Examine The Impact Of Religion On Ethno Religious Conflict
The Impact of Religion on Ethno-Religious Conflicts: in Israel and Palestine, and Bosnia and Herzegovina
Abstract Religion is supposed to be a positive factor in solving problems and disputes not only between individuals, but also between nations. Unfortunately, throughout history we have seen that religion was and still is used primarily by radicals to achieve their political, social, or religious agenda. This negative exploitation of religion by people of interest and radicals has distorted the image of various beliefs and their putative role in promoting peace. Negative exploitation of religion in the past and present is the main reason why secularism has become the most common phenomena, and has pushed many people to reject religion. People have come to consider religion, specifically monotheistic ones, as one of the biggest obstacles for world peace and …show more content…
security. To better understand this misuse of religion in conflict resolution, the following essay will examine two cases where religion strongly impacts peace and conflict: the religious undertones of the longest-standing conflict of our time, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the ethno-religious conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina between Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats, and Muslim Bosnians.
In brief, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is understood as a territorial dispute, but over the years the disputing parties have used their religious attachment to the land to advance their political goals. Israel-Palestine, or the Holy Land, is the epicenter to the world’s three Abrahamic religions - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - making it a necessary location for the Abrahamic religions’ religious narrative. And in Bosnia and Herzegovina, following the fall of communism and split-up of Yugoslavia, ethno-religious groups raced to win sovereignty in the multicultural state which resulted in a bloody battle. Although the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina is depicted as nationalistic, ethno-religious rivals sought independence to integrate their religious identity into their nationalistic aspirations. Indeed, religion has demonstrated to be counterproductive to creating and sustaining peace, and has exacerbated hostilities in both Israel and Palestine, and Bosnia and
Herzegovina. This essay will examine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and briefly compare and contrast to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Impact of Religion on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
To better understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s nature, a brief look at the background is necessary. The origins of the conflict began with the Zionist Movement’s aim to create and support a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. However, before zionists were fixed on Palestine for their future home, there were several other proposals for a Jewish state, such as Argentina, Uganda, etc., indicating religion played very a little role at the time. But it would later be Britain’s support and religious attachment to the land that would warrant the Zionists’ colonizing of Palestine. With the fixation on Palestine, Jews began to steadily migrated to the land inhabited by Arabs. Jewish migration became a rising demographic threat to Arabs which caused an eruption of clashes. Perhaps the most revealing religious nature of the conflict at that time was the noticeably expanding symbolic importance of Jerusalem and other pilgrimage sites to Zionist Jews. Zionist organizations attempted to purchase Jewish holy sites from Muslim trustees. The realization became sudden to Arabs, Jews were attempting to restore ancient Israel. Still, it was the constant support of world powers, such as Britain, that lejd the zionist movement to establish Israel in 1948, marking the start of the conflict seen today. Secularistic beliefs dominated the conflict at its infancy, composed mainly of nationalists on both sides, fighting to be a self-governed nation represented internationally. Once reaching its climax, the conflict took a turn. Religion became complicit in the conflict’s intensity and a central element of the Zionist identity (Shapira, 2002: 212). Meanwhile, Palestinian nationalists began to incorporate Islamic political activism into their movement. So, the question is raised; how has religion exacerbated the conflict? Jonathan Fox proposed a theory that determines the role of religion in conflicts through four social functions. Two of Jonathan Fox’s social functions are as stated: “Religion has the ability to legitimise actions and institutions” and “Providing rules and standards of behaviour that link individual actions and goals to a religious framework” (Fox 1999). These two social functions can be applied to the following examples. Islamic understanding among many Palestinians is that self-sacrifice for the purpose of a principle, usually one of religious commandment, is permitted and honored. This is known as martyrdom or shahada. The concept of martyrdom has been and is still used by militant groups to authorize their conquest to resist occupation. Surely, this belief has supplemented to the already violent nature of the conflict. In 2009, Palestinians had seen their bloodiest year in the millennium, with 1,219 martyrs (PCBS 2013). On the Jewish side, this social function is displayed through a reiterated belief announced by many Zionist rabbis. The belief is as follows: the attainment of “Greater Israel” is a religious duty and war is mandatory (Maimonides, The Laws of Kings 5:1-2). This duty legitimizes the expulsion of Arabs and organized systematic violence. Certainly, this aspect of religion has provoked more violence among the groups. Another social function in Fox’s theory is, “religion provides a meaningful framework for understanding the world” (Fox 1999). To elaborate on this social function, in the event that these frameworks are threatened, violence becomes an almost natural response by the believers. They feel it is their duty to protect the frameworks. For instance, on September 28, 2000, following a failed peace negotiations attempt, Ariel Sharon and 1000 some Israeli soldiers marched to the Dome of the Rock compound; the home to the third holiest site in Islam, the Al Aqsa Mosque. While visiting the compound, Sharon gave a speech that