Pundit Stanley Greenberg got it right when he said that in politics “a narrative is the key to everything.” But some issues, like the Israel-Palestine conflict, seem to resist change as they form a thicket of many narratives, tangled up so badly that progress toward a solution seems all but impossible.
Now Barack Obama has waded into that thicket, giving the world an implicit pledge that he will somehow make real progress toward a peace settlement. And he’s already made a down payment to fulfilling that pledge, provoking Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s promise to work toward “two free peoples living side by side,” marking a real change in the narrative structure of the situation. We no longer have to deal with two competing narratives, one about Israel holding on to the Occupied Territories and the other about Israel ending the occupation; the story of the two-state solution has triumphed. So there is no longer an overarching super-narrative about two stories fighting for political dominance in Israel and in the American Jewish community.
This reminds us that in such tangled situations, the many narratives swirling through it are arranged in a (usually implicit) hierarchy. Some are small tales, dealing with only a part of the situation. Some are larger and claim to take in the whole reality. Even among those larger ones, though, some are more basic than others; the upper-story stories (as we might call them) are not convincing, perhaps have no meaning at all, unless one first accepts the more basic lower-story stories. And if one digs deep enough, down to the foundation, there is a foundational narrative holding up the whole structure and all its component stories. That deepest level narrative is the one we can rightly call the prevailing myth.
Postmodernists may call it the ‘master narrative’ and say it must be abolished or ignored. But ordinary people, who have not read Lyotard or Jameson, don’t give up their myths so easily. Nor can even the heaviest barrage of empirical facts tear the myths from people’s minds. A myth is not necessarily a lie or a fiction. It may contain some measure of empirical truth. But that’s irrelevant to its power as myth. For those who hold fast to it, the myth determines what can count as truth and what must be rejected as falsehood. It determines what empirical evidence they can see and what they can’t see. And it determines what higher level narratives they will accept or reject.
”You are contemptible, because you have no real self-esteem and no national self-respect”
For the Jewish community, the narratives of accepting and rejecting a two-state solution were rather all-encompassing, and the story of the battle between those two narratives was even more basic. But these still did not get down to the foundational level of myth.
Netanyahu made that clear in the speech that offered his pro forma commitment to a two-state solution. What many took as a sea change in Jewish political life was actually only a small part of the speech. Look at the whole rhetorical entity, and the message was quite different: Upper-story stories, even seemingly fundamental ones, can come and go, but the foundational myth endures.
After some preliminary praises of peace, Netanyahu got to the heart of his speech, asking the rhetorical question: “Why is peace still so far from us, even though our [Israeli] hands are extended for peace?” The predictable answer reaffirmed what may be the most basic Israeli myth of all, the myth of innocence and existential threat. Every problem, it turned out, was the fault of others (mainly Arabs) who “refused any Jewish state whatsoever.” The speaker offered a long tour of history, all “proving” the truth of his myth—tautologically, of course, since the facts were only those that the myth permitted.
Even when he turned to “the need for us to recognize their [Palestinian] rights,” Netanyahu still projected the whole picture through the eyes of the myth of innocence and existential threat: “We do not want to rule over them. We do not want to run their lives.” “We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel… Without this, sooner or later, we will have another Hamastan.”
Then there was the insistence on the seemingly innocent right of “natural growth” in the settlements, an appeal for the return of Gilad Shalit, and the closing plea that “if our neighbors [will] only work for peace, we can achieve peace.” The root of every problem, and thus the source of every solution, was still placed outside the Jewish community, among the gentiles, the “goyim.”
This myth is as old as Zionism itself. In the essay that set the movement in motion, “Self-Emancipation” (1881), Leo Pinsker told the Jews that they would always be mistreated by the “goyim” because everyone fears, and thus persecutes, homeless people. Later Zionist theorists set forth other explanations of anti-Jewish prejudice. But most agreed that the Jews would be victimized, through no fault of their own, as long as they lived among the “goyim.”
Pinsker said more, though: His own people were to blame, because they would not acknowledge the permanent enmity and inhumanity of the “goyim.” “You are contemptible, because you have no real self-esteem and no national self-respect,” he wrote. Pinsker’s chastising voice has echoed loudly through 130 years of Zionist thinking, casting self doubt and sometimes even a sense of shame.
It must have echoed loudly in Netanyahu’s mind as he pondered his response to the Obama administration’s new pressures upon him. He has built his career as a symbol of the self-esteem Israeli Jews gained by showing their strength. If he simply knuckled under to the Americans, he might easily trigger enough doubt and shame in his followers to bring his political downfall.
