Holy Mess
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
from an Atheist Angle
By Amir Canaan
Copyright © 2026 by Amir Canaan
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International
This book is free to copy and distribute in any medium or format for non-commercial purposes only. Derivations and adaptations are not allowed without prior permission from the author. Credit must be given to the author. License Deed: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
No generative AI has been used in the writing of this book
ISBN 9798246140390
First Edition
Dedicated to the atheists of the Middle East and to those who would have been, if not for religious coercion.
Table of Contents
Terrorists and Freedom Fighters
Religion is Not the Source of All Evil
God is Not the Source of All Good
Agnostics, Secularists, and Humanists
Religious Arguments In Disguise
The Impact of Religion on the Conflict
Transferring Jews to Other Countries
Sending Palestinians Elsewhere
Here’s to a More Secular Future
Introduction
What makes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so intractable? Why has it been going on for so many decades? Why is it so resistant to peace efforts? These questions have been puzzling observers for decades, and the common answers are unsatisfactory at best. This book examines the conflict from an atheist angle. It reframes the dire state of the region as the product of the religious forces that have been shaping it for millennia. While many factors contribute to the current situation, most are underpinned by faith. This fact has been brushed aside for too long.
Dismissing religious causes is so widely accepted that dissenting voices are often silenced after being automatically criticised. The underlying motives of the conflict are overlooked out of fear of God or reverence for venerated beliefs. On top of the assumed universality of faith, people’s natural desire to belong to an affinity group compels them to support the side(2.15) they belong to. These intense emotions prevent them from venturing beyond the comfort of their belief system and seeing the broader picture.
My objective in writing this book is to clarify the current situation, illuminate the causes, and explore potential solutions. I intend to distill the role of religion and describe how it is being used to foment friction and pull people further apart. As an atheist or agnostic, it’s easy to shrug the conflict off as a faraway dispute between tribes that are held back by their beliefs and traditions. While there’s some truth to that, reality is much more nuanced. The myriad facets layered successively throughout the tortured history of the conflict can be traced to religious origins. Warmongering, terror(3.6), breach of international law, disregard of signed agreements, indifference to moral values, fanaticism, and other phenomena can all be attributed to the fiery religiosity so prevalent in the region.
Let’s get one thing off the table: religious belief is not the only cause of this violent confrontation. Religion consists of a collection of stories that people believe in, but the stories themselves don’t kill. Believers do. While it’s sometimes possible to draw a straight line from fervent belief to a specific atrocity, the situation is usually more involved.
Political spin is a powerful force, and religious intransigence is fertile ground for coercive control. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, spiritual ideas are often turned into a violent reality by those who have political or religious authority. Religious sentiments are the gift that keeps giving for these figureheads, who abuse people’s firmly held convictions to consolidate power. Any act that doesn’t align with an interpretation of the texts they sanctify can be portrayed as an infraction perpetrated by godless infidels. In turn, it can be milked by unscrupulous leaders looking to realize their designs.
Years of studying the conflict have convinced me that it is not only a territorial dispute. The geographic aspect, while thorny, is often used as a false flag to disguise the underlying causes, which stem from the region's prevailing religiosity. While usually harmless, religious beliefs turn precarious when leveraged by irresponsible leaders. Using faith to push a political agenda is among the most potent tools available to those who govern others. Its manipulative use by self-serving demagogues hurts the entire population. At the same time, religious personalities dabble in politics to advance their divisive goals. These dynamics undermine peace efforts and devastate the lives of people in the region and beyond. Leaders on both sides have an interest in perpetuating the notion that the conflict is a zero-sum affair. This convenient argument enables them to put their personal interests above everything else. It exposes their disregard for the suffering of others and their penchant for pursuing ever greater power, regardless of the human toll.
A Note on Terminology
Before we proceed further, some clarifications are in order. The meanings of key terms related to the conflict are fraught with inaccuracies and controversy. You will find clear definitions in the glossary section. Here’s a brief overview of the most important terms. Follow the references for a full list with complete definitions.
The word religion and related terms are used in the context of monotheism, primarily referring to Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. While some of the discourse may apply to polytheistic religions, it is only by coincidence.
The term occupied territories(1.11) refers to the area taken over by Israel(1.3) in 1967(3.4), encompassing the West Bank(1.7), the Gaza Strip(1.8), and the Golan Heights(1.9). When discussing this area together with Israel proper(1.4), I refer to it as the region. This area is also known as Israel or Israel-Palestine(1.5), words that carry meaning beyond the geographic sense. Palestine(1.13) is the yet-unrealized state of the Palestinian people(2.7), spanning the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
I use the word side to refer to either the Israelis(2.6) or the Palestinians. They are the two opposing sides in this conflict, which is the term I use to describe the long-standing dispute over the region’s ownership.
The Author’s Bias
Like everybody else, I’m biased. Unlike many of those who discuss the conflict, however, I disclose my bias early and without apology. My unique perspective stems from a refusal to accept any religious prejudice. Simply put, I do not believe in supernatural beings or phenomena, and consider the untestable stories people believe in to be fictional.
While I’m partial in favor of a non-religious point of view, I’m not anti-religious. Anyone is free to believe whatever they choose. More often than not, though, they don’t decide for themselves. If you choose to believe in Thor and pray to his holiness twice a day without yielding to outside pressure, that’s your prerogative. Such independent personal faith is scarce, unfortunately. It’s much more likely for a person to be born to observant parents and inherit the religion in which they are raised. As they reach adulthood, organized religion either directly or indirectly incentivizes or coerces them to maintain their faith and pay their dues. It’s also likely that religious go-getters make it difficult for them to choose a different religion or none at all. In the hypothetical case of Thor worshippers, my bias would be against the Thor-industrial complex – that is, the organization behind the religion, not against anybody’s individual creed.
On top of my atheism, I’m biased by the types of media I consume, the people I associate with, and the memories I have from past events. These may have influenced my stance on specific aspects of the conflict in ways that are tough to keep in check.
Like most people, I’m influenced by categorization bias, which leads me to group people based on perceived similarities. This tendency simplifies our thinking, often to a fault. While generalizing can be misleading, it’s inescapable when discussing specific populations or trends.
My effort to shine a light on the wrongdoings of both sides will enrage them. Folks on the Israeli side will protest my perceived pro-Palestinian bias, given my use of the terms occupation, apartheid(3.5), Israel-Palestine, and genocide(3.8). There’s no doubt they will be triggered by the claim that Palestinians were forcefully driven out of the region in droves. Most Israeli Jews(2.8) choose to ignore the existence of Palestinian refugees(2.12) and hope the problem would go away.
Many Palestinians will say that I have a pro-Israel bias given my argument that Israel cannot be eliminated, thus dashing their hopes of a country spanning from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Their supporters maintain the fantasy that, because Israel is a relatively recent creation, it can be easily dismantled.
Both sides will undoubtedly attack me ad hominem owing to my atheism. They will be appalled by my depiction of the conflict as a religious war because they each believe that their religion is peaceful and can’t possibly take part in such a transgression. If only the war mongers on the other side would stop misbehaving, they would argue, everything would be just fine.
These conflicting opinions illustrate the challenge of discussing the conflict without triggering accusations of partiality. While I admit to having an atheist bias, I made a significant effort not to focus my criticism on only one side. Both place too much faith in religious belief and leverage it to justify violence, and neither can plead total innocence.
Prejudice All Around
Given the convoluted history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its contemporary reverberations, it seems impossible to describe and discuss it in an objective, scientifically detached manner. Nearly all sources of information about the conflict have a bias toward one religion or another, treating it as an immutable fact. While more commonly exposed through its political or national manifestation, the religious slant is often glaring and obvious.
The same goes for descriptions of the current situation in the region. Information sources differ in how upfront they are about their prejudices, but for the most part, they do a poor job of it. Books, articles, documentaries, videos, and podcasts concerning the conflict are prone to one-sidedness and either openly or “coincidentally” promote the agenda of one side or the other. The more deceitful ones pretend to be independent while promoting their producers’ opinions. Heavily scrutinized and constantly edited sources, such as Wikipedia, may be the closest we can get to actual impartiality.
One reason for the near-universal bias is the sweeping refusal to engage in a serious discussion of the religious causes of the conflict. People stay away from this topic not because it isn’t true, but because the overwhelming majority is predisposed against pinpointing religion as the cause of any negative phenomena. The lack of serious discussion of religious factors and the prevailing one-sidedness obscure the conflict's provenance. As a side effect, most accounts are inherently confusing.
Many people express opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without a clear understanding of what is actually going on in the region. Most so-called experts see the conflict through divergent ideological lenses. Those who care enough about the situation to become experts typically have either Israeli/Jewish(2.1) or Palestinian/Muslim(2.2) roots or connections. Their bias is glaring when you know what to look for, even when they insist they are objective. Not surprisingly, it is almost always toward the side they are with. On top of that, most of those who present a seemingly balanced point of view are encumbered by a pro-religious bias.
Researchers and commentators often conceal their biases behind an academic facade while aligning with the opinions of their country of residence or the organizations with which they are affiliated. There must exist more objective experts who demonstrate little to no bias; however, their voices are drowned out in a sea of propaganda, and their scholarly output fails to influence public opinion. Given the nature and longevity of the conflict, expert views should carry no more weight than those of others. The current situation is so tragic that any novel idea that may lead to a better future should be considered seriously.
The scarcity of unbiased sources on the conflict makes it challenging to build a complete picture of its past and present. In reading this book, you'll notice an absence of evidence for some claims. I opted not to reference every assertion to keep the discourse concise and avoid bias by association. It’s easy to look up all the facts mentioned here through an online search, but be skeptical of the sources you find. While reviewing multiple resources on the same event, it may seem that no one can agree on the truth.
Focus on the Present
Historical events stay in our collective memory and influence our decisions. Understanding what happened in the past is essential, but not always possible. A biased or fabricated version of history can be tragically harmful in contentious situations. Even when their portrayal of pivotal events is accurate, nearly all authors are unwilling to go all the way and uncover the underlying reasons for the conflict. This leaves us with a gap in our overall understanding of its genesis.
Most books and documentaries about this enduring conflict begin with a version of this statement: “In order to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one ought to know its history.” They then proceed to recount a reading of history seen through their lens. A historical account is supposed to cover facts, yet when it comes to this topic in particular, facts tend to be elastic and fit the speaker or author’s opinion. The interpretation of history you get is the version they see through their tinted glasses, the one they want you to believe. If they’re a Zionist(2.16), you get one version. If they’re an Israeli New Historian who questions the broadly accepted Israeli narrative, you get a different one. And if they’re Palestinian or support the Palestinian cause, you get another version altogether.
The conflict comprises a multifaceted set of issues, and specific facts are crucial for understanding the overall picture. Many authors pick and choose watershed moments that suit their narrative and “forget” about others. They describe their chosen ones in great detail while ignoring the underlying motives, stopping short of identifying the one common factor behind centuries of death and destruction: ardent religious beliefs. Off-the-charts religiosity is not the only fuel of the conflict, of course, but it’s arguably the only one that has remained constant throughout the last few millennia.
If you pick an arbitrary resource about the conflict, it will nearly always portray one side as having a god-given, historical, or political right to the land and the other as being either a colonizer or a terrorist. The religious causes remain buried under the surface. Even when one-sidedness is divulged, religious bias remains undisclosed.
In this book, I’ll skip the historical overview and instead focus on the present. Not because history doesn’t matter – it certainly does – but because discussing it in yet another book will not change anything. The current situation is no less interesting or relevant than any version of its history. While examining the conflict from an atheist perspective, I’ll mention historical events, but I won’t provide a comprehensive overview. After reading the book, you’ll be armed with enough knowledge to review historical accounts in a skeptical manner and form your own picture of what actually transpired.
The version presented here is simplified to keep the discourse on track. There’s no shortage of resources on the topic for those curious to learn more. A word of caution: be mindful of bias and choose your sources carefully, as most of what is available out there suffers from acute one-sidedness.
The Current State
Currently, one country controls the region: the State of Israel. While its sovereignty over the entire area is disputed, it maintains military superiority over the land between the Jordan River and the sea, as well as civil governance over most of it. The weak and unpopular Palestinian Authority governs a fraction of this area. The West Bank is now populated by around 2.8 million Palestinians – predominantly Muslim – and 700,000 Jews who moved there after the 1967 war. The relationship between the two groups is tense, to put it mildly. About 2 million more Palestinians live in the Gaza Strip, with many others living in different countries, having been driven out of the region. A large number of them inhabit refugee camps that have evolved into cities in countries like Jordan and Lebanon.
Tensions between Israel, the Palestinians, and neighboring countries have run high for generations. Mutual distrust and occasional belligerence are the norm. War breaks out every few years, with quiet periods studded by terror attacks and military incursions in between. One reason for the multi-generational animosity is the education curricula. Educating people for hate is the norm in the Middle East(1.2), and children are being taught a one-sided version of history from an early age. Religious education is the only option available for most families, and even secular schools teach that their religion is superior to others. Teaching children to fear and despise the other side is a recipe for long-term strife that hurts everyone. Kids learn that only the other side is at fault, while their side has done nothing wrong and is genuinely suing for peace. The origin story they study is of simple farmers fending for their families or innocent immigrants(2.14) escaping certain death in faraway countries: normal people who want to live in peace, only to be confronted by mean-spirited haters who are out to get them.
In Israel proper, Jews and Palestinians with Israeli citizenship treat each other with suspicion, but the situation is calm for the most part. Non-Jews, primarily Muslims and Christians, face discrimination that most Jews treat as background noise. Mixed cities are segregated by religion, with Jews and members of other faiths living in separate neighborhoods. Non-Jewish towns receive lower investments in infrastructure, but faith-based discrimination doesn’t end there. Among other discriminatory policies, government-funded education and social services are provided at reduced levels to the Muslim and Christian citizens of Israel. And yet, the discrimination suffered by Israeli Palestinians is nothing compared to that of their brethren living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
An Everlasting Conflict
The conflict has several dimensions. At the surface level, it’s a struggle over territory and resources between Palestinians and Israeli Jews. The Palestinians are represented by a fractured set of governing bodies, including the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, as well as leaders living in exile and in Israeli prisons. The Israeli side is fronted by the State of Israel and Zionist organizations around the world.
Underpinning the territorial issue is a deeper discord between believers in the second- and third-largest monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism. This friction, manifested primarily between the Muslim-majority, predominantly Arab(2.5) countries in the Middle East and the State of Israel, keeps pouring fuel into the fiery territorial dispute.
Israel managed to amass far more power than the Palestinians through focused leadership, a better education system, and deeper relationships with international backers – mainly the United States. This led to a growing imbalance of power that significantly intensified since Israel won the 1967 war and nearly lost the 1973 one. The peace agreement with Egypt that followed a few years later allowed Israel to focus its military efforts on fighting the burgeoning Palestinian resistance. Nowadays, Israel’s military might is beyond comparison to the Palestinians’, whose most potent weapon may be their high birth rate, producing ever more young adults willing to die for the cause.
The conflict is characterized by intolerance, cruelty, fanaticism, and othering, and, most tragically, physical and emotional violence. Generations of children on both sides are being raised on the notion that brutality toward the other side is acceptable and even desirable. Dehumanizing the neighbors became the norm, while tolerance is sidelined and increasingly denounced.
Six million Jews died in the Holocaust, which decimated Jewish communities in Europe and North Africa and shattered the image of Western civilization as measured and civilized. Many survivors helped found the State of Israel, and others subsequently moved there. Unfortunately, Israelis continue to use the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people to justify brutality against the Palestinians, touting their right to defend themselves against those who persecute them. Israeli bombings resulted in tens of thousands of civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip, leading many protesters to compare its actions there with the Nazis’. This hyperbole may help change public opinion and stop the carnage, but it is a false equivalence. While Israel’s actions amount to ethnic cleansing(3.7), it doesn’t have a systematic program of mass murder. Its actions are driven by religious fervor and righteous bigotry, but it does not have death factories designed to slaughter innocent people solely for their ethnicity or faith. It shuns any path to a peaceful resolution, but is not hell-bent on murdering every last Palestinian. Some Jewish leaders may have this as a wet dream, but they, too, understand that it’s a mere fantasy.
Tragically, the Nazis were highly effective in their all-out genocide, murdering a full third of the world’s Jewish population. They left ample evidence documenting their final solution plans and outlining their sickening implementation methods. Israel, on the other hand, vehemently denies any intent to commit genocide. Despite the denial, its actions point to a clear genocidal intent. Civilian casualties are a tragic yet expected outcome of Israel’s indiscriminate bombing campaign against militants embedded in their communities. Many Israeli Jews help implement the government’s policies through their mandatory military service, but most collaborate only by association. Only a small minority internalizes the fact that they are part of a machine that perpetrates large-scale destruction of innocent Palestinian lives and livelihoods.
Apartheid
Israel has formalized a religion-based societal stratification reminiscent of apartheid or caste system. Citizens and residents have unequal rights under a regime that controls the entire region. Jews are on top, and everybody else is at lower levels. Israel often labels attacks on its sovereignty or laws as antisemitic. In this respect, accusations of apartheid are particularly irritating to the Israeli government and Israeli Jews at large, due to the similar treatment their ancestors endured throughout history.
Despite its pushback and equivocation, the country implements an inescapable apartheid rule that most Jews support or at least tolerate. A small minority calls out this injustice, only to be ignored by the mainstream and almost everybody else. This system is not new nor recent; it was put in place and perfected through decades of increasing separation and oppression.
While Jews enjoy a relatively free and fair society, others suffer segregation and discrimination that permeate every aspect of life. The government is structured such that Jewish supremacy is guaranteed at all levels of governance. Non-Jews are systematically and openly marginalized and disenfranchised. Segregation is evident in numerous domains, including the ability to participate in civil processes, the right to express opinions, and the freedom to live anywhere one chooses. The latter is orchestrated by admission committees that bar non-Jews from living in many Jewish towns, de facto if not de jure.
All citizens of Israel proper – Jews and Palestinians alike – can vote. Jewish residents of the West Bank, which is not part of the country’s sovereign territory, can also vote and run for office. This privilege applies to Israeli citizens living in the West Bank, but curiously not to those living abroad. Palestinians living there are excluded from the Israeli civil system altogether.
Defending their treatment of Palestinians, Israelis often argue that Palestinians living in Israel and the West Bank benefit from a higher standard of living and enjoy more freedom compared to citizens of Arab countries. This “my prison is nicer” mentality ignores the human rights of the Palestinians and reveals a deterministic approach, as if their destiny is pre-ordained.
