Cosmic Dualism and Religious Violence: Perceptions of Conflict and Peace in Israel- Palestine.
The conflict in Israel- Palestine has embodied a complex number of political, religious and social issues which has obscured exactly what factors are pervasive barriers to peace. Analyses of the case have blamed tensions upon territorial disputes, social grievances and political struggles; however I argue the underpinning clash is that of fundamentalist religious ideology. Religious violence has characterised the conflict and understanding the role of such violence is essential. I argue that the conflict could be resolvable if not for the presence of hardline religious activist that exemplify an uncompromising and perpetual struggle for religious ‘rights’. Such attitudes are not necessarily a homogenous indication of either side of the divide, but they do present the greatest obstacles for peace.
I will initially outline a brief history of the conflict to position the issues in a historical context and further state the competing religious perspectives that shape hardline attitudes. I will focus upon religious Zionism in relation to Israel and Hamas as representing the national- Islamist movement for Palestine. I acknowledge that neither group characterise a complete understanding of the conflict, but represent the fundamentalist agenda. Furthermore, I will position the perceptions of each group within the concept of ‘cosmic war’ and argue that the conflict is locked into a dualistic struggle between religious truths. The assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzkah Rabin and Hama’s 1988 charter signify this cosmic war. Finally, I will discuss how cosmic dualism actively prohibits negotiation or compromise which limits the scope for peace in Israel and Palestine.
Historical and Religious Perspectives
The conflict in Israel- Palestine is highly complex and multifaceted with somewhat ambiguous origins and motivations. Providing an accurate account of the conflict history is challenging considering the multiple historical narratives that have been manipulated to support each warring party. An understanding of the conflict history must consider the absence of ‘historical truths’ (Pappe 2004: 2). Thus, I will focus upon broad themes of the conflict with reference to significant events and in particular, their religious implications. Human occupation of Israel- Palestine dates back around one hundred thousand years with the first Hebrew groups appearing around second millennium BCE (Burr and Smith 2007: 191). However, the contemporary conflict arguably started following the Second World War as Jewish refugees began to flock to Palestine to claim their ‘homeland’ and the state of Israel was created in 1948 (Burr and Smith 2007: 203). Despite the United Nations partition plan that already favoured Jewish settlements, Israel was expanded to control 42% more territory than was allotted which allowed Israel to claim 78% of Palestinian territory (Burr and Smith 2007: 203). This instigated years of conflict as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced and Israel defended their newly created state. Evidently, the initial conflict is based upon territorial rights and nationalism; however the most destructive aspect has religious origins.
The dominant modes of religious conflict are concerned with religious Zionism and Palestinian- Islamic groups. However, neither of these groups are homogenous and are represented by a variety of organisations which presents a challenge for analysing religious violence. To contextualise the two opposing views, I will examine how religious fundamentalists impact upon the conflict. Zionism is concerned with maintaining Jewish culture, language, identity and institutions which shapes the foundations of Israel’s state ideology (Smooha 2002: 485). Burr and Smith identify four types of Zionism; the hardline Zionist groups are generally ‘Religious Zionists’ who claim Israeli territory under biblical justifications and look to acquire the land in its entirety (2007: 190). The objective of religious Zionism is to attain their rightful settlement as sanctioned by God. This ideology informed the initial creation of Israel and is a view held by the current Israeli government in addition to civilian fundamentalist groups.
The religious opposition to Jewish Zionism and therefore, the state of Israel was the Muslim Brotherhood (Burr and Smith 2007: 203). During the First Intifada in 1987 Hamas was created; a splinter group from the Muslim Brotherhood for the purpose of engaging in active resistance. It is important to understand that Hamas was not the first Palestinian terrorist organisation, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) was already active, but Hamas constituted the first major Islamist organisation (Abu- Amr 1993: 5). Their 1988 covenant religiously opposes the Jewish right to territory and advocates for the violent destruction of Israel (Herzog 2006: 84- 5). Hamas represents an amalgamation of religious violence and political interests and is widely regarded as a terrorist organisation. However, in 2006 Hamas dominated the Palestinian elections and won a clear majority vote (Gunning 2008: 1). In terms of examining religious violence, it is interesting to note that conflict upon a religious basis became central a mere twenty- two years ago. The tensions that emanated from the imposition of Israel and the domination of Zionists over Palestinians (Pappe 2004: 12) have transcended to another level.
