Language is shaped around perception and ideas. Language creates our worldview. It is how we communicate with others, but it is also how we construct our beliefs. The media and the movie industry know this fact quite well. Before them, Firaun (Pharoah) used language to distort the idea of truth and falsehood. When Moses (PBUH) came to him with clear guidance and revelation, knowing he could not refute it, Firaun accused him of being a magician or a sorcerer. Not only that, he accused him of spreading disorder and oppression in the land. In this way, he tries to justify his planned action on Moses and the Israelites by first creating falsehood and spreading lies about them.
And Pharaoh said: “Leave it to me to slay Moses – and let him invoke his [alleged] sustainer! Behold, I fear lest he cause you to change your religion, or lest he causes corruption to prevail in the land!”
40:26
Only when Pharoah wins public opinion on Moses and the Israelites will his actions be overlooked. He knew, well before modern media and its branches, that winning the propaganda war was a condition for winning the war on the ground. Of course, we have seen this recently when the blatant lie of “weapons of mass destruction” led to the death of millions of innocent civilians in Iraq.
Going back to language, we can see how the narrative of the conflict in Palestine changes depending on the language used to describe it. The language that was used throughout the conflict, even before 1948, made it seem that it was a struggle between an indigenous people, the Palestinians, and the occupying force, the Zionists. Although Masjid Al-Aqsa plays a significant role in the minds of Muslims, somehow, the conflict in Palestine was reduced to an indigenous people’s plight for a homeland. While this is true, there is no resemblance to any of the previous settler-colonial struggles, such as the one in apartheid South Africa or Northern America. The conflict in Palestine is much more than a struggle between the indigenous people of the land and the settler-colonial Zionist state. It is and should be deemed as a religious conflict.
The religious conflict between Islam and the Zionists was initiated by the Zionists when they declared the right for the Jewish people to return to their promised homeland. From the very beginning, Zionism was fueled by religion as a means to pave the way for the settler-colonial state to establish itself in Palestine. Although the founders of the modern Zionist movement, such as Theodor Herzl, proclaimed themselves as “secular” Jews, they still had a firm belief in the promises of the Torah to the Israelites. In his book “The Jewish State,” he poses the question of which land the Jews should establish a state on. At first, he asks if it should be Argentina or Palestine while listing some advantages of each. When considering Palestine, he remarks, “Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency”. Moreover, the Torah includes many passages that clearly state God’s promise to the Israelites of the “Holy Land.” For example, in the Book of Genesis, God promised Abraham the land to his progeny forever:
I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding, and I will be their God.
Genesis 17:7-8
Establishing a Jewish state in Palestine is ingrained in the Jewish faith and creed. It is essential in Judaism that their state is established in the Levant region, and Jerusalem must be its capital. Moreover, the Torah also speaks about the borders of the Jewish state, which is from the Nile to the Euphrates River, as stated in Genesis 15:18: “ On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates.” These Biblical promises indicate that establishing a state in Palestine is not just a settler-colonial idea but one of faith and belief. Even in major Jewish holidays, such as Passover, the phrase “Next Year in Jerusalem” is often chanted at the end of the Passover Seder, the ritual feast that happens at the beginning of the holiday, indicating Jewish longing to return to Jerusalem and the Holy Land.
During the past few decades, the aggression and ethnic cleansing have seen a sharp increase, partly due to the belief in the Zionist circles that the whole of what is called “Palestine” belonged to them by God-given decree. However, one should not be deceived into thinking that their eyes are only set on Palestine. They have also annexed the Golan Heights and were recently recognized by the United States as part of the State of Israel. These are clear indications that the Zionist expansionary ambitions in the regions are unknown. There is no clear document, speech, or evidence of what is deemed to be the ambitions of what is or should be included in what is known to be Israel. The maps from 1948 until today show that the expansion and the building of settlements increased astronomically with no sight of stopping. Unless this is stopped, we must assume that the ambition of the Zionist state is to establish the Biblical promise of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates.
In an article titled “Israel’s Decisive Plan” by Smotrich, who is the current finance minister of the State of Israel, he argues that the only path to resolve the conflict is to annex the whole area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Essentially, wiping out any ambitions for a Palestinian state:
The territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan is a single geographical and topographical unit, and cannot be divided in a manner that will provide political and national stability. If the territory is divided in any way, with the Arabs receiving their part to realize national ambitions, this will only constitute the first step in their program to destroy the State of Israel—only they will be able to strive toward this ultimate goal from a more convenient position. Therefore, any solution must be based on cutting off the ambition to realize the Arab national hope between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
Smotrich suggests that the Arabs are absorbed into the Jewish state and live as second-class citizens where they have limited rights. They can vote in their municipality to elect people who govern their day-to-day activities. However, there will be no political representation whatsoever for the Arabs. In his own words, he states, “This will preserve the Jewish majority in decision-making in the State of Israel.” Although this article is a political manifesto of how to deal with the ongoing conflict in Palestine, Smotrich clearly states at the beginning of the article his religious inclinations and ambitions to establish the State of Israel as a Biblical promise:
I am a believer. I believe in the Holy One, Blessed Be He; in His love for the Jewish People, and His Providence over them. I believe in the Torah which foretold the exile and promised redemption. I believe in the words of the prophets who witnessed the destruction, and no less in the renewed building that has taken shape before our eyes. I believe that the State of Israel is the beginning of our unfolding redemption, the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Torah, and the visions of the Prophets. I believe in the living connection between the People of Israel and the Land of Israel; in the destiny and mission of the Jewish People for the whole world, and in the vitality of the Land of Israel for ensuring the realization of this cause. I believe that it is no accident that the Land of Israel is flourishing and flowering in the wake of the Jewish return—after so many generations of utter neglect. I believe that the yearning of generations for this land, and the confidence in our ultimate return thereto, are the most profound driving forces of the progression of the Return to Zion which led to the establishment of the State of Israel.
