RELATIONS BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PALESTIANIAN

PAPER
This paper is proposed to fullfil
assignment of English for International Relations Course
in Department of International Relations

By:
Fasya Fadhila 142030177
Fepy Intan Kirana 142030153
Siti Nabilah 142030155
Nur Aini Oktavia 142030143

FACULTY OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES OF

PASUNDAN UNIVERSITY
BANDUNG
2015

CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND
Israel and Palestinian conflict is a conflict that is still going on since
long.
The conflict that has lasted so long it becomes a conflict that is
consuming the attention of people around the world.
Israel and Palestinian conflict build a assumption as religious
conflicts. Because people believe that Palestinians to be one of the symbols of
Islamic spirituality, and the victims of these conflicts are largely Islamic
society. But Another fact to mention that there is a political dimension too, in
this Israel and Palestinian conflict.
This is becomes an interesting thing, to raise as a
important to analyze.

topic that is

CHAPTER 2
DISCUSSION
1. What role does religion play in the conflict between Israel and
Palestinian?
What role has religion played in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
especially since the Six Day War in 1967? First, it is important to clarify how
the terms of Palestine/ Israel vary through different times.
Palestine refers to the period before 1948, from the Roman Empire to
the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate. Israel refers to the period after
1948 with Jerusalem as its capital city, as of 1967, but without the temporarily
occupied West bank and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority refers to
Gaza and the West bank, the territories annexed by Israel during 1967 that
were subject to the negotiations of Oslo II and led to the creation of the
Palestinian Authority and mutual recognition between Rabin and Arafat, but
even more important led to the recognition of the mutual right of the two
people to coexist in peace, security and self-determination in two sovereign
states.
How is religion used? Intentionally and symbolically. How does
religion influence the achievement of political goals? Which segments of both
societies have experienced an increase in the importance of religion since

1967 and has it had direct influence on the conflict? I will concentrate more
deeply on interactions between Islam and Judaism since 1967.
One issue may be brought up right at the beginning. Using and
emphasizing history as the foundation for claims over Palestine/ Israel
provides endless possible nationalist claims, as Palestine was ruled by various
empires and people across different eras in history. Or as a Jewish lawyer alKabir from Baghdad commented in the Iraqi times in 1936; If one goes
reconstituting history two thousand years back there is no reason why one
should not go further back, and presently have the world ruled by militant
archaeology. Of course, most Sephardic Jews, as al-Kabir, had neither
experienced the brutal Pogroms in Eastern Europe nor would most of the
Sephardic Jews have to experience the Holocaust to come.
It is important to remember that in Judaism there is no single, highest
authority. This fact provides ground to very diverse groups and attitudes
within the Jewish religious tradition. However, in the early 20th century
Zionists were predominantly secular Jews. Orthodox Jews appeared to resist
to the idea of a Jewish homeland without the installment of Jewish law, the
halakha. Influenced by the spirit of colonial period secular Zionist groups
even discussed the possibility of other locations for the Jewish homeland,
such as the British Uganda Proposal first proposed by Chamberlain, who
sought to give territory in British East Africa, more precisely the Mau Plateau
in what is today modern Kenya. Besides the fact that Jews had no historical

nor religious connection to the Mau Plateau in British East Africa, looking
back on the disastrous outcomes of the colonial era it is more than
questionable if such a decision would have led to peaceful coexistence.
However, after the Balfour declaration, no Zionist could anymore think
of another homeland for the Jewish people than Palestine. Not only secular
Jews called for resettlement in Palestine. For example, Rabbi Abraham Isaac
Kook, was among the first religious thinkers to advocate political activism for
Palestine in the form of resettlement. Jerusalem seems to have had a very
special place in the hearts and minds of Jews throughout the two thousand
years of Jewish Diaspora. Nevertheless, during the first half of the twentieth
century the symbolic importance of Jerusalem increased stedily and saw
efforts being made by Zionist organizations to buy holy Jewish pilgrimage
sites, such as the Wailing Wall from the Muslim trust that owned it.
According to scholars the nationalist claims of the Muslim majority of
Palestine are based on a religio-legal concept called waqf, translated into
trusteeship. It is understood that God has permanently entrusted Palestine to
the Muslim people. This is maybe best exemplified in the words of Sultan
Abd al-Hamid of the Ottoman Empire in his response to Theodore Herzls
offer to buy Palestine for twenty million lire. Please advise him never to
mention this ever. It does not belong to me. It belongs to my people. My
people acquired this Ottoman Empire by their blood.

