The Palestine Issue & the Role of Religious Leadership

The issue of Palestine was fundamentally a political and geographical conflict, which over time has become a foundation for religious and emotional attachment among Muslims. In this context, religious leadership has played a prominent role over the past several decades by presenting this issue from a specific perspective. This narrative reshaped political conflicts within a religious framework, resulting in severe challenges for the Muslim world, including bloodshed, political instability, and economic difficulties.

The impact of this narrative also strained the Muslim world’s relations with global powers and created the impression of a “clash of civilizations.” Consequently, global powers refrained from trusting Muslim religious leadership, viewing them as a potential threat to global peace. Furthermore, time has proven that whatever resources Muslims had were squandered on ineffective strategies and emotional rhetoric. This situation reflects the complete failure of the religious leadership’s narrative.

Therefore, it is imperative to conduct a realistic analysis of the attitudes of religious leadership. These attitudes are based on the misunderstanding of three fundamental points, which have affected not only the Palestinian struggle but also the overall identity of the Muslim world from every angle.

These three attitudes are as follows:

1. Viewing Political Conflicts Through a Religious Lens Muslim religious leadership framed the Palestine issue within a purely religious context, turning it into a religious war. 2. Dealing with Global Powers Based on Idealism Practical realities of global politics were ignored, and the Palestine issue was presented solely based on history and pure principles of justice. 3. Reviving Past Glory and Denial of Decline Under the dream of restoring the Islamic caliphate and becoming a global power, ground realities were completely disregarded.

Presenting Political Conflicts as Religious Struggles

Religious leadership has consistently framed the Palestinian conflict as a sacred struggle, emphasizing the religious significance of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque to garner public support. By referencing historical agreements, such as those made during the era of Caliph Umar RA, and other instances from Islamic history, the issue was presented as a religious duty, playing a key role in mobilizing the masses.

The most significant drawback of this narrative is its neglect of other critical dimensions of the conflict, such as human rights and social justice. The purely religious framing has undermined political leadership’s efforts to position the issue on the international stage as a human rights matter. According to renowned historian Bernard Lewis, confining political conflicts within a religious framework transforms them from global humanitarian issues into regional religious disputes.²

Furthermore, the religious narrative lacks support from Western civilization, which has evolved within the backdrop of humanism. Edward Said, in his book, argued that presenting the Palestinian cause as a human rights issue could have created opportunities to connect diverse cultures and nations with the issue. However, due to its religious framing, the conflict became irrelevant to a large segment of the international community.¹

In the same vein, Karen Armstrong offers a deep psychological and sociological perspective on this matter. She observes that when a conflict takes on a religious identity, it gains extraordinary intensity and complexity. This is primarily because both sides in a religious conflict view their stance as a battle between “truth and falsehood.” Such a mindset eliminates the possibility of compromise and reconciliation, prolonging and exacerbating the conflict.

Considering the historical background of the land of Palestine, it is evident that the Jewish connection to this land is as ancient and profound as that of Muslims. However, the establishment of Israel was not the result of a religious conquest but a consequence of decisions made by global powers. When viewed objectively, the borders of most nations around the world were determined not based on principles of justice or history but on political expediency. The decision to settle Jews in Palestine was similarly made by the global powers ruling this region at the time. This decision was accepted by the international community, turning it into a political reality.

The conflict essentially involved two primary parties: on one side was the religious leadership of Palestine, and on the other, global political powers supported by the international community. Unfortunately, the Palestinian religious leadership failed to correctly identify these opposing forces. Consequently, the adversary envisioned as one nation or a border-bound entity turned out to be a vast global system and power structure that governs the world.

This situation underscores the importance of viewing conflicts through a pragmatic and political lens rather than a religious one. In political conflicts, involving religion not only hinders reconciliation and understanding but also makes the issues more complex and intractable.

Dealing with Global Powers Based on Idealism

A significant issue with Palestinian leadership has been its unrealistic and idealistic expectations from global powers. Religious leadership and Palestinian leaders presented their stance based on justice, morality, and historical rights, which, although principled, did not align with the realities of international politics.

In international relations, power and interests play a fundamental role, which are not easily swayed by moral arguments alone. For instance, after the 1948 war, Israel secured the support of the Western world, particularly the United States and Europe, which viewed it as a strategic ally. This was part of a strategy to enhance Western influence in the Middle East through Israel to protect their interests in the region.

