Der König Der Löwen

I remember sitting at my father's kitchen table, way back in my high school years, perusing the New York Times (which my father insisted was the only paper worth reading) -- and more than a few times pausing at an article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There seemed to be at least one every week, and they inevitably frustrated me -- because despite their overwhelming frequency, the articles never left me feeling meaningfully informed. I didn't understand the conflict -- how it had come about, why it persisted... I would read about explosions, massacres, and failed peace negotiations between state leaders -- all of these things which seemed like only external symptoms of a deep and complex issue. I remember thinking that I would have to go back and read fifty years' worth of the New York Times if I wanted to understand it.

Now, having read Loewen, I think it perhaps was not only [timeline-style] history which was missing from those articles, but also a comprehensive and current view of the peoples involved. Browsing the New York Times website yesterday, I came across a link declaring, "U.N. Vote on Palestinian State Could Force Israel's Hand" -- which led to an article by Ethan Bronner titled, "In Israel, Time For Peace Offer May Run Out". It is reporting on Palestine's desire to seek membership in the United Nations -- a membership which would define the borders of the Palestinian State as including areas now occupied by Israel: the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The article offers the viewpoints of both Palestinian and Israeli leaders, as well as perspectives from the international community (i.e. other presidents and ministers), and finishes with speculations as to what will happen if and when Palestine is recognized and accepted as a state by the United Nations.

Before the text begins, there is a photograph: a group of people kneeling on the ground, heads bowed, before a line of soldiers; the subtitle reads, "Palestinians prayed near Israeli soldiers on Friday. They were protesting land confiscation in the village of Qusra, near Nablus." Although the people pictured are faceless and prostrate, I would interpret this picture as a gesture of empowerment, within the text -- the Palestinians are shown organizing peacefully, which gives them credibility, and the descriptor "protesting" is active and political, which gives a small nod to the part they have played in the progression toward U.N. membership. It is the kind of recognition which Loewen argues is largely absent from textbooks and popular culture -- instead of "[c]rediting the federal government" (241) for change in policy, and "minimiz[ing] the potential power of the people," (243), it shows these people as active agents of history.

Unfortunately, any recognition of individual players is lost as soon as we enter the text. The article begins by stating that "Israel is under mounting pressure to make a far-reaching offer to the Palestinians". This of course is remarkably similar to phrases from American Pageant -- such as, "[Revisionists] argued that the Soviets had understandably defensive intentions...and that the United States had behaved aggressively and irresponsibly" (903). Instead of identifying individual agents, federal governments are personified. This sort of language continues throughout the text -- "Israel see[s]"; "France, Germany and Britain say" -- entire populations of diverse people and powers are represented as a unified entity, acting with a singular will or spirit. The people of Israel are only ever mentioned as victims of circumstance, and the objects of their governments; for example, the article states, "Israel, which has settled hundreds of thousands of Jews inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem, acknowledges it will have to withdraw...." And Palestinian people, beyond the government officials, are never mentioned at all outside of the beginning picture.

Something interesting to note, I think, is when countries are not referred to as a State but as a group of people or one leading person. For example, in American Pageant, I noticed that where they referred to American powers or agents as "the United States" or "Washington," they often referred to Fidel Castro individually as "Castro" instead of as "Cuba". For example, the authors write, "Washington...released Cuba from 'imperialistic slavery' by cutting off the heavy imports of Cuban sugar. Castro retaliated with further wholesale confiscations...." (922). Thus, once Cuba is out of favor with Washington, its actions are viewed as those of one (biased and imperfect) individual, instead of as those of a legitimate state. This sort of discrepancy can also be seen in the Israel/Palestine article; since Palestine is not recognized as a state, the nation is referred to as "the Palestinians" -- or as individual Palestinian officials. They are thus granted less authority than "Israel," "France," and "Britain". President Obama is also named individually multiple times, perhaps to emphasize that the "United States is still uncertain how to move the process forward" -- Obama's individual visibility signals weakness in American resolve, or policy.

In any case, I think it is clear that these elements Loewen is pointing to -- the personification of federal governments, with the result of a disempowered citizenry -- are very present in the article I found. The people of Israel and Palestine, who are supposed to be the ones engaged in this conflict, are at most vaguely pointed to. How have the beliefs and actions of the Jews who have "been settled" inside the West Bank led and kept them there? How many other Palestinians have protested and lobbied for their land? Why do they do it? Perhaps if all the New York Times articles I've read over the years had addressed these questions, illuminated these strands of the conflict's history, I myself would have been more engaged. Instead, I find myself contemplating with suspicion and wariness the aims of governments who seem to represent no one at all.