I think proving a more general form will actually be easier than this specific case - it appears to be true that

for
.
Let's consider a proof by induction. The base case
gives




as desired.
Suppose the identity holds for
, so that

For
, we have



So we ultimately need to show that

or

If we replace
, we get(!) the base case, which we've shown to be true,

and thus the identity is proved.