Israeli and Palestinian Stories. Can Mediators Reconfigure Incompatible Narratives?
| Published date | 01 June 2019 |
| Date | 01 June 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12675 |
| Author | Valérie Rosoux |
Israeli and Palestinian Stories. Can Mediators
Reconfigure Incompatible Narratives?
Val
erie Rosoux
UCLouvain, Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS)
Abstract
The rise of further tensions and wars in the Middle East interconnects, oversimplifies and radicalizes narratives. The aim of the
article is to question the scope and practical limits of the mediators’power regarding parties’representations of the past. The
study is divided into four parts. The first describes the specific challenge faced by practitioners. The other parts explore the
Israeli-Palestinian case, focusing on three distinct approaches to contradictory narratives. The first can be summarized by the
formula ‘neither nor’(neither the Israeli narrative, nor the Palestinian narrative). In concealing interpretations of the past, medi-
ators try to do away with the ‘tyranny of the past’. The second approach takes into consideration ‘both the Israeli and the
Palestinian narratives’. It tends to be inclusive and to consider all interpretations of the past. The third and last approach
applies a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’reasoning in order to forge new interpretations of the past. At each stage of
the research, the purpose is to question the actual impact of these approaches. Do they enable the parties to move on, or do
they reinforce the deadlock? Do they open the minds of the negotiators or do they rather close them?
Beyond and beneath parties’interests, needs and positions
lie their narratives, which frame their thoughts and aims of
self and other. From this perspective, the interpretation
given to the facts is one of the critical elements of any con-
flict resolution (Forsberg, 2003, p. 73; Ghilani et al, 2017).
The issue has always been particularly significant in the Mid-
dle East. The Israeli and Palestinian understandings of the
1948 war and the origins of the Palestinian refugee question
illustrate the gap between narratives. The example of the
plaza of the mosques in Jerusalem also requires mediators
to address competing narratives.
Starting point
The instability and even ‘chaos’raging in the Middle East
today (Golan, 2018, p. 48) reinforce the exclusionary charac-
ter of these narratives. The persistent deadlock in the peace
process, the political fatigue and distrust of what is increas-
ingly seen as illegitimate peacebuilding explain why these
narratives are not only diverging, but even incompatible. In
such circumstances, what possibilities are open to media-
tors? A range of answers have been given to this question.
In the view of some particularly optimistic observers, media-
tors can reconcile the diverging historical narratives, as a
basis for handling conflict (Bracka, 2017). Others believe that
narratives are based on strongly entrenched representations
that are impervious to negotiation. This chapter will navi-
gate between these two positions in order to depict the
processes for dealing with contradictory narratives.
At first glance, this chapter is not analyzing a new pattern.
Bilateral, mediated and multiparty negotiations on the Mid-
dle East inevitably have to address diverging historical narra-
tives. Even when parties have decided explicitly to not be
backward looking, they have undeniably been influenced by
conflicting narratives. So, the issue as such is not new. How-
ever, regional instability, large scale displacements and the
painful consequences of casualties polarize positions and
force us to address the issue in a much more systematic
way. The rise of further tensions and wars in the region
interconnects, oversimplifies and radicalizes narratives (on
the rhetorical use of Palestine by ISIS members, for instance,
see Batrawi, 2015). Although disorganized profiteering rebel
groups and multiple regional patrons have rather dissimilar
interests and demands, they favor insecurity and ipso facto
fear driven narratives. In these specific circumstances, the
risk of entrapment directly related to the spiral of ‘narratives
at war’constitutes a current challenge that needs to be con-
fronted.
Research posture
Focusing on narratives does not mean that conflict can be
reduced to a discursive discord. The aim of this article is nei-
ther to deny the myriad of factors involved in the conflict,
nor to call into question the structural dimension of wars. It
is to show that, besides the balance of power and the evo-
lution of the parties’interests, the ways in which the past is
interpreted, misinterpreted, or even manipulated help to
create the context that shapes international negotia-
tions (Rosoux and Anstey, 2017).
This perspective implies a particular research posture,
requiring us to consider both the reality of the events which
occurred, but also, and above all, the meaning and emo-
tions, even passions, attached to them (Hassner, 2005). The
objective is not to distinguish between ‘good’and ‘bad’,
‘sound’and ‘unsound’narratives; it is to show that the
Global Policy (2019) 10:Suppl.2 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12675 ©2019 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 10 . Issue Supplement 2 . June 2019 61
Special Issue Article
To continue reading
Request your trial