However, the Palestinian nationalist movements were initially also

mostly secular. In fact, the radical Islamic organizations such as Hamas and
Islamic Jihad were a reaction to both; the spread of Islamic political activism
and the increasing role of religious mobilization in Jewish nationalism of the
1980s. We can see that prior to 1967 religious identification and symbolism
was not as central to the main nationalist movements on both sides.
While I do not want to explore the reasons why, where, when and how
the conflicts between Jews and Muslims began in general, since there is an
endless number of reasons, but their impact on the conflict is most of the time
contested from one side or the other; beginning with the Balfour, respectively
McMahon declaration over to the UN proposition in 1947 to the displacement
of Palestinian civilians in the early years of the state of Israel. Nevertheless, it
seems that there wasnt a political and diplomatic will neither on the side of
the Palestinian leadership nor on the side of the surrounding Arab countries to
tolerate the creation of a Jewish national-state, alongside the proposed
Palestinian state. This is crucial because failure to accept the UN proposal has
made return to normal terms very complicated since. With the Israeli
declaration of independence and the following war, the civilian Palestinian
population was the main victim of aggressions and confrontations between
the new state of Israel and its surrounding Arab neighbours.
So what changed in 1967? The crucial event of this year in the Middle
East was the Six Day War. The end of the Six Day War seems to have been

the beginning of a new sort of conflict. The Sinai Peninsula, the Golan
Heights, Gaza and the West Bank were conquered and occupied by the Israeli
army, but at the centre of these dramatic days was the liberation or
occupation, depending on the standpoint, of East Jerusalem and the control
over its religious sites sacred to all three monotheistic traditions. This had
several far reaching consequences.
First, with the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank more than a
million Palestinians came under Israeli control. Second, for the Muslim the
loss of the sovereignty over the holy sites through the occupation of
Jerusalem by Israel seems to have turned a regional, political conflict over
territory into a religious war. Religious identity and symbolic became
increasingly important. Not surprising then, that the Yom Kippur War in 1973
was launched on the most distinct Jewish holy day. The implementation of
Jewish settlement in these years around the Palestinian cities is another
example of how religion was used to legitimate occupation. It was promoted
in form of the strongly ideological notion of expanding the boundaries
according to the biblical Israel. The longer the occupation of Palestinian land
continued the more the paradox between a Jewish and democratic state
became apparent. If Palestinians were granted full citizenship, within a few
years the state would have an Arab majority and would cease to be Jewish in
its traits, character, ethos and legislation. If, on the other hand, Palestinians
were denied citizenship an civil rights in order to preserve the Jewish
character of the state, Israel would find itself in the uncomfortable situation of

being a democracy only for Jews, and an apartheid regime for the rest of its
inhabitants.
Unfortunately, it seems that Israel has chosen to remain an essentially
Jewish state, and although I wouldnt go that far and call the Israeli
government an apartheid regime, remembering the fact that all Israeli citizens
may vote and be elected, it seems that institutionally Jews are being favored.
The 1990s saw at the same time an Israeli government under Rabin reaching
out and recognizing the Palestinian cause and Baruch Goldstein opening fire
on worshipers gathered in a Muslim holy site killing 29 people and injuring
a further 150. For many radical, militant Jews Rabin betrayed the biblical
Israel. These events culminated on the 4th of November 1995, when Yitzhak
Rabin was shot by a Jewish fanatic named Yigal Amir after one of the
biggeest Peace rallies ever held in Tel Aviv.
The phenomenon of militant Judaism as the Gush Emunim combines
both Orthodoxy and Zionism. Striving for an expanded Jewish state, this
right wing religious group has pushed for the extension of Jewish settlements
into Palestinian territory and does not recognize the rights of non-Jews
(Palestinians) to exist in a sovereign state.
On the Palestinian side there has been a radicalization since the first
Intifada in 1987. Since then religion has become increasingly important.
Islamic movements such as the Islamic Jihad or the Hamas have promoted the
notion of Palestine as an Islamic state, within which Jews would be a

tolerated minority. This reveals an interesting point; the difference between

anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist. If the Jews would have renounced to political
sovereignty they would have been tolerated by the Muslim population. We
will never know whether under such circumstances Jews and Muslims would
effectively have lived peacefully alongside each other.
Hamas is using distinct anti-Jewish rhetoric, as described in a leaflet
published in 1988 the Jews are brothers of the apes, assassins of the
prophets, bloodsuckers, warmongers [and] only Islam can break the Jews and
destroy their dream. But the possibly most fundamental characteristic of the
ideology of Hamas is the concept of shahid or martyr used to justify
suicidal bomb attacks on Jewish civilians. This also involves the notion of
jihad. We all saw the images of mothers sending their son into death of a
shahid. Suicide bombings as an act of martyrdom seem to be so deeply
embedded that the prohibition of Islamic law to both suicide and the killing of
non-combatants is simply not respected.
In conclusion, it seems as both radical religious groups represented for
a long period a small but influential minority in their societies. While the
ongoing conflict has reduced the wide Israeli public support for settlements,
the ongoing violence has further radicalized Palestinian society. In general it
seems that during the 1990s an opportunity to achieve peace was missed. The
efforts of politicians in the name of the majority of the populations were
torpedoed by small radical groups such as Hamas or the Gush Emunim.