The Green Line(1.6) runs through Jerusalem(1.14), with its western side populated almost exclusively by Jews. Palestinians residing on the east side are doubly discriminated against: first for residing in the West Bank, and second for living in the city that Israel considers its capital. If they travel outside East Jerusalem for more than a few months, they risk losing their residency rights permanently. This deportation by omission harms those who fail to abide by arbitrary laws. The dials of the state apparatus are tuned in all the wrong directions for them, with the ultimate goal of having them pack up and leave.
Throughout the West Bank, the governing principle is to augment Jewish supremacy and increase its foothold. Many laws regarding free movement, employment rights, land rights, and political representation are unabashedly discriminatory, based on the subject’s religion. The old Zionist trope “a land without a people for a people without a land” still guides Israeli Jews, most of whom ignore the fact that the land never was – and now definitely isn’t – without people.
While Palestinian refugees are not allowed to return to their homes and are not eligible for any compensation, people of Jewish descent enjoy automatic citizenship through Israel’s Law of Return. This “birthright” to “make aliyah” (literally, “ascend”) is like spitting in the face of Palestinian citizens, residents, and refugees who are clamoring to return to the land of their ancestors.
With an in-practice blockade on Palestinian villages in the West Bank, hilltops and roads are confiscated for “security reasons” at an alarming rate. The systematic deprivation of land and water resources from Palestinian farmers hurts the local economy and makes them ever more dependent on handouts. Meanwhile, the Israeli military rules the Palestinian populace with a heavy hand. On top of the violent raids, there’s the collective punishment of destroying the family’s house if one of its members is caught – dead or alive – attempting to kill Israelis. A more unceremonious example: soldiers operating checkpoints identify non-Jews by how they look or sound; native Hebrew and Arabic accents are hard to fake, and command of either language is a solid proxy for religion in the region.
Jews and Palestinians are separated by a tall fortified concrete wall that forms a physical and psychological barrier to neighborly relations. The area now looks like a patchwork of Jewish settlements on a backdrop of Palestinian fields, orchards, and villages. Palestinians are barred from entering those settlements and the areas around them, and are often prohibited from even using the roads connecting them. This makes future separation into two states all but impossible.
Settler Colonialism
Israel controls the West Bank and governs it militarily. The government encourages people to colonize the area and overlooks human rights violations carried out by quixotic settlers who are busy turning their spiritual aspirations into territorial facts. While the official narrative states that control of the occupied territories is needed for security reasons, for many settlers, it’s a means to an end. Their goal is to prepare the area for the return of the Messiah by restoring complete Jewish occupation of what they believe is their biblical land.
New settlements progressively encroach on land held by Palestinians, further splintering the territory and complicating a future solution. Palestinian ownership rights are deprived by a court system that, consistent with the country’s theistic mindset, routinely sides with Jewish settlers. Palestinians are tried in military courts that are naturally biased against them, while Jews enjoy a fair judicial process in civil courts. The Israeli police and justice system are lenient toward armed groups of settlers who riot in Palestinian villages, destroying crops and property and terrorizing hapless farmers. These violent altercations are initiated in an effort to get Palestinians to “self-deport” and let Jews take over their land. One of the Jewish settlers’ favorite misdeeds is cutting down olive trees, which have both economic and symbolic significance for Palestinians.
While it’s increasingly popular to single out Israel for colonizing territories it occupied by force, it had great teachers. This brand of settlement-focused colonialism was in vogue until the mid-twentieth century, with powerful Western countries participating in an orgy of conquest, plunder, enslavement, and mass murder. Most countries that lecture Israel on its transgressions can scarcely do it with a clear conscience, yet they all do. While late to the game, Israel isn’t letting the lack of trendiness stand in its way. It blatantly breaks international law, UN resolutions, and contemporary conventions to stake territorial claims that are difficult to undo. Nothing can justify these actions, particularly not claims of a God-given right to the land. While Israel is enacting its colonialistic agenda in great haste, it is protected from international sanctions by the United States, which wields its UN Security Council veto power time and time again.
Israel prides itself on being a country of immigrants. This sounds wholesome, until you remember that these immigrants need to live somewhere. What some see as a hopeful immigrant looking for better opportunities for their family, others see as a colonialist taking over somebody else’s land. The line between immigration and colonization is a fine one. Although the statements “country of immigrants” and “colonized territory” sound dissimilar, they are two sides of the same coin. The extent of the challenge can be better demonstrated by considering a different perspective: if Palestinian refugees ever return to the region, they will become immigrants who settle in a land currently occupied by Israelis.
Given the sprawling, government-mandated settlement project and the fired-up settlers hell-bent on populating land confiscated from Palestinians, any solution based on territorial separation will require relocating hundreds of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians. To say that neither side is excited about this predicament is an understatement.
Israel’s Foreign Relations
Israel and several of its neighbors reap the benefits of peace. Agreements with Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan were signed during the last few decades. With all the fanfare and excitement, the term cold peace is too warm to describe these relationships. While raising hopes at the time of signing, these accords led to virtually no tourism or cultural exchange between the countries. Economic ties are also minimal, though some trade agreements, such as the sale of natural gas from Israel to Egypt, are crucial to all parties.
At the core of this chilly attitude is the intense religiosity on both sides. Accepting the other as equal and forming social ties will inevitably incur the wrath of religious groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, resulting in moderates who make peaceful gestures being ostracized or physically harmed by religious extremists.
Some Arab countries such as Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, as well as Muslim countries like Turkey, maintain a tense non-war status quo with Israel. On the other hand, Iran, an extremist theocracy, has a fixation on destroying the Zionist state. Egypt held the role of the would-be destroyer of Israel but surrendered it with the 1979 peace accords. Iran gladly picked it up as a reliable recipe for transfixing its citizens on an external enemy and distracting them from religious coercion, corruption, and government ineptitude. It also helps the fundamentalist regime assert its position as the leader of the Muslim world.
Hostility toward manufactured enemies is a staple of authoritarian governments, and the “reasoning” given by the Ayatollahs is their defense of the Palestinian cause. In actuality, they couldn’t care less about the Palestinian people, but are cynically leveraging their plight to arm fringe militant groups and non-state actors in their proxy war against Israel. If the Palestinian problem is ever resolved, there’s no doubt Iran will find another godsend pretext for opposing Israel (which they nicknamed “The Little Satan”) and the United States (“The Great Satan”).
In the meantime, Iran’s Islamist(2.3) regime unabashedly promotes its murderous aspirations and actions throughout the Middle East. Its religious leaders claim they have a direct communication channel to God while oppressing their citizens and living in luxury. The glaring irony might have incited the Iranian people to rebel if not for the strict censorship on local and foreign media.
The Israeli Government
Israel portrays itself as a thriving democracy, or as its leaders like to say, “the only democratic country in the Middle East.” Reality tells a different story. Israeli democracy is eroding under an increasingly authoritarian government actively trying to dismantle the separation of powers. The country is seeing a growing divide between secular and Orthodox Jews and between the political right and whatever is left of the left. These are temporarily healed with every cycle of regional violence, only to intensify soon after.
The political system in Israel relies on identity politics on steroids. Its slide toward autocracy is propelled by extreme messianic and Ultra-Orthodox(2.10) parties whose voters follow the directions of their rabbis rather than making their own informed decisions. These parties constitute a minority significant enough to hold the government hostage and force it to do their bidding. Given the balance of power, the only viable alternative to forming a coalition with extreme or highly religious Jewish parties is to join forces with small Arab ones, which amounts to political suicide. Almost all of these parties’ voters are Muslim and Christian. Jewish politicians who teamed up and formed a coalition government with them had their careers end soon after.
While the international community continues to pursue a two-state solution to the conflict, the Israeli government is doing everything in its power to maintain the one-state reality. Meanwhile, its control of the entire region puts the idea of a Jewish state in peril. Demographic trends chip away at the Jewish majority, with skyrocketing birth rates among traditional Arab residents. While these are somewhat balanced by conservative Jewish communities, the region as a whole has a similar number of Jews and non-Jews, around seven million each.
The semblance of democracy Israel maintains depends on anti-democratic policies. It can only preserve its Jewish majority by prolonging the status quo and denying non-Jews living in the occupied territories the right to vote. Cultural measures such as discouraging intermarriage or undermining secularization will not make a dent. Letting West Bank Palestinians become citizens with equal voting rights will wipe out the Jewish majority.
In its domestic and foreign policy, the Israeli government leverages a precarious blend of victimization, hubris, and paranoia. Augmented by fantasies of spiritual grandeur, it constitutes a flammable mix that can ignite at any moment. While the government is acting as if there’s no tomorrow, Israeli citizens are living on the edge with their feelings alternating between fear and denial of the horrors their government is inflicting on their neighbors. The iron grip of extremist parties on the governing coalition leads to a stern refusal to take any steps toward a peaceful solution to the conflict. As a result, the entire region gyrates between periods of war, tension, and relative quiet – a vicious cycle with no end in sight.
The State of Palestine
In the past 100 years, the Palestinian people have endured ongoing oppression. During this period, as their population and geographic spread grew significantly, so did the intensity of their struggle. Today, they live in Israel proper, in the occupied territories, and all over the world. Many dream of returning to the land their ancestors left, while others have settled in developed countries and lost their desire to do so.
The world is slowly waking up to their cries: there is a broadening recognition of their status as a nation that deserves its own state. While Israel continues to buck the trend, most countries recognize Palestine as a sovereign country, with more considering it or taking steps toward it. The United Nations granted it non-member observer state status, while the United States has repeatedly vetoed its full UN membership. The growing support is expressed through pro-Palestinian activism and political action worldwide. The BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) is a leading force of non-violent activism aimed at shifting international public opinion in favor of the Palestinian cause.
While this is brewing, Israel refuses to make any concessions, instead taking concrete steps to prevent a Palestinian state from ever existing. To distract from the real reason – a visceral belief that God promised them the land – Israelis insist it will put them in jeopardy. They argue that a demilitarized Palestinian state will surely harbor terrorists, and if allowed to arm itself, its armed forces may turn against Israel. This concern, however, is less relevant given modern missile and drone technology, allowing Israel’s adversaries to attack it from beyond the horizon. An enemy on Israel’s doorstep can indeed do more damage, but such proximity is not going to change the balance of power.
Under close surveillance by the famed Israeli intelligence services and without the ability to acquire weapons in overt ways, the Palestinians managed to pull off a brazen and bloodthirsty terror attack in October 2023. The operation breached the reputedly hermetic Israeli border and led to the outbreak of an all-out war in the Gaza Strip. While the war caused unimaginable pain and suffering on both sides, Israel engaged in merciless, wholesale bombardment of civilian targets. With their military disadvantage and crumbling infrastructure, the Palestinians suffered a disproportionately higher death toll. An aid blockade led to hunger and disease, sending the residents of Gaza back to darker times. If there is one ray of hope for the Palestinians, it’s the significant public perception boost they scored on the international stage. At the same time, Israel’s image was severely tarnished. Time will tell whether this will translate into material changes.
The war in Gaza demonstrated yet again that, regardless of whether the Palestinians have the right to arm themselves, both sides will not be able to enjoy safety and tranquility until the conflict is resolved. The only lasting solution is a peaceful resolution that inevitably involves the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The Palestinian Leadership
The Palestinians have contended with poor leadership for as long as they’ve been united as one people. Their leaders tend to be extreme Islamists, reformed militants, or inept technocrats. Much of this is a direct result of the Israeli occupation, but a lack of democratic tradition among their Arab brethren is a pivotal factor. Periods of effective leadership vacuum are interspersed with authoritarian or theocratic leaders who leave the people in a worse shape when their tenure ends. The territorial and military encroachment, as well as the regional split, make it nearly impossible to govern effectively.
Of the Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East, none is a democracy. Some have sham elections, if they have them at all, but all are autocratic if not theocratic. In the West Bank, the civil government is run by the Palestinian Authority, a remnant of the now-defunct Oslo peace accords. This governing body essentially lost its legitimacy among its public and now serves as a “subcontractor” for Israel, performing duties that Israel would rather delegate. Israel has de facto governance over the region and largely ignores the Palestinian Authority’s role as a ruler. The latter is, in effect, a collaborator with a government that is oppressing the people it’s supposed to represent.
In the Gaza Strip, Hamas provided civil services until the latest war began, while diverting most resources to military buildup. It made no meaningful investment in economic development, leaving unemployment rates at extremely high levels and neglecting the basic needs of the population. While the Israeli blockade is a major cause for suffering among the Gazan people, failed governance exacerbates the situation.
With all their faults, Palestinian government bodies represent their people’s right to self-determination(3.2). Time will tell if they’ll ever have a stable democratic government or follow the example of their Arab counterparts and opt for an autocracy. Meanwhile, given the occupation and disenfranchisement, any form of self-governance offers a glimmer of hope in a bleak reality.
Terrorists and Freedom Fighters
Given the power asymmetry with Israel, the Palestinians only have a few options for resisting the occupation, despite their tenacity and unwillingness to capitulate. For several decades, their weapon of choice has been terror. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and later Hamas, the Islamic Jihad(2.4), and other groups carried out countless murderous attacks against Israelis, both in Israel and abroad. This campaign of intimidation failed to advance the Palestinian goals. Nevertheless, some groups are likely to continue using this strategy until Palestine gains independence.
What Israel and its allies call attacks by armed terrorists, the Palestinians refer to as legitimate acts of freedom fighters. Like the PLO in its heyday, Hamas and other such groups are designated as terrorist organizations by many countries, but regarded as legitimate resistance forces by the majority of Palestinians. To further cement their favorable position, these organizations contribute to the well-being of the population by providing various social services, with a focus on schools that serve their cause.
Jews living in the region before the state of Israel was founded resorted to terrorist acts against the British authorities and various Arab targets. Similarly, these are portrayed by Zionists as heroic acts in defense of the motherland. The formation of the Israeli military brought this to an end, but Israel’s security apparatus still relies on assassinations and sabotage all over the world. Although this can be considered state-sponsored terrorism, it’s a common practice among sovereign countries.
While the Palestinians deal with the power imbalance with terror tactics, Israeli Jews trust their military to get the job done. Some, however, take matters into their own hands and perform what can only be described as acts of terror. Mass killings by Jewish terrorists are rare, but a few despicable acts by small groups and disturbed individuals have left dozens of Palestinian casualties.
The Palestinian struggle for statehood has been a hot news item for decades, and as such has inspired many vaguely related violent acts. Terrorism tends to yield copycats, regardless of its effectiveness or lack thereof. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict inspires terrorists and criminal elements around the world. Various groups of religious fanatics had appropriated it for public relations purposes. They use claims like “there will be no end to terrorism until the Palestinian problem is resolved” to justify senseless violence in disputes that have nothing to do with the Palestinian issue. For cruel extremist leaders wishing to control the lives of malleable young people, zeroing in on a familiar goal is an invaluable tool.
Poor people with a poorer understanding of the complexity of the situation in the Middle East jump on the opportunity to “fight for the oppressed.” They are brainwashed by clerics and drawn to extremist religious ideologies. The result is an army of human drones willing to give up their lives on command. Since most of these people are sexually oppressed by their strict society, promises of afterlife opulence and sexual exploits are attractive to them. The myth that Islamic martyrs go straight to heaven and get 72 virgins for their carnal pleasure has been used to deceive innocent young men and recruit them as suicide bombers for years.
Jerusalem
After millennia of passionate disputes and violent clashes, Jerusalem is arguably the most fought-over city in history, with over a hundred battles and sieges on record. No other metropolis has seen so much grief for so many years, perpetrated by a parade of occupiers, crusaders, imperialists, kings, and despots of various religions and sects.
Jerusalem is among the oldest continuously inhabited cities on earth, and is still as fiercely contested as ever. For an atheist, touring this mountainous metropolis is a powerful experience. Its rich religious annals are unparalleled, and the heterogeneity of its sites and people is extraordinary. History is evident at every turn, mirrored by modern-day conflicts between the descendants of past warring parties. When looking at the stone facades, one can’t help but ponder the bloodshed this place instigated between various religions and factions.
Jerusalem can look peaceful to a casual visitor, but the tranquility is fleeting. More blood will spill over this city, and there’s no telling who would have the upper hand in the long run. It’s as if the sturdy stone walls anticipate more agony, ready to meet whatever assault is coming their way. This palpable sense of place fuels the intractable dispute over Jerusalem’s present and future.
While the Palestinians clamor for Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, it is the capital city of Israel, or rather, as they put it, its “eternal, undivided capital.” Claiming sovereignty over eternity is quite a power move, but when you insist you channel God, I suppose you feel empowered to rule spacetime itself. To the dismay of Israeli Jews, the rest of the world is not on board with this notion. Indeed, most countries don’t fully recognize the city’s contentious status as Israel’s capital, and all but a few maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv, the largest population center and the country’s financial capital.
With Jerusalem under Israeli control, Jews enjoy the benefits of Israeli citizenship, with all the rights and privileges that come with it. They inhabit the place with great confidence and do not doubt that the entire city belongs to them. Palestinians are mostly confined to East Jerusalem, a part of the West Bank which Israel unilaterally annexed. Their rights are severely restricted, their homes are routinely confiscated by a court system favoring Jewish settlers, and their prospects of living in peace in their own hometown are dim.
While so many people see Jerusalem as the heart of creation and the hub of humanity, the question of jurisdiction over it consistently sabotages every peace effort. It eclipses even the right of return(2.13) on account of the overlapping territorial claims and umbilical attachment both sides have to the places they deem holy. This holiness-by-convention is expressed in how people refer to the city. Its Arabic name is Al-Quds, which literally means “The Holy”. The city's most common name in modern Hebrew is Yerushalaayim (Jerusalem), but other Hebrew names include Eer Ha’kodesh (“The Holy City”) and Har’el (“God’s mountain”). The Hebrew phrase Leh’sha'na Ha'bah'ah Be'Yerushalaayim (literally “for next year in Jerusalem”) has been uttered by Jews for centuries to express their unending desire to return to the region.
Despite Jerusalem being sacred to so many, God has failed to help his flock decide who owns it, and so they keep debating and clashing over it. Plenty of groups had claimed it as their own throughout history, only to be displaced by others. Rather than the cradle of creation, the city resembles an eternal battleground of evil vs. evil, where innocent people are always on the losing side. There’s no end in sight to the senseless struggle over this place. The reasons that turned this arbitrary location into the locus of bloodshed and misery have been all but forgotten. Fervent religious beliefs give the conflict the inertia it needs to keep going indefinitely, or until both sides come to their senses and realize its pointlessness – a feat that may take a generation or two.
Holy Sites
The region is considered holy by both Jews and Muslims for a variety of pertinent motives. The most tangible rationale is the prevalence of holy sites. Plenty of places sacred to Christians, Muslims, and Jews are strewn all over the region. Jerusalem has the highest concentration, but other sites are found in different cities, including Nazareth, Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias. Other religions have local sacrosanct sites as well, like the Bahá’í faith with its compounds in Acre and Haifa and the caves and tombs deemed holy by the Druze.
