An Argument for Israel-Palestine Resolution:

Comparing and Contrasting Factors of Religious and Non-Religious Arguments

Avoiding a historical discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict might be advantageous for now given this paper is meant to argue, while comparing and contrasting the two nations, that resolution to the conflict in contemporary times can not be achieved so easily, as simple as it may seem to supporters on both sides of “the cause”. The situation between these two highly conflicted states is complicated by elements that must be addressed. These warring nations have a rough history tracing back all the way to before the time of the Islamic Caliphate in the 7th century[1]. However, “putting aside their differences” is an idea that does not seem as practical as it sounds. It is my assumption that both states are threatened by and threatening to each other so long as they act out of religious intolerance. Struggling to determine which side is more or less at fault only further complicates the issue and does little to actually help resolve the conflicts. It is my argument that, instead of a resolution coming externally, the struggle must begin with issues of cultural and ethnic identity at the state level and among its constituents. This concern reinforces the necessity to understand one’s own culture before the door can be opened to allow for improvement and more favorable conditions on both sides of the conflict. It would be unreasonable to suggest that there is a resolution within arms reach.

However complicated the nature of the conflict between Israel and Palestine really is, the situation itself deserves an understanding what it is that currently causes violence between their people. Some attribute it to differences in religion alone, but is this a reasonable argument? Is it up to religion and our interpretation of it to violate the rights of other individuals in the violent manner like both Israel and Palestine have? I would argue that it is in both parties favor that religion should not impose anything on another religion, group, or individual. Since I consider religion to be a product of multiple factors, one being personal choice, then it should be understood and exercised in such a manner as well. In India there is an incredible diversity of religions among its people. Religious conflict is a naturally occurring force between groups, communities, and individual. It invades every part of day to day life in many regions of the country. Using religion as a vehicle to legitimize violence undermines its purpose and meaning, which should to be the promotion of values and principles that are in line with a more favorable outlook on life.

In this sense, it is not that Palestine or Israel represent cases of inappropriate or wrong use of religion, only that there is a relationship between religion and the political system that needs adjustment when planning for resolution. The struggle among and within religions for the right way to exercise that religion and strict following to sets of practices and values without questioning its exercise, comparatively, should not involve the loss of lives of human beings. To die a martyr might be thought a noble thing in itself or given a strong enough cause, but if an individual cannot stand as a martyr for his or her own personal causes or values, then being a martyr becomes synonymous with being a cow, unaware of whether or not there was a functional or positive purpose behind its own death before it even happens.

The reason these issues are important to this discussion have to do with the role of religion at the state and government levels. They particularly concern the political systems of Israel and Palestine. Both have a history of relying on religion to justify violence, however, have only produced a history full of turmoil and come up empty-handed as far as having achieving periods of tolerance or peace. In Palestinian society, just as in the Israeli social system, religion reflects certain basic values that allow individuals the sense of a collective identity. Those values give certain collective behaviors meaning and purpose, though they come to assume at minimum some religious claims are at the heart of it. Immediately this poses a problem for the many groups effected by movements that disregard religious factors as being relevent.

By arguing that in order to move towards tolerance or peace in a conflict such as this, I believe success relies on creating a distinction between those things that are seen as inseparable from religion and those things that can be effective, still, when separated from it. In terms of identity, religious and cultural identities alike, some overlaps should be assumed. Without much available to explain why religion has failed to serve a positive, functional role in resolving current conflicts between groups of individuals or cultures, I would argue that instead it has added further to secularism and effects individuals’ religious identities and collective ethnic identities as well. Assuming its role can be damaging, a true resolution must reside outside of it, outside of religion.

Controlling for the negative religion-related effects would most likely result in controlling for the positive effects as well, or in other words, removing religion from the picture, seems reasonable and pressures individuals and collective groups to use other means to justify their behavior. In doing this, there would be less risk in misinterpretation of religious standards and practices, especially when they may be unfamiliar. And although it does not seem possible to remove religious beliefs, something very much a part of the identity of collectives and individuals, from arguments concerning the resolution of a conflict this large, active efforts need to remain focused on what can be done. This most probably means using alternative means, possibly an unfamiliar ones, as well as being open to new strategies that many cultures that are religiously oriented are less influenced by. Being open to these outsider ideas might allow more positive methods for resolving problems, methods that don’t rely on religious violence or intolerance to achieve goals.

In terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, replacing traditional religious principles or adjusting them to practices set by other cultures around the world promotes a two-sided positive effect. The suppression of violence can not simply arise from returning to traditional methods of conflict resolution, which are more times than not backed by religious doctrine. It would take a large amount of time, effort, commitment, and sacrifice to effectively change religious standards or reevaluate religious doctrines such as those in the Islamic and Judaic faiths. These efforts might be minimized if alternative methods were used in conflict resolution situations such as the current Palestinian-Israel conflict. I would argue that change is necessary but using different channels.

In conclusion, I find that these two conflicting states address conflicts and propose resolutions that cannot be considered successful so long as external bodies like the US, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon are as heavily invested in foreign policies or to mediate issues between Palestine and Israel. The issues that lead to violence and that threaten the rights of members of conflicting states should be concerned with issues that include universal human rights, a tenet of both Islamic and Judaic traditions. But instead of returning to religion, which has contributed little to the progress of a resolution of these warring states, in the end, Palestine poses as equal a threat to Israel as Israel poses to Palestine assuming they both rely on religious elements when dealing with each other. My argument is to remove religion from the picture, if only to imagine the possibilities of progress without relying on traditions and a history of unresolved violence, revenge, and the cycle of conflict that hasn’t seen an end in thousands of years.

References

Cameron Brown, “Answering Edward Said’s The Question
 of Palestine,”

Israel Affairs, Vol.13, No.1 (January 2007), pp. 55-79.

Linda M. Pitcher. "The Divine Impatience": Ritual, Narrative, and Symbolization in the Practice of Martyrdom Palestine. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 1, The Embodiment of Violence (Mar., 1998), pp. 8-30

Hillel Frisch and Shmuel Sandler . “Religion, State, and the International System in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”. International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, Vol. 25, No. 1, Religion and Politics. Religion et politique (Jan., 2004), pp. 77-96

Ella Shohat. “Review: Territories of the National Imagination: Intifada Observed”. Transition, No. 53 (1991), pp. 124-132. Indiana University Press

Richard Falk. “Azmi Bishara, the Right of Resistance, and the Palestinian Ordeal”. Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Winter, 2002), pp. 19-33. University of California Press.

----------------------- . [1] Cameron Brown’s “[pic]

-.Pxyz†?ÅÚÝ| Î æ è ô !%.7?€‡—Ÿ ¨±øêÜêÎêÜÎø­¢—Œ­?¢v¢k—¢k¸k¸`?`?k`kh"iûh]/MOJQJh"iûhú`¿OJQJh"iûhöeOJQJh"iûhßn[pic]OJQJh"iûh¿jÇOJQJh"iûh?Nh"Answering Edward Said’s The Question
 of Palestine”.