1. 1
Scriptural Violence as Seen Through the
Israel-Palestine Conflict
Supervisor: Jason Fuller
2015
Jacob Dickey
Religious Studies Seminar
2015

2. 2
Introduction
With over 100,000 total casualties to date (Jewish Virtual Library), the war between
Israel and Palestine is one of the most known conflicts of recent history. It is a complex struggle
intertwined with both politics and religion. Best explained by Charles Selengut in his book
Sacred Fury, “Both sides have many justifiable political arguments and legitimate historical
grievances, but the conflict, at its root, is a religious conflict over rights to a land both sides
consider holy and exclusively their own by religious fiat.” The problem that causes violent
conflict is a result of a series of events experienced by both groups and interpreted religiously. I
highlight interpretation of texts as the problematic source. This can be amended to produce a
peaceful alternative.
In my report I examine the causes and, in some sense, the effect of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict by discussing the history, perspectives, and possible alternatives. By
studying the current religious interpretations and motives, peace can be seen as a viable
alternative. Possible peaceful alternatives will be then proposed. My argument is simply that
the reasons for violence are invalid and a nonviolent solution, at least theoretically, can be
achieved. First, the complex historical context of the conflict must be studied to give
background to the problems at hand. Then I will analyze the problems through a religious
scriptural interpretation lens. I will examine the beliefs present in the scriptures and how it has
come to be interpreted in the times. Lastly I will discuss nonviolent alternatives and the
justifications for such in the religious texts compared to the current violent interpretations.

3. 3
Historical Context
The history of these two groups competing can be traced back to the late 19th century.
Both Israelis and Palestinians began nationalist movements that both involved reclaiming the
land considered to be “theirs” by means given to them by their own scriptures. The British
mandate over the land of Palestine ending and the establishment of the Israeli Declaration of
Independence spurred the 1948 Israeli-Arab war. Israelis claimit is holy land appointed to them
by their god. They believe that once this land has been reclaimed, their messiah will appear and
all will be in peace. Palestinians use a religious drive to take back land where they had been
inhabited. Islamic religious claims to Jerusalem are based on the location where Muhammad
ascended to heaven on the Dome of the Rock. Islamhas two other important cities: Mecca and
Medina. Christianity also has religious claims to Israel. Jesus was believed to have held the last
supper as well as been crucified and resurrected in Jerusalem. Jewish, Muslim, and Christian
prophets all have ties with this holy city.
The Israeli-Arab war began the large scale conflict by “Israel annexing territory beyond
the partition borders for a proposed Jewish state and into the borders for a proposed
Palestinian Arab state” (Baylis Thomas). This resulted in approximately 750,000 Palestinian
refugees native to the newly Israeli acquired Palestine territory and 850,000 Jews that fled or
were expelled from their homes in Arab countries. Ultimately, this war resulted in a mass
transfer of Palestinians from Israel to the surrounding Arab countries and subsequently, Jews
from Arab countries to Israel. This will go on to be the main political reason for the Palestinian
claims to Israel.

4. 4
In 1964, as a response, the Palestinians created the Palestine Liberation Organization
(PLO). Although relieved of terrorist status by the United States and Israel in 1991, it was
founded with the purpose of liberation of Palestine through armed struggle. It is recognized as
the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people by over 100 states with which it
holds diplomatic relations, and has enjoyed observer status at the United Nations since 1974.
The PLO is divided into multiple factions, the three most predominant being the Fatah, Hamas,
and PIJ. The Fatah is the largest faction of the PLO confederacy. It is the leading secular
Palestinian political group composing of both soldiers and politicians. Hamas and PIJ both
widely considered to be a terrorist organization and are both an offshoot of a popular Islamic
political group, the Muslim brotherhood. Hamas was formed 7 years after the PIJ as a result to
the outbreak of the first intifada. The Fatah is often contrasted to the more religious orientated
factions, Hamas and PIJ. All, however, represent a predominant Muslim population as most
every Palestinian is Muslim. Virtually the entire population of the territories are Muslim. The
2003 Amended Basic Law, a Palestinian law to govern the organization until foundation of an
actual state, stipulates Islamas the sole official religion in Palestine and the principles of Islamic
sharia as a principal source of legislation. The original aimof armed struggle by the PLO can be
seen as a violent political manifestation of the Islamic aspect of Jihad.
Palestinians have had a history of violence and expulsion from land. The Jordanian Civil
War in 1970-1971, more commonly know as Black September, was a conflict between the PLO,
led under Yasser Arafat, and the Jordanian Armed Forces under King Hussein. This resulted in
Palestinians being driven out of Jordan, relocating the majority to nearby Lebanon. This then
spurred conflict resulting in the 15 year long Lebanese Civil War from 1975-1990. Lebanon was

