The great Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis here explains why the Israel-Palestine has occupied a predominant place in the western, indeed in world, consciousness over all other conflicts involving Muslims¹ [words in square brackets were added by me]:

“Israel is one among many points—Nigeria, Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Sinkiang, Kashmir, Timor, Mindanao, [Nagorno-Karabakh in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict,] et cetera—where the Islamic and non-Islamic worlds meet [in conflict]. Each of these is the central issue for those involved in it, and an annoying digression for others. Westerners by contrast tend to give the greatest importance to those grievances which they hope can be satisfied at someone else’s expense. The Israel-Palestine conflict has certainly attracted far more attention than any of the others, for several reasons. First, since Israel is a democracy and an open society, it is much easier to report—and misreport—what is going on there. Second, Jews are involved, and this can usually ensure a significant audience among those who for one reason or another are for or against them…. [He then goes on to discuss the Iraq-Iran war, from 1980 to 1988, as an example.]

“A third and ultimately the most important reason for the primacy of the Palestine issue is that it is, so to speak, the licensed grievance—the only one that can be freely and safely expressed in those Muslim countries [i.e., nearly all of them] where the media are either wholly owned or strictly overseen by the government. Indeed, Israel serves as a useful stand-in for complaints about the economic privation and political repression under which most Muslim peoples lives, and as a way of deflecting the resulting anger. This method is vastly helped by the Israeli domestic scene, where any misdeed of the government, the army, the settlers, or anyone else is at once revealed and any falsehood at once exposed by Israeli critics, both Jews and Arabs, in the Israeli media and parliament. Most of Israel’s antagonists suffer from no such impediment in their public diplomacy [since they are dictatorships].”

Thus Lewis explains why the Israel-Palestine occupies a predominant place in the world consciousness over all conflicts involving Muslims, some of which are arguably more serious and all of which are more important to the parties involved in the conflict. First, Israel is a democracy, while the Muslim countries (or would-be countries, such as the Palestinians) are dictatorships.  But the conflict between Pakistan and India (referenced as Kashmir by Lewis) also involves a democracy, India. The third reason is that the Israel-Palestine conflict is the only conflict or grievance to which Muslims are permitted to give expression in Muslim dictatorships.   While true, this reason fails to explain why the Israel-Palestine conflict is the only conflict involving Muslims that is distinguished in this way. That leaves the second reason: “Jews are involved, and this can usually ensure a significant audience among those who for one reason or another are for or against them.”   I leave it as an exercise for the reader to find a nation that is “for” the Jews, but surely such a nation would be exceptional, indeed. Thus, the primary reason why the Israel-Palestine conflict occupies a unique position in world consciousness is the prevalence of antisemitism in this world, a hatred that is exploited by Muslim dictators and terrorist leaders. The more fool the world, to fail to see how they are being manipulated. Even if they are antisemitic, most pride themselves on not being fools.

¹ Bernard Lewis, “The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror,” The Modern Library, NY, 2003, pp. 92-93 [Words in square brackets added by LB.]