The most recent controversy in the Israel and Palestine conflict is surrounding the United States moving its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but this event is only a microcosm of the lasting conflict between the two states.
The Great March of Return, or the Gaza border protests, stands as a symbolic gesture separate from the concrete action: the purposeful endangerment of human life.
Many major news outlets favour the narrative of what the March represented, without taking into consideration the cost.
During the recent protests, Hamas members and Palestinian citizens alike attempted to “burst through the fences” along the border, some of whom were carrying homemade weapons like Molotov cocktails, according to The New York Post.
Hamas is a militant Palestinian fundamentalist organization operating in Gaza and the West Bank. The presence of unarmed civilians in front of weapon-carrying protestors results in worldwide outrage at the unjustified deaths of non-threatening protesters, which distracts from the fact that a significant portion of protestors were committing violent acts. Hamas perpetuates the idea that the only way for Palestinians to gain their freedom is through the extinction of all Jews. That in itself seems to be encouragement to weaponize border protests.
Meanwhile, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) dropped leaflets in the areas surrounding the border, explicitly warning Palestinians to stay clear of the border.
The use of force by the IDF against violent protestors is hardly indiscriminate, since no sovereign state would allow its border to be overrun by armed protesters. Those who joined the protests were aware that they risked facing a response of military action.
Peace talks between the two states have repeatedly been scheduled. The government which Palestine has entrusted with its representation has refused to show up, and the times they have, they refused to discuss any terms other than the full succession of Israel to their rule. In response to any attempt to compromise, Palestinian leadership has walked away from the table.
In July 2000, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak met with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat.
Barak offered Palestine their statehood, all of Gaza, 92 per cent of the West Bank and part of East Jerusalem as its capital—an offer which Arafat vehemently refused.
Near the end of the summit, Bill Clinton, the U.S. president at the time, reproached Arafat for his obstinate refusal to make any concessions, saying, “If the Israelis can make compromises and you can’t, I should go home. You have been here 14 days and said no to everything.”
The difference between the leadership of the two states is that Israeli leaders have consistently been present at the table, ready and willing to make successions to compromise with the Palestinian leadership.
The silence of the Canadian media to address this side of the issue in its full context has been deafening, and has led to widespread confusion and one-sidedness on the complicated military quagmire in which Israel and Palestine are embroiled.
According to Hamas political bureau member Salah Al-Bardawil, 50 out of 62 protestors who were killed were members of Hamas. By failing to emphasize this, the Canadian media has co-conspired to create a narrative that points to the ideological hatred of Palestinians by Israelis as the primary cause of their deaths.
Perhaps the issue at this moment in history is not the significance of symbolic gestures such as the move of the U.S. embassy, but of the necessity of concrete action on behalf of the Palestinian leadership to correspond with Israel in an effort to take back what they believe to be rightfully theirs.
Instead, they have willfully led thousands of human lives—Israeli and Palestinian alike—to the slaughter.