5. 5
multi-sectarian before the war. The establishment and the influx of around a hundred thousand
Muslim Palestinian refugees shifted the demographic in favor of Islam. This pushed the
situation into conflict between the local Christian and Muslim populations. This conflict resulted
in the expulsion of the PLO from Lebanon and the emergence of the Hezbollah, an Anti-Zionist
Lebanese organization. Two civil wars occurring in immediate succession of the arrival of the
PLO in new territory is no coincidence. Since Lebanon gained its independence in 1943 until its
civil war in 1975, the country experienced a period of relative calmand notable prosperity.
Unlike the Lebanese people, the Palestinians were not sectarian. The PLO was mainly
represented by the powerful Fatah, which did not have a strong ideology other than the claim
to seek the liberation of Palestine. As a result, they gained wide appeal with the refugee
population with conservative Islamic values as they were the ones with militant beliefs through
the newly accepted misinterpretation of the aspect of jihad.
These reoccurring events of violence and expulsion bolster this violent interpretation.
Both violent conflict and exile of a group bolsters the group’s sense of identity. Both events
create a separation between at least two groups. Every conflict involves two groups of people
that are separating themselves over a specific interest, i.e. land, religion, or political or social
concerns. When a particular group is exiled from an area, it creates a distinction between them
and the group that is forcing them out. In either case, the event strengthens the bond between
the individuals in the group as they are going through a disparaging time together against a
common enemy. This distinction between “us” and “them” causes a rift between the group
being persecuted and everyone else, regardless of involvement in conflict or not. In psychology
this is called social identity, referring to a person’s sense of who they are based on their

6. 6
membership in a particular group. This person will consider their group above all others
because it gives them a sense of belonging to the social world. Therefore, the world is divided
into an in-group (us) and out-group (them). Social identity theory claims that the in-group will
discriminate against all of the out-group to enhance their self-image. This rift contributes to
future violence by creating a defensive reaction meant to preserve the group’s identity. As
psychologist Saul McLeod explains, “This [distinction between groups] is critical to
understanding prejudice, because once two groups identify themselves as rivals, they are
forced to compete in order for the members to maintain their self-esteem.” It also may give
cause for preemptive action against other groups seen as a threat or simply an opposition to
one’s in-group.
Conflict broke out in 1987, known as the first intifada. Intifada is an Arabic word often
translated into English as “resistance” or “uprising.” This was a series of attacks between
Israelis and a Palestinian uprising that resulted, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, in 1,300
casualties. This also resulted in expulsion of Palestinians from Syria and the relief of support of
the PLO from surrounding Arab countries, allowing it to act independently in the subsequent
Oslo Peace Accords from 1993-2000. This process gave it governmental and economic authority
over many Palestinian communities. It also gave the Palestinian Authority many of the
components of a modern government and society, including a Palestinian police force,
legislature, and other institutions. In return for these concessions, the Palestinian Authority was
asked to promote tolerance for Israel within Palestinian society, and acceptance of Israel's right
to exist. Extremist groups such as Hamas did not recognize this and continued to perform acts
of terror against Israeli civilians. This peace agreement was a step in the right direction, but

7. 7
because of a number of reasons, did not end the conflict as the second Intifada, another
concentrated period of violence between the groups, began in 2000 and lasted until 2005.
However, violence has continued since then through a number of attacks and wars including
the 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and the 2007 Fatah-Hamas conflict. Political peace negotiations
have been taking place, but violence has continuously been spurred as seen through the recent
2014-2015 attacks.
Fundamentally, these two main groups have been fighting over the same land that they
both claim, motivated by various religious sources, to be their own. Both groups have their own
self-proclaimed authoritative tie to the same plot of land. The Jews have a complex relationship
between religion and ethnic identification. Traditionally repressed and exiled, they began
identifying as a people. Thus, religion is the root in which this ethnic identification stemmed
from. The religion claims control and possession of the “holy land” to the Jews. This is exampled
by a mountain in Israel called Mt. Zion as well as the prevalence of Jerusalem in the Hebrew
Bible. The religious significance attached to this geographic landmark in the bible evidently
gives authority to the Jews to possess it. Jerusalemalso appears in the Hebrew Bible 669 times
and Zion (which usually means Jerusalem, sometimes the Land of Israel) 154 times, or 823
times in all (Britannica). They have slowly moved to Israel over the years and gained a foothold
in society. Migration began in the 1920s and 1930s and was accelerated due to the holocaust
during WWII. Although the Jews have been slowly returning to their holy land, only religion,
with its belief in a miraculous redemption, can promise a full and prosperous return.
Palestinian’s attachment with the land is political. As they see it, they were unjustly
removed of their land. This disputed land has been subject to many changes in possession from

