MSNBC / By Eric Alterman

Intractable Foes, Warring Narratives

The conflict in the Middle East is about warring narratives, each making its own claim to land and history. But in the United States, it is mostly the Israeli perspective that gets attention.

April 2, 2002 |

LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?

Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

Tragedy has struck once again in the Israeli city of Netanya, killing at last count 20 innocents and wounding more than 130 people, as the Arab League meets amidst controversy and confusion in Beirut, with Yasser Arafat still trapped in Ramallah, and President Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan staying home in protest.

Only the most optimistic among us can muster much hope for an end to the murderous cycle currently underway in the Holy Land.

Stepping back from the horrific headlines of the day, it is clear that the conflict over Israel/Palestine is all about competing narratives. Both sides inflict inhuman cruelties on one another. Both sides blame the other for forcing them to do so. The Israelis kill far more Palestinians than vice-versa, with far more deadly and effective weapons; but the Palestinians, unlike the Israelis, deliberately target innocents for murder. The Israelis say the conflict will end when the Palestinians renounce their commitment to terrorism and accept Israel’s “right to existence.” The Palestinians claim it will end when Israel ends its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and compensates the millions of refugees it created, either by returning them to their homes or giving them the funds necessary to build new ones.

A Tale Of Two Stories

In most of the world, it is the Palestinian narrative of a dispossessed people that dominates. In the United States, however, the narrative that dominates is Israel’s: a democracy under constant siege. Europeans and other Palestinian partisans point to the fact that the Israel lobby in America is one of the strongest anywhere, and Jewish individuals and organizations give millions of dollars to political candidates in order to reward pro-Israel policies and punish those who support the Palestinians. Another reason, however, is the near-complete domination by pro-Israel partisans of the punditocracy discourse. Some Jewish groups in America like to harass news organizations like The Washington Post or National Public Radio for what they believe to be coverage insufficiently sympathetic to Israel’s plight. But even Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu would not be able to complain about the level of support their actions typically receive from the members of the punditocracy.

For reasons of religion, politics, history and genuine conviction the punditocracy debate of the Middle East in America is dominated by people who cannot imagine criticizing Israel. The value of this legion to the Jewish state is, for better or worse, literally incalculable, particularly when push — as it inevitably does in the Middle East — comes to shove. Here’s a list I made in trying to measure the immeasurable.

COLUMNISTS AND COMMENTATORS WHO CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO SUPPORT ISRAEL REFLEXIVELY AND WITHOUT QUALIFICATION:

George Will, The Washington Post, Newsweek and ABC News

William Safire, The New York Times

A.M. Rosenthal, The New York Daily News, formerly Executive Editor of and later columnist for, The New York Times

Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, PBS, Time, and The Weekly Standard, formerly of the New Republic

Michael Kelly, The Washington Post, The Atlantic Monthly, National Journal, and MSNBC.com, formerly of The New Republic and The New Yorker

Lally Weymouth, The Washington Post

Newsweek Martin Peretz, The New Republic

Daniel Pipes, The New York Post

Andrea Peyser, The New York Post

Dick Morris, The New York Post

Lawrence Kaplan, The New Republic