In contrast, Palestinian leadership relied on principled arguments rather than strengthening diplomatic relations. Noam Chomsky criticized this approach, pointing out that Palestinian leadership needed to take practical steps to establish better relationships with global powers. Instead, their strategy remained confined to accusations of injustice, which international powerhouses largely ignored.³

It is also noteworthy that Palestinian leadership appeared completely unable to comprehend the balance of power in global politics. As a result, they failed to gain complete and unconditional support from other powerful states such as China, Russia, and non-Western nations. Prominent Palestinian scholar Rashid Khalidi has highlighted this critical point in his writings, suggesting that Palestinian leadership should have drawn lessons from South Africa’s freedom movement. South African leaders, understanding the complexities of global diplomatic relations, mobilized international support for their cause and adopted a balanced diplomatic strategy.⁴ Khalidi emphasizes that the Palestinian movement focused predominantly on reactions and aid from the Western world, with little effort made to persuade other global powers to support their stance. This oversight significantly limited the Palestinian movement’s influence in the diplomatic arena.

Had Palestinian leadership better organized diverse international support, it could have built a stronger and more effective diplomatic front for their rights. Countries that have endured colonial oppression, such as China and African nations, could have proven to be more reliable allies for the Palestinian cause. However, instead of strengthening these relationships, religious leadership pursued the dream of change through armed struggle. Consequently, the Palestinian leadership’s efforts were not as effective on the global stage as South Africa’s movement.

Revival of Past Glory and Denial of Decline

The defeats in the wars of 1948, 1967, and 1973 at the hands of Israel clearly demonstrated that the existing strategies of resistance were incapable of altering the balance of power. Despite this, Palestinian religious leadership continued to rely on armed struggle as their primary strategy, even though the ground realities consistently showed that the balance of power was always in Israel’s favor. This resistance not only inflicted immense human and material losses on the Palestinian people but also provided Israel with justification for its actions.

During this time, Israel achieved remarkable progress in fields such as science, technology, defense, and agriculture. Its economy, often referred to as a “startup nation,” has cemented its place globally, demonstrating its technological superiority and robust economic foundation. According to the renowned philosopher Yuval Noah Harari, modern wars and power dynamics are shaped by advancements in technology and artificial intelligence, areas where the Muslim world lags significantly behind other nations.⁵

For a long time, Palestinian religious leadership held onto the dream that if all Muslim countries united, they could defeat Israel. This leadership continued to assure the Palestinian people that the collective strength of the Muslim Ummah could overpower Israel, just as Muslims had defeated various nations in the past. However, the ground realities painted a starkly different picture. The Muslim world is not only weak in global politics but also lags far behind the Western world and Israel in economic, scientific, and military domains. Acting on this dream proved not only unrealistic but also deprived Muslims of an understanding of their current standing and genuine challenges.

Today, Israel’s per capita GDP surpasses that of many Muslim countries, and its economy is deeply intertwined with major global powers. On the other hand, the Muslim world collectively plays a limited role in the global economy and remains dependent on major powers, which steadfastly support Israel. Ignoring this reality, the religious leadership propagated the notion that armed struggle was the only path to success. However, given the current circumstances, recognizing the global balance of power and strengthening resources through scientific and economic progress was far more essential for advancing the Palestinian cause.

Furthermore, the armed struggle led by Palestinian leadership provided Israel with a new justification for its objectives. Under the guise of securing its existence, Israel not only pursued territorial expansion but also garnered international support for it. Following World War II, the global powers shaped the current international order and made Israel’s survival one of their primary responsibilities. Consequently, these powers used all available resources to block every avenue of Palestinian resistance, further compounding the challenges faced by the Palestinian people.

The emotional rhetoric of Palestinian religious leadership and the dream of reviving past glory proved to be not only unrealistic but also obstructed the Palestinian people from adopting effective strategies aligned with global realities.

In our view, the tragedy of the Palestinian issue is not merely a conflict over land and power but also the story of the destruction of generations and their dreams. The attitudes of religious leadership have brought the situation to a point where even the two-state solution has become a distant dream. Palestinian leadership’s unrealistic strategies inadvertently provided global justification for all of Israel’s expansionist actions. The recent actions of Hamas have further exacerbated the situation. As a result, Palestine has faced severe and destructive attacks, and Israel has nearly eradicated its practical standing.

Traditional allies like Iran, Lebanon, and Syria have also withdrawn their active support for religious leadership, leaving Palestinians more isolated. This genocide is a tragic reality, the greatest lesson of which is that Muslims sacrificed what they had achieved on the altar of flawed strategies, illusions of grandeur, and ineffective armed resistance.

Now, even the dream of a two-state solution seems to have lost its relevance, and the prospects for peace have narrowed to a single-state solution. It is time to abandon emotional slogans and unrealistic dreams and adopt a strategy that ensures the survival, dignity, and future of the Palestinian people. This is not merely a battle over land but a fight for humanity, demanding a new path forged with wisdom and pragmatism. Otherwise, the struggle of the Palestinian people will be recorded in the annals of history as yet another tragic tale.