8. 8
various groups over its long history. One power takes it from the previous and so on in an
almost anticipated fashion. Jerusalem has been fought over sixteen times in its history. During
its long history, it has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and
captured and recaptured 44 times according to Eric H. Cline’s tally in Jerusalem Besieged. This
current opposition from the Palestinians comes with motivation. Jihad is the motivation that
gives the Palestinians political rights to reclaim the land with or without violence. This current
political situation invokes the change from the nonviolent interpretation to the violent
interpretation of Jihad, thus giving motivation for Palestinians to take action to reclaim the land
that was once theirs. The reason for wanting to take action is political, but the divine authority
given to them by religion allows them to take political action. Religion now gives the
Palestinians some sort of divine authority and justification for their actions. Therefore, religion
is the main factor for condoning the violence that is occurring.
Opposing Narratives and Religious Justifications
Scriptural violence considers conflict that is based on the sacred books or holy teachings
of a religious tradition. Sacred Fury classifies three perspectives to this violence: scriptural,
psychological, and civilizational. The scriptural perspective sees the sacred and transcendental
nature of religious violence. “It focuses on the unique message and revelation of each religion
and its goal to transform the world in accordance with that religion’s understanding of the
divine command” (Selengut). This can be seen in both Israeli and Palestinian motivation of the
conflict. Jews believe that once they control the holy land, the messiah will come to Earth and

9. 9
everyone will live under his power. Muslims on the other hand believe it is their duty, not that
of the divine, to convert people. Their goal is to convert all non-Muslims so that they may be
graced and saved by Allah. The psychological perspective analyzes religiously legitimated
violence as serving vital social psychological needs and functions for the larger collectivity. This
standpoint is reflective of the Palestinian motivation for revenge for the various “humiliations”
they have gone through such as their numerous defeats and exiles. “Civilization perspective
analyzes religious violence as a weapon of a religious, political, or cultural group that perceives
itself to be physically or existentially threatened by more powerful cultural or political groups
and that appeals to religious fervor to protect what it takes to be its legitimate historical and
civilizational position” (Selengut). The historical oppression of the Jewish people has shaped
their interpretation to motivate them to claimholy land that has been divinely promised to
them. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the most celebrated and influential rabbis of his time,
compares this call for reclamation of the holy land to the physical body of the coming messiah
in his 1910 work Lights for Rebirth, “Our return will succeed only if it will be marked, along with
its spiritual glory, by a physical return in which will create healthy flesh and blood, strong and
well-formed bodies, and a fiery spirit encased in powerful muscles. The the one weak soul will
shine forth from strong and holy flesh, as a symbol of the physical resurrection of the dead.”
Before discussing the interpretations of both groups, it is important to state the
universal problems with interpretation of ancient texts. No one can interpret exactly how they
were written for two reasons. First, the times and conditions are not the same as they were
when it had been written. Scriptures were written to address the issues of the time. “Literature
responds to the demands of life, and life reacts to the guidance of literature” (Ha-Am). For

10. 10
example, since the evidence provided by W.M.L de Wette in 1805, scholars have accepted that
the core of the book of Deuteronomy in the Old Testament can be estimated to be written a
few centuries after the downfall and destruction of the second temple. This is reflected by the
strict laws in Deuteronomy that presented guidelines for Jews to live by in diaspora where
there is no central religious authority. These ancient laws don’t necessarily translate to today’s
society and conditions because they were written to address the issues of the time.
Deuteronomy 12:29–31 and 23:9-14 are specific to the time and cannot be followed. Deut.
23:9-14 specifically refers to the residence of the practitioners as a camp and further specifying
that they must use the restroom in a hole in the ground outside this camp. This is not
imaginable in today’s times where most everyone has ready access to a toilet. Also, certain laws
pertaining to slaves and slavery, such as the ones stated in Deuteronomy 15:12-18, 20:14, and
21:10-14, would not be tolerated in today’s society. Ahad Ha-Am, the founder of the cultural
Zionismmovement, argues that scripture in modern times has ceased to be what it should be.
He claims it has weakened and ultimately suspended all spontaneity of action or emotion. The
faithful are becoming incapable of responding to any stimulus in nature or in human life
without written divine permission and approval.
Another example is the Islamic view towards oral resuscitation. Muslims highly value
Qur'anic recitation. They believe that the act of reciting the divine word brings blessings, named
barakah. Qur’an itself literally means “recitation.” Most Muslims of the time, including
Muhammad, were illiterate explains this emphasis on oral tradition (Oxford Islamic Studies).
The Qur'an contains numerous references to writing and reading. 96:1-5, for example, is the
first verses said by Muhammad and they emphasize the virtue of knowledge. Undoubtedly, the

11. 11
presence of divine communication in book form encouraged people to learn to read. However,
by putting emphasis and giving blessings for oral recitation, it welcomes the illiterate to
participate. The recitation does not concern a particular power from the vocalization of the
text. It is simply a stress on memorization. This emphasis in the Qur’an on both recitation and
learning to read and write is not important today because education for reading and writing is
now widely accessible.
The second problem with interpreting texts is the relative importance of religion in
everyday life to the average practitioner over time. Practitioners in modern day society don’t
quite follow scripture and religion to the extent that they did in the time when it was written.
People used to live their life around religion. It was a social glue when there was not much else.
Now, people have plenty of other institutions that are prevalent in society and everyday life.
People follow religious rules, regulations, and ethics less strictly because of competing interest
with other aspects of everyday life present in this modern society. Today’s society has evolved
over the years and is much more complex now. Therefore, today, people generally incorporate
their religion into their lives rather than incorporate their lives into the religion as they did in
the past. This difference now allows modern practitioner to ignore certain rules that obviously
don’t apply. This can lead to the picking and choosing of other verses to follow, creating new
interpretations.
With the problems with interpretation being said, I would like to look at what exactly
are the positions toward conflict and violence that each scripture teaches, practices, and
believes. Both seem to be ambiguous and can provide justification for either violent or
nonviolent position if interpreted certain ways. First, I will examine the Hebrew Bible as the

