7. NARRATIVES AND MYTHS ABOUT ARAB INTRANSIGENCE TOWARD ISRAEL MARK TESSLER NARRATIVES ARE REAL and deserve attention regardless of the degree to which they are historically accurate. Whether or not they are historically accurate is also important. But the fact is that Israelis and Palestinians have narratives that tell different stories about what has happened in Palestine since the beginning of the modern Zionist project. From one perspective, it does not matter whether the stories are accurate. That they are authentic is enough. The Palestinians’ narrative is a product of their experience, just as the Zionists’ is a product of theirs. It reflects how they perceived, interpreted, and evaluated the events and circumstances of their lives. Put differently, it is a community’s own story—how the community understands and gives meaning to what it has endured. It is neither accurate nor inaccurate in a larger or more objective sense. It is simply one’s story, subjective but real in the sense that it is the version of life and times that one not only tells but also believes. And to those who doubt this rendering of history, it may be said: if you had experienced what this community has experienced, it would be your narrative as well. In a situation of conflict, acknowledging not only the authenticity but also the validity, and indeed the legitimacy, of the other side’s narrative is important for at least two closely interrelated reasons. First, this acknowledgement humanizes the adversary. Such an acknowledgement is necessary for progress to be made toward resolving the conflict; it allows for the possibility, at least, of eventual reconciliation. Rather than demonizing one’s historic adversaries, and thus believing that they are driven by irrational or immoral principles, accepting their narrative makes them human. Their story and sentiments are not the product of some primordial, intrinsic, and hence unchangeable impulse that makes them untrustworthy and undeserving of consideration. Rather, they constitute a logical, reasonable, and ultimately human response to the lives that they have lived. Acknowledging their narrative makes dialogue possible and accommodation imaginable. Second, accepting the validity of the other’s narrative has implications for the way a community understands its own narrative. More specifically, it leads to an appreciation of the fact that it is a narrative, authentic to be sure, and not necessarily inaccurate, but nonetheless a story rather than objective history. Recognizing the subjective character of the way people tell the story of their community’s experience, including the story of its relationship with adversaries, brings an understanding that this narrative is not the only reasonable account of events and circumstances. This acceptance is also a necessary condition for dialogue, accommodation, and eventual reconciliation. A community is not required to disavow its own narrative. But it does need to be receptive to compromise, and that necessitates an appreciation not only of the humanity of the adversary but also of the fact that it does not have a monopoly on morality and truth. As important as it is to view narratives from this perspective, questions about the degree to which a narrative is consistent with historical facts, to the extent these can be known, are