by Dr. Eric R. Mandel, MEPIN
In the decades-long conflict between Israel and Palestinians, there is an essential component that well-meaning Western negotiators have underestimated: religion factors more into the equation the West might expect, even for secular Arab citizens.
Religious beliefs are a core reason that many Palestinians cannot accept the legitimacy of Jewish nationalism (Zionism) or peoplehood. For them, it is a religious obligation never to cede land that once was Islamic. The Western mindset can’t fathom the importance of this, unable to comprehend that there is no separation of mosque and state for these believers. If it were simply about haggling over borders, the conflict probably would have ended long ago.
Israelis also have a religious narrative, especially among those who settle the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) for religious reasons — the biblical homeland of Jewish people.
With the Biden administration re-engaging with the Palestinian Authority and restoring funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine refugees, it would be wise to reflect on past failures in achieving Middle East peace. This requires something difficult for Washington: thinking beyond conventional State Department wisdom. Typically for Washington diplomats, it is all about Israeli settlements and not the role that religion plays in the conflict.
But Western analysts have underestimated the vehemence of those who believe that Judaism is only a religion, and not a people or a nation. From their perspective, the Jews don’t have a civilization or one with legitimate aspirations for their ancestral home in the Levant. On the other hand, they feel a duty to keep, or to regain, control of any place that once was under Islamic control.
For example, the first Islamic presence on the Temple Mount (Haram al-Sharif), the Dome of the Rock, was built in the late 7th century, nearly 1,600 years after the Jewish temple first stood on that location. If you listen to the Palestinian Authority’s line, never mind the archeology, Jews were never there and are simply colonialist interlopers.
Western experts should appreciate the importance of the Abraham Accords, in which moderate Islamic nations chose pragmatism and respect for their Jewish cousins’ claim to nationhood. It could be a gift to create a new paradigm between the Israelis and Palestinians. But only if a new Palestinian leader emerges in the image of Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ), a pragmatic Sunni moderate who signed a peace treaty with Israel, will there be a chance to resolve the conflict anytime soon. Such a leader must accept a Jewish state without territorial demands dictated by strict interpretation of Islam. Many Middle East experts failed to see the Abraham Accords coming, wherein Arab states would recognize Israel and choose moderation over religious orthodoxy.
The origins of the Israel-Palestine conflict were never simply territorial, ending in Arab and Jewish states as envisioned in United Nations Resolution 181. The most unmistakable evidence is that former leaders Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas both declined offers for a Palestinian state and Arab East Jerusalem as the capital in 2001 and 2008, respectively.
Western foreign policy officials say that we all know how this conflict has to end — two states for two peoples, with a division of the land and Jerusalem based on the 1949-1967 Armistice Lines. Yet, they forget there were those who would not sign an armistice unless it made clear that these lines would not be permanent borders, insisting instead on a ceasefire that stated, “The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,” so it could not legitimize a Jewish entity.
Today, conventional Western wisdom is that Palestinians sustained “Al Naqba,” a “catastrophe,” with the creation of the State of Israel, which expelled 600,000 indigenous people. But this catastrophe for the Palestinian people wasn’t only of Israel’s doing. Respecting Palestine’s loss is something with which most Israelis could empathize — if most Palestinians could overcome the belief that Israel has no right to exist. Both peoples must learn to respect the other’s narrative.
Religion was a motivating factor in Palestinian leaders and Arab nations not accepting a Palestinian state in 1948, 1967, 2000 and 2008. This more realistic, but politically incorrect, narrative is not one that today’s foreign policy experts want to accept.
America should not mediate any negotiation for final-status talks without a precondition: The signing of an unassailable end-of-conflict treaty, stating that neither side can have claims on the other’s territory. That is a non-negotiable demand to avoid past failures, because it would mean the religious dimension of the conflict is addressed regarding territorial concessions.
Palestinians deserve a government that prioritizes their future and begins the process of accepting the painful compromises needed for their economic empowerment and freedom. With Palestinians about to vote in legislative elections, it is incumbent on the U.S. to articulate a clear position on what it expects of Palestine and Israel.
If accepting Zionism and embracing the principles of the Abraham Accords is a bridge too far for the political leaders to cross at this time, a good beginning would be to foster grassroots dialogues between moderate Muslim and Jewish religious leaders, who can see the humanity in the other people with whom they are destined to live in the land. Who knows — if the Abraham Accords were possible, anything may be possible?
<
>
<
>
Dr. Mandel is the Director of MEPIN (Middle East Political Information Network). He regularly briefs members of Congress and their foreign policy aides. He is the Senior Security Editor for the Jerusalem Report/ Jerusalem Post. His work appears in The Hill, National Interest, RealClearWorld, the Forward, JNS, i24, Rudow (Iraq), Jewish Week, IsraelNationalNews, JTA, Algemeiner, WorldJewishNews, Israel Hayom, Thinc., and Defense News.<
>
Sorry for the typo in my comment below. The correct Koran verse calling for war against the Jews and their subjugation to Islamic rule is 9:29.
And, of course, “In order words…” in the penultimate paragraph should be “In other words…”
Sorry for the typo above. The correct Koran verse calling for war against the Jews and their subjugation to Islamic rule is 9:29.
And, of course, “In order words…” in the penultimatge paragraph should be “In other words…”
Indeed, it is high time that all those highly-paid diplomats and western leaders understood that Islamic religious doctrine is at the root of the conflict over Israel. The Hamas Charter makes this explicit. Further proof is that Israel’s deadliest enemy is The ISLAMIC Republic of Iran, and the Iranians are not Arabs, let alone Palestinian Arabs. Turkey under Erdogan is the second deadliest enemy of Israel, and the Turks are not Arabs. The only explanation for their enmity is that they are religious Moslems. In essence, we are dealing with an Islamic war against the Jews.
There are two Islamic doctrines in play here: 1) as Dr. Mandel noted, Islam considers any territory previously conquered by Muslims to be Islamic forever, and that, of course includes all of the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine which used to belong to the Ottoman Empire. 2) The second Islamic doctrine goes back to the Koran 9:26 in which Allah commands Muslims to make war on the Jews (and Christians, too) and subjugate the Jews (and Christians) to Islamic rule. In order words, Jewish political sovereignty is prohibited by Islam. That is why any recognition of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state is rejected by religious Moslems.
Therefore, while it sounds good for Dr. Mandel to say “Both peoples must learn to respect the other’s narrative. “, that is impossible because the Palestinian/Moslem narrative of the Naqba excludes the Jewish Israeli narrative. There can be no mutual recognition. One of them has to be defeated.