Many of the region’s holy sites have turned into religious symbols of the conflict, while others remain quiet spots of contemplation frequented by worshippers. Here’s an overview of the most contentious sites, starting with those located in Jerusalem. The historical reasons for their holiness – typically based on Bible fables and traditional myths – matter less than the contemporary anguish they instigate.
The Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary is the quintessential symbol of the complex interplay between fervent faith, territorial aspirations, and armed conflict. Within the forever-contested metropolis of Jerusalem, this hill stands out in its controversiality, both in spirit and substance. The name used by each religion symbolizes their hopes and beliefs: it is known as the Noble Sanctuary (translated from Arabic) or the Temple Mount (from Hebrew). We shall never know how many people bled and died while fighting over this place through innumerable sieges, battles, conquests, and crusades.
There are plenty of hills in Jerusalem, but this particular one has a mythical draw beyond belief. Followers of the Abrahamic religions have decided that this specific spot is the center of the universe, and won’t stop clashing over it. The tales they have spun to justify the holiness of this place, were they to originate today, would be dismissed as arbitrary fiction, conspiracy theories, hallucinations, or all of the above. That billions of people in the twenty-first century believe these stories without an iota of skepticism defies comprehension.
Nowadays, the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary is under Muslim religious rule, closely supervised by Israeli police forces. The existing buildings are the latest in a long series of construction and destruction efforts by various potentates. People who clamor for past glory can only imagine how the place looked thousands of years ago. Some Jewish groups don’t stop there and are hard at work preparing for the day God graces them with full ownership once again.
The Western Wall (or Wailing Wall) is the last remaining section of the retaining wall surrounding the Jewish temple, built two thousand years ago. Although support structures are rarely consecrated, this one is different. Jews from all over the world come to Jerusalem to get as close as possible to the “holy of holies” and bask in the divine presence. Worshippers believe that God himself reads the folded notes they leave in the cracks between the massive stones, trusting that he will grant their wishes. While no one studied the effectiveness of this ritual, it hasn’t been shown to be more fruitful than ordinary superstitions.
The Mount of Olives Cemetery sits outside a sealed gate in Jerusalem’s Old City wall and is densely packed with graves. Unlike other holy sites, it represents future potentiality more than bygone eminence. The similarities between the prognostications of the three main monotheistic religions are striking. Their adherents consider the cemetery sacred for its role in their end-of-times prophecies. These involve the resurrection of the dead, who will then march onto the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary through said gate, now reopened by the Almighty. The desire to be among the first zombies to walk into the holiest of places drives the very earthly gravesite prices to insane heights.
The West Bank is home to several holy sites, including:
The Cave of the Patriarchs/Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron is the purported burial site of several characters mentioned in the Bible. Christians, Jews and Muslims consider it sacred, with the last two fighting over it for many years. Currently, access is restricted and segregated by religion to head off the repeat of past violence.
Rachel’s and Joseph’s tombs are hallowed grounds for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Like many other graves in the region, they have had their share of violent confrontations and are still the locus of sectarian tensions.
Holy War
Most wars aren’t of the religious kind. They are fought over territory or resources and are propelled by power-hungry leaders, rogue nations, or rebel groups. In a religious war, diverging beliefs serve as a catalyst, providing the motivation and moral justification. The warring parties, however, end up fighting over the usual bones of contention. The battle rages on as religious zeal keeps fueling the fire.
Far from being garden-variety, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has many hallmarks of a clash of faiths. Most observers view religion as a force for good and argue that the conflict does not amount to a religious war. They are wrong on both fronts.
What has transpired in the Middle East over the last 100 years, particularly in its current incarnation, amounts to a war of faith. Unlike the holy wars of old, here, one religion is not seeking to eliminate the other (or at least that’s what most of its leaders say in public). Nonetheless, this conflict revolves around sites and territories considered sacred by one or both sides and is aggravated by religious fanaticism. In a departure from the characteristics of most other modern wars, this one has deep religious underpinnings:
Spiritual imperatives
The conflict arises from firm religious beliefs. Both sides have conflicting demands based on the stories they choose to believe and the traditions they choose to follow.
Political appropriation of religious sentiments
Politicians and religious leaders leverage religion to advance their goals, thereby perpetuating the conflict. They do it naturally and without giving it a second thought. The public has become so accustomed to it that it no longer looks unusual or out of place.
Trending toward the extreme
Religious extremists whose incendiary message speaks volumes to the masses repeatedly inflame the situation and threaten moderates with hellfire and brimstone. This coercive radicalization of otherwise sensible people is making the situation increasingly combustible.
Disputed holy sites
Both sides are waging war over sites they deem sacred. While the conflict progresses in fits and starts, a common thread runs through conflicting claims of ownership over those sites and a lack of willingness to negotiate their status. Statements like “Jerusalem is Israel’s forever capital” or “Jews are about to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque” regularly fan the flames by reactivating religious sentiments.
Doomsday prophecies
People on both sides believe in apocalyptic yarns that foretell events leading to the end of times. A desire to get there sooner lends urgency to their actions. Some believe that a war between good and evil is necessary for accelerating the process. This extreme theology is used to justify violence and exacerbate the conflict.
Territorial claims lend the religious arguments made by both sides an aura of legality and objective grounding. However, the dispute cannot be resolved solely on the basis of historical facts. The ancestors of the region's current residents lived there at different times over the last few millennia, and so both sides have a debatable right to resettle the land of their fathers. This fact notwithstanding, neither has a legally binding property title that predates their religious narrative.
A century in, the conflict can be firmly described as a religious war, stubbornly worsened by intense religiosity on both sides. Granted, other motives exist, but inherent spiritual factors make the situation tremendously complicated. While it can be discouraging to think that nothing will ever change given these deep-seated thought patterns, seeing the picture in its entirety can offer a glimpse of hope.
The Right to Exist
Both sides have shifted their opinions on the other’s right to exist as a nation. The Palestinian leadership had, at times, recognized Israel’s right to continue existing as a state. Within the Palestinian population in the region and the diaspora, some voices call for compromise, while others demand a total annihilation of the State of Israel.
The Israeli government officially supports a peaceful end to the conflict, but the part they aren’t saying out loud concerns their expectation of a total Palestinian capitulation. Those calling for compromise are marginalized.
For years now, Israel has been taking successive steps to limit or eliminate the Palestinians’ right to access their ancestors’ land. Some leaders go as far as claiming that there’s no such entity as the Palestinian people. For the most part, government policy has been and still is to allow Jewish settlers to act upon their colonial aspirations without much scrutiny.
Israel has been in existence for over 75 years. It would probably continue to exist, but not in its current form. If demographic trends persist for a few more decades, they will eliminate the Jewish majority in the region. This eventuality worries Israeli Jews immensely. Consequently, the idea of transferring Palestinians out of the area, once considered a political third rail, has become a valid topic for discussion. Proponents dress it up as a necessity, and rather than denying the Palestinian’s right to exist, suggest they exist elsewhere.
In regard to Israel’s existence, the real question is, “Does a non-democratic, religious-minority-ruled Jewish state have the right to exist?” Since this is the direction the country is heading, it will have to rely on increasingly heavy-handed and merciless tactics. To control the population, it is bound to have no choice but to implement stricter apartheid measures that further curb civil rights and rely on military enforcement for everyday matters. How many years can a country persist under such conditions is anybody’s guess, but it’s certainly not a recipe for longevity.
The Palestinians’ ancestors have been living in the region for centuries under various rulers and conquerors. They formed scattered communities – both nomadic and stationary – but lacked a central government. The notion of a Palestinian nation is relatively recent and has never had a territorial manifestation. Despite living in the region for centuries, they still don’t have a sovereign nation-state with recognized borders, governance powers, economic engines, and all the other characteristics of an established country.
Both sides have determined that the region belongs to them based on their perceived god-given rights. The inevitable corollary is a denial of the other side’s rights. These conflicting territorial claims and long-running religious traditions make the convoluted situation extremely challenging to untangle.
The Emotional State
Passions and emotions run hot in the region. This can be traced back to traditional Semitic cultures that exalt honor and revere influential leaders. It can also be a result of clinging to religious dogma that emphasizes rituals and loyalty. Or maybe it’s the endless war that forces people to live on the edge, which can traumatize even the most calm and composed. People living in the region have an unyielding loyalty to their extended family, clan, ethnic group, and nation. On top of that, almost all of them have an enduring emotional attachment to the religious ideas and spiritual leaders they follow. This combination can bring about tragic results.
There’s no doubt that generational trauma impacts both Palestinians and Israelis at alarming rates. The former carry it since the Nakba(3.3) and earlier clashes, while the latter have suffered from antisemitism for centuries, culminating in the Holocaust. Both sides had their collective trauma aggravated through later armed conflicts.
When it comes to national and political matters, the most prevalent emotion on both sides is indignation. Each side is deeply incensed at the other, which they think is the cause of their most significant problems. Since neither side is going to disappear or move away, these emotions are going to keep simmering and festering.
What’s lacking among the residents of the region is empathy. Both sides demonstrate vanishingly small amounts of it toward the other. The opposite side’s agony is routinely ignored and chalked off as well-deserved. When asked about it directly, leaders and everyday people will sometimes begin by acknowledging the other side’s anguish, then invariably deny or justify any actions their side has taken to deprive them of life, liberty, or land.
Empathy for the suffering of others is a key ingredient in reconciliation. The slow and painful death of empathy in the region is hurting everyone. Both sides show almost no kindness to their neighbors and have precious little empathy remaining, leading both to perform previously unthinkable atrocities with no compunction. Religious ideology and the lack of empathy reduce human beings to subhuman perpetrators or collaborators who deserve a summary execution.
Another casualty of this wholesale empathy deficit is hope itself. Its demise is tragic and consequential, thwarting the prospect of a mutually beneficial solution. In this real-life prisoner’s dilemma, neither side wants to collaborate with the other, resulting in worse outcomes for both. A glimmer of hope is badly needed in the aftermath of a series of horrific events that have extinguished many of the optimistic voices who bucked the trend.
Belief and Disbelief
For most of humanity’s time on Earth, we had no trustworthy sources of information about current events beyond a few miles, and no way to record history other than through our collective memory. Instead, we relied on tales and myths to make sense of the world around us. While technology has bridged this gap, we are predisposed to believing in well-told stories as a result of our evolution as a social species with sophisticated communication skills.
Religious belief offers significant advantages by providing a sense of security. In return for trusting that someone is watching over them, believers receive a potent antidote that can soothe the anxious mind. At a deeper level, faith provides respite from mortal dread by promising a way to contend with the reality of life's finitude. The benefits outweigh the emotional strain of relying on an invisible protector with unknowable motives.
At the societal level, religion helps make sense of a chaotic world and maintain order by setting behavioral boundaries and forming distinct subgroups, traditionally organized hierarchically with clear roles for priests, learned men, common men, women, and slaves. While some of these subdivisions are less relevant today, religion continues to shape the relationships between people.
On the creative side, religion has been the main impetus for producing beautiful art, music, architecture, calligraphy, prose, and poetry. Secular art has largely assumed this role in the contemporary era, but some of the most iconic artworks were created by and for deeply devout people.
With all these benefits, it’s easy to dismiss irreligious thoughts as antisocial and counterproductive. That is, until you consider the many downsides of belief in an all-powerful God. The crux of the matter is the conjecture that God created the universe for human enjoyment and exploitation. This notion leads people to believe they can make their wishes materialize through thoughts alone. In essence, it leads them to think they can control the world by willing their desires into existence through prayer.
The narcissistic idea that one’s magical thinking has real-life implications has been causing plenty of pain and suffering throughout history. It drives some people to try and realize their delusions of grandeur at others’ expense, ignoring the inevitable grief and despair. The prevalence of these bad apples spoils it for everyone. It’s appealing to imagine a world where religion is a perfectly positive and constructive force, but that’s not the world we live in.
Religion is Not the Source of All Evil
Religion evolved as a means to an end: explaining both commonplace and rare events and giving our weary minds some respite from trying to make sense of it all. Various religions developed rituals and traditions intended to exert control over the world, or at least give believers the illusion that they do. These include techniques for needs as diverse as preventing natural disasters, rewarding prosocial behavior, and securing a ticket to heaven.
At the individual level, this often leads to favorable outcomes, providing a certain degree of moral compass for those who struggle to find their own and helping them become productive members of their community. In return, religion demands obedience. Its unwritten contract states that the stricter its rules are followed, the more likely the desired outcomes are to be achieved. Compliance is enforced through social pressure techniques ranging from public shaming to outright ostracizing. This exposes one of the drawbacks of belief: being susceptible to control by others. While religion doesn’t actually afford any level of control over the universe, it certainly does allow those who pretend to represent the supernatural to control trusting believers.
At the societal level, things get dicier. Large groups can be maneuvered in the name of religion, with manipulators using creative interpretations of age-old works of fiction. Selective quoting taken out of context is considered laughable in any other setting, but for religions of the Book, it’s standard practice. Such “insights” can be used for good or for evil. They are indeed utilized by leaders who work to promote the well-being of their communities, as well as by those driven by power and profit. The latter kind is the most dangerous, as they tend to disregard the long-term consequences of their actions.
Religion is not the source of all evil. It’s how people decipher ancient texts and what they do with these ideas that can lead to evildoing. The fact that religious narratives and traditions can be interpreted in multiple ways opens the door for immoral people to take advantage of the “permission” they were given to act unethically. While one religion is not more violent than others, some interpretations make it easier for people to defer moral decisions to others, making them prone to manipulation.
God is Not the Source of All Good
Let’s take a step back: what do we mean by God? The word has a different meaning for different people. Here, it refers to the all-knowing transcendent entity that has purportedly created the universe and is actively overseeing every aspect of it. It’s not some spiritual stand-in like cosmic energies or the deist idea of a god who stepped back post-creation to let humans run the world. It’s the real deal, the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim God in whom billions of people believe—a god whose persona has evolved through millennia of fireside storytelling and creative writing.
From an atheist perspective, gods are a human invention. As such, they could have been designed as the epitome of goodness. In reality, gods are often portrayed as vengeful, violent, and petty. They may be nice to their people, but certainly not to their people’s enemies. They’re not a source of universal good, but rather tribal protectors who care for their own more than anybody else.
Contrary to common belief, not all monotheistic gods are one and the same. If you follow an Abrahamic religion, you believe in one of three different gods. Case in point: when members of distinct religions fight each other and both claim to have God on their side, surely the same God can’t be helping both of them eliminate each other, unless he is exceptionally sadistic and cynical. After all, God is good and wants his children to prosper, not get slaughtered, isn’t he?
One person’s God is another’s false idol. This reality is particularly salient given that people claim to have received contradicting promises from their God. Believers in each religion are confident that theirs is the only true one. They praise their God’s generosity, convinced that he showers them with both fatherly love and worldly gifts. Alas, one God gave his people a piece of land, while two others planted holy sites in the middle of that land. Lacking inter-god coordination, we end up with a vexing head-scratcher: whose land is it?
For some, God symbolizes the ultimate goodness and greatness. For others, that god is an afterthought, while their God is the epitome of perfection. Billions of people believe God is good, but this doesn’t translate to global unity or local harmony. The way out of this tangle is to leave the gods out of the picture and find other sources of goodness, both in the world around us and within ourselves.
Nonbelievers
In an ideal world, everyone would have self-determination over their lifestyle and the freedom to believe or not believe in anyone or anything they choose. In our world, most people prefer the protective cocoon of organized religion, while only a small percentage opts for living their lives outside of it.
Atheism is simple – no need to believe in the unprovable, read ancient texts, spend your weekends with people you’d rather not hang out with, avoid certain foods at certain times, or follow any number of rules you’re not comfortable with. Atheism doesn’t ask for much, and herein lies the challenge: you have to make your own rules. You can imitate anyone you wish, but there’s no one you must follow. You’re pretty much on your own.
As atheists, we must overcome the innate human tendency to deal with intense feelings by deferring to the supernatural. Our natural fear of being ostracized and our death anxiety can’t be explained away by appealing to gods or demons. We must confront our angst head-on and tap into our internal resources to get through each day. This constant struggle can be exhausting, making strong atheism challenging to adopt and even more demanding to maintain.
A common argument against atheism revolves around the question of moral values. Moral objectivists presume that something outside of us makes virtuous determinations on our behalf. The most common form of this idea is religious belief, with believers accepting ethical dicta imposed on them by people claiming to be deputized by God. This ethic is based on ancient tales, some of which make sense and others that have not aged well. It is not based on a universal truth, because there is none. It is not determined by an omniscient being who imparts his moral proclivity on people as they are born, because such an entity doesn’t exist. It does not draw on laws of nature or axioms, either, because those are concerned with mathematics, physics, chemistry, and the like, rather than moral dilemmas. If there were an external basis for our ethics, all of humanity would have shared the same values. Instead, each person sets their own ethical boundaries, though most aren’t free to make this decision unencumbered.
Even those who are free to choose their moral path often decide to pass on the opportunity. The self-suppression of subjective morality in favor of one set by others is an unfortunate human tendency. Developing our own moral values and standing by them can be scary, so most people prefer to defer to somebody else’s idea of right and wrong, usually someone who claims to channel a higher power. Moral dependence can lead to dissonance when the consequences become apparent. To avoid facing the emotional repercussions, people resort to spiritual bypass. Even those who are secular or agnostic fall into this trap and make empty statements like “people need to believe in something bigger than themselves.” This conjecture, much like similar ones, is baseless and damaging. Instead of believing in some arbitrary entity, why not believe in yourself?
Every person is capable of developing their own moral fiber. The vast majority of us have a healthy sense of empathy and a desire to be good people. This solid base is modulated by our temperament, our experiences growing up, and the modeling we receive from those who are important to us. On top of this, our personal ethics are shaped by the culture we live in. As it turns out, all the crooks, criminals, and crazies constitute a small fraction of the human race, while most people want to live their lives in peace and be contributing members of society. The outliers receive more attention than their fair share because immoral acts are more appealing to the media business than moral ones. Only a handful of people care about how your neighbor gave you a cup of sugar that time you ran out while baking a cake, but most people are fascinated by a police chase, whether across their neighborhood or across the country. The fact that there are considerably more nice neighbors than car thieves is easy to ignore.
Of those who act immorally, most tend to be victims of generational poverty, parental neglect, child abuse, or other underlying traumas. The worst crimes, however, are perpetrated by people who fall prey to indoctrination infused with racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and different types of bigotry. Faith in God, with all its benefits, makes many believers malleable. Religious texts are a motherlode of ideas for those seeking to abuse others. They are mined continuously by “wise men” who use every excuse in the book to get others to do their bidding. These opportunists place themselves between God and the people who trust them and spew out fountains of edicts meant to show that they did, indeed, manage to tap into the source of morality.
