5 Stupid Comparisons to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict stands as a unique tapestry of history, faith, and identity — one that defies easy categorization.

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

In the realm of global geopolitics, where nuance is often the first casualty, there exists a peculiar pastime: comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to whatever war, skirmish, or diplomatic dust-up is currently trending on international headlines.

This game, often played by pundits and armchair analysts alike, yields questionable results at best and, at worst, distorts the very fabric of history and contemporary reality.

While analogies can sometimes illuminate, they frequently obfuscate when it comes to this singular conflict.

Here are five of the most misguided comparisons, each worthy of an intellectual eyeroll.

1) Ukraine-Russia: The David-and-Goliath Fallacy

Ah, the Ukraine-Russia comparison. At first glance, this parallel seems seductive. Both feature asymmetric power struggles, involve contested territories, and have elicited moral outrage across the globe.

However, comparing Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression with the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic is akin to likening a chess match to a Rubik’s Cube — they may share some squares, but the mechanics are entirely different.

The Israel-Palestinian conflict is not a straightforward clash between two sovereign nations. It is a multifaceted, deeply historical, and ideologically charged struggle involving religion, national identity, and generations of displacement.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, by contrast, is the textbook example of a conventional war for territorial domination by a clear aggressor. The simplicity of Ukraine's narrative — a smaller nation resisting imperial overreach — does not map neatly onto a conflict rooted in biblical claims, post-colonial legacies, and existential insecurities.

---

2) The Vietnam War: Colonial Ghosts and Guerrilla Dreams

For some, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict echoes the American war in Vietnam beginning in 1955. A mighty force (the United States/Israel) confronts a determined underdog (Viet Cong/Palestinian militants) whose guerrilla tactics confound the superior military power.

If you squint hard enough, sure, you might see overlapping brushstrokes. But squinting that hard risks missing the entire canvas.

The Vietnam War was ultimately a Cold War proxy, shaped by the ideological battle between communism and capitalism. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the other hand, exists in a wholly different ecosystem of motivations — nationalism, religious identity, and historical trauma.

Furthermore, the idea that Israel represents a colonial power akin to the United States in Southeast Asia simplifies the profound historical connection Jews have to the land. Israel is not some distant colonial extension; it is the home to a people for whom that land is inseparable from their identity.

Some have tried to compare the “pro-Palestinian” protestors to the anti-Vietnam War protestors of the 1960s, but these folks are not merely “anti-occupation” or even “anti-Israel.” They are explicitly “pro-Hamas” — ideologically far closer to the swastika-bearing hordes who gathered in Madison Square Garden in 1939, captured in the must-see short film, “A Night at the Garden.”

---

3) World War II: The Good Versus Evil Misfire

World War II — the ultimate moral touchstone. Every conflict, it seems, must be filtered through the lens of Hitler and Churchill, Allies and Axis, genocide and liberation.

For some commentators, Israel represents embattled Jews fighting for survival, while Palestinians become unfortunate collateral damage in a necessary war against existential threats. For others, the roles reverse, casting Israel as the aggressor and Palestinians as the oppressed victims of occupation.

The trouble is that the Second World War was a rare alignment of moral clarity. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by contrast, lives in the realm of moral ambiguity, with legitimate grievances and aspirations on both sides.

There are no neat lines between good and evil here, no singular aggressor or victim. Both peoples see themselves as fighting for their survival, and neither fits comfortably into the well-worn uniforms of WWII archetypes.

---

4) South African Apartheid: The Buzzword That Won't Quit

This comparison might hold the record for overuse. Critics of Israel frequently invoke apartheid South Africa, drawing parallels between Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza and the segregationist policies of Pretoria.

The appeal of this analogy lies in its simplicity: If Israel is apartheid South Africa, the solution must be the same — boycotts, sanctions, and eventual dismantling of the system.

However, the situations diverge in crucial ways. Apartheid South Africa was characterized by racial segregation imposed by a white minority with no historical or religious claim to the land. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a struggle between two populations, both of whom lay deep-rooted claims to the same territory.

While criticisms of Israeli policies are fair game, reducing the conflict to an apartheid framework flattens the intricate and interwoven histories at play.

---

5) The Troubles in Northern Ireland: The Conflict That Keeps on Giving

Finally, we arrive at Northern Ireland — the ultimate lesson in how to negotiate peace. This comparison has been made by everyone from British politicians to Middle Eastern diplomats eager to distill the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a series of Good Friday Agreements.

Yet, as any student of both conflicts will attest, what worked in Belfast does not necessarily translate to Jerusalem.

The Troubles were, at their core, a sectarian conflict within a defined geographical boundary involving communities that, while hostile, shared a common overarching national framework. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in contrast, involves not just sectarian divides — but also competing national movements and vastly different geopolitical stakes.

---

Comparisons are not inherently bad. They can illuminate new perspectives and foster understanding.

But in the case of Israel and the Palestinians, simplistic analogies often reflect more about the biases of the commentator than the realities of the situation. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict stands as a unique tapestry of history, faith, and identity — one that defies easy categorization.

Susie Linfield, a social and cultural theorist at New York University, recently described it best:

“The problem with all analogies: They are almost always inaccurate; they almost immediately collapse on close (or even cursory) inspection; they are an evasion of specific, which is to say of political, thinking; they are lazy; and they are an attempt to shock [people] through provocation rather than trying to convince [them] through reasoned argument.”¹

Perhaps the most intelligent approach is to abandon the fruitless search for analogues and engage with the conflict on its own terms. Anything less risks turning one of the world’s most enduring crises into little more than an intellectual parlor game.

---

1. “From the River to the Sea.” Salmagundi.