12. 12
religious scripture of the Israelis. The Hebrew Bible has verses preaching nonviolence, but also
has lessons that seem to glorify violence. Verses promoting peace appear in a number of books
in the Old Testament, namely 1 Samuel, Isaiah, and Psalms. Violence is declared not the way of
god’s divine redemption in 1 Samuel 17:47. Psalms 34:14 provides a concise command for
peace. “Turn from evil; do good; seek peace and pursue it.” Isaiah 2:4 states, “He will judge
between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into
plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore” (NIV). This passage displays to adherents that violence is
not the answer because the Messiah is coming and all will be peaceful under his influence.
“When the fullness of the Gentiles shall be brought in, and all Israel shall be saved, and both
Jews and Gentiles shall be united together in one fold, under Christ their great Shepherd”
(Benson). This not only teaches nonviolence but also tolerance. On the other hand, Genesis,
Exodus, and Deuteronomy seem to glorify violence through a number of tales that seemto
have violent morals. Genesis 22:2 is commonly known as the “Binding of Isaac.” This is when
God commands Abraham to sacrifice his first son, Isaac. Abraham and even Isaac go along with
the plan until intervened by an angel. Filicide is a serious offense, but is divinely justified in this
biblical tale. In the book of Exodus, God kills everyone’s firstborn child, “… for there was not a
house without someone dead” (2:29-30). Actually God directly orders the Israelites during the
conquest of the Canaan nations to "not leave alive anything that breathes… completely destroy
them …" (Deut. 20:16-18). Even the book of Isaiah, which taught peace, also includes violent
commands from their god. “Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their
ancestors; they are not to rise to inherit the land and cover the earth with their cities” (Isaiah

13. 13
14:21, NIV). Both violent and nonviolent ideologies can be justified through the texts. God can
be seen as peace-loving and benevolent or violent and vindictive. These various ideals that are
present allow verses to be picked and chosen from the Bible to create an ideology desired by
the reader, whatever that may be. For example, Psalms 120 is ambiguous in itself. Verse 4
states that God will violently punish the perpetrators, “He will punish you with a warrior’s sharp
arrows, with burning coals of the broom bush.” Verse 6, however, the narrator justifies violence
through peace, “Too long have I lived among those who hate peace. I am a man of peace; but
when I speak, they are for war.”
This same ambiguity can be found in the Qur’an, the religious scripture of the
Palestinians. The concept of Jihad is left open ended and therefore left up for interpretation.
Jihad literally means “struggle”. It is divided into two struggles, referred to as the greater and
lesser struggle or sometimes the inner and outer struggle. The greater, or inner, struggle is
defined as internal, personal struggle to live in accordance with the Qur’an, Sunna (example
lead by the prophet Muhammad), and Sharia (Islamic law). It simply states that the lesser, or
outer, struggle is that of the surrounding environment including the people in it concerning the
defense of the Muslim community under attack. It does not specify a method of conversion,
whether violent or nonviolent. Neither does it state the requirements and qualifications for
being under attack. This ambiguity allows for many various interpretations. One misinformed
interpretation to this is that jihad means “holy war.” This is incorrect, with the more accurate
translation being “spiritual struggle.” There are many mentions of calls to “fight” for Allah, but
this term is vague. The word fight is a call to action and not necessarily a call to arms; there is
no mention of violence.

14. 14
With these numerous ambiguities of the teachings of the religious texts, there are many
different ideologies that can be justified. Currently, both groups interpret their teachings as
they are the righteous group given authority by their god and that the other are unlawful
people that must be converted or removed. Selengut claims, “Judaism’s approach to holy war is
based on the biblical narratives which tell of God’s covenant with Israel, where God promises
the land of Israel to the Israelites as an eternal possession and commands them and their
leaders and prophets, Moses and Joshua, to wage war against the indigenous inhabitants of the
land, then called Canaan.” Although the Canaanites who were to be removed saw things
differently, Deuteronomy 20, as previously exampled, states God’s instructions as final and
absolute. God and Joshua demand action so far as to ridicule Israel’s periodic loss of will and
lapses into mercy for the indigenous peoples. This covenant with God is the original motivation
for holy war. It has been concentrated in Jewish history and legal systemas milkhemet mitzvah,
or “war by commandment,” and has come to mean that whenever beneficial, a holy war must
be fought to maintain the Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel. The theological basis for
holy war has always been deeply embedded in Jewish law and tradition, even so during
centuries of exile. “The Zionist movement and the 1948 proclamation of an independent Jewish
state of Israel in the Holy Land restored the practical relevance of holy war theology and
showed once again how theological ideas and sacred history can influence international affairs”
(Selengut).
From the Palestinian stance, the distinction of an opposition, by the formation of the
declaration of Israel and being exiled from their homes, has caused them to interpret the
concept of Jihad violently and, in modern times, has resulted in the creation of radical groups