The most sinister assertion voiced against atheists is that they cannot be moral, or as the rhetorical question goes, “How can you be moral if you don’t believe in God?” This is utter nonsense. Jails and prisons are full to the brim with believers. Let’s put aside those who are wrongly accused; why are the rest doing time? Why didn’t their good religious values prevent them from doing whatever it is they did to end up there? Adopting somebody else’s moral values doesn’t make people more honest or moral. Self-developed ethical standards are significantly more robust and binding.
The common apologist argument against the fact that faithfulness does not imply crimelessness is that God lets people do bad things to test them. This is such a cruel vindication; letting one person kill or maim another just to test their resolve and teach them a lesson is, at the very least, an unethical educational method. Surely an omnipotent God can devise a less fatal process, one that doesn’t involve ruining the lives of innocent people.
Agnostics, Secularists, and Humanists
Further down the spectrum toward religiosity, we find agnostics: people who leave the door open for the option that there is a God. For many, doubts about a higher power stem from intellectual humility. Their reaction to the unknowable is logical and measured, allowing them to live happier and fuller lives with less existential anxiety.
Agnostic uncertainty can manifest in various ways. Some agnostics are like atheists but with a teensy bit of doubt and a dash of hope that God may exist after all, while others take a more active approach, thinking, “I don’t know if there is a God, so I’d better pray just in case.” This stance, known as Pascal’s wager, turns many would-be atheists into believers in practice.
Agnosticism can be a slippery slope, leaving otherwise logical risk-hedgers vulnerable to control by others. With their openness to the possibility that unexplainable phenomena are real, agnostics are susceptible to buying into marginally believable scams. This may lead to belief in conspiracy theories, healthcare fads, pseudoscience, and the like – all exceptionally effective in at least one way: siphoning believers’ money away.
“Diet religions,” like zero-calorie beverages, are not necessarily good for you despite being light on the key ingredients they’re known for. Being secular is one example. Secularization, a process that religious organizations fear so much, has little to do with the lack of belief. A secular society maintains a separation of religion and government while retaining strong faith in the supernatural. Secular people may be less extreme, but most still defer to morals that come from God or from people who claim to be his contemporary disciples.
A viable alternative can be found in humanism, a life philosophy that centers on human beings. While not all humanists are atheists, humanistic thinking is crucial to a rich, atheistic life. Humanism puts people and their capabilities at the core of our moral existence. It argues that humans are intelligent and resourceful enough to exercise their agency and conduct their lives without relying on direction from others, be they natural or supernatural. Humanism contends that humanity evolved to construct frameworks that help sustain human life by utilizing available resources. As a result, we can create social support systems that ensure dignity for everyone. Humanists rely on the scientific method to provide the answers required for life to thrive on Earth. They emphasize personal ethics and free thought, while stressing our societal obligations and individual responsibility.
These assertions may seem naïve in the face of all the agony we’re witnessing. The challenges of implementing secular ethical systems on a global scale are immense, but there is a precedent. Since the end of World War II, the world has experienced a largely peaceful era, characterized by increased cooperation and historically low levels of casualties in armed conflicts. This quiet period relies, in large part, on sidelining religious and pseudo-religious arguments in favor of international collaboration in trade, culture, immigration, and other areas. The same principles could address some causes and symptoms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It remains to be seen whether the human race can maintain this relative tranquility and apply it to local disputes that entail global implications. The hope is that the humanist vision of life in the absence of religious influence or abusive governments becomes a more widespread reality. Many, including myself, think that it’s a plausible alternative to the prevailing order.
Organized Religion
Some beliefs in supernatural forces are mostly harmless. Astrology, for example, can encourage people to change their behavior in the hope of achieving better outcomes. While changing the date of your wedding to better align with the energies of your planet and your spouse may not guarantee happiness, it has hardly any adverse consequences. People are free to amuse themselves with such a belief, and no one gets hurt.
One thing astrological divination lacks in order to be considered a bona fide religion is a strong organization, determined to make it the only belief system in people’s lives. The most prominent world religions have enjoyed the power of wide-reaching and well-functioning organizations for centuries, if not millennia. Their leaders have perfected the art of propagating their message and marketing their product for so many generations that there’s barely any room for improvement. Financially stable thanks to mandatory tithing, tax exemptions, and lax legislation, faith institutions are able to amass assets and influence, which they wield with abandon. In several countries, they are the de facto decision-makers, whether officially or otherwise. Some, like the Mormon church, operate more like tightly controlled corporations that reap the benefits of having a sizable tax-free hedge fund.
The tacit goal of organized religion is to ensure that faith in God and its messengers is firmly lodged in believers’ minds. As long as people are unable to form independent thoughts that allow them to reason their way out of a faith-based worldview, the organization remains strong. The meticulously prescribed set of laws, rules, and rituals that followers are expected to observe is designed to curtail their ability to think outside the theistic box they were born into. Stifling unencumbered thoughts doesn’t make people stupid; it makes them obedient. An endless number of rules governing every aspect of life is particularly pronounced in Judaism and Islam, but is also present in some Christian denominations and other religions. Various religious traditions justify their petty rules as necessary for guiding people in living a righteous life. This flimsy, disparaging excuse can scarcely conceal the actual nefarious goals: power and control.
Organized religion has been – and still is – the cause of an overabundance of suffering all over the world. Throughout history, churches and other organizations initiated and endorsed countless atrocities and justified them with theistic arguments plucked from thin air. On top of a plethora of wars and armed conflicts, their work includes abusing children, violating women, promoting slavery, attacking those who believe in the “wrong” religion, and taking over “vacant” lands. Religious apologists defend these crimes against humanity with spiritual double-talk and references to dubious sources, but the smokescreen is easy to see through. One of their favorite distractions is to tout their charity work. However, no amount of almsgiving can wipe away a sinful past or cleanse an unethical present.
Religious institutions should ideally help defuse tensions and minimize war and suffering, but the reality in the region is very different. Religious bodies in the Middle East exacerbate the conflict by allowing and sometimes encouraging violence. This message is picked by the worst members of society who, having let others lay the groundwork and do their thinking for them, perform untold atrocities in the name of God.
Political Religion
Democratically elected presidents or prime ministers rarely think beyond their projected tenure. At the same time, autocrats tend to be myopic, knowing that their reign can end in a bloody coup at any moment. Both focus on the day-to-day, appeasing their people or controlling them through the power of words or stern law enforcement. To advance their personal interests, they support their supporters, suppress their opponents, and enjoy the spoils of government. Meanwhile, religious considerations always remain top of mind. These are so prevalent that they must be handled like other necessities, which politicians ignore at their peril. After all, a population that feels that its core beliefs are under attack is no less likely to rebel than a hungry one.
Religion itself can be harmless, but when politicized, nationalized, and weaponized by unscrupulous leaders, it inevitably leads to strife and suffering for portions of the population. Politicians can use and abuse it to garner support for their agendas. Theopolitical initiatives don’t have to be extreme; many believers are ready to act when hearing their revered leaders utter the right words. Even a slight increase in the frequency of statements like “in the name of God” can serve as a dog whistle for those thirsty for justification.
After centuries of Catholic Integralism, most Western countries moved toward separating church and state, with varying degrees of success. Still, leaders from all sides of the map often forgo this principle and mix religion, politics, and nationality to gain popular support. In the Middle East, virtually all countries incorporate religion into their national ethos, with no pretense of detachment between the state and its prevailing or official religion.
Despite its secular roots, contemporary Zionism argues that Jews have a God-given right to live in the region. From an atheist perspective, this lacks any factual basis, given its reliance on a purported promise made to an ancient tribe by a fictional character thousands of years ago. Nowadays, this claim is used as a crutch for manufacturing consent by binding Judaism to the contested land of Zion. This link allows Zionists to decry antisemitism at any sign of resistance to their territorial aspirations. The fantasy of a Jewish homeland serving as a haven for Jews didn’t pan out, with Israel now being the most dangerous place for them to live.
The Zionist movement and its earthly incarnation, the State of Israel, face an intensifying backlash commensurate with the tightening grip on the Palestinian population. The amalgamation of religion, ethnicity, nationality, and territorial claims makes it convenient for them to assert that all anti-Zionists are antisemitic. In reality, those who speak out against Zionism typically object only to Israel’s occupation and its dire consequences, not the right of Jews to self-determination. Branding anyone who disagrees as racist is an attempt to harness international sentiment about antisemitism in service of a theopolitical and geopolitical goal.
On the flip side, Zionism makes innocent people of Jewish descent a target for anti-Zionists who don’t know any better. After years of promoting the inseparable link between the two, it’s no wonder people all over the world can’t tell the difference between a Jew and a Zionist. This results in attacks on synagogues and other Jewish targets, sometimes perpetrated against people who actually object to Zionism.
The vast majority of Jews living in Israel identify as Zionist; notable exceptions include some fringe Ultra-Orthodox groups that suckle from the teat of the Jewish state while slapping it with hate speech. Most Jews living abroad are Zionists as well, except for members of those fringe groups and some liberals like the supporters of Jewish Voices for Peace and similar organizations.
While Israel opposes any independent Palestinian state, the thought of an Islamist state in its midst sends shivers down the spines of even its most hardened residents. Politicizing religion may seem like a fine idea for one side, but when the other wishes to adopt a parallel ideology, the downsides become self-evident.
Islamism is getting increasingly popular in Palestinian society and sets the tone of its modern struggle. It advocates for incorporating Islam into government, enacting regressive policies, and replacing civil law with Sharia law. Muslim states are notorious for curbing human rights, persecuting less strict Muslims, and discriminating against non-Muslims. Hamas and other Islamist organizations don’t shy away from the goal of turning Palestine into an Islamic state. Israeli Jews, moderate Muslims, and a plurality of people all over the world see this as a threat to global security.
The gruesomeness of the Islamic State is fresh in the memories of residents of the Middle East and the rest of the world. ISIS’s penchant for publicity ultimately backfired, contributing to its demise. The lesson that Middle Eastern theocracies learned is not to tone down their oppression and brutality, but rather to limit or outright ban independent journalism and censor international media.
Modern Religions
One of the most common pushbacks against the claim that religious factors drive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the counterargument that atheistic regimes inflicted death and suffering, too. This red herring fallacy distracts from addressing the actual issue and is often effective at dodging a serious discussion of the conflict’s root causes. Let’s unpack this whataboutism and see what’s behind it.
Religious belief is not the only factor resulting in large-scale atrocities. There’s no reason to think that truly non-religious ideologies couldn’t lead to mass violence. That said, the oft-quoted examples are misconstrued. As it turns out, traditional religions, monotheistic and polytheistic alike, are not the only sources of religious violence. Nazism and Marxism-Leninism are typically brought up as key examples of non-religious violence. The regimes that relied on them perpetrated horrific crimes against humanity. However, while these ideologies did not align with conventional religions, they were pseudoreligious rather than atheistic. Being somewhat different from standard-issue religions didn’t diminish their effectiveness at rallying devotees. The horrors performed in the name of these modern-day pseudo-religions cannot, therefore, be used to support an argument that non-religious governments are as lethal as religious ones.
Adolf Hitler was a charismatic leader and perhaps history’s worst mass murderer. The German people, at the time, regarded him as an all-powerful savior and prophet. Over in the USSR, Joseph Stalin, a runner-up in the Worst Person Ever contest, turned ordinary people into members of a personality cult where he enjoyed a god-like status. In both cases, the masses had their rites and rituals, prescribed duties, holy texts, prophets, superhuman heroes, and an unwavering belief in an all-mighty leader who replaced the Almighty. Both Hitler and Stalin, with their astronomical narcissism, made God redundant by shifting religious sentiments from it to them. To shore up their divine stance and buttress their political religion, they couldn’t leave room for another God. They pushed it aside by leveraging the human tendency to follow towering figures who can move mountains. While both tyrants paid lip service to select religious leaders, they paid little respect to the supreme being who supposedly ruled the world before them.
Communism, specifically, opposes religion for political reasons. It positions the state as the primary source of morality and social relief. The state’s ability to control the masses centers on its role as the sole provider of welfare. Anything that jeopardizes this function must be eliminated for communism to be successful, including private enterprise that competes with the state’s. Religion teaches believers to accept their suffering, thereby needing less support from the state. As such, the Soviet Union viewed it as a competitor and had to push it aside.
Those who lived under the tight grip of these pseudo-religions were derided as collaborators by people holding more traditional monotheistic faiths. However, most of them were normal people unwittingly caught in a storm of violence and sycophancy. They suffered and died in the millions under the iron fist of murderous regimes, just like those they fought against. Saying that this cruelty is the result of the atheistic nature of these countries is wrong and misleading. In actuality, their citizens were religious, but the religion they followed was not one of the usual suspects.
While it’s more common to compare these dreadful dictatorships to a cult, they arguably had more in common with conventional religions. The one characteristic Nazism had that was reminiscent of a cult is that it died with its leader. However, had the Third Reich survived the war somehow, it is conceivable that Nazism would have lasted till this day, with a new god-like leader replacing Hitler. In a terrifying twist on this nightmare scenario, neo-Nazis are rearing their ugly heads more often these days and, alarmingly, gaining broader support.
Anti-Religious Sentiments
Through Western liberal eyes, it’s evident to most that hating people solely because of their identity is wrong and unproductive. And yet, it seems to be a natural part of the human condition. We evolved to fear members of other tribes as a means to keep ourselves safe and prosperous. Xenophobia and othering are present in every human society, regardless of whether religious bigotry is at play.
In the context of the conflict, antisemitism and Islamophobia are the most prevalent forms. A lack of separation between spiritual beliefs and national identity characterizes both. Antisemitism abounds on the Palestinian side, and islamophobia on the Israeli side.
Antisemitism is as old as Judaism. Jews have been blamed for every calamity that has plagued the human race, from war and disease to poverty and degeneracy. They’ve been accused of controlling the government and the media, portrayed as insatiable money grubbers, and framed for drinking the blood of Christian babies. Throughout history, antisemites perfected their bigotry and turned it into a model for narrow-minded prejudice that can be readily applied to other groups.
Jews are culturally studious and industrious, which has led to their prosperity. It seems inevitable that the success of a minority will evoke jealousy and false accusations, and this was the case for Jewish communities around the world for ages. Describing this unfortunate side effect of otherwise positive traits should not be seen as victim-blaming. Jews were merely doing their thing, inadvertently summoning hatred from other religious groups.
Antisemitism led to numerous pogroms, resulting in the death of thousands of Jews and culminating in the murder of about six million in the Holocaust and the displacement and traumatization of millions more. Antisemitic thinking patterns didn’t go away in the wake of WWII, and are indeed intensifying in recent years.
Islamophobia is similar to antisemitism in its bigoted fear of the other, but is distinct in its impact. Antisemitism is responsible for the elimination of a third of the world’s Jewish population in the twentieth century. Islamophobia, in comparison, is proportionally much less lethal. While comparing death counts is grim, it can be used as a heuristic for the overall consequences of these flavors of racism.
Islam is often stereotyped as a violent religion. One embodiment of that is the generic movie terrorist, frequently portrayed as an Arab-looking bearded man with dark hair and thick eyebrows. This generalization doesn’t measure up to reality. Islam is no more violent than other religions, and doesn’t stand a chance against the reigning queen of religious violence and the record holder in terms of number of fatalities: Christianity.
In the annals of religious wars, monotheistic believers slayed millions of people of the same persuasion. Dispatching with those of other faiths was even more morally acceptable. All this was encouraged by biblical stories where God goes on killing sprees and seems to be satisfied with his achievements. Such an endorsement from above was, and still is, a boon for murderous despots.
Anti-religious sentiments usually stem from fear of people who are different from us. Distrusting people for no other reason but their creed is wrong on so many levels. Those who follow a different branch of the same religion also inspire little confidence. The animosity between Catholics and Protestants, for instance, has claimed millions of lives.
While criticizing the use of religious beliefs to justify atrocities, it’s essential not to be sucked into an anti-religious spiral. Power-hungry leaders tend to exploit the moral disengagement that religion can create to rally the masses, but generalizing and blaming all adherents for crimes performed in the name of a religion is unacceptable. Objecting to religious justifications of national and territorial disputes and denouncing the use of religious belief to excuse war crimes is a step toward greater tolerance and mutual acceptance.
Religious Tolerance
While people are free to believe in whatever they choose, respecting people’s religious views is essential. Not only is it the polite thing to do, but it can save your life if you’re dealing with murderous extremists. Secular groups are more lenient than religious ones in adopting a “live and let live” attitude. People of faith often believe that their God has given them more rights than others. While we, atheists, see this as thinly veiled egoism or group narcissism, it is still their prerogative. When multiple such groups disagree over a shared resource, the outcome often turns bloody.
Prejudice is prevalent in any religion. One example is the centuries-long conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims. The schism started centuries ago over different interpretations of Islam. Countless believers have died in the hands of their Muslim brothers since then, and there is no sign the dispute is dying down.
In Judaism, Ultra-Orthodox, orthodox, and secular groups are often impatient toward each other. Intolerance peaks around various topics, such as the eternal debates in Israeli society regarding mandatory military service. Another point of contention is government handouts to Ultra-Orthodox families who raid government coffers to fund their lifestyle that revolves around studying the Bible instead of having a gainful job. At the same time, they have three times the birth rate of secular Jews(2.9), putting more demand on the welfare system. These internal debates don’t turn violent for the most part, mainly because the country is too busy fighting a common enemy. Time will tell if this intra-Judaism sectarianism remains benign.
Because of their stronger moral values, atheists often show more respect for religion than do people of faith. In some cases, it stems from a concern for their safety. Free atheists don’t harm or hurt believers, nor do they hinder others’ rights simply because of the religion they follow or the beliefs they hold. This penchant is reserved for people of deep faith whose loving God is infinitely merciful.
Language
People on both sides of the conflict have been described as nationalist, principled, traditional, territorial, patriotic, and idealistic. These terms are often used as euphemisms for religious zealotry, allowing the speaker to avoid the fact that faith influences both sides’ societal blueprints and aspirations. When used with intent, language can be a vehicle for reinforcing, changing, and controlling public opinion. In the proper context, carefully chosen words have the power to kill. Blood libels like the absurd claim that Jews kill Christian children and consume their blood in religious rituals have been painfully effective in triggering religious persecution. They are still being used to drive conspiratorial thinking and can lead brainwashed believers to carry out terror attacks.
The mere existence of certain words betrays the cultural importance of the concepts they denote. For example, collective identity is so elemental in Judaism that there’s a special word for a non-Jew, not only in Hebrew but also in contemporary English: Gentile. Muslims and Christians enjoy no such linguistic generosity.