Cosmic War
Understanding the deep rooted religious hatreds evident in the Israel- Palestinian conflict is essential for pursuing a peaceful resolution. The concept of ‘cosmic war’ provides context and meaning to the conflict to highlight exactly why the religious struggle is relevant and pervasive. Juergensmeyer positions the concept of ‘cosmic war’ as a major explanation for religious violence, as warring parties place their struggle in divine terms (2003: 149). He outlines how a conflict can be understood as ‘cosmic’ if the confrontation is in defence of identity, a loss is ‘unthinkable’ and cannot be resolved in ‘real terms’ (Juergensmeyer 2003: 160- 1). Essentially the war transcends, although is not necessarily isolated from, political and social grievances. Dualism is also important as each party contends they are defending religious truth which demonises the ‘other’ (Larsson 2004: 112). The condition of cosmic dualism is its appeals to meta-truths and is absolute in nature. Ellens describes this relationship, by stating:
“Cosmic good and transcendental evil are depicted as being in mortal combat on the battlefields of our political policy, our international relations, our social values, and our spiritual quests in the arena of the human heart” (2007: 4).
This battle is premised upon the dichotomies of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, as groups engage in violent conflict to defend their god and therefore, what they perceive as ‘good’ (Ellens 2007: 5). Conflicts of such proportions embody a concept of religious violence that appears both perpetual and hopeless as parties fight to defend a cause beyond reality. The idea that religious beliefs are locked in a violent cosmic battle that transcends human suffering is sickening, dangerous and very real. This analytical lens can facilitate understanding of the Israel- Palestine conflict.
Israel- Palestine’s Cosmic War
In examining the role of cosmic war theory in the conflict it must be understood that neither side of the religious divide homogenously adhere to this ideology. I argue that only the fundamentalists hold genuine and pervasive views that correlate with the concept of cosmic war. The evidence of cosmic dualism is best understood in relation to the previously discussed groups of hardline Zionists and Hamas.
A major indication that cosmic dualism is evident within the Israeli cause is the assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzkah Rabin. In 1995, Rabin was shot by a Jewish activist who opposed Rabin’s commitment to fostering peaceful relations with the Palestinians (Peleg 1997: 277). Rabin had been engaging in dialogue with the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat and was formulating a compromise regarding territory and prospects for coexistence (Juergensmeyer 2003: 157). The activist, Yoel Lerner was a religious Zionist who would accept nothing less than the completion of the Israeli state, considering Rabin’s peaceful policies as anti- Jewish and a betrayal (Juergensmeyer 2003: 49). Peleg examines the motivations behind the assassination in terms of religious Zionism and considers a ‘sense of deception’ as the catalyst for violent struggle (1997: 230). The increasingly secular developments in Israeli politics as highlighted by Rabin’s engagement with Palestinians, was seen to contradict the creation of Israel. In considering this notion, Ranstorp offers a perception of religious violence that is concerned with religious identity; terrorists often feel required to maintain their religious identity through violent demonstration (1996: 46). Similarly, Juergensmeyer discusses how political struggles are transformed through the application of religious beliefs to reject secularism (1997: 18). Rabin’s assassination exemplifies how cosmic dualism shapes the fundamentalist understanding of the conflict; the advancements made towards peace were considered unacceptable. His actions were considered contradictory to the Jewish cause and therefore, to the defence of religious truth.
Hamas represent the Islamic- national opposition to Israel and have drawn their ideology into the cosmic war framework. The militant wing of Hamas has been responsible for innumerable terrorist attacks, the majority of which have killed Israeli civilians (Herzog 2006: 85). As previously described, Hamas refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist and has pursued a relentless campaign against the Jewish state (Juergensmeyer 2003: 150). The group has been somewhat ambiguous as the original Charter calls for Israel to be replaced by an Islamic state (Abu- Amr 1993: 12) but more recently, the group has hinted at a more moderate stance including negotiation with Israel (Klein 2007: 442). However, one concept has been made absolutely clear: Hamas will not recognised Israel as a Jewish state. The cosmic implications of the conflict have remained and constitute the core of Hamas- Israeli relations. Former leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated that the Islamic- Arab war with Israeli facilitated the need for Hamas (Juergensmeyer 2003: 150). In this context, it appears that Hamas represent religious ideology that shapes the cosmic war; the violence that Hamas has instigated was in direct response to the need for a group to defend and represent Palestinian Muslims. The creation of Hamas transformed the conflict from territorial and political disputes towards an intense religious battle. The Palestinian struggle was fundamentally redefined with the introduction of a major religious player who explicitly based their doctrine in religious opposition to Israel.
Possibilities for Peace
The scope for a peaceful resolution in Israel- Palestine is limited by the concept of cosmic warfare. In recalling Juergensmeyer’s conditions for cosmic war, both sides of the religious divide are defending their identity, cannot accept defeat nor can the conflict be solved without the destruction of one or both. In the context of cosmic dualism, compromise is not possible; the war is fundamentally absolutist. The state of war will continue until one reigns over the other and ‘universal peace’ is recognised (Larsson 2004: 116). Understanding peace is just as crucial as understanding violence; a cessation of violence does not always translate to peace, as cosmic wars are concerned with absolute victory. The compromise devised between Rabin and Arafat was rejected by the fundamentalist on both sides (Juergensmeyer 2003: 157).