15. 15
mainly responsible for the violence such as the Hamas and PIJ. Islam’s definition to holy war can
be traced to the pre-Islamic polytheistic religious culture of Arabia. It was an age of barbarity,
where no person was really safe, filled with indiscriminate violence and immorality. This state
of jahiliyya, meaning time of ignorance, was encouraged by the prevalent pagan religious cults.
The prophecy of Muhammad and the message in the Qur’an constituted a divine
commandment rejecting the pagan practices and immorality and to establish an ethical order in
accordance with the will of their god Allah. This meant that considerable effort, or struggle
(jihad), would have to be employed. Practically speaking, this meant that jihad, fought on behalf
of Allah, might have to involve forcible and violent battles in order to destroy the culture of
jahiliyya reinforced by the natives to achieve the aspirations and society ordained in the Qur’an.
This command must be carried out to eliminate the immorality and establish God’s order. It is
the faithful Muslim’s duty to engage in jihad, or religious struggle, to transform non-Muslim
lands, known as Dar al-Harb, into Dar al-Islamlands, governed by sharia, Muslim law. The goal
of jihad is not to force conversions of individuals, but to transform the entire land, by force and
violence if necessary. Bernard Lewis in The Multiple Identities in the Middle East explains,
“…there is in principle, a canonically obligatory perpetual state of war until the whole world is
either converted or subjugated.” Despite this theological application, the political situation,
military tactics, and the ever evolving religious interpretations have altered Islam’s approach to
holy war over the years. Throughout the course of Islamic history, the precise meaning and
context of jihad and Dar al-Islamand the contributing justifications for holy way have changed
to suit the current situation.

16. 16
These groups have interpreted their texts this way because it is religiously logical.
Religious faith itself is different than any other commitments. The rules and commandments of
religion are understood by the faithful to be entirely outside and more important than their
typical social rules and interactions. “Ordinary judgment, canons of logic, and evaluation of
behavior simply do not apply to religious activity” (Selengut). The faithful adherent’s logic,
experience, common sense, and moral feelings are powerless. They are slaves to the written
word as self-assertion nor strength are found outside of it. Religion allows different logics and
moralities govern community’s decision making. It also has a power to break all legal and
cultural restraints against crime and violence by being divinely motivated and promising
something that only religion can provide, eternal life. In return for this divinely graced eternal
life, there is an implied requirement to conform to the demands of religious law, whether or
not it makes sense to those outside the faith community. The divine commandments given to
the followers are not open to question by nonbelievers, and secular legalities can be violated if
they conflict with the religious truth. It is near impossible to refuse religious logic in which
violence is justified as an essential element of religious life. Blaming the written word or the
rigor of the laws it commands is out of the question. Faithful adherents to religion dedicate
themselves materially and psychologically to their religion. Refusal of such religious logic would
mean that one is no longer a part of this religious community that they are so committed to. In
the present time, if one goes against the written word, then they are ostracized by the faithful
community. Scripture has the final say in any religious argument.
These modern interpretations seem to promote violence, but it is not necessary for
them to. Each group has a different interpretation that is influenced by their individual

17. 17
experiences. The interpretations of the books stagnate because, as a result of an absence of
direct reaction, the faithful do not rise in revolt against the written word, even when it has
ceased harmonious with the current needs of the people. As Ahad Ha-Am explains, “In on
occasion the spontaneity of thought and emotion brought [Jews] into conflict with the written
word, they did not efface themselves in obedience to its dictates; they revolted against it where
it no longer met their needs, and so forced upon it a development in consonance with their
new requirements.” Because the book is holy and therefore cannot be wrong, it needs to be
reinterpreted so that it doesn’t conflict with the current situation. This is simply exampled by
the reinterpretation of Leviticus 24:19-20. Here, the verse claiming “eye for an eye” is too
brutal and cruel for the new civilized community where morals are held at a high standard.
Consequently, it was seen that the verse actually means “the value of an eye for an eye,” thus
reinterpreting the scripture to allow penalty in other forms such as money rather than violence.
Both groups have a history of oppression and crisis of identity. Conflict is a social cohesion that
solves this crisis. The book of Deuteronomy can be seen as an example for the Jewish
community. After exile, Jews needed a sense of belonging and cohesion so the texts written at
that time include violent means as a way to bond by positioning themselves against other
groups. The Jewish population throughout history has defined itself in opposition of other
groups, in particular the Christ movement in the first few centuries in the common era. In the
1st century CE, a Jewish sect the Pharisees took reconstructive measures to define itself
opposing the emerging Christian sect. These measures created the conservative Rabbinic
Judaism branch.

