Religious, Social, and Cultural Theories on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Sparkle Williams

E297a

December 3, 2004

Religious, Social, and Cultural Theories on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The region of the Middle East frequently referred to as Palestine has long been the site of much conflict. In recent years, a major effort on the part of the International community has been employed in an attempt to bring peace to the troubled region, yet every time peace accords seem to be at hand, everything falls apart. In order to fully understand the enmity that keeps causing peace talks to break down, one must look at the roots from which the conflict stems. If the root of the issue can be clearly devised, then movements towards peace in the region will be much more succinct.

Palestinian Development Under Turkish Rule

Issues concerning Palestine’s development in socio-cultural and religious terms begin to become apparent to the modern world once the Turkish Empire moved into the region. The Seljuk Turks, a Muslim group, took control of Jerusalem in 1071. Their rule was characterized by struggles with the Christian crusaders of Europe. Seeking to better their own position, another group of Turks, the Fatimids (from Egypt) allied themselves with the crusaders, but were later betrayed. The betrayal led to the capture of Jerusalem and Jaffa in 1099 along with the slaughter of many Jewish and Muslim defenders at the hands of the Christian Crusaders. The Muslim leader, Saladin, attacked and gained control of Jerusalem finally evicting the Crusaders in 1291. His particular Muslim group was known as the Mamelukes, who were originally “soldier-slaves of the Arabs.” While their empire was far reaching, including Palestine, it was comprised primarily of Arab-speaking Muslims, although Jews from Spain and the surrounding Mediterranean area began to settle in and around Jerusalem in the late 1300s.

With the defeat of the Mamelukes by the Ottoman Empire in 1517, the Turkish Sultan invited Jews fleeing the Spanish Inquisition to settle within Palestine. While the Turks did operate under a Jihad aimed specifically at the Christians (in response to the havoc wreaked by the Christian Crusades) during the Medieval Age, they became increasingly more acclimated to the cultures of their conquered peoples as they continued to move west. Their addition of these cultures helped create the distinctive culture for which the Ottoman Empire is known. The overall result was an empire that was remarkably tolerant of foreign culture and religion (particularly the Jewish faith and Islam), making the Ottoman Empire a refuge for the Jews of Europe.

In 1798, Napoleon invaded. The combination of war and faulty administration caused many Jews and Arabs to flee the country, significantly reducing the Palestinian population. Revolts by Palestinian Arabs against Ottoman (and Egyptian) rule began at this time. Reorganization of the empire brought order and catalyzed the beginnings of Jewish settlements under a variety of Zionist movements. The result of these changes caused an increase in both Arab and Jewish populations. By 1880, out of a population of 400,000, the Jewish population comprised 24,000 (see figure 1). At this same time, the Ottoman Empire imposed stringent restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchase although many of these restrictions were evaded by colonists.

The Zionist movement arose among the Sephardic Jewish community of Europe, who saw the concept of a Jewish homeland in Palestine (under Turkish or German rule) to be a practical aspiration given the continued persecution experienced in Europe. In thoughts of creating a Jewish homeland, the existing Arab population that also inhabited the land was not a primary consideration. Farm communities began to be established throughout Palestine causing an increase in the Jewish population. The Arab population also continued to increase. By 1914, out of a 700,000 member population, 615,000 were Arabs and 85,000 were Jews (see figure 1).

Historical conflict of Israel/Palestine from the start of British Occupation to the Present

To begin to understand the argument over Palestine in recent history, one must look back to the start of British occupation in the region when General Edmund Allenby captured Jerusalem in 1917. The League of Nations decided to make Jerusalem the capital of British-held Palestine with the issuing of the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour declaration is primarily responsible for the ensuing conflicts of land and state that developed. The document declared British support for a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. Unfortunately they also had previously promised Arabs to support the creation of independent nations.

During World War I, the Ottoman Empire had been allied with Germany. After the war, Britain and France were dividing their holds among themselves. The Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 said Syria and Lebanon would go to France and Palestine would go to Britain. However, Britain offered some of this same land to the Arabs in return for their support of the Allies. The Arabs then revolted against the Ottomans to establish Arab independence in the Middle East. The Arabs assumed that Palestine qualified as one of the independent states that Britain had pledged to support. The result of those conflicting promises led to the first anti-Zionist riot in Palestine in 1920.

