Holding Up The Mirror: A Lacanian Textual Analysis of the Israeli Palestinian Conflict
Ben Schumann
Dr. Ted Gournelos
Abstract: This paper performs a textual analysis of the Israeli Prime Minster and the
Palestinian President’s speeches to the General Assembly to the United Nations (UN).
Through a lens of Lacan’s theory of the self/other/Other dialogue a false consciousness of
the self is constructed on both sides of the political debate. When both identities are held
together, faults can be seen in the lack of the definition of the self. This leads to
problematic constructions and negotiations.
The Israel-Palestine conflict has been center stage in international struggle and
tension since the establishment of Israel by the Allied powers in 1948, in which the
indigenous Palestinian population was displaced. Most recently, this conflict has
manifested in the controversy in the United Nations (UN) over Palestine’s bid for
recognition as a nation-state with representation in the UN. This would allow Palestine to
gain protection for historical and religious locations with international troops and aid. In
addition Palestine would be able to advance itself as a nation and as a people with less
need for outside and international aid. Palestine would also be able to pursue the
prosecution of Israel is international courts for occupation. Thus Israel would have to
abandon its posts in the disputed territories and thereby making itself more vulnerable to
security breeches. Through a textual analysis of both the Palestinian President’s and the
Israeli Prime minister’s speeches to the UN General Assembly this paper argues that the
issue is unlikely to be resolved at least in part because it is being framed in terms of a
self/other discourse in which each party victimizes itself and demonizes the other as a
process of self construction.
The way in which each nation’s representative speaks about the other country
harkens to French philosopher and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. He formulated the idea
of the Lacanian triangle, a chart that shows how the self sees an other, then through
language and a realm called the symbolic, construct an Other in order to reevaluate and
construct ourselves. So in order to think about other people or another group, we form a
construction of that other. We then use the constructed Other to characterize and define
ourselves. The way in which we get from the other to the Other and back to ourselves is
through language, not limited to spoken language So in the example of Palestine and
Israel, the way in which the Israeli Prime minister discusses Palestine lends to how
Palestinians are constructed in terms of Israel. Through that Palestinian construction,
Israel then beings to have the ability to distinguish and discuss itself in terms of the
conflict with the other, Palestine.
In the aftermath of World War 2, the Jewish people had been chased around
Europe and the Middle East. They pleaded with the UN to give them a homeland. The
UN presented a pan to split up what was then Palestine and make two independent
nations. Palestine rejected this plan, but the Israelis accepted it and declared their
legitimacy. Many major nations around the world were quick to recognize the new
Jewish state. Surrounding nations refused to recognize Israel and began attacking the
country. In 1967, a small war broke out when all of the neighboring countries attacked
Israel. This attack was ensuing battle was called the Six-Day War. Israel fought back and
expanded its borders through the beating back its aggressors. Although Israel returned
most of the land it had won in battle, it maintained occupation in the Gaza Strip and the
West Bank. The following decades were marked by terrorist activities to drive Israel and
the Jewish people out of the contested areas.
Which brings us to the current debate going on in the UN. Palestine is bidding for
statehood. The recognition of statehood by the United Nations has aspects that would
behoove Palestine to have such as international troops and aid available. Palestine is also
trying to advance itself as a group of people into a legitimate nation-state. Israel is
concerned with their security form terrorist activity. The Israeli Prime Minister wants
peace talks to occur before a Palestinian statehood bid is even considered by the General
Assembly.
Throughout the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speech he constructed
a Palestine that is characterized by one thing: Militant Islam. He talks about it as a
malignancy that “seeks not to liberate, but to enslave, not to build, but to destroy.” He
cites that “militant Islamists slaughtered countless other innocents” not only in Israel, but
also around the world. Netanyahu goes on to describe that because of the strong presence
of militant Islam, “the Palestinians want a state without peace.” He describes the
Palestinians as wanting statehood first without negotiating peace with Israel. Netanyahu
constructs a Palestinian state that is fractured by extremists and wants to drive out the
Jewish people form Israel. He backs up this construction through the Palestinian
government being backed by Iran. He mockingly describes the Palestinian president’s
statements that his people were armed only with their hopes and dreams adding, “yeah
hopes, dreams, and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran.” Prime Minister
Netanyahu constructs a terror driven, militant, malicious Palestine.
