London Review of Books fails to stick with the Western narrative

 Seymour Hersh was a prize winning senior journalist at the New York Times and New Yorker. Until he wrote a factual but critical article about President Obama's destruction of Libya, whereupon he was fired by both and unable to get anything published in the US.

Then he managed to get an article or two published in the London Review of Books. But then the UK government ordered them to stop, and stop they did.

So I was surprised to find the article "On Non-Violent Resistance" which includes:

At the heart of this intractable tragedy is the inability of a colonial and occupying power (and its enablers) to accept a people’s rejection of their subjugation and their determination to fight against it. Whatever form this resistance has taken – and it includes a long history of non-violence and civil disobedience as well as armed struggle – Israel has responded with a disproportionate use of force and disregard for the human toll.

This is strictly banned in the Official Western Narrative, which is that the Israelis came in peace but were met with violence by the Philistines. Again and again, the narrative goes, the Israelis offered peace but again and again the Philistines responded with violence. Somehow, the London Review of Books managed to stick in the opposite narrative, which is mostly banned: the Israelis came with massive force that the Philistines could not resist, so they mostly tried non-violent ways to resist and were killed for trying. And the Western narrative is that Israel has the right to self-defence, which includes killing or imprisoning without trial any non-violent Philistine protestors they wish.