stated Israel would never give up the Temple Mount, which happens to be the same location as the Al Aqsa Mosque. The visit and speech was a provocative act and a threatening gesture to the Palestinian Muslims’ symbolic religious framework. Thus, an uprising took place known as the Al Aqsa Intifada. A justified act of religious defense. Jewish and Christian fundamentalists, have felt somewhat similar threats against their frameworks. To Christian fundamentalists, the establishment of Israel fulfills a religious prophecy, so anything that threatens the state of Israel threatens their religious prophecy. The same is said for Jewish fundamentalists, they feel their religious prophecies are threatened by the existing resistance of Palestinians. The final social function from Fox’s theory is “religion as a link between individuals and a greater whole and sometimes as a provider of formal institutions which help to define and organise that whole” (Fox 1999). This phenomenon is seen by religious nationalist fanatics. Such fanatics include Zionist Jews that want to “Judaize” Israel (Lustick, 1988; Hanauer, 1995), and Islamic nationalist groups that want to “Islamicize” Palestine (Reiter, 2005). Both have prepared a blueprint to institutionalize their religion and constantly stress the importance of having a religious state as fulfillment to their religion’s command. It is easy to see how conflict occurs, especially when two groups are declaring to institutionalize their religion on the same region. Religion has undoubtedly created a barrier to peace. Extrajudicial killings permitted by religious manifesto or by religious command have resulted in events such as the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat by a radical Islamic group, and the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister of Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish radical consented by radical rabbis. Both leaders supported the peace process, but radicals of both the Islamic and Jewish faiths opposed these leaders’ support for peace with the enemy. It is appropriate to say the conflict has reached a point far beyond the drawing of borders. The members of the peace process failed to incorporate the religious language of radicals. Both the Palestinians and Israelis refuse to compromise religious symbols, for instance, the city of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount/Al Haram Al Sharif, while radical refuse to compromise the entirety of the land. A middle ground is nearly impossible to reach when radicals infiltrate movements and attempt to integrate their beliefs on the secular public. Despite the difficulty behind defeating the religious barrier to peace, it is definitely possible.
Drawing a Parallel, between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Bosnia-Herzegovina Unrest. Ethno-religious polarity is reported as one of common causes behind civil unrest. In the incident of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the main divider between the three actors fighting for national identity in former Yugoslavia is religion. Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats, and Muslim Bosnians are three groups in which a commentator believes “share the same race and the same language, but are distinguished only by their religion.” (P.J. 1996). While some believe religion to be a definitive factor behind the bloody war between Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians, others proposed the socioeconomic status of each group is what damaged ethnic relations. A Georgetown University case study on Bosnia and Herzegovina stated, “economic disparity especially affected Bosnia, which was among the poorest of the Yugoslav republics. For example, in 1989 the Bosnian GDP was almost half that of Croatia and one-third that of Slovenia” (Berkley Center 2013). The unequal distribution of wealth and class marginalization that align with the ethno-religious identities are popular catalysts to violent conflict. However, to relate Bosnia-Herzegovina to the Israeli-Palestinian case, it is safe to say both conflicts are defined and perpetuated by ethno-religious divide and at the same time characterized by nationalist agendas. Although the religious impact of both differ on scale. In the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict each ethno-religious group was looking for national identity in hopes to mend the socioeconomic construct of the region in their favor. The land of former Yugoslavia is not a an epicenter of holy sites and religious pilgrimage to the Abrahamic religions like Israel-Palestine is. It is merely just land inhabited by Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians with religious monuments built by each group for the practice of their religion. There are no ancient holy sites that call for compromise and a possible global outrage of Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The absent of religious sensitivity, as seen in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, made the installment of a peace settlement much easier in the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict. There might have been a few relapses into conflict, but overall peace has been sustained in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Conclusion
To conclude, religion has become a driving catalyst in armed conflict and peace settlement. In the case of Israel-Palestine we have used Jonathan Fox’s religious social functions to define the religious element of the conflict and its impact on the prolongment of the conflict. It is evident that manipulation of religion has induced the intensity of violence and the mobilized efforts of resistance. A parallel case to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is the conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict and the Israel-Palestinian conflict shares identical features of ethno-religious divide and nationalistic aspirations. Only Bosnia-Herzegovina’s conflict was believed to have emerged by economic disparity aligned with ethno-religious identities. Luckily, peace settlements were installed in the conflict of Bosnia-Herzegovina case and have sustained quite well, unfortunately, religion remains as the prominent barrier in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Bibliography
Berkley Center. "Bosnia: Ethno-Religious Nationalisms in Conflict." Bosnia: Ethno-Religious Nationalisms in Conflict. Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, Aug. 2013. Web. 26 May 2014.
