In the Name of God: How Israelis, Palestinians and Americans Transformed the Arab-Israeli Conflict into a Religious Struggle

The Arab-Israeli conflict, primarily a dispute over the control of land, has passed from being framed in nationalistic terms by both Arabs and Israelis and in more or less strategic terms by the US; to being understood as a religious conflict, underpinned by a religious shift in the mindset of its parties, including America. Israel’s religious radicalization gained momentum during the Oslo negotiations, crystallizing with the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, and continuing today, notably under the harsh policies of Benyamin Netanyahu. The rise of Palestinian political Islam can be traced back to the general “Islamic Resurgence” of the 70s, that swept all over the Muslim world, though it has become more evident in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries. In America, the impact of Evangelical Christian ideas on US foreign policy began under the presidency of George W. Bush but reached its peak of influence under the Trump Administration.

Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat and Bill Clinton at the Oslo Accords signing ceremony, 1993 (source)

Israel’s religious right-wing has been growing in size and makes up an important part of Netanyahu’s government. During the last decades, secularist-nationalist extreme right has been losing ground to a more religious kind of far right, with terrorist attacks, especially in the occupied territories, multiplying. This trend was painfully evident in 1995, when ultra-orthodox media held symposiums on the question of whether Yitzhak Rabin should be executed, and when fundamentalist rabbis condemned the Prime Minister and declared it legitimate to assassinate him, leading to the consequences that we all know. From its part, Islamist fundamentalism has seen its public support and reconnaissance grow dramatically during the 21st Century, especially at difficult times. For example, Palestinians’ support for groups like Hamas or Islamic Jihad increased by more than 50% during the so-called Al-Aqsa Intifada. Meanwhile, in the United States, Evangelical Christians have gained important leverage in the design of US foreign policy, particularly in what concerns the Arab-Israeli conflict. The group Christians United for Israel (CUFI) founded in 2006 and that claims more than four million members, has an important influence in Trump’s decisions. When the new American embassy in Jerusalem was inaugurated, an extremist pastor called Robert Jeffress thanked God for “having given us a president who boldly stands on the right side of history, but more importantly, stands on the right side of You, of God, when it comes to Israel”.

The Battle for the Soul of Israel

Although right-wing extremism has always been part of the country’s political landscape, the new far right is underpinned by a religious fundamentalist ideology, in contraposition to the traditionally nationalist right. Modern Israel was created by a group of secular socialists led by David Ben-Gurion, that wanted to build a more or less secular and liberal state for the Hebrew nation after the horrors of the Holocaust. This idea was shattered after the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Although Israel ultimately won the war, losses were huge, and the massive intelligence failure destroyed the credibility of traditional Labor policies. Menachem Begin won the next elections, inflicting a painful defeat to the Labor party, and forged an alliance with Israel’s religious parties, which demanded important concessions to the ultra-orthodox. This sowed the seeds for fundamentalist right-wing extremism. The focus of right-wing parties started to swing from land and security to the transformation of Israel’s population into a homogeneous Jewish society. 

The Arab-Israeli conflict was not regarded as a religious one until the 1980s, a time when Israel’s nationalistic far right turned into a religious one. The transformation of the conflict into a sacred battle through the vilification of Palestinians legitimized violence against civilians. These new right-wing parties understand democracy as an anomaly that will eventually give place to a truly Jewish state, and have ultraconservative values at the backbone of their ideology. They offer orthodox Judaism as an alternative to secular and democratic Zionism.

These ideas seem to be gaining support. In 2016, a Pew public opinion survey found that almost 80% of Jewish Israelis support “preferential treatment” for Jews, this is, full rights for Jews and discrimination and suspicion for gentiles. At the same time, the vast majority of Israelis are proud of having a stable and functioning democracy. However, the increased radicalization of Israeli politics has driven the country to a crossroad, if the criterion of inclusion is not based on citizenship but rather on religious affiliation, the same concept of democracy is undermined. Since one of the pillars of democracy is the equality of all citizens before the law, any law that violates this principle would be, by definition, antidemocratic. Thus, religious right-wing parties are right, it is not possible to live in a Jewish democratic state, Israelis must be aware that right-wing extremism not only harms Palestinians, but also undermines the democracy they are so proud of. 

The Islamic Alternative

The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is, of course, nothing exclusively Palestinian. This “Islamic Resurgence” can be traced back to the 1970s, and, even though it swept with force most of the Muslim World, the Arab-Israeli conflict is at its center, at least if we are to explore its causes. After the decolonization of the Middle East, Arab nationalism emerged as the new way to make politics in the region. Fiercely anti-Israeli and nationalist, the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, personified the ideals of this doctrine. Nasser rose to power through a coup d’état against King Farouk, and gained the respect of Arabs across the region, feeding in the popular resentment produced by the defeat of the War of 1949 and the dire economic conditions. 