In 1922 the League of Nations officially approved the British mandate of Palestine. The mandate stated that Britain would help the Jews to build a national home and promote the creation of self-governing institutions. According to Winston Churchill, the land granted by the mandate comprised a much larger area than the area originally desired by the Zionists. A series of “White Papers” were then issued to clarify the rules of the governance of the region. The 1922 White Paper detailed the terms of Palestinian establishment. Issued on June 3, 1922, this document is also known as the Churchill White Paper. It stated that Britain did not support the Jewish National Home as a separate nation, but instead as a community within Palestine. The document also denied that Britain had promised the Arabs “that an independent national government should be at once established in Palestine.” It confirmed the right of Jewish immigration, but said that the immigration “should not exceed the economic absorptive capacity” of the country.

Also known as the Passfield White Paper, the 1930 White Paper was issued limiting immigration. It determined that no more Jewish development would be allowed due to a shortage of arable land (although this claim was not supported by agricultural documentation). The document further slowed Jewish immigration while reiterating that the purpose of the Jewish National Home was to exist as a cultural community.

In 1937 the Peel Commission was issued. This document declared the British promises to the Zionists and the Arabs to be irreconcilable. They decided the only solution to the problem would be to partition Jerusalem and the holy sites. The Zionists reluctantly approved the commission’s decision, but the Arabs rejected it altogether. At this point, the British decide to drop the partition idea and instead responded with the issuing of the White Paper of 1939.

The White Paper of 1939 (MacDonald White Paper) attempted to make concessions to the Arabs. In this document, a very narrow interpretation was given to the Balfour Declaration saying that a center could be built for the Jews in Palestine, but that the British had never indicated that this center would develop into a Jewish State. This particular premise thus led to the issue of immigration. In support of this notion of the Jewish National Homeland, the severe restriction of Jewish expansion and immigration followed. A maximum quote of 75,000 Jews were allowed into the county over a five year period of time with any exceptions being subject to Arab approval. The British said that under this policy too many Jews had already entered the country and thus halted immigration altogether. They also limited the amount of land Jews could purchase in an attempt to aid Arab farmers. The Zionists felt that this document was a complete betrayal of the Balfour Declaration. The Arabs rejected it because they wanted the immediate creation of an Arab Palestine and the prohibition of future immigration as well as a review of all Jewish immigrants since 1918.

In 1946 the Anglo-American conference decided that Britain should remain in charge of Palestine. They rescinded land transfer restrictions, admitted 100,000 Jews and declared that the Jewish underground should disband. In 1947 they discussed plans for Jewish-Arab autonomy, but no solution was reached. In February of the same year, the British decided that their mandate was no longer working and turned the problem over to the UN.

A UN special committee on Palestine proposed partitioning Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an internationally run zone that would include Jerusalem. Before this compromise was fully investigated, on May 14, 1948, the British pulled out and the State of Israel was declared at Tel Aviv with Chaim Weizmann as president and David Ben Gurion as prime minister. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq proceeded to invade. In the War of Independence, Israel expanded to occupy 77% of the territory. In the process, many Palestinian Arabs (about 50% of the indigenous Palestinian population) were driven out. Armistice agreements were reached in January of 1949. In December of 1949, the capitol was moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in an attempt to strengthen the claim there. After the Lausanne conference in 1949, 150,000 Arab refugees were allowed back into the country to reunite with their families. In 1950, the Law of Return was issued which provided free and automatic citizenship for all Jews. In 1967 Israel proceeded to occupy the remaining territories that had been under control of Jordan and Egypt which included both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This brought about the exodus of as many as a half million Palestinians. The Security Council later called Israel to withdraw from these new territories on November 22, 1967. In 1974, the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people were reaffirmed by the General Assembly. These rights included, “self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and [the right] to return [to Palestine].” The assembly also gave the status of observer to the PLO in any UN sanctioned international forum.

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the attempt to eliminate the PLO, but a ceasefire was arranged. PLO troops withdrew after being assured the safety of the thousands of Palestinian refugees present, but upon their departure large scale massacres occurred. In 1983, the International Conference on the Question of Palestine adopted, on the following principles, the Geneva Declaration: “the need to oppose and reject the establishment of settlements in the occupied territory and actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem, the right of all States in the region to existence within secure and internationally recognized boundaries, with justice and security for all the people, and the attainment of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.” A series of peace talks followed in the early 90s including the signing of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self Government Arrangements by both Israel and the PLO in Washington, D.C. on September 13, 1993.

