This paper presents a discourse analysis of U.S. media coverage of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, investigating the use of biblical narratives as metaphors. Examining coverage specifically at the start of the First and Second Intifadas, I analyzed articles about the conflict in the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers that contained references to the David and Goliath narrative. Discursive theory suggests that the choice of narrative used to describe an event shapes the way the event is understood, which has implications for behavior, as well. Using discourse theory as a framework for this analysis, I examined such variables as article salience, speaker identity, how the narrative is used, and how and whether this use changes over time, concluding that the narrative is used primarily when there is a sense that an "underdog" side stands to make significant gains, and conversely, ceases to be used once that hope has been largely diminished due to changing perceptions of the actors. U.S. media play a significant role in the way the conflict is understood by imprinting a biblical frame on the conflict, which has the effect of undermining the possibility and feasibility of political solutions and constructing a view of the conflict that is almost eternal in nature. More importantly, by analogizing real people as archetypal characters, this frame oversimplifies their political identities, decreasing the likelihood of intervention once the more complex identities of these people are observed.