Palestinian children greeting Hamas fighters in Gaza (source)

However, Nasser was incapable of facing Israel, suffering humiliating defeats and losing important swaths of territory. This was not solely an Egyptian affair, Arab nationalism seemed to be failing everywhere, and the Palestinian cause was losing attraction. Furthermore, the socialist economic mismanagement of Arab governments did not improve people’s economic conditions, but rather deteriorated them. Amid all of this, the feeling that the current political, socioeconomic and cultural systems were a failure spread among the population, and political Islam, underpinned by the thinking of Qotb and Maududi, started to seem like a self-sufficient ideology for the state and society, a viable alternative to nationalism. The year 1973 is paradoxical, while nationalists were again defeated at the Yom Kippur war, the conservative gulf monarchies inflicted great pain to Western economies without even having to use a single soldier, at the same time their GDPs boomed. Political Islam finally crystallized in 1979, when Afghan mujahidin were able to stop the Soviet Empire’s advance, an Islamic revolution triumphed in Iran and Anwar Sadat, Nasser’s successor, signed a peace treaty with Israel, what was seen as the final claudication of Arab nationalism. 

The Islamic upheaval of the Palestinian political landscape took a little bit more to be evident, mainly because the PLO, under the direction of Yasser Arafat, distanced itself from Arab nationalism in the late 1960s. However, 1993’s historic handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and the Palestinian leader in the framework of the Oslo Accords was considered to many a betrayal to the Palestinian cause. Furthermore, the continuous victories or at least stalemates of Hizballah against Israel during the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s galvanized the idea of political Islam as a viable way of defending Palestine. At the same time, Islamic organizations like Hamas provided social and economic relief to an agonizing population while the Palestinian Authority’s capacity to provide basic services was greatly reduced. During the first years of the 21st Century the Palestinian political front finally imploded, a generational breakdown became evident between the old PLO/PA cadres that refused to participate in the Intifada, and the young Islamists. The Palestinian Authority rapidly lost legitimacy at home and abroad, weakened by its inaction against Israeli attacks and plagued with corruption; at the same time that groups like Hamas or Hizballah gained widespread support.

America’s Prophetic Duty

The United States’ approach to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict has historically been a rational and strategic one, aimed to protect American interests in the Middle East and the stability of the region through a peaceful solution to the conflict. Proofs of this are the numerous attempts, some successful others not, to reduce tensions and foster communication among the parties involved. It could not have been possible for Egypt to get back the Sinai or for Israel to get its right to exist recognized by the PLO, without the American involvement. 

It is true that the United States has always had a preference for Israel, and that the generosity upon which is based their relationship is not comparable with the shallower aid that Palestine receives. However, George W. Bush and, more notably, Donald Trump, have adopted an increasingly pro-Israeli rhetoric and have undermined their relations with the Palestinian people. The final materializations of this shift are the decision to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and thus recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and Kushner’s “Deal of the Century” that does everything to foster Israeli interests and nothing to protect Palestinian ones.

A prayer at an Evangelicals for Trump campaign event (source)

This shift is better understood if we have a look at the United States political map. More than a quarter of all eligible voters in America are white Evangelical Christians. This makes them a juicy base of electoral support to have, and the Republican Party has taken the lead. More than 80% of white Evangelical Christians voted for Trump, and the President has been eager to foster Evangelical objectives through his policies. Evangelical Christians believe that the Bible is some sort of prophetic roadmap that ends with the Day of Judgement and the second coming to Earth of Jesus Christ. In this day, the faithful will go the heaven and the sinners to hell. The prophecy also talks about an important event for the analyzed conflict: the second coming of Jesus Christ will be precluded by the return of the Jews to the land of Israel. Thus, the simple existence of Israel is seen by many Evangelical Christians as the sign that confirms the prophecy, and, for them, if the United States wants to be in the right side of history, it must do everything in its hands to protect Israel and defeat its enemies. This could also explain the harsh measures that Trump has undertaken against Iran, notably, since another passage of the Bible taken literally by Evangelicals, Esther’s Book, talks about a plot by the King of Persia (modern day Iran) to destroy the Jews. Furthermore, it is important to have in mind that two of the most powerful men in designing US foreign policy, State Secretary Mike Pompeo and Vice-president Mike Pence, identify themselves as Evangelical Christians. 

The Wrong Road

Framing the conflict in religious terms does nothing to solve the problem but rather drives it to a dead end. If the Palestinian efforts continue to be led by intransigent ecstatic groups that understand the struggle as a zero-sum game in which the ends always justify the means, the Israeli state continues its shift towards maximalist policies entrenched by radical conceptions about the fate of the nation, and the US policy continues to be driven by some sort of prophetic responsibility, the conflict will turn into an even bitterer rivalry than it is today. Islamic terrorism will not weaken the Israeli state, but rather provoke more severe responses. Israel’s settlement and homogenization policies will not make the nation safer, but rather create an environment of constant insecurity embedded in an apartheid system deeply antidemocratic. Trump’s “Deal of the Century” will not solve the parties’ differences, but rather exacerbate violence in an already turbulent region. By understanding the conflict as a religious struggle, all factions have transformed it into a cosmic battle in which the opponent is nothing short of a demon that must be destroyed. Israel, Palestine and America are driving themselves to the antipodes of a peaceful settlement, the looming shadow of the Clash of Civilizations seems closer than ever. If the parties are not able to moderate themselves, violence, hatred and pain will continue to be their daily bread for a long time. 

