They’re explicitly fighting to establish a Muslim theocracy, under sharia law.
It’s not akin to something like the American revolution, where you had a number of religious people fighting to establish a secular country.
It’s more like the Maccabean revolt against the Selucids, where the Jewish leaders were the priests, and ended with the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty where the high priest became king.
Would you really argue that the Maccabean revolt had nothing to do with religion?
That’s fair. Religion can be a very important part of both identities.
However, I would like to stress that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not directly motivated by religious differences. As in, it’s not a case of “their religion is different! GET EM!”. The direct problem isn’t that the other side has a different religion, it’s that the other side essentially has competing land claims, and a competing nationalist vision.
Since religion is an important part of Hamas’ identity (and possibly of some factions in Israel, I’d guess), that affects how each side frames the conflict, and what some of their means and ends are. But the key issues of the conflict have to do with things like land borders and economic conditions.
The direct problem isn’t that the other side has a different religion, it’s that the other side essentially has competing land claims, and a competing nationalist vision.
Right.
But those nationalist visions aren’t entirely secular in origin. For both Hamas and religious zionists, they’re rooted in their religion.
This isn’t religiously motivated violence the same way that the Spanish Inquisition was. But religion is pretty deeply baked into the conflict, in some very important ways.
This isn’t religiously motivated violence the same way that the Spanish Inquisition was. But religion is pretty deeply baked into the conflict, in some very important ways.
Hamas’s goals are both political and religious.
They’re explicitly fighting to establish a Muslim theocracy, under sharia law.
It’s not akin to something like the American revolution, where you had a number of religious people fighting to establish a secular country.
It’s more like the Maccabean revolt against the Selucids, where the Jewish leaders were the priests, and ended with the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty where the high priest became king.
Would you really argue that the Maccabean revolt had nothing to do with religion?
That’s fair. Religion can be a very important part of both identities.
However, I would like to stress that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not directly motivated by religious differences. As in, it’s not a case of “their religion is different! GET EM!”. The direct problem isn’t that the other side has a different religion, it’s that the other side essentially has competing land claims, and a competing nationalist vision.
Since religion is an important part of Hamas’ identity (and possibly of some factions in Israel, I’d guess), that affects how each side frames the conflict, and what some of their means and ends are. But the key issues of the conflict have to do with things like land borders and economic conditions.
Right.
But those nationalist visions aren’t entirely secular in origin. For both Hamas and religious zionists, they’re rooted in their religion.
This isn’t religiously motivated violence the same way that the Spanish Inquisition was. But religion is pretty deeply baked into the conflict, in some very important ways.
You know? I think that sums it up nicely.