18. 18
For Zionist Jews these reassurances from God are eternal and no political arguments can
ever alter the divine. Israel is the holy land promised by God to his followers. The state of Israel
in this view is not a political state and therefore cannot engage in political compromise. This
holy bond between the land of Israel and the Jewish people can never be broken. In the Muslim
understanding, once an area has come to be part of the Muslim world, it is considered Muslim
and should forever rightfully remain an integral part of the ummah. The ummah is commonly
used to mean the collective community of all Islamic peoples. Thus, it can be said to be a supra-
national community with a shared history. In the Muslim view, the conflict can only be resolved
if the current Jewish government agrees to the full return of Muslim land. However, if they
refuse, a holy war must be fought to destroy the Jewish state and to remove the Jews from the
land, by violence if necessary. A world renown Palestinian philosopher, Ismail al-Faruqi, gives
voice to deep elements of Islamic theology in which an all-out Muslim holy war against Israel is
justified on moral, legal, and theological grounds. However, for the faithful on both sides, it is
not a matter of politics at all but of divine imperative.
So why has violence apparently prevailed over nonviolence? An interesting aspect to
mention is the nature of the violence: it doesn’t conflict with the notion of peace. In this
situation, religious believers are not free to choose between nonviolence and violence but are
placed under god’s command to fight his battles. These compassionate killings are never
defined by scripture as violence but rather a campaign for justice. In the Hebrew bible, god
demands warring action, but is ultimately seen as a god of mercy and justice who uses conflict
to create a peaceful and just world. The Qur’an has a similar structure. Wars here are meant to
instruct those who dwell in ignorance and idolatry. It is considered correct of the believers to

19. 19
spread and inform people of the truth as seen through the Islamic faith. Ultimately, both
traditions justify conflict as to please god. As Selengut explains, “Religious traditions certainly
acknowledge the religious justification for religious wars but redefine them as situational
events limited to divine directive. This means that the violence is not meant to be an essential
part of the tradition but is, merely, a response to a pressing emergency situation as directed by
god.” Therefore, the motivation for such violence is directed by god and not by violence itself, it
is not contradictory to the scripture’s own teachings of peace and love. The violence is justified
as necessary by saying it is for god and peace. Holy wars link the religious warrior with god and
the divine powers of the universe. It is interesting to note that peace does not result in the
same affiliation. Peace is desired, but violence is seen as sufficient means to achieve it.
Islamin particular has been driven to use violence because they feel like they have been
embarrassed over the years and seek to change and avenge themselves by interpreting the
Jihad as one that requires violence. They have tried nonviolence in the past and it has not
worked. This is exampled by the massacre of the “Servants of God” led by Badshah Khan, a
political and spiritual leader and devout Muslim. Here, Muslims used a nonviolent approach to
a conflict and were defeated and humiliated. Badshah Khan and approximately 200-300 of his
followers were massacred as British forces opened fire on the unarmed crowd. Followers
adhered to their nonviolent teachings as they simply turned and faced the bullets as they were
shot. Political gains are also another reason for violent conquest. However, in this situation, I
argue that religion is the driving force behind the violence. Misinterpretation of religious texts
leads to a selective ideology that is used for a motive for violent conquest. Religion being
incorporated into government allows it to use religious scriptures to justify the violent

20. 20
conquest. The Crusades were a period in time in which the Christians militarized and fought for
their god. Their justification for such violence can stem from verses claiming to take action such
as Luke 14:27. “The Crusades, while surely influenced by a variety of economic factors, were
very much a holy war for Christianity to maintain theological and social control and to stop alien
religions and heretical sects from having undue power and influence” (Selengut). This has very
strong parallels to the modern motivations of both the Israelis and Palestinians to reclaim the
holy land of Israel. In fact, religiously motivated political conflicts are nothing uncommon.
Christian ethicist Jean Bethke Elstain maintains that Christian values justify modern military
strikes against terrorists and criminal regimes that engage in violence against innocent victims
by the United States. Radical Christian liberationist movements in Latin America also continue
to invoke holy war justifications in their struggle for equality and material well-being for the
world’s poor and needy.
Ultimately, religion is an unstable authority because it is ambiguous and does not
adhere to the current social and political laws. The various violent and nonviolent themes
presented in the texts provide equal opportunity to choose either and comply to. The Israelis
and Palestinians each interpreted their texts violently due to their respective historical
experiences and current situations. The personal covenant that practitioners hold with their
god explains religion’s power to supersede any political law. God claims authority through
promises only he can provide such as eternal life in a paradise. In return for these promises it is
expected that you follow god’s will. If in one interpretation of the text god demands violence, in
the religious understanding, it would not interfere with peace as it is god’s plan for peace.
These modern perceptions of ancient religious texts are causing violence and this does not have