Certain innocent-looking words and phrases conceal a potent ability to reinforce religious beliefs. Hebrew-speaking Jews, for instance, use the following words and sayings in daily life without giving a second thought to the religious connotation:
“Divrei Chachamim” translates to “words of the wise” and refers to the centuries-old teachings of religious figures. Referring to the authors as savvy is a clever way to anchor this idea in people’s minds and give the writings an aura of veracity.
“Mishamayim,” literally “from heaven,” is a common interjection used to justify actions and events. Conservative and secular Jews alike use it to explain away things they don’t understand, events they are satisfied with, and tragedies that defy reason.
“Hakol Letova” means “everything is for the better.” It doesn’t sound religious at all, but in fact signifies that whatever happens is directed by God and is therefore good. It implies that he rewards us in good times and tests us in bad times, but ultimately, everything happens for a reason. Furthermore, it presumes that we have no control over anything since God premeditates everything. This expression is often used in lieu of “don’t worry,” thus reinforcing a belief in an all-powerful being.
Ancient holy books, such as the Bible, have a significant anthropological value and can help us understand how people lived thousands of years ago. Their enduring ability to build culture and foster uniformity at scale is fascinating. Along with later texts, they helped shape public opinion and delineate acceptable behavior patterns before modern jurisprudence became the norm, and, in large part, still do.
Holy books are the cornerstone of Abrahamic religions. They are strictly unalterable by convention, so the only way to adapt them to modern life is through various interpretations. While followers of the three religions believe in the Old Testament, they each interpret it in ways that support their specific needs. Later books, including the Jewish Talmud and Gemara, interpret ambiguous Bible verses and specify more modern (or rather slightly less archaic) rules for life.
While language itself is powerful, the way in which it is used can make it more effective. When uttered with rhythm and melody, words can have a mesmerizing effect. Chanting incantations and repeating phrases over and over again may be good to quiet a racing mind, but it also makes them a more effective mind control tool. Stories told in houses of worship, with their distinct architecture, sounds, smells, and rituals, take on an air of holiness. These carefully constructed environments are designed to have an atmosphere that augments the power of mere language, making it sound transcendent. Reality, however, is less magical than those fictional Bible stories where God says a few words, and things just happen.
Religious Arguments In Disguise
Religious claims can be off-putting for people who are unsure of their faith, agnostics, atheists, and followers of other religions. To make them more palatable, the people making them often reframe them as secular. These whitewashed statements become part of the daily vernacular without raising suspicion. People are happy to sprinkle Kosher salt on their food without asking too many questions, for instance. Seasoning is innocent enough, but when spiritual discourse reaches political, national, and territorial matters, things can quickly boil over.
The Doctrine of Discovery is a keystone example. Under the guise of spreading progress and civility around the world, it granted European colonizers the moral right to seize any area that Christians didn’t already inhabit. At the same time, it gave indigenous peoples who happened to be living there no rights whatsoever. Millions were removed from their ancestral land by force, while far too many were enslaved or killed. This religiously-mandated savagery – perpetrated by countries with the most advanced weapons of the time – left the natives no chance.
Both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict make an effort to conceal their religious arguments behind non-religious justifications. Here are some examples of such statements from both sides:
“It’s our ideology.”
Referring to religious arguments as an ideology can make them sound less contentious and more justified. This euphemism allows their portrayal as valid and even heroic rather than antiquated and dogmatic.
“Jews have a historical right to the land.”
While Jewish people indeed lived in the region for a very long time, this in itself is not a compelling argument for depriving the rights of other people who have lived there for centuries as well. Zionists resort to claims based on “documented” promises made to biblical characters. Efforts to historicize religious texts and oral traditions fail to meet contemporary standards of proof. Even when coupled with archeological remains such as ruined synagogues and scraps of Bible verses, they cannot justify a land grab.
“Indigenous Palestinians have the right to return to their ancestral land.”
Their ancestors indeed lived in the region, but it was never a Palestinian country. Instead, it was ruled by a series of foreigners who wrestled it out of other foreigners’ hands, with the local population – made up of Muslims, Jews and Christians at alternating rates – treated as slaves, pawns, or merely collateral damage depending on the cruelty level of the conqueror du jour. While Muslims also have plenty of archeological evidence to show for, their indigeneity argument is reinforced by the Islamic belief that the region is theirs and that Jerusalem, in particular, is a sacred trust (“waqf” in Arabic) that should forever be under Muslim rule.
“Eliminating the other side is a legitimate part of the struggle.”
This argument draws on a selective reading of religious texts to justify atrocities performed in the name of God. It allows people to say that they merely serve their God’s wishes and gives them a license to kill. It should be condemned as it absolves followers of their crimes, no matter the caliber, both in their eyes and the eyes of their supporters.
“The Chosen People can only be secure in the promised land.”
The idea that divine providence protects Jews only in Israel is a bedrock of modern Zionism. It’s based on the concept that messianic redemption is only possible if the Jewish people live in the region.
“We are the good guys; they are the bad guys.”
Seeing the world in black and white, or in terms of good versus evil, is a hallmark of religious thought that aims to simplify life to the greatest extent. It’s easy and comforting for folks to believe that their people are right and righteous while others are wrong and wretched. Religious concepts of divine uniqueness and absolute evilness provide a potent justification for this “good vs. evil” binary, distinguishing it from purely nationalist or ideological dichotomies. Political and religious leaders use and abuse this notion ad nauseam.
“We aren’t only protecting our people, we’re saving the world.”
Among those involved in the conflict, people on both sides pretend to be saving humanity through their actions. They believe they fulfill their destiny by executing their divinely ordained mission to rid the world of evildoers. Believing that your actions protect the human race from assured destruction would be considered megalomaniacal and silly in any other context.
Tragic Irony
The irony exemplified by some religious figures and their penchant for doublespeak serves as a model for corrupt leaders in public and private enterprise. Their actions are at times so glaringly absurd that people think, “If a cleric can do this without being struck dead by God, surely I can do lesser wrongs.” The irresponsibility of setting a bad example under the cloak of religious piety is mind-boggling. Misuse of people’s faith abounds in all religions, with many Christian luminaries serving as beacons of corruption. To keep this discussion in context, let’s focus on the two most prevalent religions in the region, with examples ranging from feckless to reckless.
In Israel, it’s common to see the Bible quote “Love thy neighbor as thyself” in graffiti and on bumper stickers. While the terms “love” and “neighbor” can be vague, the statement as a whole is glaringly ironic. Instead of any degree of love, all the Palestinian neighbors get is across-the-board hate.
One of the core ideas of Judaism is that God is particularly interested in His Jewish flock and is keeping a logbook of all their actions. He purportedly tallies their individual scores to determine their lot in life, which he improves if they obey his orders. With an endless number of petty rules to follow, it’s impossible to be perfectly pious and remain in God’s good graces. Even the Decalogue is too much to observe. To wit: with a 30% divorce rate in Israel, plenty of men must be coveting their neighbor’s wife, thereby violating the commandment prohibiting that. The solution – undoubtedly devised by practical people – is to allow believers to wipe their roster clean once a year using special-purpose prayers. What a clever yet cynical way to keep society in check while allowing it to break the rules at will.
Islam prohibits followers from drinking alcohol or using drugs. Regardless, Syria, a predominantly Muslim country, became the world leader in the production of the illicit drug Captagon, a highly addictive stimulant. The Asad regime controlled and benefited from this industry, with religious leaders turning a blind eye to the blasphemy. With the fall of his dictatorship, the drug industry suffered a blow, but there’s little doubt the new rulers will continue supporting this lifeline or find other unsavory ways to fill their coffers.
Afghanistan, a fundamentalist Islamic country, is the world’s leader in heroin production. Its colorful poppy fields produce high-quality opium, which is turned into incredibly addictive narcotics at an industrial scale. When the Taliban took over the country, religious coercion ratcheted up, but drug production continued without major hiccups. Despite intoxicants being haram (forbidden) in Islam, the billions of dollars in revenue are enticing enough for the mullahs to gloss over the sinfulness of this burgeoning industry.
Religious Bias Galore
Religious bias often hides in plain sight. Here are some trigger words that can help bring it to light. Some are unmistakable, others less so. We are so used to encountering them that our brain tunes them out. When these telltale signs appear in the title or description of a book, documentary, video, podcast or similar resource, you can almost be sure of its biased stance.
Bible, Torah, Quran, scriptures, holy book, Old Testament, New Testament.
If any of these words appear as a reference to support the author’s argument, as in “the Bible says that…,” it’s an obvious sign of prejudice. A similar dead giveaway is selective Bible quoting, where an arbitrary verse is used to justify a position. Regardless of what the Bible says, it’s possible to find a sentence fragment in any sufficiently long text and take it out of context to support one’s opinion. Quoting scripture lends an aura of veracity, but Moby Dick or Wuthering Heights can provide expressive pseudo-references just as abundantly.
Praise the lord, God willing, Inshallah, B’ezrat Hashem, God bless, in the name of God, thank God, God forbid, heaven knows, God is on our side, everything happens for a reason, etc.
When such an expression is casually added to descriptive or anticipatory phrases, the writer or speaker has a clear religious slant. They likely use this modifier to boast what they perceive as their impeccable morality, which they credit to their faith.
Promised Land, God-given rights, etc.
These terms lack any factual basis and are only supported by some biblical references. Jews believe that an undetectable entity, whose words are unprovable yet unfalsifiable, and who speaks to them through rabbis, wrote a book thousands of years ago where he promised them the land. If I’m being charitable, God gave land rights to their ancestors 100 generations removed. Property rights don’t typically survive that long, even if they are “documented” in a 2500-year-old collection of folk tales with a dubious historical basis. In any case, the lack of accurate geographical demarcations in said text renders it useless with respect to prevailing property rights. Modern-day disputes cannot be settled on the basis of antiquated stories. And yet, those who are convinced they were special enough to have received such a divine promise are steadfast in their position despite lacking any tangible proof.
Chosen People.
This refrain reflects a self-centered mode of thinking that reeks of self-aggrandizement and refusal to accept the fact that all human beings are equal. It echoes the racism that was directed at Jews for centuries, with an equally discriminatory approach toward anyone who is of a different persuasion.
Religious Liberty.
An ironic use of a positively sounding term to astroturf an anti-civil rights agenda. When U.S. conservatives talk about religious freedom, what they really refer to is discrimination against those who don’t believe in their religion of choice. In the context of the conflict, the term is used by one side or the other to underscore the perceived superiority of their faith.
Liberation.
Using the word “liberation” implies that one side is oppressed and the other is the oppressor. Palestinians are indeed being persecuted under Israeli apartheid rule, but not all are innocent victims. Publications mentioning liberation in the context of the conflict likely blame Zionism for everything—clear bias right there, but not necessarily of the religious kind. The word liberation is misleading for another reason: Arab countries don’t tend to be democratic, and their governments rarely put the rights and freedoms of their citizens front and center. They are either autocracies or theocracies or something in between. There’s no telling how a future Palestinian state would be governed, but it is very likely to follow the footsteps of other Arab countries. If and when a Palestinian state is founded, the Palestinians will be liberated from Israeli rule, but are unlikely to be free to enjoy liberties such as choosing their religion or none at all, expressing their sexual orientation, or wearing whatever clothes they wish to wear.
In addition to these commonly used terms, it’s essential to pay attention to signs of conspiratorial and magical thinking. These include discussing immortal souls, spiritual revelations, divine consciousness, nebulous energies, mystic readings, and various higher powers said to govern the world. When people are not grounded in reality and instead cling to assorted fallacies, we shouldn’t take their opinions on important matters seriously, no matter how many degrees they have earned, how many books they have written, or how many interviews they have given.
What Drives the Conflict
When discussing the drivers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, people tend to use plenty of equivocations and finger-pointing. The multifaceted nature of the conflict allows for explaining it away with a variety of questionable rationales. Both sides justify their use of violence with arguments that may make sense on the surface but gloss over the underlying motives.
When trying to apply Occam’s razor to the conflict, the circumstances may seem too convoluted to untangle and the most straightforward explanation too difficult to identify. Why does it seem so complicated? Because the simplest solution is safeguarded by layers of venerated tradition, consecrated dogma, and widely accepted narratives. These have crusted over decades to form a shield so thick that it became nearly impossible to penetrate.
To distract from the religious roots of the conflict, both sides convince themselves and others that different causes are at fault. They spread disinformation and use it as a rallying cry to keep their supporters from acknowledging the elephant in the room. The actual roots are untouchable, as no one wants to be considered insensitive to religious sentiments, to avoid becoming the target of a smear campaign or getting canceled.
The Impact of Religion on the Conflict
Religion plays a vital role in the lives of most people. While belief systems have cultural and psychological value, they do not reflect reality and cannot predict the future. Furthermore, they can’t be used to corroborate arguments for or against established facts. Some subplots of religious stories may echo actual historical events, but the facts have long been forgotten. All that remains are narratives recorded in ancient books or passed down as oral traditions. These have been twisted and mangled beyond recognition over many centuries, resulting in the catchy yet dogmatic stories we know today. Any attempt to treat the verisimilitude of the Bible as an accurate portrayal of bygone reality reveals more about those who peddle in this information than the facts they seek to convey. Regardless, these tales matter a great deal to most of humanity, whether one believes in them or not.
Religious belief has an oversized impact in the Middle East. When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, religious sway is evident everywhere you look. Rather than diffuse the tension, as one would expect from a life philosophy that can quiet anxieties, faith destabilizes the region and makes it a dangerous place to live in.
The devastating outcomes of fervent belief become ostensible when used as a tool by opportunistic leaders. While it’s easy to blame said leaders, many of them do what leaders have been doing for ages: see where the herd is going, position themselves in front of it, and exclaim, “Follow me!” The broad religious base in the region is fertile ground for their autocratic aspirations to take root.
In the Middle East, religion is not compartmentalized as in Europe and, to a lesser extent, the United States. Instead, it plays a significant role in the daily lives of the vast majority of people, permeating their family ties, social circles, finances, and aspirations. Whether through daily prayers or numerous religious holidays, Palestinians and Jews alike are reminded of their tangible commitment to their spiritual beliefs time and again.
Persistently deep-rooted religiosity complicates the conflict, making any resolution seem unattainable. Leaders on both sides are no more religiously extreme than their populace. In Israel, for example, most parliament representatives are less strict Jews. At any rate, the government is held in a bind by small but electorally decisive coalition members. These include delusionally messianic and Ultra-Orthodox parties that historicize the Bible and treat it as a reference text full of facts and truths.
For believers of other religions or none at all, understanding the beliefs of other people is crucial for grasping their perspectives and anticipating their actions and reactions. Fear of other people’s religion is widespread, with many people preferring to treat others’ beliefs as opaque and menacing rather than trying to understand each other. This is one of the reasons for the rampant antisemitism among Palestinians and widespread islamophobia in Israel, both serving to deepen mutual fear and distrust. Irresponsible leaders amplify these feelings and leverage them to rally the troops.
The thread of religious belief stretches back centuries, tying together people from different places, linking them to one another and to the land they claim as their own. It dominates their psyche and affects the direction the conflict takes at key junctures. It’s impossible to separate the people involved in the conflict from their religion. Both sides had formalized their religious bedrock: Israel had enshrined its status as the Jewish state in statutory law, while the Palestinian Authority established Islam as its official religion. Pretending that the establishment of a state religion doesn’t matter is not conducive to a peaceful solution. Not only do religious beliefs matter, but fundamental zeal will continue to influence the conflict in various ways for the foreseeable future.
Religious Drivers
The factors driving the conflict are not limited to correcting historical wrongs, defending human rights, ensuring national security, resisting colonialism, or providing a haven for persecuted people. All these are valid, but they don’t play out in a vacuum. They draw heavily on the religious beliefs of those on both sides of the conflict.
Two groups populate the region. People in one group believe in shared stories that happen to contradict the stories that those in the other group believe in. There’s nothing universally true about any of these stories, even if they have been told and written about for generations. No amount of one-sided righteousness and chest thumping can turn them into an absolute, undeniable truth.
Unfortunately, many of those stories are inherently violent. In the stories, God and his disciples perform horrific acts of violence and demand the same from their followers. Fast forward to today, and many of their descendants look up to the example set by their ancestors and their God and engage in similarly gruesome violence – not in a fantasy universe, but in real life. Their victims are often innocent bystanders: women, children, and the elderly, whose only crime is their association with the other side. The perpetrators justify their crimes by claiming that a spiritual leader instructed them to do it. The exclamation “God is on our side” may have been used to justify more death and destruction than any other.
While religious belief is not the direct cause of every event, setback, and atrocity, it is often used by unprincipled leaders to foment support, by clerics to fan flames of hate, and by everyday believers to justify poor decisions. The common refrain “it’s in the Bible” is a thought-terminating cliché used to avert critical thinking. It’s sometimes applied to misquoted verses that are scarcely related to the issue at hand. When not entirely out of context, they apply figuratively but not literally.
Religious apologists often say that there is no conflict between Jews and Muslims, arguing that faith is about love of God and not hatred of one’s neighbor. This euphemism ignores millennia of atrocities instigated by various religions and exemplifies wishful thinking about the side effects of faith. The delusion that the conflict is not a religious issue is prevalent and distracting. It disrespects the intelligence of believers and nonbelievers alike, and expects both to accept a specious argument that crumbles in the face of current events.
While both Israeli and Palestinian societies have some level of religious diversity, the vast majority are Jews and Muslims, respectively. Members of these rival groups not only support their side of the conflict but also rely on religious arguments to perpetuate it. Referring to the conflict as “Jews vs. Muslims” may not be politically correct, but it is correct nonetheless.
Israeli leaders and their supporters repeatedly insinuate that Muslims are out to get all non-Muslims, not just Jews, and so the rest of the world should thank them for doing the dirty work. Iran’s Great Satan rhetoric helps substantiate this claim. The argument itself echoes the “chosen people” fallacy, which puts Jews above all others. The subtext is this: not only did God choose the Jews as his favorite group, he is also saving the world through them; so if you, the world, want to be saved, you’d better safeguard his one true love. This reasoning is flawed in so many ways, but suffice it to say that if God were indeed omniscient and omnipotent, he would have prevented bad people from hurting his people in the first place. Believers try to defend their trust in the heavens by arguing that God is testing us. This circular reasoning prevents further discussion and shows, yet again, that fighting made-up arguments with facts is futile.
Some say that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Is it? The answer, as you might suspect, is not straightforward. Islam does not motivate more or less violence than other faiths. Regardless, it’s misleading to compare distinct religions based on this metric. Although they all insist on being “a religion of peace” one way or another, history doesn’t support this assertion. By defining a discriminatory code of conduct and determining who’s in the in-crowd and who’s out, every religion has the potential to incite violence, and all but a few negligible ones did. Even Buddhism, the epitome of zen tranquility with a reputation for prescribing quiet meditation, has motivated many faith-based killings. Estimates vary, but many thousands of people have surely lost their lives at the hands of Buddhist extremists.
