with all the security dangers that entails.

Why? That is a good question.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)