References:

1. Benn, A. 2016, "The End of the Old Israel", Foreign Affairs;

2. Hanauer, L.S. 1995, "The Path to Redemption: Fundamentalist Judaism, Territory, and Jewish Settler Violence in the West Bank", Studies in Conflict & Terrorism;

3. Hernández Jiménez, A., B. Culla, J. & Bermejo García, R. 2012, "Las raíces del Estado de Israel y su evolución", Historia del Estado de Israel, 2012;

4. Keim, M. 2011, "Here and Back Again: US National Security Interests in the Arab/Israeli Conflict", Pepperdine Policy Review;

5. Rouhana, N.N. 2006, "Jewish and Democratic? The Price of a National Self-Deception", Journal of Palestine Studies;

6. Roy, S. 2003, "Hamas and the transformation(s) of political Islam in Palestine ", Current History;

7. Scheltens, L. & Parvaneh, D. 2020, Feb 12, How a Bible prophecy shapes Trump’s foreign policy;

8. Shikaki, K. 2004, "The Future of Palestine", Foreign Affairs.

Edited by Hiba Arrame

Is the World Becoming More Peaceful?

It might come up as a strange question for some people, who see a conflictual world on television, newspapers, websites and especially social media, which exposes different types of conflicts worldwide. How could we speak about a peaceful world while the hashtag #WorldWarThree is trending on social media, after the tension between Washington and Tehran following the US airstrike which killed General Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian major general, who had been the architect of Iranian military interventions in the Middle East.

According to statistics and some analysis, there is a significant military advantage of the United States over Iran, thus being difficult to compare. Aware of that, the Iranian regime would not prefer to engage in a direct war with the US army. This fact was confirmed by the mild Iranian reaction to the US killing Soleimani, furthermore the American troops were informed hours before the attack.

But the people, who are afraid of a next world war, don’t rely on Iranian power and its capability to face USA, they have fear of whoever stands behind Iran, mainly Russia, and China on a second level. 

Insecure Region in the Safest World

There is a common theory that the world is becoming safer and more peaceful than ever, which is not a daydream. Data shows that it is indeed a fact. Since the World War II there are fewer conflicts and less people die in war than before (refer to figure 1 and figure 2 below). 

Figure 1: Deaths caused by war, annual statistics by UCDP/PRIO since 1946

Meanwhile war is getting away from different regions, such as Europe, America, Asia, Oceania, and even Africa. There is one specific region where war conflicts and violence are increasing; the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region, which remained the world’s least peaceful region. 

Beside the Arab-Israeli conflict, one of the oldest conflicts, which causes disputes among the Arab countries in 1956, 1967, 1973 and 2006 and many tensions since Israel’s existence. The region knew many other conflicts: Iraq against Iran in 1980, Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, followed by the coalition operation in to expel the occupying Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and a series of continuous civil wars in Syria, Libya and Yemen, following to the Arab spring started in Tunisia in 2010.

Figure 2: Deaths caused by war, annually and divided by world region (UCDP/PRIO)

Why is this Region so Insecure?

Unlike many other regions in the world, which are getting more and more peaceful, the MENA region is still suffering from wars, conflicts and insecurity. This trend leads us to ask the question “Why?”…

War for oil, foreign intervention, ethnic and religious differences are indeed all root causes, leading to instability and insecurity of this region. But there is also another important factor, which can explain all other ones - non-democracy.

There is enough evidence to conclude that democracy does cause peace at least between democracies, that the observed correlation between democracy and peace is not invalid.

Global democracy could provide a solid foundation for global peace. The basic principles of this concept had been argued as early as the 1700s in the works of philosopher Immanuel Kant and political theorist Thomas Paine.

Figure 3: Democracies vs. autocracies chart (Varieties of Democracy Project, 2019)

While the number of democracies is increasing and autocracies are decreasing (figure 3), the MENA region is still having a  majority of authoritarian regimes, or sometimes hybrid ones, but only a few of them are democracies (refer to figure 4),  

Figure 4: World map presenting democracies (The Economist Intelligence Unit)

Conclusion

To sum up, we can say that the world is getting more peaceful because it is getting more democratic. There is a connection between democracy and peace. 

To end years of wars and conflicts, the MENA region needs a real democracy, but not the democracy brought up by tanks, like that one promised at the Iraqi invasion in 2003, which caused chaos not only in Iraq but also in other countries like Syria. A democracy that comes from people’s mentality of the region.

While Western countries must support democratization process in Arab countries, as they did after the "Fall of the Berlin Wall", they must neither support dictatorships nor intervene militarily in this region.

Edited by Nataliya Napetova