A good number of Evangelical Christians do their part in driving the conflict by promoting end-of-day prophecies. These are coincidentally forecasted to materialize in the region, thus implicating its non-Christian inhabitants in a good vs. evil battle they couldn’t care less about. Such apocalyptic daydreams have motivated enough people to pour money and influence into the conflict to make it significantly more challenging to unravel.
Oversimplification?
Contending that the conflict is caused solely by religion is an oversimplification. By the same vein, saying that it’s caused by territorial claims, nationalist ambitions, political interests, economic desperation, foreign meddling, fundamentalist tendencies, or colonialist aspirations is also reductive. The conflict is caused and sustained by all the above, and then some. Religious motivations intersect with and amplify those other causes, and are thus of prime importance.
What sets the religious impetus apart is the fact that very few people openly admit it, presumably because they are religious themselves and criticizing their own faith feels like cutting the branch they’re sitting on. While people avoid faulting their own belief system, many are quick to point the finger at other religions. Others shun the religious argument altogether out of deference to monotheism, based on the thought that religion is a force for good (is it?) and that God is gracious (is he?), so this couldn’t possibly be the cause.
Many commentators insinuate or outright claim that pointing out religious reasons constitutes an uninformed, perhaps even juvenile, understanding of the conflict. This approach is part of an orchestrated campaign against any sign of objection to the agenda of organized religion. Anyone who dares to offend the feelings of people of faith is automatically subjected to intimidation and gaslighting. Consequently, many otherwise sharp observers end up dancing around the point to avoid the ire of religiously aligned politicians, pundits, influencers, and media personalities.
In fact, isolating the religious causes and identifying the mythological framework behind them is neither simple nor simplistic, given the layers of fortification the religious apparatus has built around itself over millennia. Penetrating this shield requires courage and perseverance. I’m not saying this to toot my own horn, but to lament the fact that so few people are willing even to attempt it. Religion enjoys an unassailable status, and nearly everyone assumes that it’s because it’s based on indisputable facts. It isn’t, and this is precisely why we must talk about the religious causes of the conflict without resorting to euphemisms.
It’s worth noting that this argument should not diminish the importance of religion in the lives of people living in the region and elsewhere. I’m painfully aware of its importance and realize how crucial it is to understand the roots of the conflict while respecting the role religion plays for those involved. Surely, such a key element, which touches every aspect of life and elicits intense emotions, must affect their actions and opinions. Importantly, it affects their feelings toward those who hold a diametrically opposed creed. If anything, these opinions and emotions are the reason this topic must be discussed, not why it should be glossed over.
Religion Lends Legitimacy
In the past few generations, those living in the region or yearning for it had been seeking legitimacy for their claims to the land. They have been basing their assertions, directly or indirectly, on the promises they believe their god made to them. Faith-based territorial claims cannot be proven or disproven. Hence, they can resist scrutiny – assuming that nobody tries to peer under the hood. Despite scattered efforts to dispel these claims, they have endured for centuries.
The Zionist movement had been cloaking these arguments in order to win the support of the international community. In recent years, the legitimacy it has been enjoying since its founding has begun to fray. Israel’s use of violence in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and elsewhere in the region – which it insists is a necessary and legitimate form of self-defense – is becoming too much to bear. The growing chorus of people who support Palestinians worldwide is rightfully horrified by the outcomes. Preaching moral superiority based on biblical narratives and the horrors their ancestors endured is no longer enough for Israelis to justify indiscriminate killing.
Muslims have also been using religious arguments to justify and buttress their territorial claims. Their arguments revolve around holy sites, primarily the ones in Jerusalem. Now and again, rumors about a Jewish attack against sites sacred to Islam spread on social and traditional media and cause Muslims to rail against Israel all over the world. Conspiracy theories about a hidden Jewish agenda to destroy mosques spiral out of control and fan the flames. Incendiary comments by Islamist clerics blasted from minaret loudspeakers amplify the outrage and often result in violent altercations with local authorities. When protesters meet Israeli security forces, the clash can turn deadly.
Thou shalt not kill, undoubtedly the most consequential of the ten commandments, sounds unambiguous. It’s a simple binary: you can either kill other people or not, but if you follow an Abrahamic religion, you must not. Nothing’s open for debate here, right? Wrong. The biblical concept of kill or be killed, or as literally translated from Hebrew, “he who is about to kill you, kill him first,” is commonly used to justify indiscriminate slayings of Palestinians. How does the argument work? First, designate them as terrorists or accomplices. Then, since all terrorists are clearly up to no good and will slaughter you at the first opportunity, they deserve to die and must be killed on sight.
While world governments frequently use this kind of logic to justify summary executions, its moral failings are evident. How do you figure out who’s about to kill you? Does it apply only to the specific person who is about to pull the trigger any second now, or also to those who may kill you tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year? Does it apply to all those who assist them? A permissive interpretation answers in the affirmative and indicates that they all should be marked for death. Admittedly, this “theological” analysis is superficial. However, it reflects the way those who are not Bible scholars may interpret the scriptures, and therefore applies to the overwhelming majority of people.
Conscience Cleansing
Religion makes it possible for people to support atrocities with a clear conscience. It allows them to defer moral decisions to someone else and enables – indeed requires – them to put their innate morality on hold. It entitles people to endorse gruesome acts of violence, deprivation, torture, and killing, not only without giving these crimes a second thought, but often with pride and expectation of an afterlife reward for the perpetrators.
While both sides take pride in the perfection of their faith, neither can claim moral purity. They both believe in the ten commandments yet violate them on a regular basis, not to mention the countless other religious decrees they break every day. They pick and choose verses and edicts they are comfortable with and disregard the ones they aren’t. Their moral values are not determined by God but by their religious elders, who in turn predicate their decisions on political necessity and the pursuit of power and influence. Infringements are brushed aside and justified as necessary by leaders who are all but thrilled to vindicate their followers as long as they show reverence and pay deference.
Religious morality is a farce, a cynical exploit on the expense of innocent believers. While religion is, in theory, a recipe book for a moral life, at the end of the day, people choose what to believe in from a range of options dictated by others. In most cases, they don’t even have to choose because their religious leaders or governments decide on their behalf.
Religion permits people to kill undesirables and turns what would otherwise be considered evil into a banal norm often directed at neighbors and family members, as in the case of honor killings, horrific acts of femicide that are still prevalent in some Muslim communities. These transgressions are justified by claiming that the victim brought shame and dishonor on the family, and that their staying alive would tarnish its prestige.
They begin when a woman “dishonors the family” by dating a non-Muslim man, dressing immodestly, or otherwise going against her family’s conservative values; in other words, acting like the women she sees on social media. When it’s decided that her bad behavior has crossed a certain boundary, male family members – usually her father or brothers – are religiously obligated to murder her for dishonoring not only her family, but God himself. While young women are the most common victims, honor killing also targets gay people and apostates for defying religious dogma or renouncing faith altogether.
Palestinian military groups routinely use their own civilian population as human shields. It’s common to hear Palestinian parents proudly extol the virtues and privileges of having their children become martyrs for the glory of God. Hamas is essentially a death cult that turns regular people into warriors who would willingly and happily give their lives for the Palestinian struggle. Children in Hamas-led schools are taught from a young age about the blessings of martyrdom. Not every Palestinian supports it, but this is the reality for Hamas supporters and is unavoidable for the rest of the population. Israelis hold a high regard for human life and are horrified by the thought of even a single death or injury. In hostage exchanges, the going rate of a few hundred Palestinians for one Israeli provides a heuristic to the value of human life in either society, compounded by the amount of pressure they can put on the other side to reach a deal.
Believers believe they can treat followers of other religions as inferior. In some cases, religious leaders absolve and even encourage antisemitism, islamophobia, domestic violence, and crimes against humanity. In any other setting, these would all be frowned upon and punishable. In the world of faith, the subjective morality that each person can – and should – have is hijacked. This makes it convenient for far too many people to abdicate their rational capacity and opt out of determining their own values.
The Mainstream
What about normal people? How does the quiet majority think and behave? Mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, grandparents and godparents; regular folks who aren’t too extreme; good families with two children and a dog. This Western ideal of average people has its equivalent in the region, albeit in a somewhat different form. The mainstream still consists of members of the middle and working classes who raise their children, pay their taxes, and serve their community. In Israel and other Middle Eastern countries, this group constitutes a significant portion of the population. Similar to other countries, being religious is the norm. The difference is in intensity: in the region, a smaller percentage is liberal, while a more substantial part is made up of God fearing traditionalists.
While Orthodox and extreme Orthodox Jews have large communities, a much larger group is less strict in their faith. It is made of two subgroups: secular Jews and those simply known as religious. When it comes to their spiritual worlds, the difference between these subgroups is smaller than it seems. Both regard themselves as Jewish, celebrate religious holidays, and perform religious rites, but the secular subgroup follows the Jewish dogma less strictly. Reform, Conservative, and Cultural Jews, a sizable part of International Jewry, are negligible minorities in Israel.
While there are still Israelis who support a peace process that involves concessions such as giving up territory, their numbers are dwindling. Secularism doesn’t imply atheism, and indeed, secular Jews are merely less-religious folks who typically don’t wear their creed on their sleeve. They are, however, of Jewish faith, ethnicity, and nationality and have a strong affiliation to their roots and an attachment to the land. Furthermore, despite being derided by Orthodox Jews for not fulfilling their religious duties (and not funding the Rabbinical apparatus at a sufficient level), they are subservient to it. Highly religious Jews have a significantly stronger political sway in Israel and are very diligent about funneling public resources to their communities. This leaves secular Jews in a bind, forcing them to abide by compulsory military service laws and work in salary-paying jobs. At the same time, Ultra Orthodox Jews refuse the former and are too busy studying the Torah to engage in the latter.
Furthermore, secular Jews defer to Orthodox ones for determining rules, norms, and laws that affect the entire population, such as deciding what makes a person Jewish, which food is Kosher, and when to allow public transportation to operate. Ultra Orthodox Jews put themselves above the rest and self-anoint as the stewards of Jewish tradition and values. Secular Jews feel ill-equipped to decide on such salient matters, and not wanting the Jewish faith to fade into obscurity, they end up leaving it up to others to decide on rules they all live by.
The less-religious masses are constantly bombarded by messages pulling them into the bosom of religion. While Judaism does not traditionally encourage proselytizing, secular Jews living in Israel face pressure to return to their roots and become more deeply religious. This effort is orchestrated by a well-funded religious apparatus and driven by those who believe it’s a necessary condition for the Jewish people to reach salvation.
Islam is more up-front about it with public calls to prayer five times a day and compelling societal pressure to pray rather than fall prey to the spoils of Western society. In Christianity, converting people is not only the job of missionaries. For Christians, wearing a cross pendant or a Jesus Saves t-shirt, for example, is commonplace. One cannot ignore the effect this has on people who seek social reinforcement for their beliefs.
In Arabic countries, much like in Israel, there’s no separation of religion and state. A growing segment of the population is modern or “Westernized,” as reflected by their dress style, consumption patterns, and media habits. Many of these people are members of the middle class, and many more aspire to escape poverty and join it. To their chagrin, economic mobility is impacted by inequality, instability, and conflict – not only the conflict with Israel, but among Muslim countries and within them as well.
While the more modern and affluent segment of the Arab population appears more familiar and “normal” to Western eyes, their capacity to drive positive change is limited. They are caught in a bind between their desire to lead modern and independent lives and autocratic or theocratic rulers who would do anything to prevent that from happening. Free democracy is nowhere to be found in the Arab world, and freedom of religion is merely a mirage.
It’s normal to think that there’s a majority of regular people on both sides who care about their children’s future enough to sue for peace. It’s understandable to assume that the middle class would like to live their lives, have a well-paying job, ensure their kids receive a good education, and be productive members of society. It’s natural to hope that these run-of-the-mill folks would bring good sense into the conflict and help steer it toward a sane resolution. In the Middle East, however, people tend to yield to the whims of the extreme. By letting the next generations radicalize, they unwittingly help derail any peace process.
Extremism
The intensity of religious extremism in the region has been increasing for decades as religious zealots and bigots gain legitimacy in ever-growing circles. In democratic and quasi-democratic countries, politicians perpetuate a vicious cycle by using theological arguments to garner support. Once elected, they pay their debt to their devout sponsors, which helps foster a symbiotic relationship. This cycle is energized by rapid population growth and widespread poverty in traditional communities, which bolster support for religious factions.
The region has no shortage of young people willing to sacrifice their lives, either because of their religious and jingoist righteousness or the promise of an afterlife full of debauchery and unrestrained sex. They can only dream of the latter in this life, given their ultraconservative upbringing and fear of God and his earthly henchmen watching every move they make. Millions of parents in the region are more than happy to sacrifice their children to earn the respect of their community and a much-needed stipend from religious and civil organizations. These impassioned convictions in heavenly powers, driven by more down-to-earth desire for recognition and money, are exacerbated by poverty and lawlessness.
Several extremist groups set the tone for the entire populace by demonstrating what’s possible and legitimizing their often previously unfathomable actions in the eyes of would-be supporters and potential recruits. These groups change and evolve, sometimes merging but more often metastasizing and spawning new offshoots. The most effective actions they take change the course of history for the worse. One tragic example is the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister who was spearheading peace talks in the nineties. His actions caused a lot of stress and consternation among Jewish right-wing activists, one of whom eventually shot him to death. His murder effectively killed the peace process he was leading. A more recent example is the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, which pulled the plug on the peace talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia and plunged the region into mayhem.
When extremists perform acts of violence in the name of God, the public seems to see it through a filter that attributes it to other causes. A general amnesia settles in, as if casting a spell that makes people forget the perpetrators’ radical fanaticism. Instead, they are described as freedom fighters by one side and evil terrorists by the other. Whether justified or vilified, both sides are wrong in giving religious violence a political aura.
The following groups are key players in the conflict, lining the extreme edges of the religious affiliation map:
The Jewish messianic movement strives to accelerate the path to salvation. They want to have the Messiah arrive ASAP and redeem the Jewish people from their worldly travails. To that end, they believe that all Jews should be rabid in their faith, but more importantly, that Jews should control the entire region spanning the biblical land of Israel. Every once in a while, an enterprising conman claiming to be the Messiah enters the scene, only to leave his followers empty-handed once the truth comes out. The messianic movement gains momentum after military victories, which they perceive as a sign from God. Soon after the 1967 war ended, they started settling in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the latter later evacuated after it became untenable to hold on to. Nowadays, those ideas, once considered fringe, enjoy much broader political and societal support.
The Jewish underground sprang out of Gush Emunim (literally “block of the faithful”), a right-wing colonialist movement that promoted settlement in the occupied territories. In addition to calling for the region to be Jewified, this organization helped settle thousands of families there. Their violent offshoot carried out terror attacks and plotted to bomb the mosques situated on top of the Temple Mount. This suicidal act would have surely instigated a full-scale regional war. While their plan remained on the drawing board, it caused irreparable damage to the peace process and is still noted by anti-Zionists as proof of ill intent. A government crackdown made it difficult for this group to continue operating, but other groups are sustaining its legacy and carrying its ideology forward.
Right-wing Jewish extremists are an eclectic group, many of whose members also belong to the other groups mentioned here. They want to see only other Jews living in the region and let groupthink and theistic fantasies take over their thought process, leading to chants like “Death to the Arabs.” Though most Arabs are Muslim, people chanting this and similar phrases don’t discriminate based on gentile religion; they wouldn’t mind if all non-Jews dropped dead. Many Jews living in the West Bank belong to this group, but its numbers are growing in Israel proper and beyond as well.
Non-Zionist Jews form a perplexing set of Ultra-Orthodox groups residing in Israel and abroad. Each of these groups is somewhere on the spectrum of hate toward the State of Israel, which they consider woefully lacking in Jewish fanaticism. At the same time, they gladly benefit from Israel’s mostly secular tax-paying citizens who protect them and fund their scholastic lifestyle. While spitting into the well you drink from is generally a bad habit, this doesn’t bother them a single bit. They are guided by feverish conviction and can’t be bothered by earthly trivialities. Their extreme racism and separatism lead to complete disregard of non-Jews and treatment of Jews who aren’t part of their group as subservient.
Non-Zionist Ultra-Orthodox parties have free rein in the Israeli government. They have enough seats in parliament to have a pivotal role, making it all but impossible to form a coalition without them. They enjoy the spoils of power and use their influence to funnel significant amounts of money to their communities.
Chabad, a group that straddles Israel, the United States, and other countries, is not particularly Zionist. While it doesn’t participate directly in Israeli politics, it endorses ultra-right-wing parties and supports theocratic initiatives.
On the extreme far right of the non-Zionist spectrum is Neturei Karta, an openly anti-Zionist group leading an incredibly strict and austere lifestyle. Confusingly, they often voice support for Israel’s enemies while enjoying the relative safety and modern infrastructure Israel has to offer.
Muslim extremists have their own racist chants that express blind faith and hatred for other people’s religious beliefs. One such trope is “Itbah al Yahud” (literally Slaughter the Jews), often augmented by other variants from a rich and varied repertoire. When devout Muslims use such language, it puts the “religion of love” claim into question. Yelling homicidal threats and encouraging people to follow through is not exactly a loving behavior, no matter how you look at it.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a fundamentalist Sunni Islamic group that plans for the Day of Judgment, after which, according to their plans, the world will be under Islamist rule and Israel will be finally wiped off the map. Their contemporary offshoots, like Hamas, prepare for this eventuality by carrying out violent attacks on Israeli targets, whether military or civilian. Eschatological predictions of what happens in the afterlife drive these fanatics to perform acts of horrific violence against fellow Muslims who don’t jump on the bandwagon.
Hamas gained popularity among the desperate residents of the Gaza Strip owing to its ability to lead the fight with Israel. Against a backdrop of an extremely high unemployment rate and an endemic reliance on international aid organizations, promises of a better future helped thrust it to the forefront. Despite its promise to rebuild the civil infrastructure and assist the impoverished population, it reneged and instead amassed weapons, enhancing its military capabilities with the help of backers like Iran and Qatar.
Hamas managed to get itself entrenched in the Gaza Strip and become legitimized in the eyes of moderate Muslims, winning the somewhat democratic 2006 elections. The war in Gaza that started with the Hamas attacks of October 2023 may finally finish this group, leaving a gap that other extremists will surely fill.