To still the doubts and fend off the shame, he had to offer the full Israeli myth, with its three interlocking, mutually reinforcing themes: Our enemies threaten our very existence; we are wholly innocent, having done nothing at all to evoke such enmity; we will maintain our self-esteem and self-respect by inflicting enough defeats on our enemies to prove to them, and to ourselves, our indomitable strength.
So the Palestinians get no part of Jerusalem, no hint of a right of return, no freeze on settlements, and a vaguely defined state at some future date, but with no army, no control of their air space, no right to sign treaties unless Israel approves, and (it would seem) other unspecified limitations to be dictated by Israel as negotiations proceed. Of course Netanyahu knows full well that Israel can show its vaunted strength only as long as the United States pays the bill. He could not simply bite the hand that feeds him $2.775 billion a year in military aid. So he committed himself to a “vision” of “two free peoples living side by side,” hedged in by all the limitations that the foundational myth requires. While the question of whether to pursue a two-state solution is apparently settled, the larger questions remain: Will Jews in Israel, and those around the world who care about Israel, continue to build Jewish life on the same old foundational myth? Or will the changes in policy open up room for a discussion of deeper changes in the myth itself?
In Israel, the widespread approval of Netanyahu’s speech suggests that the myth remains healthy (though there is still, as there has always been, a significant minority who challenge it). It’s here in the United States—where Jewish community support is vital to keep all those dollars flowing to Israel—that the myth is increasingly called into question.
Meet the New Myth, Not the Same as the Old Myth
Diane Balzer is president of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, the largest and among the most moderate of American Jewry’s several pro-Israel, pro-peace groups. She gave Netanyahu qualified praise, welcoming his two-state approach but noting that his “statements on continued settlement expansion, the status of refugees and Jerusalem, and the future Palestinian state’s control over its own borders complicate efforts to renew substantive negotiations by attempting to prejudge their outcome.”
Behind those measured words hides a potentially explosive message: It is time for Jews to abandon the old foundation myth in favor of a new one. That’s clear just by considering what it means to enter “substantive” negotiations without attempting to prejudge their outcome. The goal must be an actual settlement of the conflict, one that improves the situation for one’s own side; in this case, for Israel, which is exactly what Brit Tzedek and all the other Jewish peace groups want.
But the settlement has to be mutually beneficial; the opponents won’t agree unless it improves the situation for their side too. So there are at least three necessary conditions if you want “substantive” negotiations:
- You cannot assume that your opponents are out to destroy your very existence, simply because they are trying to drive a hard bargain;
- You cannot assume that all the fault and blame for the problem lies with your opponents;
- You cannot let your self-esteem rest on showing your strength by being intransigent, prejudging outcomes, and inflicting defeats on your opponent.
Breaking any of these rules, and certainly all three of them, dooms the negotiation to be fruitless from the outset.
Thus, the call for “substantive” negotiations sows the seed of a new Jewish myth, whose basic elements are just the opposite of the old one:
- Jews and gentiles have to live together; they are inextricably woven together in a single web of relationship, what Martin Luther King Jr. called a “single garment of destiny.”
- Within that web, there will inevitably be both conflict and cooperation; cooperation is perfectly possible, so it pays to make serious efforts to promote it, which means being responsive to the changing concerns of everyone else in the web.
- There are rights and wrongs done on every side; it makes no sense to measure how much blame accrues to any one side, because finger-pointing blocks the way to cooperation.
- Self-esteem comes from promoting cooperation; if self-esteem must depend on showing one’s strength (an open question), the way to show strength is to show understanding of others, respond to their concerns, and find paths of mutual benefit.
Many Jewish peace advocates are not yet aware of the new myth they are implicitly telling, nor of the magnitude of change in Jewish life it can create. But new myths rarely arise by conscious effort. They simply grow organically as people pursue the goals they value most and talk to others about their efforts.
Then one day someone wearing the mantle of authority (perhaps even a future prime minister of Israel) looks back and says of the new myth just what people once said about the old one: “This is what we’ve always believed. These are our eternal values.”
How long that will take, no one can predict. But considering the suffering the old myth has produced for Israelis and—much more so—for Palestinians, even one more day is too long.
Tags: israel, jewish, netanyahu, obama administration, palestine
There are many good reasons for Israel to do all it can to obtain a genuine peace settlement. However, it is fantasy to think that most Arabs would not have removed Israel from the region if they could have done so. To believe otherwise, would be the biggest myth of all. If most offical voices in the Arab world no longer talk about destroying Israel militarily, it is because they don't now have the ability to even attempt to do so.
