Incompatible world-views
Can politics and religion meet and make peace? Hassan Nafaa* deliberates the prospects
The Arab-Israeli conflict, from the official Arab perspective at least, is a political rather than a religious conflict. True, religion forms an underlying dimension of this conflict and has frequently influenced its changes in direction, especially at critical junctures. It is also true that some Palestinian and Arab factions view this conflict from a religious perspective; however, this has had little impact on the perspective of the Arab mainstream. In all events, there is a vast difference between a political conflict in which religion is used as an instrument for stirring passions and mobilising energies, and a religious conflict in which politics are used to mislead or disguise its true nature.
The increase in suicide operations mounted by certain Palestinian factions or by individuals unaffiliated to a particular faction represents an heroic determination to resist occupation and defend land and honour. It is not a manifestation of a shift in the general Arab outlook, which continues to perceive the conflict as an essentially political one.
However, it is difficult to say that this applies to the Israeli outlook on the conflict, in spite of appearances. The secular cloak worn by the official Zionist movement appears to me to be only that: a cloak, concealing beneath it actions and positions dictated by religious, more than political, considerations. Herein, I believe, resides the primary cause for the failure of the peace process so far. There is an enormous gap between the Arab and Israeli frame of reference for a settlement, with that of the Arabs located in the political domain while that of the Israelis is a fundamentally religious one.
Religious beliefs and strictures are generally averse to compromise, which is why religiously motivated conflicts tend to be the most intractable. A viable political settlement must inherently entail middle-ground solutions over contested rights and interests. It is already difficult enough to reach a common ground upon which to build a peace agreement when the parties to a dispute are not truly and equally prepared to recognise the legitimacy of the other's rights and interests and the need for an equitable process of give an take. Imagine then how elusive a peace process can become when one side perceives the conflict from a political perspective, which is inherently pragmatic and flexible, and the other from a religious perspective, which is adamantly and rigidly ideological.
Were it not for the deliberate ambiguity in the wording of UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967, this resolution would never have become the sole authority for a settlement recognised by both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It was this ambiguity that permitted two completely contradictory interpretations; one founded on political reasoning, the other on religious reasoning. This ambiguity was far from constructive, as is evident in the fact that the peace process that began following the October 1973 War continued to stumble and flounder for over a quarter of a century before collapsing entirely.
Resolution 242, as the Arabs see it, upholds the international prohibition against the occupation of the land of others by force, and establishes the foundations for a settlement based on the principle of land for peace. Accordingly, Israel is called upon to withdraw from all Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in exchange for which the Arabs would recognise Israel's right to exist within its pre-June 1967 boundaries and establish peaceful, fully normal relations with it. Although most Arab governments had long recognised this formula in an individual capacity, they recognised it collectively in the form of the Arab initiative adopted in the 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut. Israel refused to respond to this initiative for a simple reason. It does not regard the lands it seized in 1967 as occupied territory, but rather as territory under dispute. That territory, it claims, is part of the Jewish "promised land", and, therefore, unrenounceable, although it might be willing to trade some of it if the Arabs make similarly "generous" concessions in return.
If Israel were sincerely committed to a political settlement based on the principle of relinquishing the occupied territories in exchange for peace, it would not have begun to construct Jewish settlements on land that it knew it would have to leave eventually. Had its motive for constructing those settlements merely been to use them as a negotiating card in order to obtain the best possible terms from the Arabs, with the knowledge that they would be dismantled once a deal was struck and its security needs met, then a peace agreement would have been reached years ago. The Palestinians have demonstrated themselves willing to make enormous concessions to the extent even of agreeing to establish themselves as an unarmed state. The Syrians have declared themselves ready to allow US observer stations and international forces on their territory as guarantees for peace. Israel, however, wants to hold on to the largest portion possible of the occupied territories, and it wants to forge a peace on conditions inspired by Old Testament terms: "God's chosen people", "the right of return", "Temple Mount", "Jewish state", etc.
For Israel to persist in pushing this frame of reference will only drive the Arabs to resort to claims derived from Islamic scriptures and beliefs. They could counter, for example, that the whole of Palestine is part of the "House of Islam" and is, as such, sacred territory, not a single inch of which can be forfeited. The result would be two sides entrenched in irrevocable positions so far apart that they are impossible to bridge except through pools of blood and untold eruptions of hatred that will ensure that the conflict lasts for yet another hundred years. This is a no-win situation, for Israel above all. However, if Israel were to relinquish its religiously inspired position and bow to the voice of reason, it would have to acknowledge the political principles that have been established as the basis for a solution. The major principle pertains to the Israeli withdrawal to internationally recognised borders, with regard to which it has two choices: those established under the 1948 partition resolution, or those established under Resolution 242.
The 1948 borders constituted the primary feature of the first "roadmap" designed and approved by the international community to resolve the Jewish and Palestinian question. This plan literally included a map that designated clear, precise and incontestable boundaries between two states of roughly equal sizes. It accorded to Israel 56 per cent of historic Palestine (by historic Palestine we refer to Palestine under the British mandate, not the Palestine of the Torah) and to Arab Palestine 44 per cent of that land. Even then, the partition was unfair to the Palestinians, who at the time of partition constituted 70 per cent of historic Palestine, which is why the Arabs rejected the plan at the time. However, today, when peace efforts need an injection of fresh blood and when the international community more fervently than ever desires an historic, fair and honourable agreement between two peoples who have suffered so much, this solution appears the most just. Consider, in particular, the fact that the partition resolution preceded the Palestinian refugee problem and that accepting this formula would, therefore, automatically solve this dilemma at the same time.
Needless to say, Israel would never so much as contemplate this solution, nor could it be pressured into doing so given the current balances of power. Nor is it particularly appealing to the international community. The partition resolution was issued by the UN General Assembly, which is not empowered to issue binding resolutions. And, even if it were, it did not have the right to pass a resolution on a question involving a people's right to self-determination without first deferring to their views through a referendum.
Thus, Resolution 242 remains the only authority for a realistic, if not a necessarily just, solution. The 1967 borders designated under this resolution have been similarly delineated in detail on maps available to both sides, and, therefore, should pose no insurmountable technical problems. In addition to upholding the prohibition against the occupation of another people's land by force, Resolution 242 calls for a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, in which regard Resolution 194 of 1949 stands as the internationally recognised legitimate authority.
That the Arabs have come to accept a basis for a settlement that accords the Palestinians with only 22 per cent of historic Palestine has one meaning. The Arabs are prepared to offer the greatest possible concessions for the sake of an historic settlement that will enable the peoples of the region to finally live in peace so that they can devote their energies to the political, social and economic development processes their peoples so desperately need.
That Israel persists in rejecting this basis can only mean one of two things. Either that state is the kernel of an imperialist entity that remains intent upon expanding its territory to as far as its military might allows, in which case it is pointless to consider a settlement of any nature, regardless of its underlying principles. Or, that state perceives itself in the process of fulfilling a divinely ordained mission that it cannot halt halfway through without forfeiting the very reason for its existence. It is, therefore, driven to persist in its enterprise until the parties it intends to displace come to terms with political boundaries that conform to the boundaries cited in Jewish scripture. Such an enterprise could not conceivably be accepted by any but those who subscribe to the religious beliefs on which it is founded. Certainly, it cannot serve as realistic basis for a political settlement. What it can and will do, however, is provoke others into diving into their own holy scriptures for the means to defend themselves from impending peril.
Such polarisation across religious divides is the essence of a war of civilisation. Is this what they have been hoping and planning for? It seems so, but I hope not.
* The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
