The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Through an Academic Lens: Analysing Scholarly Portrayals of War and Middle Eastern Representation

This article critically examines how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been framed and portrayed in Western academic scholarship, with particular attention to memory, representation, and the politics of narrative construction. It focuses on how different epistemological and ideological stances shape the scholarly literature, especially within the fields of international relations, political science, and Middle Eastern studies. The paper is driven by a central concern: the ways in which academic narratives—often viewed as neutral or objective—are deeply embedded in structures of cultural memory, identity politics, and geopolitical interest.

The author begins by mapping out the dominant paradigms through which the conflict is typically approached in Western academic discourse. These include security and terrorism studies, post-colonial critiques, and conflict resolution frameworks. Each of these is evaluated in terms of how it constructs the moral and political identities of the actors involved—namely Israel and the Palestinians—and what narratives it privileges or marginalises. A key theme in the article is the persistence of binary tropes in academic writing: aggressor versus victim, occupier versus resistance, democracy versus extremism. These binaries are shown to reflect broader cultural and geopolitical assumptions within Western institutions, particularly in the United States and Europe.

The paper critiques how such narratives are often aligned with the strategic interests of Western governments, and how this alignment influences what questions are asked, what methods are used, and which voices are given scholarly legitimacy. The article draws heavily on critical theory, post-structuralism, and discourse analysis to unpack the ideological underpinnings of academic work. The author examines how the vocabulary used in articles—terms like "terrorism," "legitimate resistance," or "peace process"—can carry implicit moral judgments that shape readers’ perceptions of the conflict. Scholars are thus positioned not merely as neutral observers, but as active participants in the construction of meaning around the conflict. The article also explores the erasure and marginalisation of Palestinian perspectives within academic literature. It highlights how many studies tend to focus on Israeli security concerns or Western diplomatic interests, while Palestinian narratives of dispossession, trauma, and identity are relegated to secondary status or entirely excluded. This trend is linked to funding sources, institutional affiliations, and political pressures within academia, particularly in the context of Israel’s close ties with Western nations.

Another important contribution of the paper is its analysis of how memory functions in academic accounts of the conflict. The Nakba (Palestinian catastrophe of 1948) and the Holocaust are frequently referenced in scholarly writing, but the paper argues that they are often framed in ways that reinforce Israeli state narratives or sideline Palestinian suffering. For example, the Holocaust is typically used to legitimise Israeli security concerns, while the Nakba is either ignored or framed as an unfortunate consequence of war, rather than a foundational event in the Palestinian historical consciousness. The author further critiques the tendency of academic work to depoliticise the conflict through technocratic or procedural lenses. Conflict resolution literature, in particular, is criticised for treating the situation as a symmetrical dispute between two equal parties, thereby obscuring the realities of occupation, power asymmetry, and systemic violence. This framing reinforces a false equivalence that fails to account for structural injustices embedded in the status quo.

The role of international law in academic portrayals is also discussed. While legal analyses ostensibly offer objective frameworks, the author argues that the selective application and interpretation of legal norms often reflect political biases. For example, the emphasis on Palestinian violations of humanitarian law (e.g., through rocket fire) is often more pronounced than critiques of Israeli settlement expansion or use of force, despite the scale and impact of the latter. A critical point raised is the role of the academic publishing industry itself. Journals, peer review processes, and funding bodies all contribute to shaping what kinds of scholarship are published and promoted. Work that aligns with dominant Western narratives is more likely to be accepted, while critical or decolonial perspectives—particularly those authored by Arab or Palestinian scholars—face higher barriers to publication.

This institutional gatekeeping reinforces a narrow band of “acceptable” discourse that often excludes the most urgent voices. In the final section, the paper explores alternatives to mainstream academic portrayals. It points to emerging decolonial scholarship, interdisciplinary studies, and grassroots research methodologies that seek to re-centre Palestinian experiences and challenge dominant epistemologies. These approaches often integrate oral history, memory work, and narrative inquiry to offer richer, more complex understandings of the conflict. The author calls for a more reflexive and inclusive academic practice—one that acknowledges its own positionality and strives to amplify marginalised voices. In conclusion, the article asserts that scholarly portrayals of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are far from neutral. They are deeply entangled with power structures, cultural memory, and geopolitical interests. By analysing how knowledge is produced, circulated, and legitimised within academia, the paper provides a powerful critique of the role intellectuals play in shaping public understanding of the conflict.

It urges scholars to be more aware of their own biases and to adopt methodologies that are inclusive, transparent, and ethically grounded. This article contributes significantly to the broader literature on academic representation, memory studies, and the politics of knowledge production. Its emphasis on narrative, erasure, and structural bias provides a valuable lens through which to assess the credibility and impact of academic writing on Middle Eastern conflicts. By interrogating the epistemic foundations of conflict scholarship, the article helps pave the way for a more just and equitable academic engagement with the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Reference: Author unknown. “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Through an Academic Lens: Analysing Scholarly Portrayals of War and Middle Eastern Representation.” Jadaliyya. Accessed August 2025. https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/44759.