Fox, Jonathan. "Toward a Dynamic Theory." Science News 95.6 (1969): 136. Nations and Nationalism. Bar Ilan University, 2012. Web. 26 May 2014.
Hanauer, L. S. “The Path to Redemption: Fundamentalist Judaism, Territory, and Jewish Settler Violence in the West Bank.” (1995). Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 18, 245-270. Web. 26 May 2014.
Lustick, I. S. “For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.” New York: Council on Foreign Relations (1988). Web. 26 May 2014.
Maimonides. Trans. Reuven Brauner. “Laws of Kings and Wars” (n.d.): n. pag. TRANSLATION OF THE FINAL CHAPTER OF THE RAMBAM’S MISHNEH TORAH. Raanana Israel (2012). Web. 26 May 2014.
P.J. O’Rourke as qtd. in Peter Berger, “Secularism in Retreat,” National Interest 46 (Winter 1996-1997), pp.11-12. Web. 26 May 2014.
PCBS. "Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics - State of Palestine." Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics - State of Palestine. N.p., 14 May 2013. Web. 26 May 2014.
Reiter, Y. “Options for the Administration of the Holy Places in the Old City of Jerusalem.” (2007) Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (Hebrew). Web. 26 May 2014.
Shapira, A. “Jewishness and Israeliness: A Historical View.” In N.Horowitz (ed.), Religion and Nationalism in Israel and the Middle East. (2002) Tel Aviv: Am Oved and the Yitzhak Rabin Center for Israel Studies, pp. 205-224 (Hebrew). Web. 26 May 2014.
Abstract Religion is supposed to be a positive factor in solving problems and disputes not only between individuals, but also between nations. Unfortunately, throughout history we have seen that religion was and still is used primarily by radicals to achieve their political, social, or religious agenda. This negative exploitation of religion by people of interest and radicals has distorted the image of various beliefs and their putative role in promoting peace. Negative exploitation of religion in the past and present is the main reason why secularism has become the most common phenomena, and has pushed many people to reject religion. People have come to consider religion, specifically monotheistic ones, as one of the biggest obstacles for world peace and …show more content…
security. To better understand this misuse of religion in conflict resolution, the following essay will examine two cases where religion strongly impacts peace and conflict: the religious undertones of the longest-standing conflict of our time, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the ethno-religious conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina between Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats, and Muslim Bosnians.
In brief, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is understood as a territorial dispute, but over the years the disputing parties have used their religious attachment to the land to advance their political goals. Israel-Palestine, or the Holy Land, is the epicenter to the world’s three Abrahamic religions - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - making it a necessary location for the Abrahamic religions’ religious narrative. And in Bosnia and Herzegovina, following the fall of communism and split-up of Yugoslavia, ethno-religious groups raced to win sovereignty in the multicultural state which resulted in a bloody battle. Although the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina is depicted as nationalistic, ethno-religious rivals sought independence to integrate their religious identity into their nationalistic aspirations. Indeed, religion has demonstrated to be counterproductive to creating and sustaining peace, and has exacerbated hostilities in both Israel and Palestine, and Bosnia and
Herzegovina. This essay will examine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and briefly compare and contrast to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Impact of Religion on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.