The Palestinian Islamic Jihad committed itself to an armed struggle aimed at destroying Israel and establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in its stead. Not to be outdone by its rival Sunni extremist Hamas, the Islamic Jihad attempts ever more gruesome tactics. Unlike Hamas, they shun any political role.
Shia extremism has a major force behind it: the Islamic Republic of Iran. While it funds Sunni extremists as well, Iran provides significantly more resources to its array of proxy Shia militias scattered around the Middle East. The Iranian government’s ethos is death to America and death to Israel. Every action they take is “in the name of God,” obviating the need to explain it either internally or externally. Their clerics don’t shy away from publishing fatwas calling for a holy war on Jews or other unfavorable groups.
The Jihadist core principle of an ongoing war until the entire world is under Islamist rule doesn’t leave much room for peacemaking. For Muslim extremists, the war is never over. A ceasefire is just an opportunity to rearm and prepare for the next battle.
Fringe Groups
In the world of religious extremism, it appears that one can never be too fanatic. On top of extremist groups that openly preach racism, violence, apartheid, and other unsavory agendas, there’s a growing number of fringe groups that don’t feel like waiting idly for the end of times. Instead, they actively try to instigate the arrival of the Messiah, Mahdi, or Jesus and finish the job once and for all. They do everything they can to accelerate this outcome or at least prepare for it, all while lifting the spirits of their followers in anticipation of the joyous occasion.
Jewish temple worshippers are a growing group of highly religious Orthodox Jews who pray in the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary on a daily basis. They act on a hope and a prayer and are not bothered by the fact that the top of the mountain hosts two mosques with no Jewish sites in sight. The mainstream Jewish establishment forbids this act, yet those fringe groups march to their own drum based on their creative reading of the scriptures. While non-Muslim prayers in the Noble Sanctuary are frowned upon, the increasingly radicalized Israeli government readily disregards this decades-long consensus.
Temple preppers are an eclectic group of Jews preparing for the construction of the third Jewish temple on the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary. The folly of this fantasy doesn’t deter groups like the Temple Institute from diligently training priests and helpers, sewing priestly garments, and practicing animal sacrifice on a mock altar. One challenge is finding a red heifer, essential for purifying the temple before it can be opened for business. Every strand of the poor animal’s hair must be totally red, making it extremely rare. Indeed, they haven’t yet managed to find a perfect specimen. This bovine conundrum is one more roadblock they face, on top of the fact that two billion Muslims would be up in arms, both figuratively and literally, if they tried to dismantle the mosques currently up there.
Some of the arguments of these messianic preppers are completely bonkers. While they may look like harmless weirdos, they push the boundaries of sanity and pull less radical believers toward extremism, showing others that there’s room to radicalize. By overstretching religious traditions, hallucinating new interpretations, and doggedly pursuing their beliefs in defiance of any good sense, they normalize recklessness. Their imaginary god will not save them, nor the millions of people affected, if their actions pull the region into a catastrophic war. It’s tempting to think that one doesn’t have to be a staunch atheist to see these extreme groups as a threat to global peace. However, perhaps not surprisingly, many moderate believers view them as either harmless or outright pious and provide them with moral and financial support.
Palestinian fringe groups are often short-lived. The imbalance of power with Israel and frequent internal conflicts within Palestinian society result in high churn at the edges. Many Palestinian fringe groups fight in obscurity. The existential challenge doesn’t leave them much time and resources for follies like rehearsing ancient rituals in hopes of reviving them. ISIS offshoots and other Islamist extremists are popping their ugly heads once in a while, only to be squashed by Israel’s brutal reaction.
International Islamic terrorists often attribute their misdeeds to the conflict in the Middle East, even if the attacks happen in far-flung places and have nothing to do with the region. In their war on secularism, which in reality is a war against anyone who is not a fanatic Muslim, Israel is often scapegoated. With all the headlines it gathers in the West, international Islamic terror is not a significant cause of death in relative terms, with one exception: the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Other past strikes include the London bombings, the Lockerbie plane crash and several other hijacking, bombing, and shooting attacks in various cities.
Islamists are actively trying to bring back past glory and establish Sharia law in areas they manage to take over. The rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, despite its gruesome violence against Westerners, primarily impacted small communities like the Yazidis. Boko Haram is still making life a living hell for less strict Muslims in Africa, while the Houthis in Yemen are terrorizing the region as Iran’s proxy army.
While it used to be the norm for religious leaders to openly call for taking over “uninhabited” lands and voluntarily butchering people of other religions, it is less popular nowadays. Gone are the days of pope-sanctioned crusades aimed at retaking Jerusalem and an inquisition apparatus designed to coerce all the citizenry to bow to the cross. Religious cruelty now finds other outlets, like abusing weak and fragile victims within their communities. Extremists haven’t forgotten the centuries-old religious wars and the incredible riches they brought. The prospect of restoring this glorious past is at the top of their minds, and it seems like they will never stop trying to make fanaticism great again.
External Forces
Outside forces have shaped the Middle East for centuries. Deeply rooted religious beliefs have long influenced the official stance of world powers toward the Middle East. Two of the world’s premier colonizers – Great Britain and France – and a country founded on principles of settler colonialism – the United States – have been meddling in the region for decades, often in ways that benefit a Jewish state over a Palestinian one.
During the British mandate, extremists acted behind the scenes to promote their interests. These included the British Freemasons, rumored to hatch plans for rebuilding the Jewish temple, and Christian Zionists who believed the Jews deserved the land. European racists have also helped, agreeing with Zionists on one thing: Jews should not live in Europe. These Zionist antisemites paved the way for the British preferential treatment of Jews. The mess the British Empire left behind in 1948 sowed the seeds for what is now a decades-long, slow-rolling tragedy.
Evangelical Christians living half a world away aren’t affiliated with either of the warring religions. While they don’t particularly care much about either, they do have a horse in the race. To accelerate their ascent to heaven, they must first get one pesky detail out of the way: the war between good and evil, a necessary step for enabling the resurrection and giving them what they yearn for. Armageddon is scheduled to take place in biblical Zion, and it’s too late to find a different venue. It could have been an arbitrary fantasy of a fringe group, if not for the fact that Evangelicals are very wealthy and powerful. They influence the situation in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
A significant portion of U.S. evangelicals align with Christian-nationalist politics and are hard at work trying to dismantle democracy and replace it with a theocracy. Their deep pockets fund political action committees that help get their people elected. They even managed to get their flawed messenger elected president. Their symbiosis with politics is doing irreparable damage to government institutions and programs and sends waves of instability around the globe.
Despite being mere bystanders in Evangelical rapture fantasies, residents of the region are enduring prolonged pain and suffering because top U.S. politicians would rather not anger their base. These messianic evangelicals in senior government positions take an almost obsequious stance on Israel regardless of its actions, all in preparation for the return of Jesus Christ. They are certain that Jesus is coming back any day now, and know his destination: Jerusalem. To facilitate his return, they believe that Jews must have the Holy Land. Upon the second coming, they believe Jews will convert en masse to Christianity, conveniently leaving only Christians to bask in the glory of the afterlife.
Evangelicals justify their assertions with handpicked Bible verses, which they treat as imminent prophecies. The irony is that their unwavering support of Israel is temporary and will abruptly end when Jesus re-joins the world of the living. They only need Israel to exist to guarantee a more favorable outcome at the end of times. When this happens, heretics who didn’t convert will perish in the final crusade, and a Christian kingdom will be established, spanning the entire globe.
While Christian atrocities were historically initiated by Catholic popes, modern Protestant leaders seem envious of this illustrious past and can’t wait to savor the sweet taste of theocratic government. Until they are lucky enough to go to heaven, they take pleasure in subduing believers, especially women and minorities. Their political influence leads to crimes that echo the storied hooliganism of their predecessors, who killed “infidels” by the millions.
What’s Next
Israel, despite its repeated claims, does not have the moral high ground. Its military, despite its insistence, is not the world’s most righteous. Its “purity of arms” argument is moral whitewash. There are plenty of facts that indicate it, but let me mention a particularly gruesome one: Israeli government officials have stated that every Palestinian is fair game, including babies. After all, they will all grow to be terrorists, so they might as well be eliminated early on. Some may say that only extreme right-wing people hold this opinion. Alas, their representatives now form a significant part of the governing coalition in Israel and have executive roles that enable them to mobilize firepower. Israel’s long-running moral superiority farce cannot be upheld in light of this.
Although the Palestinians have been oppressed and suppressed for decades, they don’t have moral bragging rights either. A combination of extremists calling the shots and ineffective leaders following along has increased their suffering and complicated the conflict. Radical religious proclivities push Palestinians away from a peaceful solution, and yet, support for terror attacks on Jewish targets remains widespread. The families of suicide bombers enjoy the moral backing of the rest of the population and a stipend from the Palestinian Authority. While it’s fashionable and largely accurate to blame Israel for the travails of the Palestinians, the latter’s inability to reduce their susceptibility to Islamist agendas deepens their existential tragedy.
So, who’s right? There is no way to corroborate the territorial claims made by either side, dating back many centuries. It’s impossible to confirm or deny them; therefore, they cannot be used to establish the legal basis for a contemporary status. Neither side can prove direct descent from any of the tribes and groups that occupied the region through the years.
Despite the lack of theological justification, Israelis have the right to self-determination, and so do the Palestinians. Israel has the right to remain in existence, but it may not endure in its current form. Palestine has the right to exist as well, but is unlikely ever to span the entire region. These facts can exist concurrently. Concluding that it’s “us or them” and therefore “kill or be killed” is futile and fatalistic. The situation should not be oversimplified, and given there’s only one region to share, a stable solution must be found.
Is There a Solution?
The urgency of everyday life and the immediate gratification we are so used to in the West are foreign concepts for many in the Middle East. For them, time moves at a much slower pace. Jews have waited for many generations to return to the Holy Land. While the Palestinians are proactively trying to change the status quo, the Islamic principle of perseverance (“sabr”) directs them to be patient and never give up the dream of having a state of their own. With every peace initiative, Western pundits point out the pressing need to reach a solution, but the region has its own timeline; actual change may take decades to achieve.
Nobody knows what the ultimate solution would be like, but one will indeed exist. In a conflict fueled by passionate faith, where each side seeks to outdo the other’s fanaticism, it’s hopelessly innocent to expect people to learn to respect each other’s views and be more empathetic. It’s naïve to think that all that’s needed is a little more tolerance.
Israelis and Palestinians have many cultural commonalities. Both eat similar food, listen to the same style of music, and speak a Semitic language. However, the cliché that they should focus on the things that unite them rather than those that separate them seems unachievable. Increasing religious tolerance through interfaith dialog is always a good idea, but numerous past attempts have not moved the needle. Religion is not going away any time soon, and sectarian thinking will keep aggravating the conflict for the foreseeable future.
Many territorial disputes have been resolved peacefully, including those in the Basque Country and Northern Ireland, the latter distinguished by strong religious overtones. The conflict in the Middle East, however, mixes religion and ethnicity with territorial claims over sacrosanct sites and hallowed grounds, making it much more challenging to untangle. One way to help undo the knotty situation is to coerce the side with disproportionate power – Israel – into concessions. International pressure and more vigorous protests against its brutality can indirectly encourage the United States to force Israel to be more amenable to a peaceful solution. The U.S. can utilize its significant leverage by pausing its substantial military aid or refraining from exercising its veto power on conflict-related UN Security Council resolutions.
In the meantime, the empathy graph is heading in the wrong direction, while distrust between the two sides is increasing. Nevertheless, a solution is out there, just waiting to be brokered. Both Israel and the Palestinians had the upper hand in various clashes through the years, only to be quickly disillusioned when losing the next confrontation. A decisive victory is the wrong goal to aim for in this conflict. Both sides will have to compromise. No one will walk away triumphant, except in their propaganda.
Some atheists and agnostics think that discussing the religious causes of the conflict is a pointless waste of time. Their opinion stems from the notion that religion will never go away and people will never change their belief systems. The result is a widespread sense of pessimism about the conflict’s future and a strong desire to look away. But what if the pervasive narratives could be changed? It’s admittedly unlikely and may take decades to catch on, but it’s feasible to reinterpret the stories and traditions underlying the conflict.
People already attribute different meanings to the core narratives of the Abrahamic religions and have been adapting them to fit a changing world. Why not introduce new interpretations that foster greater mutual understanding? While undoubtedly far-fetched, this idea is not totally out of the question. In a world where people pick which Bible verses to believe in, why not choose the positive ones? The Bible has tens of thousands of verses with a wide range of tones and meanings. It’s entirely possible to construct a narrative of love by focusing on ones that promote compassion and respect and encourage a cordial relationship. Unfortunately, though, doing so does not offer an opportunity to amass power and to control other people, thus denying would-be strongmen the chance to maximize their influence.
Short of changing the narrative, the region could use more tolerance toward irreligion. That is to say, become more tolerant toward secular and atheist points of view. If more people on both sides admit that religion plays a key part in perpetuating the conflict, it will help expedite the process leading to a peaceful resolution. A creative approach to finding a solution without assuming that religious belief is an immutable fact could bring the warring parties closer to a lasting solution.
Grim Scenarios
Atheists can’t tell the future, not unlike those who are convinced that their faith can change it. Hordes of people believe that God will save them, while believers in the prosperity gospel are certain that their faith will make them rich. Believing in either seems counterproductive and counter predictive. Despite their firm conviction, the future remains unaltered by anyone’s wishes or creeds.
The situation in the Middle East can evolve along several distinctive paths. Some future scenarios are grim, and as things stand now, these are unfortunately the ones more likely to unfold. Millions in and out of the region will be miserable and heartbroken if any of these options materialize. The most tragic option – an endless or truly destructive war – will satisfy no one, despite the surreal optimism of fanatics yearning for doom and fawning over the opportunity to martyr themselves.
Here are a few plausible yet depressing futures:
The Endless War Continues
Israel has been under constant security threat since its founding, fending off and initiating countless confrontations within and outside of its ill-defined borders. There were periods of calm among more turbulent ones, but the fundamental issue has never been resolved. Cycles of regional violence punctuate the apparent normalcy every few years, with all-out wars breaking out once every decade or so. This reality is propped up by Israel’s military industrial complex that battle-tests weapons on its enemies before selling them for billions of dollars to countries worldwide, including some with unsavory regimes. While the Palestinians continue to suffer, their plight isn’t high on Israel’s priority list. The existing balance of power is likely to persist for decades. Israel will be increasingly isolated, but this is unlikely to break it. It will take a while before the consequences of being an international pariah force it to compromise.
A Cataclysmic War
An extremely violent regional war that results in hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides and leaves many more wounded, homeless, and desperate is not out of the question. Such a war could involve small nuclear weapons detonated by Israel (which is rumored to have them), Iran (which is hard at work building them), or their allies. A nuclear conflagration will wipe out millions of people in an instant and might lead to a third world war. It’s enticing to believe that no one wants this outcome, but sadly, this is not the case. From Islamic clerics calling for the annihilation of all the Jews to Jewish extremists willing to “die with the Philistines” to Christian Evangelists hoping for an armageddon leading to the rapture, this horrifying scenario can materialize if the wrong people go nuclear.
Transferring Jews to Other Countries
Many, if not most, Palestinians would love to see Israel gone and a Palestinian state established in its stead. For this to happen, Jews would have to either give up the idea of a Jewish state and reside in Palestine or relocate. Some anti-Zionists say that Jews should go back to where they came from: Europe, North Africa, North America, and elsewhere in the Middle East. This wishful thought is beyond ridiculous at this point. No one in their right mind thinks that Jews of Iraqi descent, for example, will willingly move back there, nor will modern-day Iraq take them in. Besides, that country in its current incarnation is nothing like the one their ancestors left over 70 years ago. The same goes for Western countries that are already dealing with a polarizing immigration crisis.
Sending Palestinians Elsewhere
The idea of a mass transfer of Palestinians out of the region has long been the pipe dream of extreme right-wing factions in Israel. It received tailwinds from a U.S. president who, in his typical uneducated manner, stated his desire to build the “Riviera of the Middle East” in Gaza after “encouraging” Palestinians to leave. With 2 million residents in the Gaza Strip and 2.8 million more in the West Bank, such a mass population transfer is extremely unlikely. Gone are the days of imperialist governments transferring entire populations from one area to another. An annexation followed by a forced Palestinian exodus would undoubtedly lead to a catastrophic all-out war throughout the Middle East.
A Disintegration of Israel
What is holding the bitterly fractured Israeli society together? While religion and ethnicity unite most Israelis, the one thing that holds the country together is having a common enemy. Without constant security threats, internal fractures could lead to disintegration. Divisions between Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews, between secular, religious, and Ultra-Orthodox believers, between right-wing and left-wing voters, and between Jewish and Muslim citizens could have torn the country apart long ago. The ongoing war with the Palestinians unites Israelis and allows them to put their bitter internal debates on hold until the round of fighting dies down. They flare up again periodically but are unlikely to reach a breaking point while the conflict is ongoing.
Hopeful Future Directions
While no one knows how the conflict will evolve or resolve, any peaceful solution must reckon with some tough questions:
Territorial separation and border relocation.
How will the region be divided? Where will the borderline go? Will it include three-dimensional elements, such as tunnels connecting separate parts of one country, allowing free travel underneath the other?
The right of Palestinian refugees to return to their ancestral land.
Will they all be allowed to return? If not, which criteria will be used to determine who will and who won’t? Will those who remain behind get monetary compensation?
Jurisdiction over Jerusalem.
Who will control the contentious city? Who will administer the holy sites? Will the municipal area be divided between two countries?
Security guarantees.
What can be done for both sides to feel safe? Can they give up some of their military power? Will there be an international peacekeeping force on the ground?
Mutual recognition and relationship building.
Will both sides accept each other as peaceful neighbors? Will they develop cultural and social ties?
Internal stability.
Will both be able to maintain a stable government after reaching an agreement? What safeguards will protect either side from a change in public opinion toppling the government that voted for peace?
For any solution to be long-lasting, religious fanatics should be kept in check, ideally, through a clear separation of religion and state. Islamists and Jewish extremists – keen on mixing religion and politics – must not have government positions allowing them to make significant decisions or blackmail the rest of the political map. It might be futile to even hope for such a future, but a religious state, even with the radical elements sidelined, is bound to fail. Such a state necessarily curtails civil liberties and enacts population-control measures that ultimately lead to an uprising or a coup. Theocracy and democracy are incompatible.
Several peace initiatives have ended in a whole lot of nothing. As a result, both sides are exhausted by the futility of suing for peace. Still, all the alternatives are much worse. Progress toward peace will require creativity and an open mind. There are some promising options available as long as the parties are willing to discuss them with good intentions:
Two States
The long-held notion of a two-state solution is becoming increasingly unlikely as time passes. Stated as the go-to option in multiple peace initiatives and still considered the preferred permanent solution by global heads of state, it is, in theory, ideal. However, the increased Israeli encroachment on Palestinian lands in the West Bank is making it unrealistic. Israel is continuously fracturing the region and pushing Palestinians into smaller and smaller areas. This fractalization makes clean-cut separation infeasible, so any solution consisting of two separate states will either involve dozens of exclaves or require large-scale population transfers.