Unless the notion around the conflict takes a different direction and tone, it will not be resolved. The basis of the conflict started as an Arab-Israeli conflict, then it became a Palestine-Israel conflict then, after a few years, the narrative changed to a Palestinian-Israel conflict, and now it is the Hamas-Israel conflict. Throughout the years, the media has constantly and intentionally made the circle smaller on the Palestinian side. First, it was all the Arabs, and now it is between Hamas and Israel. Notice also that the narrative had changed from Palestinians to Palestine. This is also intentional, to erase the idea of a Palestinian state and to reduce it to an indigenous people resisting an existing state of Israel.
Even with these facts, the truth of the matter is that it should not have been an Arab-Israeli conflict. How come the Israeli side built their narrative around faith and a strong belief that they are the owners of the land, while the narrative from the Arabs is that it is an Arabic land? In reality, the basis of the struggle is between two conflicting ideologies, Islam and Zionism. I say Zionism because, as I will explain later, Islam never had a problem with Jews. From the point of view of secular nationalistic ideologies, it is a mere conflict between two people, the Arabs (which fit the secular narrative of “race”) and Jews (which are also viewed by the secular West as a “race” and not just a religion). However, I argue that this conflict is ingrained in religion. It is challenging to disentangle the religious aspect from it. Both Muslims and Jews believe that Al-Aqsa and the area surrounding it is a holy site and that visiting the place and praying in it is a religious desire. However, it seems that the media and public opinion insist that it is an Arab conflict, deflating the reality of the significance of the place to Muslims. I argue that this is done intentionally so as not to spark the emotions of over a billion Muslims and to contain it in the Arab sphere or even reduce it to a Palestinian matter.
For this reason, if Arabs genuinely want to liberate Al-Aqsa from the oppression and injustice it has been enduring since its occupation, they must reframe the conflict in its true light. Arab nationalism is the reason that the Muslims suffered a humiliating defeat in the previous wars, and it will continue to do so unless Islam becomes center stage again. The truth is that Al-Aqsa is a holy site to Muslims and not to Arabs per se, and Arab nationalism does not have a solid argument to back their claims on Palestine as much as the Jews do. For this reason, Masjid Al-Aqsa will remain captive as long as the Muslims frame it in an Arab Nationalist plight to return Arabs to their homeland. It is purely an Islamic cause and should remain that way as much as the Jews have been framing it as being part of their creed and belief.
With that being said, Muslims fully accept the holiness of Jerusalem to both Judaism and Christianity and firmly believe that all faiths should have access to the Holy Land to practice their faith in a free and secure manner. This was the case for most of the time when Jerusalem was under Muslim rule. In fact, when Umar ibn al-Khattab arrived in Jerusalem, he signed a treaty with the Christian Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius. The treaty starts with the following:
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the security which ‘Umar, the servant of God, the commander of the faithful, grants to the people of Aelia. He grants to all, whether sick or sound, security for their lives, their possessions, their churches, and their crosses, and for all that concerns their religion. Their churches shall not be changed into dwelling places, nor destroyed, neither shall they nor their appurtenances be in any way diminished, nor the crosses of the inhabitants nor aught of their possessions, nor shall any constraint be put upon them in the matter of their faith, nor shall any one of them be harmed.
Walker Arnold, Thomas (1913). Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith p. 56.
As a matter of fact, when Jerusalem came under the rule of Muslims during Umar’s time, the Jews were allowed into the city after being prohibited from entering it during the time of the Romans. Salmon ben Yeruhim, one of the Jewish scholars living in Jerusalem at the time, remarked:
As we know, the temple remained in the hands of the Romans for more than 500 years and they did not succeed in entering Jerusalem; and anyone who did and was recognized [as a Jew] was put to death. But when the Romans left it, by the mercy of the God of Israel, and the kingdom of Ishmael was victorious, Israel was permitted to come and to live..
Gil, M. (2010). A history of Palestine, 634-1099. p.70
The dismantling of the Zionist project will not succeed with Arab nationalism, which is similar to Zionism in its racial inclinations. Both ideologies are racist; their foundations are built on a specific race of people. Zionism believes Palestine is solely for the Jews, and others can only live as second-class citizens. Similarly, Arab nationalism prioritizes the plight of Arabs in their ancestorial homeland and prefers Arabs to non-Arabs. On the other hand, Islam does not favor any race over another. It favors justice and, most importantly, preserves the dignity of all people regardless of their religion, race, or ethnicity. This is why the only solution is to return to Islam’s teachings and frame the conflict in its true light: an Islamic cause.