To better understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s nature, a brief look at the background is necessary. The origins of the conflict began with the Zionist Movement’s aim to create and support a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. However, before zionists were fixed on Palestine for their future home, there were several other proposals for a Jewish state, such as Argentina, Uganda, etc., indicating religion played very a little role at the time. But it would later be Britain’s support and religious attachment to the land that would warrant the Zionists’ colonizing of Palestine. With the fixation on Palestine, Jews began to steadily migrated to the land inhabited by Arabs. Jewish migration became a rising demographic threat to Arabs which caused an eruption of clashes. Perhaps the most revealing religious nature of the conflict at that time was the noticeably expanding symbolic importance of Jerusalem and other pilgrimage sites to Zionist Jews. Zionist organizations attempted to purchase Jewish holy sites from Muslim trustees. The realization became sudden to Arabs, Jews were attempting to restore ancient Israel. Still, it was the constant support of world powers, such as Britain, that lejd the zionist movement to establish Israel in 1948, marking the start of the conflict seen today. Secularistic beliefs dominated the conflict at its infancy, composed mainly of nationalists on both sides, fighting to be a self-governed nation represented internationally. Once reaching its climax, the conflict took a turn. Religion became complicit in the conflict’s intensity and a central element of the Zionist identity (Shapira, 2002: 212). Meanwhile, Palestinian nationalists began to incorporate Islamic political activism into their movement. So, the question is raised; how has religion exacerbated the conflict? Jonathan Fox proposed a theory that determines the role of religion in conflicts through four social functions. Two of Jonathan Fox’s social functions are as stated: “Religion has the ability to legitimise actions and institutions” and “Providing rules and standards of behaviour that link individual actions and goals to a religious framework” (Fox 1999). These two social functions can be applied to the following examples. Islamic understanding among many Palestinians is that self-sacrifice for the purpose of a principle, usually one of religious commandment, is permitted and honored. This is known as martyrdom or shahada. The concept of martyrdom has been and is still used by militant groups to authorize their conquest to resist occupation. Surely, this belief has supplemented to the already violent nature of the conflict. In 2009, Palestinians had seen their bloodiest year in the millennium, with 1,219 martyrs (PCBS 2013). On the Jewish side, this social function is displayed through a reiterated belief announced by many Zionist rabbis. The belief is as follows: the attainment of “Greater Israel” is a religious duty and war is mandatory (Maimonides, The Laws of Kings 5:1-2). This duty legitimizes the expulsion of Arabs and organized systematic violence. Certainly, this aspect of religion has provoked more violence among the groups. Another social function in Fox’s theory is, “religion provides a meaningful framework for understanding the world” (Fox 1999). To elaborate on this social function, in the event that these frameworks are threatened, violence becomes an almost natural response by the believers. They feel it is their duty to protect the frameworks. For instance, on September 28, 2000, following a failed peace negotiations attempt, Ariel Sharon and 1000 some Israeli soldiers marched to the Dome of the Rock compound; the home to the third holiest site in Islam, the Al Aqsa Mosque. While visiting the compound, Sharon gave a speech that stated Israel would never give up the Temple Mount, which happens to be the same location as the Al Aqsa Mosque. The visit and speech was a provocative act and a threatening gesture to the Palestinian Muslims’ symbolic religious framework. Thus, an uprising took place known as the Al Aqsa Intifada. A justified act of religious defense. Jewish and Christian fundamentalists, have felt somewhat similar threats against their frameworks. To Christian fundamentalists, the establishment of Israel fulfills a religious prophecy, so anything that threatens the state of Israel threatens their religious prophecy. The same is said for Jewish fundamentalists, they feel their religious prophecies are threatened by the existing resistance of Palestinians. The final social function from Fox’s theory is “religion as a link between individuals and a greater whole and sometimes as a provider of formal institutions which help to define and organise that whole” (Fox 1999). This phenomenon is seen by religious nationalist fanatics. Such fanatics include Zionist Jews that want to “Judaize” Israel (Lustick, 1988; Hanauer, 1995), and Islamic nationalist groups that want to “Islamicize” Palestine (Reiter, 2005). Both have prepared a blueprint to institutionalize their religion and constantly stress the importance of having a religious state as fulfillment to their religion’s command. It is easy to see how conflict occurs, especially when two groups are declaring to institutionalize their religion on the same region. Religion has undoubtedly created a barrier to peace. Extrajudicial killings permitted by religious manifesto or by religious command have resulted in events such as the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat by a radical Islamic group, and the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister of Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish radical consented by radical rabbis. Both leaders supported the peace process, but radicals of both the Islamic and Jewish faiths opposed these leaders’ support for peace with the enemy. It is appropriate to say the conflict has reached a point far beyond the drawing of borders. The members of the peace process failed to incorporate the religious language of radicals. Both the Palestinians and Israelis refuse to compromise religious symbols, for instance, the city of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount/Al Haram Al Sharif, while radical refuse to compromise the entirety of the land. A middle ground is nearly impossible to reach when radicals infiltrate movements and attempt to integrate their beliefs on the secular public. Despite the difficulty behind defeating the religious barrier to peace, it is definitely possible.