Conversely, Palestine constructs it self as “the victims of Al-Nakba (Catastrophe)
that occurred in 1948.” The “time has come to end the suffering and plight of millions of
Palestinian refugees”. Through his speech, the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas
constructed Palestine as the victims to “the Occupier”, Israel. The Palestinians are
constructed as a nation who “believes in peace.” The President continues on to construct
the goal of the peaceful Palestinian nation whom only seeks “the preservation of security
for the citizen and public order; to the promotion of judicial authority and rule of law; to
strengthening the role of women via legislation, laws and participation; to ensuring the
protection of public freedoms and strengthening the role of civil society institutions; to
institutionalizing rules and regulations for ensuring accountability and transparency in the
work of our Ministries and departments; to entrenching the pillars of democracy as the
basis for the Palestinian political life.” What the Palestinian construction of the self boils
down to is that they are a peaceful group of people who need the recognition of the U.N.
because it is an “unquestionable right of our people…to the independence of our State as
stipulated in international resolutions.”
Through the Palestinian president’s construction of the self, the construction of
Israel is framed in the lens of “the Occupier”. Palestine constructs the occupation of
certain Palestinian territories as a “policy, which constitutes a breach of international
humanitarian law and United Nations resolutions.” The very presence of Israel hinders
their ability to form a legitimate sovereign nation. Under the Palestinian construction of
Israel, a certain violent theme is portrayed. Abbas describes the military checkpoints in
certain areas of Gaza and the West Bank as “preventing our citizens from getting access
to their mosques and churches.” Abbas continues to say that the practice of Israeli people
settling in these areas “destroys family life and communities and their livelihoods of tens
of thousands of families.” The violent oppressive Israeli construction is also expressed
through the construct of the unilateral actions of the Israeli government in Israeli owned
land against Palestinians that Palestine constructs as ethnic cleansing. These acts the
belief that Israel is controlling Palestinian territory and claiming they have the right to
determine what, if any, Palestinian citizens get to reside in said territory. As the Israeli
construct of Palestine is summated in the phrase “militant Islam”, so too is the Palestinian
construction of Israel in the title “the Occupier.” Even the word is capitalized because it
is a construction.
The actions of Israel are slighted negatively when framed b Palestine; however,
when framed by Israel in their construction of the self they are merely security
precautions and logically justified. Netanyahu begins his speech by almost mocking the
U.N. stating that it is “a house of lies,” and a “theater of the absurd.” He continues on to
say that it casts Israel as the villain. He constructs this as simply not the case and that
Israel is only trying to protect itself from the Other of Militant Islam. He wants a peace
that is “anchored ins security.” He cites the efforts of the Israelis to make sweeping
withdrawals form the Gaza Strip in 2005, and the failures of these efforts that only
“brought the storm closer and made it stronger,” this storm being the militant
Palestinians. Netanyahu continues this logical progression in his construction of Israel
and its need for security first saying that Israel is “not prepared to have another Gaza
there, that’s why we need to have real security arrangements.” The Prime minister tries to
make his construction grounded even more saying that these security worries and
problems “are not theoretical ones… for Israelis, they’re life-and-death matters.”
Netanyahu also snarkily says that even though international press have faulted Israel for
demanding security first, “better bad press than a good eulogy.”
Holding each Lacanian triangle separately, one can sensibly move from each
phase and see the train of thought and how the constructions aid in the view of the self.
However, once the constructs of the self are held dually faults are brought out. The main
fracture that is created when the constructions of the self are held together is that each
construction relies heavily, too heavily, on the Other. The self is not clearly defined to
begin with. This is why these negotiations will not really matter and the problem will not
be solved. It is like a couple that are constantly arguing, but in a very specific way. If
each member of the relationship is constantly defining their problems and insecurities
through the other, they will never actually reconcile and be happy. Much like this couple,
Israel and Palestine both see themselves only through the lens of the other. They cannot
concretely define themselves with out the enemy so they rely on the enemy’s existence to
solidify themselves.
How do nation’s form national identities? Exactly how did America become this
ideal construct of 50 states. It cannot happen over night, nor can it be forced in some sort
of 1984 Orwellian way. This is more of a warning of sorts. In the formation of a national
identity some groups have to be marginalized, some have to be casted as an Other, and
still some have to be demonized. There has to be an oriental to the occidental. The most
frightening thing is just who becomes these exotic villains. Any group could be made out
to have their red scare. All a government need do is to excite, scare, and create frenzy
with a people searching for an enemy, and then it is easy pickings. Keep a watchful eye
for the ever-present wool.