The Palestinian Victimhood Narrative as an Obstacle to Peace
by Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 309, October 7, 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The false Palestinian narrative of one-sided victimhood
is a major hindrance to all efforts in the direction of Israeli-Palestinian
peace. Global actors need to help the Palestinians move beyond wallowing in
self-pity and rituals of bashing Israel, and towards difficult compromises
with Israel.

The speech delivered by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas at the UN
General Assembly last week was proof, once again, that the Palestinian
“narrative” of victimhood has become a threat to any practical prospect for
peace. Palestinian leaders consistently advance an interpretation of history
which is at odds not only with the facts but also with their people’s best
interests.

At the core of Abbas’ plaintive narration is the notion of the Palestinians
as innocent victims, whose right to statehood and independence has been
taken away and brutally ignored for much too long. In this telling of
history, the Palestinians deserve to be backed by coercive intervention, as
soon as possible, so as to impose on Israel a solution which would implement
their “”rights.”

This would include implementation of “all relevant UN resolutions” – meaning
UN General Assembly resolution 194 (the so-called “right of return”) as well
as the Arab (mis)interpretation of resolution 242 as demanding withdrawal to
the June 4, 1967 lines.

Moreover, this is translated into the demand, explicitly made by Abbas, for
“international protection” (Himayah Duwwaliyyah); a term of uncertain
practical import, yet indicative of the Palestinian reluctance to settle
down to the hard work of striking a workable compromise with Israel.

There is no room, therein, for the long litany of Palestinian past mistakes
and misjudgments. These are deftly expunged from the record. No mention can
be made of the recent rise in Palestinian terror activities; no mention of
the Palestinian decision to walk away from the framework advanced by US
Secretary of State John Kerry; no word on Hamas’ habitual shelling of
Israeli civilian targets.

There is also no mention of the collapse of all past peace efforts; of the
fact that only in 1988 did PLO (putatively) recognize Israel’s right to
exist. No reference is made to the long years of terror, including the
brazen attack on the Olympic Games in 1972; no hint of their rejection of
partition in 1947; no mention of Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s relationship with
Hitler and Himmler; no mention of the massacres of Jews in Hebron in 1929
and Jaffa in 1921.

In other words, all that the Palestinians have ever suffered – and their
suffering was real enough, even if it pales in comparison with what has
befallen the Syrian people and others in the region in recent times – is
someone else’s fault. It is Israel’s fault, above all, and the world’s.

Over the years, this narrative of victimhood has become so entrenched as to
be an integral part of Palestinian identity. Yasser Arafat even had a way
of insinuating that Jesus of Nazareth must have been a Palestinian, given
his suffering. Acknowledgement of the tragic aspects of Palestinian history,
including the “Nakba” (catastrophe) which befell them in 1948, has become
commonplace in Israel and elsewhere.

However, references to the Palestinians’ own role in the chain of events
which led to their defeats remain quite rare – even more so at higher
political echelons. This, in turn, feeds not only the sense of grievance and
the ensuing justifications for violence. It is an active barrier to any
practical compromise, and to reconciliation and peace.

Every once in a while, some attempts – few and far between – have been made
to wean the Palestinian leadership and people off these habits of thought.
Former US Middle East peace coordinator Dennis Ross recalls (in his 2004
book The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace)
how President Bill Clinton unexpectedly wove this theme into his comments
before the Palestinian National Council in Gaza in December 1998, “acting as
much as a preacher and teacher as world leader.”

He did so by invoking a speech made by the first Governor of Arkansas after
the US Civil War, obviously a theme of great emotional import for a
President who had served in the same position many years later, and was
painfully familiar with the tragic history of the South. The words he quoted
were pithy and direct: “We have all done wrong.”

This may indeed have been, as Dennis Ross felt, “the best speech ever given
on peace.” But he is wrong to assert that “the Palestinians in the hall were
visibly moved” – at least not by the Arkansas story. Those of us who watched
that speech live noted the departure from the prepared text – and felt that
it actually fell on deaf ears. Its meaning did not seem to register with the
Palestinian audience.

To speak of peace had become acceptable, but to cross the threshold into
acceptance of mutual victimhood – and mutual moral responsibility – was
beyond the Palestinian abilities, then as now. Still, the effort should have
been persistently pursued. It was not.

This is not to say that Israel needs to endorse a strategy of
counter-accusation, stressing Jewish victimhood. Despite all that has
transpired since 2000 (or Oslo, or Madrid) the point is not that what was
committed by the other side entitles us to dismiss the prospect of a
negotiated agreement. Abbas seemed to take up this line of argumentation in
his recent UN speech. But this is not Israel’s best choice. Indeed, in his
UN speech Prime Minister Netanyahu chose to emphasize that Israel’s hand
remains extended for peace, and that a breakthrough is still possible.

What needs to be done, however, particularly in disputation or in dialogue
with those who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause (whether it be the
BDS crowd or more even-handed interlocutors) is to make the point, again and
again that endorsement of the Palestinian narrative harms the Palestinians’
own future.

By tagging the Zionist project as “colonialist” in nature (i.e., transient
and perishable), those who do so help consign the Palestinian people, whom
they purport to help, to an ideological, political and diplomatic
cul-de-sac.

More than two years have passed since Kerry used a straightforward formula
for success, as he tried to usher in, in July 2013, a new phase of
negotiations. Kerry spoke of “reasonable compromises on tough, complicated,
emotional and symbolic issues.”

Indeed, any sober assessment of what it would take to strike an
Israeli-Palestinian deal inevitably leads to the clear understanding that
painful but practical political compromises are required from both sides.
Alas, this concept seems alien to many in the region, particularly to
Palestinians; and the international community is not doing its part to help
the Palestinians mature towards this realization.

The false Palestinian narrative of one-sided victimhood is a major hindrance
to all efforts in the direction of peace. Global actors that want to help
achieve peace need to assist the Palestinians in moving beyond wallowing in
self-pity and rituals of bashing Israel.

* Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman has joined the Begin-Sadat Center for
Strategic Studies as a senior research associate. For the past six years, he
served as deputy for foreign policy and international affairs at the
National Security Council in the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office. For 20
years prior to that, he held senior posts in IDF Military Intelligence, and
also was Israel director of the American Jewish Committee.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the
Greg Rosshandler Family