Drawing a Parallel, between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Bosnia-Herzegovina Unrest. Ethno-religious polarity is reported as one of common causes behind civil unrest. In the incident of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the main divider between the three actors fighting for national identity in former Yugoslavia is religion. Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats, and Muslim Bosnians are three groups in which a commentator believes “share the same race and the same language, but are distinguished only by their religion.” (P.J. 1996). While some believe religion to be a definitive factor behind the bloody war between Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians, others proposed the socioeconomic status of each group is what damaged ethnic relations. A Georgetown University case study on Bosnia and Herzegovina stated, “economic disparity especially affected Bosnia, which was among the poorest of the Yugoslav republics. For example, in 1989 the Bosnian GDP was almost half that of Croatia and one-third that of Slovenia” (Berkley Center 2013). The unequal distribution of wealth and class marginalization that align with the ethno-religious identities are popular catalysts to violent conflict. However, to relate Bosnia-Herzegovina to the Israeli-Palestinian case, it is safe to say both conflicts are defined and perpetuated by ethno-religious divide and at the same time characterized by nationalist agendas. Although the religious impact of both differ on scale. In the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict each ethno-religious group was looking for national identity in hopes to mend the socioeconomic construct of the region in their favor. The land of former Yugoslavia is not a an epicenter of holy sites and religious pilgrimage to the Abrahamic religions like Israel-Palestine is. It is merely just land inhabited by Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians with religious monuments built by each group for the practice of their religion. There are no ancient holy sites that call for compromise and a possible global outrage of Muslims, Christians, and Jews. The absent of religious sensitivity, as seen in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, made the installment of a peace settlement much easier in the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict. There might have been a few relapses into conflict, but overall peace has been sustained in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Conclusion
To conclude, religion has become a driving catalyst in armed conflict and peace settlement. In the case of Israel-Palestine we have used Jonathan Fox’s religious social functions to define the religious element of the conflict and its impact on the prolongment of the conflict. It is evident that manipulation of religion has induced the intensity of violence and the mobilized efforts of resistance. A parallel case to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is the conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict and the Israel-Palestinian conflict shares identical features of ethno-religious divide and nationalistic aspirations. Only Bosnia-Herzegovina’s conflict was believed to have emerged by economic disparity aligned with ethno-religious identities. Luckily, peace settlements were installed in the conflict of Bosnia-Herzegovina case and have sustained quite well, unfortunately, religion remains as the prominent barrier in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Bibliography
Berkley Center. "Bosnia: Ethno-Religious Nationalisms in Conflict." Bosnia: Ethno-Religious Nationalisms in Conflict. Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, Aug. 2013. Web. 26 May 2014.
Fox, Jonathan. "Toward a Dynamic Theory." Science News 95.6 (1969): 136. Nations and Nationalism. Bar Ilan University, 2012. Web. 26 May 2014.
Hanauer, L. S. “The Path to Redemption: Fundamentalist Judaism, Territory, and Jewish Settler Violence in the West Bank.” (1995). Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 18, 245-270. Web. 26 May 2014.
Lustick, I. S. “For the Land and the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.” New York: Council on Foreign Relations (1988). Web. 26 May 2014.
Maimonides. Trans. Reuven Brauner. “Laws of Kings and Wars” (n.d.): n. pag. TRANSLATION OF THE FINAL CHAPTER OF THE RAMBAM’S MISHNEH TORAH. Raanana Israel (2012). Web. 26 May 2014.
P.J. O’Rourke as qtd. in Peter Berger, “Secularism in Retreat,” National Interest 46 (Winter 1996-1997), pp.11-12. Web. 26 May 2014.
PCBS. "Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics - State of Palestine." Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics - State of Palestine. N.p., 14 May 2013. Web. 26 May 2014.
Reiter, Y. “Options for the Administration of the Holy Places in the Old City of Jerusalem.” (2007) Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (Hebrew). Web. 26 May 2014.
Shapira, A. “Jewishness and Israeliness: A Historical View.” In N.Horowitz (ed.), Religion and Nationalism in Israel and the Middle East. (2002) Tel Aviv: Am Oved and the Yitzhak Rabin Center for Israel Studies, pp. 205-224 (Hebrew). Web. 26 May 2014.