Yet, an honest look at the history of this conflict, regardless of where your sympathies lie, makes it is very hard to conclude anything other than that the Arabs still harbor the hope that Israel will cease to extist over time. It is much easier to conclude that many Arabs see any peace agreement as a means to an end--the eventual end of Israel as a Jewish state--than as an end in itself. The absolute refusal to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people is the best example of true intentions.
Again, none of this means Israel should not make painful and real concessions, in return for a peace that puts to rest any further claims by either side. There are compelling reaons to do so. It just means that they should act with eyes wide open.
Unfortunately, Ira Chernus is dealing in the mythology of the Peace Now left that believes that if only Israel would just be nice to its Palestinian friends, everyone would get along. But where is the acknowledgment that those "friends" actively seek the destruction of Israel or, failing that goal, to inflict as much harm as possible upon them. When Israel offered a comprehensive settlement that addressed most of the issues, Arafat walked away.
Chernus thinks that Israeli existential angst is based on some Zionist "myth". Rather it is based on the very real rocket fire that falls on Sderot and now reaches to Ashkelon in the south. It is based on the Hezbollah threats in the North. It is based on the alarming rhetoric and threats coming from Iran.
Chernus is dealing in a mythical fantasy that Israel need only play nice and all of the problems will go away. Perhaps he needs to change his myth.
This entire premise is based on the idea that BOTH sides are seeking a co-existent peace and that's just not so. Israel has come to the table many times and had offered up 95%+ of the Palestinians demands and the Pals walked away and killed more civilians in answer. Abbas himself has stated that he is not interested in talking that he will just wait until Israel is forced to give him everything for free through outside pressure.
That response along destroys your entire premise. Israel wants peace and acceptance,
Islam wants Israel destroyed completely. You think to tell us who is wrong and who is right? You better start by looking in the mirror and dealing with your own presumptions.
Ira, we know that ther was indeed a sovereign nation of Israel prior to UN resolutions, but I want you to point to a place in historical record where there was a nation of Palestine.none? Ok, lemmmee make it easier...how about the "sovereign nation of Phillistia"? Hunh? Still nothing? That's right, because it NEVER HAS EXISTED!! You can't have a right of return to thin air!!!And let's use your head on the two state solution; look at the geography of it...are we suppposed to give "Palenstine"a state using the separated land mass of Gaza and the West Bank, with a narrow land bridge that almost disects and already EXISTING sovereign nation? Has that EVER been done before? would the "Palestinians"(they are actually Jordanians) give up one or the other for sovereinty? I bet not! If I wanted my own nation, I would make logical concessions, but that's not the goal is it? The evntual goal is to divide and conquer Israel...they don't want peace..they want Israel gone!!
The above four comments, each in their own way and to varying degrees of rationality, serve as good illustrations of some of Ira's points in the piece above.
The enduring power of the argument that, because there was no proper Palestinian nation state prior to the creation of Israel, means that the Palestinians don't deserve a proper homeland is a testimony to the perils of creating stories from flawed narratives. In this case there is an asymptotic relationship to the truth--it approaches zero--but the more important point is that when an argument with such little merit gains traction it may be an indication of something deeper.
As for the myth of the Great Offer of Camp David in 2000, useful in promoting the "no partner for peace" narrative, there is, unsurprisingly, much more to the story.
It is not an out and out myth--arafat, as the Palestinian leader, did indeed do a lousy job and missed a significant possibility for peace and liberty--but it is a tale of a series of flawed decisions and misunderstandings about the will of the people on both sides and the political will necessary to agree to certain terms. Robert Malley's 2001 article in the NYRB provides an excellent analysis of the situation for those interested.
But, again, the framing of "the offer" itself is laden with myths about who counts and what kind of leverage they should have. It was entirely about the Israelis and what they were willing to offer and how generous it was. Very little ink was spilled even attempting to analyze the situation on the ground in Palestine and the demands placed on the leadership representing them.
In any case, I'm glad to see these comments on Ira's excellent essay.
Mr. Chemus, you talk of Israeli mythology and then perpetuate your own mythology. It is a fact that most Islamic States, save for Jordan and Egypt are publicly committed to Israel's destruction as a Jewish State. You and Ms. Balzer see the intransigence as merely a tough bargaining position. What evidence do either of you have for that other than your suppositions and your surmises? This is stated I remind you in the face of everyone of these government's adopting Israel's non-existence as a tenet of their foreign policy.
"Jews and gentiles have to live together; they are inextricably woven together in a single web of relationship, what Martin Luther King Jr. called a “single garment of destiny.”
