Why the conflict in Israel is theological and not territorial

Anyone who reduces the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a problem of "occupation" or "colonialism" is, consciously or not, reading the Middle East with a Marxist manual in hand. The materialist left, both European and Latin American, interprets any dispute as a class struggle, a confrontation between oppressors and oppressed. That view may serve to analyze strikes or labor injustices, but it fails spectacularly when applied to a conflict whose roots are theological.

In the classical Islamic worldview, the Land of Israel is part of Dar al-Islam (territory of Islam) and, more specifically, is considered part of Wakf al-Islamiya, inalienable religious heritage. According to sharia, any land that has been under Muslim rule is consecrated forever to Islam and can never be legitimately governed by non-Muslims. This principle, collected by jurists such as Al-Mawardi and reinforced by the Hanbali school, is non-negotiable.

Within this framework, Jews and Christians may exist, but only as dhimmis, protected yet subordinate, paying the jizya (Qur'an 9:29) and accepting humiliating limitations: not building new synagogues, not bearing arms, not riding horses, yielding the right of way to Muslims in the street. A sovereign Jewish state is not only illegitimate: it is heretical.

The Pact of Omar, a classical text of Islamic tradition, regulates this submission. This is not an anachronism: Hamas mentions it indirectly in its 1988 Founding Charter and leaders such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi invoke it to justify armed struggle. Hamas's own spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, declared in 1998: "Jihad will continue until all of Palestine is Islamic."

This explains why the stated goal is not only "to liberate the West Bank" but "Palestine, from the river to the sea," a slogan that implies the total disappearance of Israel. This is not a problem of borders, but of existence.

The Western left, trapped in its materialist paradigm, ignores or disregards this religious dimension. It prefers to speak of "colonialism" and "occupation" because that way the conflict fits into the same narrative mold it uses to criticize the U.S., NATO, or multinationals. However, that conceptual blindness has consequences: if the problem is perceived as territorial, the proposed solution will be to divide the land and sign an agreement. Nevertheless, no agreement can change a deeply rooted belief that all the territory belongs to Allah and must be administered by Muslims.

Islam distinguishes between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb (territory of war). Israel, in this view, is Dar al-Harb that must be reconquered through jihad. This mandate is not a mere spiritual metaphor: for radical Islamism, jihad is an obligation (fard 'ayn) for every Muslim when an Islamic territory is "occupied."

For this reason, when Israeli leaders or Western mediators speak of "secure and recognized borders," for Hamas or Islamic Jihad it is as if they are being offered a sin: to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish entity in land they consider Islamic.

The Torah teaches us that clarity is essential. Calling things by their name is a moral duty. Progressivism, by denying the religious nature of the conflict, proposes solutions that, by definition, can't work. Israel is not attacked for what it does, but for what it is: a sovereign Jewish state in the land that radical Islam considers its own by divine mandate.

As long as it is not recognized that the root is theological, we will continue to see peace plans that are dead on arrival. Meanwhile, Israel's response must be twofold: strategic firmness and faithfulness to HaShem's eternal covenant with His people.