Conflict in Terms of Islam v. Judaism v. Christianity in the sharing of Jerusalem

While the conflict existing in Israel/Palestine is the result of many cultural, political, and social differences between the groups of people living in the region, historically speaking from a religious perspective, all three groups (Christian, Jew, and Muslim) have legitimate ties (although some more than others) to the area particularly where Jerusalem is concerned. In a growing nation comprised of 568,000 Muslims, 74,000 Christians, and 58,000 Jews in 1919 compared to 1,091,000 Muslims, 146,000 Christians, and 614,000 Jews in 1947 (see figure 2), the issue of Jerusalem as a religious city is absolutely critical.

There are a variety of religiously historical ties that the three religions share concerning their separate distinctions concerning who they believed Jesus was. The Jews acknowledge Jesus and that fact that he did indeed exist as a historical figure, but they don’t believe that he is the Messiah that they have been waiting for. The Christians follow the same basics as the Jews as far as the entirety of the Old Testament is concerned, but the Christians go one step further, and acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. The Koran does not dispute the historical figure of Jesus. In fact, in describing the birth of Jesus, many similarities can be seen between the Koran and the New Testament, although the Koran is not as specific concerning places, for example, it doesn’t mention that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The Muslims, however, believe that Jesus was a great prophet who was then succeeded by Mohammed and his successive revelations. According to the Koran, as a baby Jesus spoke, saying “'I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Gospel and ordained me a prophet,” (Sura 19:33). Knowing how these three groups feel concerning Jesus, who did all of his ministry throughout the area of Israel, with some key aspects of his life occurring in the area of Jerusalem, provides religious background on their various levels of attachment to the region.

Jerusalem is not particularly significant to Muslims on a religious level. It is not mentioned at all in the Koran, whereas it’s mentioned 832 times in the Old Testament (which both Christians and Jews follow). The Koran never specifically mentions Jerusalem or Zion anywhere in all of its text, primarily because Jerusalem played no role in the founding of Islam. Mu’awaiya, a ruler of the Umayyad dynasty, hoped to have Jerusalem as a political and administrative center and thus attempted to make Jerusalem a Muslim stronghold by building the Dome of the Rock on the site of the original temple. Jerusalem, however, was too rich in Jewish history (and not enough Muslim history) for any concrete attachments to be made.

Due to its political connotations, religious significance thus had to be attributed to it as well in order to justify its worth to the nation of Islam as anything more than a strategically significant backwater town. A second temple was thus built on the Temple Mount and was referred to as Al-Masjid al-Aqsa which then confers upon Jerusalem, the honor of being the city hosting the holiest of Mosques.

For Jews, Jerusalem is a city of incredible importance. It is the location of the original temple built by Solomon. One always prays facing towards Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a city of hope, and promise. Even with only the Western Wall remaining of the temple, in very close proximity to the Dome of the Rock; it is a sacred place of prayer and reflection for Jews. Jerusalem remains a part of the Passover celebration which ends with the recitation “Next year in Jerusalem.”

Christians don’t attach as much significance to Jerusalem itself, although the entire region remains important if only due to the fact that it is the location where Jesus walked, taught, and performed His miracles. While it is a province of religious significance, in this day and age, it has become more culturally noteworthy as Christians have bowed out of the fight for religious control of the city.

For Muslims, the city holds more political importance than anything else, but in order to maintain the fervor that it is truly a place worth fighting for; more religious implication has been attached to it. For Christians, it remains a place of deep historical and religious connection, although the bond that exists there is not as integrally tied to identity as it is for the Jewish population. Out of the three groups with attachments to Jerusalem, that of the Jewish population is most significant, because it not only confers religious import, but is a source of cultural identity as well.

Another way to understand the religious significance of the region, one must look at the religious (and thus cultural) roots of a continuing conflict. According to the book of Genesis, which is the first book of both the Old Testament and the Torah, God promised Abraham that his descendents would inherit a vast amount of land, including “the land of the …Canaanites” Genesis 15:20. The Canaanites inhabited the land that is today known as Palestine. This promise was intended to be fulfilled through Abraham and his wife Sarah, but Sarah’s heretofore inability to produce a child, led Abraham to take his Egyptian maidservant, Hagar, as another wife. Through Hagar, a son named Ishmael was born. Not too long thereafter, Sarah also bore a child, Isaac who was considered the child through whom the promise would be fulfilled. Now faced with two potential heirs, Abraham questioned God concerning his sons. He was told concerning Ishmael, “I will make him faithful and will greatly increase his numbers…I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac,” Genesis 18:20b-21a. Due to the enmity of Sarah towards Hagar and her son, at Sarah’s request, Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away.