Can the Conflict be Resolved?

The Arab-Israeli conflict is a manifestation of Huntington’s “clash of civilizations.” The key to this conflict is not reconciliation of certain territorial disputes but the persistent refusal of the Islamic world to accept basic historical facts regarding the Jewish people and the land of Israel. This conflict is part of the ideological dispute between Islam and Western civilization. It is based on three Islamic premises that are incompatible with our culture:

1. Islam-driven aggression – Jihad. A religious obligation of Muslims is to spread their religion by the sword. This is how imperialistic Islam spread out to create a conglomerate of Islamic kingdoms that range today from Morocco to Indonesia and from Nigeria to Iran. Jihad for practicing Muslims is a righteous obligatory war.  Muslim warriors killed in a Jihad are believed to be handsomely rewarded in the world to come.  Muslims who follow the Qur’an are, therefore, in a perpetual state of holy war against “infidels,” though that war may be interrupted by periods of truce (not peace!) needed for regrouping.  Deceit and violation of treaties with infidels are permissible according to Islam in “just” wars aimed to manifest the supremacy of the faith, as are violations of most of Western war ethics, e.g., the intentional killing of non-combatants (even of Muslims) is sanctioned if it helps to defeat infidels. We have seen this lately in Israel and in Iraq.   Finally, there is the Islamic notion that any territory conquered by Muslims belongs to Muslims for perpetuity; if repossessed by others, it must be recaptured by Muslims in any way possible. Failure to do so humiliates Muslims, according to their world view.

2. Islamic supremacy. Muslims consider themselves superior to people of all other religious persuasions. This implies that wherever Muslims gain sovereignty, people of other faiths cannot enjoy equal civil rights. People of other faiths must then be humiliated i.e., discriminated, according to Islamic law, and their places of warship are to be destroyed or denigrated.  To prove the supremacy of Islam over other religions, Muslims often convert shrines or sacred sites of other religions, conquered by Muslims, into mosques. This was done to the Ka’aba in Mecca, the Temple mount in Jerusalem, the Hagia Sofia in Constantinople, as well as to thousands of other shrines in Syria, Asia Minor, Persia, Serbia, Kosovo, Spain and India. Islamic religious supremacy is reminiscent of Nazi racial supremacy. Like the latter, it is associated with fascism, because Islam, like Nazism or Communism, does not allow its masses to question, not to say criticize or object the dictates of the regime (see contemporary Iran or Saudia).  Notwithstanding a “democratic” façade (also the USSR held elections and so did also Arafat, Saddam and Mubarak), Islamic supremacy is evidently an antithesis to Western democracy.

3. Denial of pre-Islamic history. For Muslims history seems to start in the year of the Hegrah (622 AD). All historical events that preceded Mohammad belong to the “period of ignorance”, the period of pre-Islamic barbarism, which is irrelevant to Muslims.  Thus Jewish history from the days of Exodus through the periods of the Judges and the Jewish kingdoms of the First Temple is non-existent for Muslims, as is the period of the Second Temple and the rise of Christianity. All these are not historical facts, according to Muslims, but myths invented by Zionist Jews in order to claim ownership of “Arab Palestine.” According to Islamic “historians,” today’s Jews are descendents of pagan converts who lived in Eastern Europe. They have no ethnic relation to the Biblical “true Muslims” namely, Moses, Aaron, Miriam, David and Jesus, mentioned in the Qur’an. Jesus was a “Palestinian Muslim” according to these “scholars,” and David was an early Muslim prophet... The Qur’an also states that the Jews are descendents of apes and pigs. We could have laughed at these ridiculous assertions were they not taught to date as facts in Islamic schools all over the world. Other aspects of ancient history, including Greek, Roman and Persian chronicles, are likewise virtually non-existent for Muslims, since they were not mentioned in the Qur’an. In any case, since Jews are considered subhuman beings (reminiscent of Nazi propaganda) and the Bible in Muslim view is essentially a Jewish myth, Jews have no right to live on “Arab land” i.e., land conquered by Arabs; except perhaps as second-rate citizens humiliated and subjugated by Muslims.  