The usage of religious symbols and reinterpretation of texts contain the

potential to fool some segments of the population and to use them
accordingly to achieve political goals. For example, to secure settlements on
the Israeli side or to frighten and terrorize on the Palestinian side. Recent
events have shown that the region is deeper then ever splitted across religious
boundaries.
The overwhelming victory of Hamas at the Palestinian elections, has cast a
shadow over a possible return to the negotiation table. Further the recent
incursion of Israel into Gaza has not helped to stabilize the region. The
renewed warfare with the Shiite Hezbollah (Party of God) in Lebanon is
promising further bloodshed and retaliation.
In order to end on a more positive note I would like to cite in my
opinion a great visionary man, who understood the need of both people to
achieve long-lasting peace. We say to you today in a loud and a clear voice:
enough of blood and tears. Enough because the pain of peace is preferable
to the agony of war.

2. Religion: A Blessing or a Curse?

Many

commentators

have

observed

that

the

conflict

over

Israel/Palestine is not, essentially, a religious conflict. However, religious

traditions are invoked to justify nationalistic claims and grievances. Religious

tradition, with its symbols and loyalties, is fundamental to the identities of

both Arabs and Jews, even for those who do not define themselves as
traditional or observant. And the land they both claim and love is, after all,
considered holy by most Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
Unlike many liberal Western societies, the Jewish and Arab cultures in
Israel/Palestine are not conducive to total separation of religion and state.
Throughout the Middle East, religion is a public concern, not just a private
pursuit. There are pluses and minuses to this, as there are in the
complementary reality that Americans take for granted. Even in Israel, whose
culture is more Westernized than Palestinian society or Arab culture generally,
the religious dimension is close to the surface. As a Jewish state, it is a hybrid
of secular democratic political norms, the enlightened fruits of modernity, and
ancient covenantal wisdom from Sinai. The homecoming of Jews to Israel has
created a new settingin which Jews can define who they are and relate to
Christians and Muslims outof that self-understanding. The political turmoil
deflects the deeper cultural and spiritual energies that Jews and Palestinians
could otherwise invest in national renewal.
The intermingling of religion and power politics corrupts both.
Invoking Gods name to justify harm to others perverts everything that is
sacred. But protracted conflicts have always generated this spiritual
contamination, which is exacerbated by political violence. The problematic
elements of the different Abrahamic traditions add fuel to the fire. In our
world today, the mixture of religion and nationalism is dangerously

combustible. Since September 11, 2001, much has been written on the
paradox of religion: how it can inspire the most noble and altruistic human
behavior and can also be used to endorse actions that to outside observers are
clearly criminal.Over the centuries, the Holy Land has offered more than
enough evidence of both tendencies in religious traditions.
Since the dangers of nationalistic religion are considerable, many
political analysts and theorists of conflict resolution see religion as a negative
factor in society. They favor keeping religious leaders out of any
peacemaking process. But for Israel/Palestine, as elsewhere, this doctrinaire
stance risks forfeiting the positive contribution of religious peacemakers.
Some experts in the field of conflict transformation argue that
religiouselements must be incorporated into the theory and praxis of healing
international disputes. To effect genuine reconciliation in the IsraeliPalestinian context, he asserts, peacemakers need to tap the resources of both
Judaism and Islam (since Jews and Muslims are the two majorities). I share
this conviction andbelieve, also, that local and international Christians have
their own constructive roles to play in healing this tragic conflict.

CHAPTER 3
CONCLUSION
Although the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is largely a conflict over
land and can be resolved through the application of international law,
religious groups do play several important roles in the ongoing crisis.
Fanatical religious groups use their religions to perpetuate the conflict, while
peaceful religious groups use the teachings of their religions to call for peace.
The Israeli settler movement, in particular, which is responsible for
stealing a huge portion of Palestinian land, is primarily based on this
chauvinism. Particularly disturbing is the description of their land theft as
redeeming the land transfering holy land from non-Jewish ownership to
Jewish hands.
The conflict isnt territorial (even though it has many territorial
symptoms, and we fight over every acre and every house), but a war of

religion, a clash of ideologies. And such a conflict cant be solved by drawing

lines on a map.
But despite this, all the peacemakers among us keep prescribing the
same medicine of dividing the land for the wrong disease. Even today, the
only diplomatic plan on the table is negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority, yet this is the one that has failed time and again.

REFERENCE

Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. Nonviolence and Peace Building in Islam: Theory and

Practice. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2003.

Appleby, R. Scott. The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and

Reconciliation. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.

Boadt, Lawrence,CSP, and Kevin di Camillo, eds. John Paul II in the Holy Land:
In His Own Words, New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005.

Burrell, David, and Yehezkel Landau, eds. Voices from Jersualem: Jews and
Christians Reflect on the Holy Land. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992.

Gopin, Marc. Holy War, Holy Peace: How Religion Can Bring Peace to the
Middle East. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Gorenberg, Gershon. The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the
Temple Mount. New York: Free Press, 2000.

Halevi, Yossi Klein. At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: A Jews Search for
God with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. New York: William Morrow,
2001.