By Alexandra Judge
The Israel-Palestine conflict is often described as a political and territorial dispute shaped by history, security, nationalism, and displacement. Yet, over time, another powerful dimension has emerged: religion. While not the origin of the conflict, religion has become its most enduring and emotionally potent justification. Today, sacred narratives surrounding land, identity, and justice are increasingly shaping public discourse and hardening political positions on both sides of the issue. Religion, in this sense, functions as a powerful amplifier of the conflict’s rigidity, providing spiritual legitimacy to nationalist ambitions and moral weight to political grievance. In doing so, religion not only deepens the emotional stakes of the conflict but also makes compromise feel like betrayal.
To understand this phenomenon, it’s helpful to revisit the “Greed and Grievance” framework by Collier and Hoeffler (2004), traditionally used to analyse civil wars. In the context of Israel-Palestine, “greed” aligns with Israeli expansionism, particularly post-1967 settlement policies justified by religious-Zionist interpretations. “Grievance” reflects the Palestinian experience of dispossession, statelessness, and occupation, now increasingly framed through narratives of sacred resistance, jihad, and martyrdom (Gorenberg, 2006; Hroub, 2014). Crucially, religion blurs the boundaries between these categories, transforming strategic interests into divine imperatives. For settlers, the land becomes Eretz Yisrael: not merely territory but sacred inheritance. For many Palestinians, resistance becomes a holy duty, especially in the defence of al-Aqsa Mosque. Compromise, in this context, feels more like betrayal than diplomacy (Appleby, 2003).
This theological entrenchment fuels a dangerous cycle of religious radicalism. Movements such as Gush Emunim and the Hilltop Youth frame illegal settlements as prophetic fulfilment (Ravitzky, 1996; Inbari, 2009). On the Palestinian side, Hamas and Islamic Jihad present resistance not just as a political duty, but as a sacred commandment (Hafez, 2003). These movements are not isolated. They form a mutually reinforcing ecosystem where each side’s extremism is used to legitimise the other’s. Israeli officials point to religious militancy in Gaza to reject peace negotiations. Palestinian leaders invoke settler violence to justify armed resistance. Within this cycle, the rhetoric of divine struggle drowns out pragmatic dialogue, marginalising moderate voices (Juergensmeyer, 2017).
Some efforts have been made to repurpose religion for the sake of reconciliation. Shared moral principles exist across the Abrahamic faiths. Grassroots initiatives, such as the Interfaith Encounter Association and Rabbis for Human Rights, attempt to draw on these principles to foster empathy and cooperation (Landau, 2003; Kaplan, 2013). Furthermore, concepts from within Islamic and Jewish traditions have been utilised in other post-conflict settings to aid societies in healing when legal structures fail (Philpott, 2015; Tutu, 2000). However, such initiatives face deep limitations. Religious peacebuilding is often local, marginalised, or co-opted by state actors seeking to depoliticise more profound injustices. Interfaith projects can be perceived as elite, disconnected, or hesitant to name structural violence. Western donors, in particular, have tended to support “dialogue” initiatives that avoid uncomfortable political realities, including occupation and asymmetric use of force. As a result, religion-as-reconciliation sometimes risks sanitising the conflict rather than resolving it.
These theological dynamics are further complicated by the role of external actors and the international legal system’s failure to uphold its own standards. While international law, including the Geneva Conventions and rulings by the International Court of Justice, clearly defines the illegality of settlements and the protection of civilians, enforcement remains deeply inconsistent (United Nations, 2024). Western powers, particularly the United States, have repeatedly shielded Israel from accountability, creating a vacuum of legal legitimacy. This failure of international institutions has contributed to pushing both sides toward religious frameworks for justice. Here, divine law supersedes human law, and grievance is interpreted not in legal terms but in sacred ones (Amnesty, 2025; Ibsais, 2024).
Religion did not start the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it has become one of its most potent and dangerous reinforcements. It sanctifies land, moralises suffering, and makes diplomacy seem spiritually corrupt. Its fusion with nationalism and violence has transformed what could be a territorial dispute into a cosmic struggle beyond negotiation. If there is any hope for faith to play a constructive role, it must come with humility, self-criticism, and structural honesty. Religion cannot substitute for justice. A theology of peace that avoids confronting power imbalance, occupation, or legal impunity becomes complicit.
Until international law is consistently applied and structural injustices addressed, faith will continue to be more often a tool of division than reconciliation. Sacred narratives can bind communities, but without accountability, they will continue to entrench the deadlock.
References
Amnesty. (2025, April 22). Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Retrieved from Amnesty International: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/israel-and-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/report-israel-and-the-occupied-palestinian-territory/
Appleby, R. S. (2003). The ambivalence of the sacred: Religion, violence, and reconciliation. Pro Ecclesia, 116-118.
Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers, 563-595.
Gorenberg, G. (2006). The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977. New York City: Times Books.
Hafez, M. M. (2003). Why Muslims rebel: Repression and resistance in the Islamic world. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Hroub, K. (2014). Hamas: Political Thought and Practice. Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies.
Ibsais, A. (2024, December 12). ‘International law’ is an illusion for Palestinians. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/12/international-law-palestine-liberation
Inbari, M. (2009). Jewish fundamentalism and the Temple Mount: Who will build the Third Temple? Albany: SUNY Press.
Juergensmeyer, M. (2017). Terror in the mind of God: The global rise of religious violence. Vol. 13. California: University of California Press.
Kaplan, D. E. (2013). The New Reform Judaism: Challenges and Reflections. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Landau, Y. (2003). Healing the Holy Land – Interreligious Peacebuilding in Israel/Palestine. Washington: United States Institute of Peace.
Philpott, D. (2015). Just and unjust peace: An ethic of political reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ravitzky, A. (1996). Messianism, Zionism, and Jewish religious radicalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tutu, D. (2000). No future without forgiveness. Fellowship, 18.
United Nations. (2024, June 12). Israeli authorities and Palestinian armed groups are responsible for war crimes, other grave violations of international law, UN Inquiry finds. Retrieved from United Nations: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/06/israeli-authorities-palestinian-armed-groups-are-responsible-war-crimes