A growing cadre of observers regard the two-state solution as a waste of time and, consequently, a waste of human life. They view it as a false flag that distracts from discussing viable solutions and resolving the conflict once and for all. Indeed, the two-state solution is so unlikely to materialize at this point that spending precious negotiation bandwidth on it is myopic. Neither side considers this kind of arrangement the preferred end state, and both of them would rather never discuss it again. Not that they like any other realistic option, but this one has been kept afloat for so long with nothing to show for it, so it’s time to focus on new ideas.
One Multinational State
This solution is dead on arrival because the mutual hatred and distrust are so great that neither side will be willing to take part in such a collaboration. Furthermore, Israel will never let it happen because such a state will quickly, if not immediately, have a Palestinian majority. Assuming the unified state will be democratic, a Muslim majority will effectively eliminate the Jewish state, thus shattering the dream of generations of Jews and the reality they have established in the region.
A Confederacy
Though far-fetched, a confederacy may be the ideal solution in this case. A twist on the two-state solution, the idea is for Israel and Palestine to form a confederation with free travel, employment, and quota-based residency. Citizens would vote only in their states, and this should help avert the risk of losing an ethnic or religious majority. A joint body will have jurisdiction over shared resources, such as water, which isn’t abundant in the region. Given the military and economic disparities between the two sides, the confederation will need to implement creative security solutions and economic development initiatives for disadvantaged groups. This will reduce an imbalance that could topple a joint government and return the region to its current state.
Given the rich history of violence and discord, neither side is likely to agree to join a federation of sovereign states. Regardless, the idea has many advantages and warrants further exploration. To confederate multiple entities, the region still has to be subdivided, as in the two-state solution. Perhaps the most challenging aspect is the reliance on a certain level of trust and consensus, which seems unattainable. Then again, lasting solutions often look impossible before they become a reality.
Here’s to a More Secular Future
It’s obvious to any atheist that a lasting peace is the right goal to aspire to, but too many people on both sides would take exception. Despite their hollow words, a perpetual war is their preferred option as it allows them to further their goals. Many political and religious leaders don’t stand to gain much from a peaceful end to the conflict. War guarantees that they remain relevant as the “protectors of the faith,” “saviors of the nation,” or “messengers of God,” thus securing their leadership position.
People in the Middle East won’t stop believing in God in the near future. Religiosity levels are only rising, with birth rates remaining persistently high and children being inculcated with their parents’ faith. Add abject poverty and corrupt rulers rushing to fill leadership vacuums, and you get an increasingly volatile situation and a recipe for further disaster.
Reducing or eliminating the role of religion in the politics of the conflict is improbable but not impossible. This idea suffers from the same downsides as any atheist activism: it’s much easier to rally people around concrete claims like “there’s someone up there who controls everything and wants to protect you” than abstract ones like “we’re on our own here and must make our own decisions." People want to believe that their lives are meaningful thanks to their belief in God. Most choose to shun the reality that life has no meaning beyond what we create ourselves. Underscoring the meaning-of-life question is the religious argument that after you die, you go to heaven (or another attractive post-death destination) vs the atheist alternative of getting eaten by worms. The human tendency toward magical thinking and believing whatever people of authority say plays into the hands of those who impose religious values on others. Atheism can be raw and depressing, so people prefer ideas that give them hope and promise prosperity, improbable as they may be.
Dislodging belief is not only a challenge, given how people think. Organized religion has a firm foothold worldwide, with institutions and social services that are critical to many people’s lives. The dependency on religiously-affiliated aid organizations is stronger than ever. These will have to be supplanted for any secularization effort to be successful.
Although the pertinent claims of land ownership are rooted in religious customs and traditional fiction, reality is shaped by people who believe in these narratives. Devout “patriots” on both sides refuse to yield and would rather kill and be killed (or, more commonly, have others sacrifice their lives). It is this reality that needs to be faced and on the basis of which a solution must be found. There’s no point pretending that one or both sides will one day realize that the stories they believe in are, in fact, mere fiction and decide to remove their faith-tinted glasses and look at the problem in terms of what’s best for society. Being hopeful is essential, but we can’t afford the naivete of delusion and trust that people will come to their senses and religious belief will die down. The situation on the ground is so tragic because it is based on unremitting beliefs that have created the tangled mess we are living through. This reality is hard to undo, as evidenced by the longevity of the conflict. Nevertheless, this shouldn’t discourage those of us who can imagine a better future, one where religion is more of a personal belief system than a national ethos.
Glossary
1. Geographic Areas
1.1. The region is the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, from Lebanon in the north to Egypt in the south. Part of the Middle East and the Southern Levant, the region is also referred to as Israel-Palestine, Israel, or Palestine, depending on the speaker’s affiliation. Historically, this area, parts of it, or the area containing it was referred to by many names, including Retjenu, Khor, Canaan, Judea, Syria Palaestina, The Land of Israel, The Promised Land, and Zion. Perhaps the most telling name is the Holy Land, which signifies its prominence among believers in Abrahamic religions.
1.2. The Middle East is an area encompassing parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe, predominantly comprising Arab countries. The term is sometimes used in a narrower sense, referring specifically to the region defined above. For example, “the conflict in the Middle East” typically refers to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
1.3. Israel is a nation-state in the Middle East, founded in 1948 following a UN vote. Most of the citizens of Israel identify as Jews, with a significant Muslim minority and a few smaller ones. The exact area that Israel spans is disputed. Jews tend to include the occupied territories when referring to the country. Many Palestinians and their supporters believe that the entire area should be handed over to them, thereby eliminating the State of Israel as we know it. While Israel is a democracy, it has no separation of religion and state, leading to inherent inequality on the basis of faith. Judaism is deeply embedded in Israel’s legal and political system and drives enthusiastic national sentiments among its Jewish majority.
1.4. Israel proper refers to Israel without the occupied territories.
1.5. Israel-Palestine is an alternative name for Israel and Palestine used by a small number of people who still hope for coexistence. Most Israelis are appalled by the use of this term, while Palestinians hate it as well. Both would rather avoid terminology that suggests the other side has any rights to the land.
1.6. The Green Line is the armistice line demarcated after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war(3.3) (ostensibly with a green pen), delineating the boundaries of Israel proper. The occupied territories are on the other side of this line. What started as a hand-drawn borderline on an old map has been transformed into a fortified perimeter protected with concrete walls, barbed wire fences, and thousands of cameras and sensors.
1.7. The West Bank is the area between the Jordan River and the Green Line, captured by Israel in the 1967 war. Israel refers to it as the West Bank (of the river) or by the districts it included in antiquity, Judea and Samaria. It claims that it’s not occupied but instead disputed territory, given that it didn’t belong to any sovereign country before the war and was only provisionally governed by Jordan.
1.8. The Gaza Strip (or Gaza) is a narrow strip of land in the southwest corner of Israel, bordering the Mediterranean Sea. It was taken over from Egypt in 1967 and has been governed by Israel most of the time since. Interestingly, in the 1979 peace accord with Israel, Egypt demanded the entire Sinai Peninsula(1.10) but was more than happy to write the Gaza Strip off, while the voracious Israeli government gladly held on to it. Israel eventually gave up its military and civil control over the area after realizing that the political, societal, and financial costs of controlling it were too high. Today, the Gaza Strip is home to two million Palestinians living in squalor and despair while reeling from the devastation perpetrated by Israel during the war that started in 2023.
1.9. The Golan Heights is a small plateau to the northeast of Israel proper, taken over from Syria in 1967. The area was later annexed by Israel, which now considers it a legitimate part of the country. This status, however, hasn’t been recognized by most countries.
1.10. The Sinai Peninsula is a largely barren desert south of Israel. Israel conquered it in 1967, later exchanging it for peace with Egypt.
1.11. The occupied territories (or “the territories”) are the fractured area encompassing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. Israel claims sovereignty over most of this area and has annexed parts of it, hence the term is almost never used by Israelis. The Palestinians and many countries and organizations dispute Israel’s territorial claims and use the term the occupied territories with great intent to emphasize the unvarnished truth.
1.12. The Palestinian territories comprise the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, together forming the yet-unrealized State of Palestine. Egypt and Jordan controlled this area from 1948 until 1967. During that period, the Palestinians made no progress toward achieving statehood. That era is long forgotten, and nowadays they aspire to turn it into their own sovereign state.
1.13. Palestine is the state of the Palestinian people as officially declared by them, encompassing the Palestinian territories(1.12). Although recognized by most countries, the United Nations has not yet fully acknowledged Palestine’s statehood and has granted it only observer status. Needless to say, Israel ignores all that, as do its backers, most notably the United States. The Palestinian territories are under Israeli military rule, rendering the sovereignty of Palestine a mere wish that may or may not materialize.
1.14. Jerusalem is an ancient city that is holy to the three largest monotheistic religions. West Jerusalem has been part of Israel since 1948, while East Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and later annexed, a legal status that only a few other countries recognize. Most of the residents of West Jerusalem are Jewish, while the eastern part of the city is populated primarily by Palestinians. Religious wars over Jerusalem resulted in untold deaths and immeasurable suffering during the past few millennia.
2. People and Ideologies
2.1. Jews are an ethnoreligious group of about 16 million people. While they all share a belief in the Jewish religion, their degree of adherence to Jewish ethnicity, affiliation with Jewish nationality, and attachment to Israel varies. Ethnic Jews are divided into several subgroups, primarily by country of origin. Jewishness includes a multitude of factions, and while the elements that unite them are rooted in their shared history, sectoral divisions are significant. Indeed, Jews still argue vigorously about who is considered one.
2.2. Muslims are people who follow Islam. While they share a common religious adherence, not all muslims have the same ethnicity, nationality, culture, or territorial attachment. The two main branches of Islam are Sunni (the majority) and Shia (a small minority). Conflicts between these two sects have cost the lives of countless people since their split. Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, with over two billion believers worldwide. Its size dwarfs the world’s Jewish population and can make one wonder about the power imbalance in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
2.3. Islamism is an ideology that sees Islam as the foundation of government and society at large. Islamists reject the separation of religion and politics and advocate for sharia instead of secular laws for directing daily life.
2.4. Jihadism is a militant Islamic movement whose goal is to implement Islamism to the greatest extent possible. Jihadists aim to establish states based on strict Islamist principles and use theological arguments to justify the use of ghastly violence to achieve this goal.
2.5. Arabs are an ethno-linguistic group of predominantly Muslims whose native language is Arabic. In addition to language, they share a common history and cultural identity. Most Arabs reside in the Arab world, which spans West Asia and North Africa, and includes the Middle East.
2.6. Israelis are technically nationals of Israel, but the term has taken on a more nuanced meaning. The colloquial use refers only to Jews living in Israel. While Jews are the majority, there is a substantial minority of Muslims and people of other faiths living in Israel proper. They are Israelis as well, but typically refer to themselves as Palestinians rather than Israeli Arabs(2.11). Additionally, many Israelis living abroad have varying degrees of attachment to their native land. The term Israeli can therefore be ambiguous, and should be interpreted in the context in which it’s being used.
2.7. Palestinians are an ethnonational group of Arab people who have lived in the region since before 1948, as well as their descendants, some of whom reside elsewhere. The Palestinian Authority and other organizations currently represent this indigenous group. The bulk are Muslim, with tiny Christian and other minorities. For nearly all Palestinians, national and religious identity are intertwined.
2.8. Israeli Jews are a group of a little under eight million people living in Israel who share religion, ethnicity, nationality, culture, history, and territorial association. While there are many branches of Judaism, Israeli Jews share some common tenets: the belief in one God, the core biblical stories, and key traditions such as shunning pork and celebrating the High Holidays.
2.9. Secular Jews are those who define themselves as Jews for ethnic, national, cultural, or historical reasons. It’s normal for secular Jews to believe in God, but they do so less intensely compared to their religious compatriots. While they tend to be less religious than most, secular Jews are rarely atheistic or agnostic. Instead, they choose not to abide by most spiritual traditions or to follow them symbolically. While modern Israel is becoming more religious, secular Jews still comprise a large part of the population.
2.10. Ultra-Orthodox Jews follow stricter religious practices. They typically prefer to live apart from mainstream society and limit education for children and adults to religious studies. Ultra-Orthodox Jews usually have a significantly higher birth rate than the broader population, as well as elevated rates of poverty and handout-dependence.
2.11. Israeli Arabs (or Israeli Palestinians) are Palestinians living in Israel. Those living in Israel proper have Israeli citizenship and enjoy more rights than their brethren in the occupied territories, but less than Jews living in the same region. Israel insists on calling them Israeli Arabs in an attempt to weaken their national identity, but they are Palestinians nonetheless.
2.12. Palestinian Refugees are the descendants of people driven out of the region, mainly as a consequence of the 1948 and 1967 wars, currently living outside of Israel. The term is controversial, with Palestinians claiming that refugees have the right to return to the region and Israelis saying they left willingly and therefore have no territorial rights. Several hundred thousand Palestinians left the region in the past hundred years or so. How many were deported, encouraged to leave in exchange for monetary compensation, or left on their own volition is disputed. Now numbering in the millions, the simple fact remains that they lived in the region before 1948 or 1967, while those who are still alive and their descendants no longer do.
Arab countries have taken in plenty of Palestinian refugees since 1948, but refuse to let more of them in after years of tensions and violent clashes. Even during the war in Gaza that started in October 2023 and resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and rampant hunger, Egypt and Jordan flatly refused to let more Palestinian refugees in.
2.13 The right of return is a human rights and international law principle that grants displaced populations the right to go back to their country of origin. An individual's right is predicated on their citizenship, nationality, or ancestry. Far from being widely accepted, the right of return is contentious and highly politicized. For Palestinians, specifically, this notion remains unattainable. Among other challenges, the return of all descendants of Palestinians driven away from the region will make it one of the densest in the world and eliminate the Jewish majority. As such, the idea is unlikely ever to materialize.
2.14. Jewish immigrants are the millions of Jews who left their home countries and settled in Israel before and after the country was founded. Hundreds of thousands of them left – or were arguably driven out of – Arab countries following the 1948 war. Jewish immigrants and their descendants don’t claim the right of return, nor do they wish to go back to their countries of origin. They have built a home in Israel and view this as the final step in a long and arduous journey for an itinerant people.
2.15. Side is the term used here to refer to either Israelis or Palestinians. In a testament to the complexity of the conflict, both sides comprise numerous groups that can be further subdivided, with subgroups pursuing agendas distinct from the primary ones. Regardless, Israel and the Palestinians are the primary adversaries in the conflict and represent all other groups on their respective sides in contemporary discourse.
2.16. Zionism is a movement that interlinks Jewish religion, nationality, ethnicity, and territorial claims over the region. It creates an unbreakable bond among its elements, making it nearly impossible to discuss Judaism, Jewish nationality, Jewish ethnicity, and the State of Israel as separate concepts. Zionism started as a secular Jewish movement, but has adopted the fundamentalist hallmarks of Jewish nationalism. Modern Zionists have embraced the militant approach of Revisionist Zionism, but have thankfully let the territorial aspiration over a wide swath of the Middle East – now part of Jordan and Syria – fall by the wayside.
3. Conflict-Related Terms
3.1. The conflict (or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) is the long-running dispute over the region between opposing groups of people. More specifically, the term refers to the ongoing conflict between Israeli Jews and the Palestinian people.
3.2. Self-determination is a key term in international law, denoting the right of people to determine their destiny. Ideally, every person has the right to exist and live in peace, and so is every nation. As it pertains to the conflict, both Israelis and Palestinians should decide their own future. Reality is messier, unfortunately; guns speak louder than civil liberty declarations.
3.3. The 1948 Arab-Israeli war took place between Israel and the armies of several Arab countries. The Palestinians played a minor active role in it, but suffered the most collateral damage. Israel refers to it as its War of Independence, while the Palestinians call it the Nakba, meaning catastrophe in Arabic. By the names alone, it’s clear who had the upper hand.
3.4. The 1967 war (or the Six-Day War) was fought between Israel and its neighbors. The armies involved were better trained and equipped than in 1948, but a tactical imbalance and the element of surprise allowed Israel to win the war in less than a week. The Palestinians had virtually no part in the war itself. Still, their fate was forever changed when Israel took over the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip and enacted governance over them. Immediately following the war, Israel was in a state of euphoria. Only a few faint voices called out the downsides of the occupation. They were hushed by the great majority of jubilant Israelis who didn’t see what was coming.
3.5. Apartheid is a term coined to describe the racial separation between the black and white populations of South Africa. More generally, it denotes systemic segregation and discrimination. In the context of the region, it refers to the religious-based separation favoring Jews at the expense of Muslims and Christians. Like the situation in Apartheid South Africa, this separation is enshrined in laws, practiced in everyday life, and enforced by military might.
3.6. Terrorism is violence against civilians aimed at furthering an ideology. Terror attacks are typically carried out by non-state actors, with a goal of getting governments and international organizations to take notice of the perpetrator’s plight. They are also used as a tactic of oppression and intimidation by governments. Regardless, those who suffer the brunt of the damage are non-combatants who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Terrorism is relative; one person’s terror is another’s legitimate resistance.
3.7. Ethnic cleansing and large-scale population displacement were the norm for most of human history. In the last few decades, these habits fell out of favor. Israel didn’t get the memo and is busy doing all in its power to rid itself of those it considers thorns in its side. The irony is not lost on observers of the conflict, given the centuries of persecution and outright extermination endured by Jews the world over. The lines of demarcation between ethnicity, religion, and nationality are fuzzy in the Middle East. Israeli Jews avow all three and are proud of their Jewish singularity. Palestinian nationals share an ethnic and cultural heritage, and while most of them are Muslim, they do have some religious diversity. When it comes to driving them away from their land, however, Israel doesn’t discriminate between different non-Jewish faiths.
3.8. Genocide is the intentional elimination of a group of people, in whole or in part. Israel carried out a genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, though it fiercely denies it. Its indiscriminate bombings and blockade were intended to kill and hurt civilians, and have led international experts and the UN Human Rights Council’s Independent Commission of Inquiry to accuse Israel of committing genocide. To counter these claims, Israel pointed the finger at vicious terror attacks and enemy fighters taking cover in residential areas, saying that it had no choice. Regardless of which side you side with, no one argues that the situation on the ground was anything but tragic. Despite Israel’s equivocations, the extreme power imbalance, the grim outcomes, and statements made by Israeli cabinet members qualify this as a bona fide genocide.