The Origins of False Parity

Submitted by Sigmund Derman (United States), Jul 11, 2017 at 14:36

I think the false equivalence between the "Palestinians" and the Israelis started way back with the 1948 war and the world's (including the United States') reaction to it. A large group of Arab states attacked Israel and lost. What did Israel get out of that? Well, they got some land. But a reasonable settlement would have paid them reparations plus (most importantly) the invaders should have been tasked with the job of resettling the refugees, most of whom had thrown in their lot with the invaders. Presumably the rest of the world feared losing access to Arab oil and, perhaps, to Arab markets. Or maybe the rest of the world actually wanted the Arabs to succeed in the first place. But by letting the Arabs off the hook from having to pay for the invasion, the world created the idea that this was just an ordinary dispute rather than what is actually was---raw unjustified aggression with genocidal intent on the part of the Arabs. The same thing happened in 1967.

The issue of right vs wrong should have been clear back then. By delaying a settlement and by letting the "refugee" problem fester, the impression was created that there was some potential justice behind the Arabs' actions. I think this gradually became translated into the concept that the fictional Palestinians really existed as a people and that there had previously been a country of Palestine which the Israelis invaded. By the time of the Oslo accords these ideas had already taken root. Oslo just strengthened them.

Today there is less dependence upon the Arabs for oil, at least in much of world. And if the United States starts aggressively selling its excess oil and gas there will be even less. But once a false idea has been established, changing the conditions that originally helped it develop is not enough to get rid of it. Can the false parity actually be eliminated after all these years?

Dr. Pipes says "it's not too late." I hope he's right but fear that his suggestions, though excellent ideas in themselves, may be too little and too late. But if Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders get busy on multiple fronts, including diplomacy with many countries such as India and the Africans as well as European and other Asian country that may be interested, perhaps there is still hope.

Regardless of anything else that happens with the Trump administration, I think that Netanyahu has a small window in time to make a big change in the world's perception of Israel. The way things are trending politically in the United States, I fear that the next administration in Washington will be even less friendly to Israel than was the Obama administration.

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".