Divergence Started With Oslo Failures

Submitted by Dave, Dec 28, 2016 at 13:31

I find the mid-nineties divergence interesting. I went back and reviewed what was happening and I have a theory based on the implications of the failures of the Oslo Accords and events thereafter.

The Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, and in the subsequent four years terror attacks greatly spiked in Israel. What that meant, at least to some people, including myself, was that the whole concept of land for peace failed to adequately consider the Islamic extremist mentality. Prior to the Accord, for years, liberal news journalists had given Israel a very bad press over its post-67 war occupation. It practically amounted to a propaganda campaign. The basic message: Israel had to compromise for peace; the Arabs were the injured party.

Vicious assaults on Israeli civilians started soon after the PLO was brought back from Tunis and Israel withdrew from the designated areas. These actions belied liberal assumptions and tended to validate conservative warnings about the lethal nature of Palestinian and Islamic ideology.
Subsequent events after the millennium have further reinforced the conservative stance, such as 911 and the rise in Islamist attacks outside of Israel.
The implication here may be that as one segment of the population, the more liberal-left, has clung to the pre-Oslo, pre-911 narrative, the more conservative, or less dogmatic half, has adjusted its thinking to changing events.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".