Political power can be gained by those who determine how a given set of facts is woven into a narrative, or by those who can decide which narrative, among a set of competing narratives, will become canonical.
Once a narrative is established, another layer of decisions will be made about how it is understood or applied. These decisions will likewise determine the distribution of power.
In the complex set of conflicts which is the “Middle East” or “Near East” - already in this nomenclature a decision is being made about the perspective from which the region is viewed - narratives have been, and are being, formulated, understood, misunderstood, applied, misapplied, told and retold in numerous ways.
The sheer number of variations on any one of these narratives, and the complexity of these narratives, explain why the long-sought diplomatically negotiated stable peace is so elusive. Deeply divergent narratives leave little room for common ground or a mutually adopted set of axioms which might be used as a starting point for a new narrative.
The Middle East presents us not only a with groups and their interactions with each other, but also with interactions between the Middle East and the rest of the world.
This region has been the springboard for empire and would-be empires, both in ancient and modern times. It is telling that in every century, more than one invading force has left the Middle East, heading for regions as diverse as North Africa, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, the Balkans, Hungary, Ukraine, Poland, Austria, and India.
The concept of “empire” is a staple in constructing narratives about the Middle East. Empires from outside the region have worked their way into the narratives as well, including invaders like Alexander the Great.
Author Mitri Raheb reflects on the role which “empire” plays in narratives about the Middle East. The diverse people groups which share, because of their location, the name ‘Palestinian’ see themselves, according to Raheb, as objects having been manipulated by a long series of empires:
Hermeneutics is the study of the theory and practice of interpretation. Interpreting a story is an art that requires much creativity and imagination. It is also a science. It is not an innocent science, but one very closely related to empire. The empire wants to control the storyline - its meaning, production, and marketing. It does so consciously and often - far more dangerously - unconsciously.
The extent to which Raheb speaks for a large segment of Palestinians is not clear. He asserts that a modern empire, not organized as a single state like previous empires, but rather a cultural and economic empire, is maneuvering this ethnically and religiously diverse group.
He posits the “West” as having created the nation-state of Israel and maintained it at the expense of the other nations which had previously occupied this land:
Hermeneutics is one of the most hazardous and repressive elements in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our problem would be much more easier to deal with if it were solely a massive injustice, a problem between Israelis and Palestinians. Unfortunately, the Western world is part of the intractability rather than part of the solution. The Israeli occupation is subsidized by the United States and Europe. The Israelis would not have the financial capability to build a three billion dollar “separation wall” or the thirty billion dollar settlements in the West Bank if they paid the bills from their own pockets. “Rich uncles” donate that money and/or provide soft loans. They do so because, for them, Israel belongs to the empire. In short, it serves their interests, although a small but growing number of people are beginning to realize that Israel is becoming more of a permanent liability than a strategic partner.
It may be asked, to which extent one can properly posit a monolithic “West” and to which extent it unanimously and univocally asserted itself in the creation and sustenance of modern Israel.
The significance of the founding of the nation-state of modern Israel is doubtless significant, but lost in many of the narratives is the fact that even prior to that event, the hope for a peaceful and forward-looking organization of the Middle East was fading as the French Mandate and British Mandates gradually deconstructed themselves.
While many narratives see Israel’s founding in 1948 as the single great destabilizing event, a constructive pattern for the region had by that time perhaps already been lost, when postwar England and France felt themselves overextended and could no longer invest the resources to plant and maintain stability in the area.
So, while Mitri Raheb and others see Israel as an ‘occupation,’ the greater and more foundational problem is perhaps the lack of British and French occupation of not only Palestine, but Syria, Iraq, and other territories in the region.
Because he sees only Israel as the destabilizing factor, Raheb is forced to argue against any and all influence from outside the region:
It is not only the flow of hardware, military equipment, and advanced technology that provides the fuel to maintain the occupying power, but it is also the “software” - the culture, the narrative, and the theology - that helps to power the state of Israel. These provide the soft power or halo that enables Israel to continue to get away with its oppression of the Palestinian people without serious ramifications. This software was long in the making, but it became a dominant reality following World War II. Since then, we have been told that God is on the other side, on Israel’s side. From that time on the story has been mixed with history, and biblical Israel with the modern state of Israel. The myth of a Judeo-Christian tradition has blurred the scene in Palestine, and for the last sixty-three years Palestinians have been demonized by a dominant Western culture.
Raheb sees a monolithic “West” as supporting Israel and therefore oppressing the coincidental mixture of nations which had been on that piece of land. He is perhaps naive to imagine such a unified Western intent or action, given the disunity between European and American diplomats on precisely this question.
In addition to cultural and economic imperialism, Raheb argues that religious motives are at work here. Perhaps he is correct, to the extent that we can distinguish religions from God. Sets of traditions and institutions manufactured over the centuries by people do indeed have an impact in these narratives.
God, on the other hand, is far above these petty power grabs - and far below them. He is present whenever there is an impulse for humane action - with no regard for the ethnicity or nationality of the people among whom such an impulse might take place.
Jesus is present in every humanitarian act, every sincere initiative toward peace, and every step away from institutionalized hatred and violence.
Jesus will not, however, allow Himself to be confined in anyone’s narrative. He is always bigger.
The physical universe in which we live - not only the Middle East - is essentially and permanently flawed. A utopia cannot be constructed here.
We can and should look to improve the world, but we must not allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking that we can perfect it. There will always be plagues, famines, wars, and rumors of war.
In our temporal-spatial continuum, there will not be a perfect and lasting peace, with perfect and lasting justice, in the Middle East - or anywhere else. We can make it more peaceful, and more just, and we are morally obliged to make it as peaceful and just as we can.
That will not be done by wading into a tangle of numerous complex narratives constructed by Israelis and Palestinians.