21. 21
to be the case. Next, by examining previous peace attempts, I will purpose other peaceful
alternatives to the current conflict.
Nonviolent Alternatives and Obstacles to Achieving Peace
There has been more than one peace negotiation between these two groups the most
noteworthy being the Oslo Peace Accords, but even this eventually resulted in warfare seen in
the second intifada. What were its shortcomings? There were a few aspects that contributed to
the eventual dissolve of the peace agreement. First, the Oslo Accords did not define the nature
of the Palestinian self-government and its powers and responsibilities after the agreement, nor
do they define the borders of the territory it eventually would govern. The ambiguity of power
and responsibilities is inconsequential without establishing definite borders. Without terms set
by a third party in negotiation, it is evident no other progress will be made solely between two
warring sides. A second deficiency of the Accords is that it did not have a "Plan B" in case a final
agreement would not be reached within the set period. Without a fallback plan, all critical
thinking is halted, thus locking down any agreement regardless of the possible or eventual
consequences. Unwillingness to consider alternatives leads to a do-or-die situation. The more
rigid a plan is, the more drastic the situation becomes when one aspect is ignored or eliminated
from a plan with interlinking demands. Lastly, Norway’s role in the negotiations and missing
documents posed a problem. In general, Oslo seemed to favor the Israelis. The mediator was
not entirely nonpartisan. Israel was obviously the more powerful party of the two and Norway
certainly acknowledged this. Hilde Henriksen Waage, the key person that discovered that there

22. 22
were missing files during the Oslo process, wrote in her report, “Israel’s red lines were the ones
that counted, and if the Palestinians wanted a deal, they would have to accept them, too. ...
The missing documents would almost certainly show why the Oslo process probably never
could have resulted in a sustainable peace.”
There are certain required conditions for parties in a conflict to prefer nonviolence over
violence. Both parties must have genuinely come to the conclusion that they would like to stop
the violence and come to an agreement. This seems unlikely until religious texts have been
reinterpreted to condone peace and nonviolence. For this to happen there needs to be a
willingness to recognize each other’s positions and study the contradictions between them.
Both sides involved should continuously develop new and creative ideas in order to offset
dominant beliefs and perceptions. By doing this, an effort can be made to create a common
standpoint to help facilitate dialogue. It is imperative that this dialogue include many different
national narratives involving both sides’ aspirations for their own nation. The failure of the
Palestinian effort to compromise at the Camp David Summit in July 2000 should serve as a
lesson learned. Wide Arab support in the reconciliation process will be of great help, especially
with the support of the Arab League members of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. They will help
the Palestinian Authority to justify the peace process and agreement to secure legitimacy.
Theoretically a peace process could immediately be implemented. It simply depends on the
initiative of each side’s political and civil society leaders and involvement of an external third
party to reach a compromise. As of now, neither side is convinced that they should submit to
compromise because in their view, they are righteous.

23. 23
Despite this fact, ending the conflict peacefully should be seen as an important value
and defined as a national interest, regardless of how naïve or unrealistic such a goal may
appear to societies that have been experiencing an unrelenting conflict. This “is based on the
assumptions that, in its present state, the conflict will lead to a worse future, that it will
undermine the basic goals and needs of both parties to the conflict, and that time is not
necessarily on the side of either party” (Bar-Simon-Tov). The taboo surrounding religiously
protected values must be broken. The values should be redefined as interests to demystify
them. This way, the mythological discourse can be replaced by rational discourse that will help
facilitate the willingness to compromise and any future negotiations. Compromise should be
framed as a value-based or moral dilemma. For instance, a territorial compromise could could
be framed as a means of preserving the Jewish character of the State of Israel. Similarly, a
compromise over the right of return could be framed as a means of establishing a Palestinian
state. Establishing a Palestinian state should be viewed as imperative by not only Palestinians
but also Israelis. Yaacov Bar-Simon-Tov asserts, “Establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel
are the undeniable interests of every one in Israel who supports the continued existence of
Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Otherwise, in the absence of a two-state
solution, Israel risks becoming a bi-national state, losing its character as the state of the Jewish
people, or even becoming an apartheid state – which would conflict with its democratic
character.” He says that the two-state solution is the only correct resolution because the other
situations would violate the Jew’s divine covenant with the land or a core political aspect. For
the Jews, the danger that not reaching a settlement presents to Israel’s Jewish identity and
moral stature and the fear of Israel’s de-legitimization around the world should provide the

24. 24
motivation to achieve peace and reach a settlement with the Palestinians. Given these drastic
possibilities, fear of not reaching a compromise could exceed the original fear of the
compromise itself. “A settlement between sides is fundamentally rational, but it also requires
both sides to engage with their own narratives and protected values” (Bar-Simon-Tov). Unless a
collective, united effort is made on both sides to raise legitimacy for the peace process and the
peace agreement across the wider community, it is highly unlikely that the conflict will ever be
resolved.
Conclusion
Yaacov Bar-Simon-Tov described this conflict as “not simply as strongly disputed
interests, but as protected, sacred values, rooted in religious belief and historical meta-
narratives and not open to compromise. The force and magnitude of the barriers and in
particular, their portrayal as protected values – inevitably leads to the conclusion that the
likelihood of ending the conflict through a settlement is exceedingly low at present.” It seems
that either side is not yet prepared to agree to any reciprocal concessions over protected
values. However, concerning the future, it is important that they are made aware of the
possibility of executing an extremely difficult amendment whereby one protected value is
relinquished to protect another. In 1984, Ahad Ha-Am called Jews to action to change their
ideals. This can be applied to both sides in the current conflict. He raised the question if “…the
Jewish people can still shake off its inertia, regain direct contact with the actualities of life, and
yet remain the Jewish people. There can be no complete answer to our question until a new