It's a nice sentiment but also not backed up by reality either in a realpolitik sense or even in a religious sense. If Jews are correct in their religion, than Christianity and Islam aren't. The same is true from the other two sides of this triangular equation.
The Pentateuch is not called the "New Testament" by Christians out of respect, it is to indicate that Christianity has replaced Judaism as a viable religion under God. Islam teaches quite the same regarding Jews and while snatching Jesus as a prophet, denigrates Christianity itself. What has changed for Christians since the Councils of
Nicaea/Hippo, about 1,600 years ago, in regards to feelings towards Judaism. What has changed for Islam since the Sunni/Shia split about 1,300 years ago that has even stopped them from hating and killing each other? The Dome of the Rock was purposely put on Temple Mount to proclaim replacement of Judaism by Islam.
Sadly, religious strife in the world lasts for far too long and the fact is the ME conflict is rife with strife. I don't say this as a hard liner. I loath Bibi,despised
Begin and wouldn't give a dime to AIPAC. Your
version of a solution, however, is loaded with just as much mythology as the Israeli
hardliners. Neither mythos will lead to peace and either road is a path to destruction. A two state solution is the only answer, however, between Bibi's backers
and Islamic hatred who knows when this will
happen?
First some corrections: the Pentateuch is the first five books of the Bible- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy- both in Judaism and Christianity. Christians refer to the Tanakh (or the Hebrew Bible, choice of semantics) as the Old Testament because the compilation of the four canonical gospels, the epistles of Paul (and others) and Revelation are believed to make the New Testament which replaces the covenant made in the Hebrew Bible.
I have to admit I feel a lot of discomfort reading your comment if indeed I am reading it correctly. While there have been times in history where the Catholic Church sanctioned institutionalized anti-semitism. I don't believe the Council of Nicea agreed upon any sort of action upon the Jews though Constantine himself enacted his own anti-Jewish policies. Visigothic kings who came to rule after the fall of Rome were particularly harsh on Jews after the official conversion to Catholicism from Arianism and when in the early 700s Arabs invaded al-Andalus, Jews actually welcomed Muslims as the new conquerors extended rights to Jews that were never available before- even as chief head advisors to their Muslim kings. Albanian Muslims took part in rescuing Jews during the Holocaust.
To promulgate the notion that Muslims hate and have always hated Jews is irresponsible. The current tensions in between Palestinians and Israelis are not only religious, they are also political. Because the US and Europe refused to take in Jewish refugees during the Holocaust and didn't even want them after, the Jewish State of Israel was created.
Note the orientalizing sentiment this is indicative of: Palestinians were seen as a complete "other" while Jews were only semi-other. Europe had already stolen most independence from the Arab and Middle Eastern (and Indian and African) peoples. It's easy to see how Palestinians felt they were made to pay the price for a tragic, inexcusable European mistake.
Palestinians do not hate Jews. They may hate the Jewish State of Israel. Not only is their presence no where reflected in the nation's title but Israel is part of a gamut of Western injustices against the Muslim world. If we are going to really talk about this issue, we have to dig deeper and understand not only the demands of Palestinian people but the background this argument is set against. Otherwise we can never have positive discourse.
Gobbledegook!
What about the myth (is it a myth or a bloody reality?)of Islamic Jihad? What about the the myth of Pan-Aerabuism and keeping "Paletinian" Arab refugees in perpetual limbo as a weapon against the "Zionist entity?" Israel has nothing else to concede as "a painful concession" without retreating into the Med.
Before dissolving into tears over the "victims of Zionist aggression," look at how Arab (Muslim) states treat their own citizenry. Don't buy the lie of their desire for a "Palestinian state."
Stand firm, Israel. Eschew advice from the likes of Chernus.
It would be interesting if those in power just conceded openly the points made by all of the above commentators: 1) arabs and muslims all want to kill Jews and destroy the state of Israel and 2) there is no such thing, nor has there ever been such a thing, as a Palestinian state or people.
What is the logical conclusion of these two premises? It is: kill and expel all Arabs, Muslims, and "Palestinians" from all the lands Israel has annexed and still wishes to annex to itself.
There is no other way this "narrative" can end. You can't teach your population to hate and fear a group of people over whom it has control without the controlling population striving to exterminate it. It is the story of antisemitism in Europe, and the story of Palestinians in Israel.
It's easy to justify ethnic cleansing and even genocide. All you have to do is tell yourself that "the enemy" must be killed or deported or else "the enemy" will kill or deport you. Congratulations, Israel. You've really come full circle.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.