The Settlement Of The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Between Political And Religious References

Hassan Nafiaa     Al-Hayat     2003/10/22

The Arab-Israeli conflict is, at least from an official Arab point of view, primarily a political one, not a religious one in any way. True, religion has always been one of the dimensions of the conflict's structure, not to mention that it affected its course, especially during the major changes. It is also true that the religious perspective prevails in some of the political Palestinian and Arab factions' perception of this conflict. However, all this did not change the essence of the general Arab's vision of this conflict. Anyway, there is a large difference between a political conflict where religion is used as an instigator and a stimulator for mobilization on one hand, and a religious conflict where politics is used as a means of misleading or blinding towards its nature, on the other hand. I believe that the increase of suicide operations carried out by certain political factions, even by individuals belonging to any factions, is an expression of heroic determination to resist the occupation and defend the land and honor by all means, rather than an expression of a change in the Arab vision towards the nature of the conflict; hence, the main current in the Arab world still considers it to be essentially political.

Nevertheless, what applies to the Arab vision of the conflict does not apply as well to the Israeli vision of it, although the appearances might suggest the contrary. I believe that the political secular cape covering the official Zionist movement is a mask hiding a religious vision through which Israel insists on determining its stances from the conflict. Thus, it bases its positions on religious ideologies rather than on political concepts. This is why it seems that the main reason behind the hindering of the settlement resides so far in the humongous gap separating the Arabs' perception from the Israeli one in terms of the settlement. For Arabs, this settlement is essentially political, whereas Israelis maintain religion in the first place. And since religious beliefs do not accept halfway solutions by nature, then it is only normal for these conflicts based on this kind of beliefs to find difficulty reaching a solution. Any settlement requires a halfway solution between contradictory rights and interests. Unless the parties of the conflict show a real and equal readiness to understand others' rights and interests, and to accept a formula that would achieve balance between everyone's rights and interests, it would be extremely difficult to reach common grounds. And when a party sees the conflict from a political angle, which is a pragmatic and flexible one, while the other perceives it from a religious point of view, which is an ideological and stiff one, it becomes hard to grow these stances close as to even agree on one reference for the settlement.

While Arabs explained resolution 242 in terms of criminalizing the occupation of others' territories by force and reaching a settlement based on the principle of the land for peace, meaning the return of all the territories that were occupied by force during the 1967 war, in exchange for an Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist on the 67 borders and to engage normal peace relations with it. Although Arabs did ratify this formula, individually, a long time ago, they proposed it officially through a collective initiative ratified at the 2002 Beirut summit. Still, Israel did not respond to this initiative for one simple reason, which is that it does not consider the territories it had taken by force in 1967 to be occupied, but rather a subject of conflict, or even "part of the promised Jewish land," which it cannot possibly give up entirely. Hence, Israel might bargain with a part of this land if Arabs prove to be ready to offer similar generous compromises.

Had Israel had any intention for a political settlement based on exchanging all the occupied territories with peace with all Arabs, it would not have built settlements in a land that it intends to give away. And had it been building these settlements as to bargain or exert pressures, hence to gain political and security benefits in return for dismantling them when the deal is set, the hoped peace would have been achieved a long time ago. Palestinians have actually shown their intention to offer enormous compromises to the extent that they agreed on a fully disarmed state, not to mention that Syria was ready to build American control terminals as well as position international troops on its territories. However, Israel wanted the biggest part of the Arab land occupied in 67, and demanded at the same time peace with conditions, where terms were taken from the Torah such as "God's chosen people," "the right to return," the temple's mount," "the Jewish state," etc.

Surely, if Israel insists on having these demands met, there will be no peace at all. Facing the Israeli sacred vision of the Jewish rights, another perception of Islamic rights rises, where Palestine considers the entire land as part of the Islamic home, no part of which can be given away. Both these visions do not meet at all, and no bridges can be stretched between them besides links of blood, hatred and conflict that could last for another century, but it is impossible to settle in favor for Israel. If Israel really wants a settlement, the it has no choice but to adopt the rational reference and abandon its belief that the religious reference can be an accepted basis of a solution. Hence, it should choose between the 47 and the 67 borders.

The 47 borders represent the main Roadmap that the international community drew and agreed upon as a solution for both the Jewish and Palestinian issues. This map includes clear and accurate details, in terms of which the Jewish state gets 56% of the historical Palestinian territories (meaning Palestine under the British mandate and not the one mentioned in the Torah), whereas the Arab country receives 44% of this land. Despite the unfairness of this solution towards Palestinians, who were more than 70% living on the divided lands, which explains the Arab refusal back then, the wish to stop bloodsheds and accomplish a real historical and generous conciliation between two peoples having suffered a lot, makes this solution now the closest to the concept of relative fairness, especially since the decision to divide the territories came before the refugees issue, hence accepting it also shrouds a natural solution for the Palestinian refugees' problem at the same time.

However, Israelis do not seem to even be considering this solution, knowing that the balance of powers is in its favor for the moment. Moreover, it does not seem to be tempting for the international community either. Anyway, the division decision was issued by the General Assembly, which does not have the right to make a decision regarding the future of a people and a country under mandate, without referring to the concerned people and asking them first.

If Arabs accept a settlement based on the political borders that only give Palestinians 22% of their historical country, this only means that Arabs are ready to present their utmost compromises for a historical settlement that has become necessary for the peoples in the region to live and finally be open for a political, cultural and economic growth.

And when Israel refuses such a settlement, this means one of two things: either we are facing advocates of an imperial state with an army that knows no borders of its state but those it can reach, hence making any settlement out of the question; or we are facing a project of a state basing its criteria and borders on legends or religious ideologies, thinking that its project cannot stop half way through, and hence keep going until the other party accepts its terms. This also does not work for a settlement and all it can do is provoke others on also looking inside their sacred books for means to defend themselves against frivolous dangers.

Is it not the war of civilizations they are looking and planning for? I guess so. And God knows.

Hassan Nafiah is an Egyptian academic and writer.