25. 25
and compelling urge toward normalization springs up among us from within, from our own
Jewish life, and is communicated to the younger generation through education and literature…”
Ha-Am understands that the problem cannot be solved by changing peoples’ minds. As I’ve
stated before, there is no going against the written word. However, the interpretation of the
text can change over time with the proper education and influence.
With the prospect of a peaceful alternative, there are potential barriers to achieving it.
Rene Girard, in his renowned book Violence and the Sacred, argues that violence is inherent in
religion because it allows social cohesion against a common enemy. However, as mentioned
before, the Jews have a special tie to the land because certain landmarks, such as Mt. Zion, are
mentioned in the Hebrew bible. This is a form of nonviolence cohesion. Girard continues his
argument by saying that violence is mimetic and thus continued throughout time. However,
this chain can be stopped by reinterpreting religious texts. Theoretically, the Hebrew Bible and
Qur’an allow a peaceful solution to be reached while still fulfilling what was promised to the
corresponding parties. The only requirement is that both sides sees peace as desirable.

26. 26
Bibliography
1. "Analysis: Palestinian Suicide Attacks." BBC News. BBC News, 29 Jan. 2007. Web. 15
Nov. 2015.
2. Atassi, Basma. "Mapping the Dead in Latest Israeli-Palestinian Violence." Al Jazeera
English. Al Jazeera, 9 Nov. 2015. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
3. Bar-Siman-Tov, Yaacov. Barriers to Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Jerusalem:
Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 2010. KAS. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. Web. 13
Oct. 2015.
4. Blake, John. "Experts: Many Young Muslim Terrorists Spurred by Humiliation." CNN.
Cable News Network, 13 Aug. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
5. Cline, Eric H. Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel. Ann Arbor: U
of Michigan, 2004. Print.
6. DeLong-Bas, Natana. "Jihad - Islamic Studies." Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University
Press, 14 Dec. 2009. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
7. Finkelstein, Norman G. Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. London: Verso,
2003. Print.
8. Gerner, Deborah J. One Land, Two Peoples: The Conflict over Palestine. Boulder:
Westview, 1991. Print.
9. Girard, René. Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1977. Print.
10. Hashmi, Sohail H. Just Wars, Holy Wars, and Jihads: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim
Encounters and Exchanges. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.
11. Hatina, Meir. Islam and Salvation in Palestine: The Islamic Jihad Movement. Tel Aviv:
Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Tel Aviv U, 2001. Print.
12. "History of Mid-East Peace Talks - BBC News." BBC News. BBC News, 29 July 2013. Web.
11 Nov. 2015.
13. Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence.
Berkeley: U of California, 2000. Print.
14. Kabbani, Shaykh Muhammad Hisham, and Shaykh Seraj Hendricks. "Jihad: A
Misunderstood Concept from Islam." ISCA. Islamic Supreme Council of America, n.d.
Web. 01 Dec. 2015.
15. Khalidi, Ahmad Samih. "The Palestinian Nationalist Movement: What Went Wrong?"
The Jerusalem Fund. The Palestine Center & The Jerusalem Fund For Education and
Community Development, 10 Apr. 2008. Web.
16. "Lebanon (03/22/10)." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, 22 Mar.
2010. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
17. Lewis, Bernard. The Multiple Identities of the Middle East. New York: Schocken, 1999.
Print.
18. McLeod, Saul. "Social Identity Theory." Simply Psychology. Simply Psychology, 2008.
Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
19. Pipes, Daniel. "The Muslim Claimto Jerusalem." Middle East Quarterly September
(2001): n. pag. Daniel Pipes - Middle East Forum. Daniel Pipes. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.

27. 27
20. "Qur'an." Oxford Islamic Studies Online. Oxford Islamic Studies Online, n.d. Web. 11
Nov. 2015.
21. Selengut, Charles. Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence. Walnut Creek, CA:
Altamira, 2003. Print.
22. Sen, Amartya. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New York: W.W. Norton,
2006. Google Books. Google. Web. 4 Oct. 2015.
23. Smith-Christopher, Daniel L. Subverting Hatred: The Challenge of Nonviolence in
Religious Traditions. New York: Orbis, 2000. Print.
24. The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959.
Print.
25. "Vital Statistics: Total Casualties, Arab-Israeli Conflict." Total Casualties, Arab-Israeli
Conflict. American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
26. Waage, Hilde Henriksen. "Postscript to Oslo: The Mystery of Norway's Missing Files." J.
Palest. Stud. Journal of Palestine Studies 38.1 (2008): 54-65. Web.
27. "Zionism | Nationalistic Movement." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia
Britannica, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.