76. What does it mean when the Palestinian narrative transforms the order of the facts?

If we pay attention, the way that the Palestinian spokespeople argue follows a repetitive pattern: The consequence of their last aggression is the motive for the next one. Currently, when interviewing a Palestinian spokesperson, the most repeated argument is: “they live under the Israeli occupation” and, therefore, the conflict remains. When you ask them to give solutions to the Gaza Strip problem, where there are no Israeli military nor civilians, the previous argument is undermined. Sometimes, they blame everything on said occupation, including their endemic corruption. What happened was that the Palestinian violence against the Jews began prior to 1967. For example, the PLO was founded in 1964 declaring their desire to forcefully destroy Israel. In addition, the “occupation” would not have existed if Jordan, Egypt, and Syria had not declared the 1967 war since the Israeli “conquest” was the consequence, not the cause. And, before 1967, how was violence against Jews justified? Well, if we had interviewed Palestinians in 1956, they would have argued that their violence was justified by “the problem of the Palestinian refugees”. But… if the Arabs had not declared war to destroy Israel in 1948, there would have never existed the refugees’ problem. Once again, the consequence of the aggression was the motive for the future attempt. And, before 1948, how was violence against Jews justified? In many ways, but the most common was to affirm that the Jews stole the land of the Arabs. It was useless to prove to the Palestinian spokesperson that every piece of land where Jews lived had been purchased and, in fact, not stolen from the Arabs. Honest people do not “make up” the reasons and declare their wishes based on religious incentives.