In brief, Islamic narrow historical perspective is incompatible with modern Western historical viewpoint, which is based as much as possible on scientifically irrefutable facts.  Unlike Western science that did not hesitate to critically analyze the Bible and try to reconcile it with archeological hard evidence, Muslims are not permitted to analyze the Qur’an, on penalty of being beheaded.

These three ideological differences are the root causes of the century-old Arab-Israeli conflict. Arab anti-Jewish aggression is a holy war to reconquer “stolen” “Arab land.”  To be defeated by the Israelis, or be controlled by them (the notorious “Israeli occupation”), is tremendously humiliating to Muslims especially since Jews are considered by the Qur’an as subhuman beings. The Arab defeats in the 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars were not just failed military campaigns; they were unacceptable primarily from an ideological Islamic viewpoint. They were far more humiliating to Muslims than just the loss of troops, materiel and territory. These defeats must be reversed, they say, less Islam is proven impotent and worthless. Islamic supremacy is thus at stake. The war aimed to eradicate Israel is therefore a holy war if there ever was one. Jews, Muslims say, have no right whatsoever to this “Arab land” and all their claims are fictitious. Consequently, according to Arab militants like members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah, Israeli Jews are foreign colonialists that must be driven out of Arab lands.

Since ideological conflicts cannot be settled by compromise – one cannot split these differences as one could in a territorial dispute, the Arab-Israeli discord cannot be resolved at this point in time. Peace with the Muslims is not less illusive than waiting for the Messiah.  The very best we can hope for is curbing Muslim violence by making it as costly as possible for the aggressor.  Loss of “Arab land” is the greatest loss that can be inflicted on the Arabs, because it is a lasting manifestation of their impotence. Consequently, conceding “Arab land” to the Muslims is the greatest prize they can achieve for their aggression. Territorial concessions inevitably encourage perpetuation of Islamic holy war. This is why Sharon’s unconditional retreat from Gaza has been such a terrible blunder, in addition to all its other appalling outcomes. 

Islamic terrorism feeds on its successes. Each success, be it 9/11, the Spanish retreat from Iraq, or Sharon’s retreat from Gaza, enables the Muslim terrorists to recruit more people and intensify their bloody assaults. Without successful attacks they will wither. So they will undoubtedly continue and intensify their attacks when successful. Moderate Muslims will not control the terrorists amongst them as long as Islamic terror pays off, irrespective of the costs in human lives on both sides. The way to fight Islamic terrorism is neither to try preventing it, which is virtually impossible, nor to point out its cruelty, which is actually emboldening Muslim terrorists (see the videotapes of Bin Laden and Zarqawi) because of the different value system of Islam, but by making it futile and counterproductive. Fighting Islamic terrorism is to curb recruitment, i.e., fighting their indoctrination in schools and mosques, and cutting off financial support to terrorist organizations. This would be far more effective than temporary disarming or even jailing known individual terrorists. The roots of Islamic aggression are in Islamic schools and mosques. This is where those roots could be cut, and terrorism starved and decimated in the long run. Current American and Israeli anti-terrorist efforts are therefore bound to fail, and Islamic terrorism will likely continue unabated.

We cannot win the ideological war with the vast world of Islam. We must, therefore, be satisfied if we just succeed to defang its aggression. This is why it is crucial to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear bombs. There is a silver lining, however. Islamic illusionary supremacist dogmatism, which drives Jihadism, is also the reason for the lasting weakness and incompetence of Muslims. As long as intrinsically frozen Islam is maintained, it cannot compete with the vibrant, non-dogmatic Western culture. Even in the West we saw the failure of dogmatic communism in competition with capitalistic free enterprise. The worse that may happen to the West is sporadic damage by terrorism, which can be repaired, as we saw after 9/11 or the terror attacks in Israel and the UK. 

We must realize that unyielding persistence rather than concessions is the name of the game in the global clash of civilizations. Any concession to terrorism anywhere on this globe emboldens terrorism everywhere else.  Notwithstanding the accolades Sharon received at the UN from some traditional foes of Israel, Israel should realize that its concessions to terrorism compromise the stance of entire Western civilization. Israel’s very survival depends on the realization of the disastrous consequences of pursuing an unattainable lasting peace with the Muslims, as long as traditional Islam remains dominant.

Michael Anbar

September 18, 2005