I argue that genuine and sustainable peace is stalled by uncompromising, narrow minded and narcissistic hardliners that refuse to consider the conflict holistically. Instead, fundamentalists prefer to focus upon a grand cosmic narrative that disregards the destruction and tragic consequences of violence. Killing in the name of God, whichever one that may be, is more important than building peace and negotiating political disputes. This precise attitude dooms Israel- Palestine to perpetual war until one can triumph over the other or they mutually destruct. Peace will be impossible until hardliners from both sides open their eyes to reality and embrace humanity rather than ideology.
Conclusion
Religious violence has devastated Israeli- Palestine and is based upon a fundamentalist rhetoric that does not necessarily resonate with the civilian population at large. I have discussed religious perspectives in a historical context to emphasise that fundamentalism emanated from a multitude of issues. It is apparent that religious views have transcended into a ‘cosmic war’ which perpetuates the ultimate dualism between ‘good’ and ‘evil’. However, what is clear is that such an absolutist perception is not widely held by either side; religious Zionists and Palestinian Islamic group, Hamas are the dominant groups that adhere to such perspectives. This was epitomised by the assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzkah Rabin by a Jewish activist looking to reinstate religious Zionism as the primary ideology of Israel. Similarly, Hamas’ 1988 charter explicitly states that Israel must be destroyed if there is to be Palestinian victory. The concept of cosmic dualism has shaped violent religious acts and prevents a meaningful peace process.
‘Peace’ is a fickle concept; individuals and groups have different, sometimes contradictory perceptions of peace and how it should be achieved. Moreover, there isn’t an overarching framework that determines which kind of peace is correct or justified and whether it is even possible. The alternative to complete peace is resolution or coexistence; however this may not be possible either given that one view of peace may not include the existence of the other. This is the vicious cycle that Israel- Palestine is caught within and religious fundamentalists accept that their idea of peace will ultimately embrace destruction and suffering. Such a mentality must be broken for the conflict to end; a seemingly impossible task which will require the will of the people to value human life over fighting for a religious deity.
REFERENCE LIST
The conflict in Israel- Palestine has embodied a complex number of political, religious and social issues which has obscured exactly what factors are pervasive barriers to peace. Analyses of the case have blamed tensions upon territorial disputes, social grievances and political struggles; however I argue the underpinning clash is that of fundamentalist religious ideology. Religious violence has characterised the conflict and understanding the role of such violence is essential. I argue that the conflict could be resolvable if not for the presence of hardline religious activist that exemplify an uncompromising and perpetual struggle for religious ‘rights’. Such attitudes are not necessarily a homogenous indication of either side of the divide, but they do present the greatest obstacles for peace.
I will initially outline a brief history of the conflict to position the issues in a historical context and further state the competing religious perspectives that shape hardline attitudes. I will focus upon religious Zionism in relation to Israel and Hamas as representing the national- Islamist movement for Palestine. I acknowledge that neither group characterise a complete understanding of the conflict, but represent the fundamentalist agenda. Furthermore, I will position the perceptions of each group within the concept of ‘cosmic war’ and argue that the conflict is locked into a dualistic struggle between religious truths. The assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzkah Rabin and Hama’s 1988 charter signify this cosmic war. Finally, I will discuss how cosmic dualism actively prohibits negotiation or compromise which limits the scope for peace in Israel and Palestine.
Historical and Religious Perspectives
The conflict in Israel- Palestine is highly complex and multifaceted with somewhat ambiguous origins and motivations. Providing an accurate account of the conflict history is challenging considering the multiple historical narratives that have been manipulated to support each warring party. An understanding of the conflict history must consider the absence of ‘historical truths’ (Pappe 2004: 2). Thus, I will focus upon broad themes of the conflict with reference to significant events and in particular, their religious implications. Human occupation of Israel- Palestine dates back around one hundred thousand years with the first Hebrew groups appearing around second millennium BCE (Burr and Smith 2007: 191). However, the contemporary conflict arguably started following the Second World War as Jewish refugees began to flock to Palestine to claim their ‘homeland’ and the state of Israel was created in 1948 (Burr and Smith 2007: 203). Despite the United Nations partition plan that already favoured Jewish settlements, Israel was expanded to control 42% more territory than was allotted which allowed Israel to claim 78% of Palestinian territory (Burr and Smith 2007: 203). This instigated years of conflict as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced and Israel defended their newly created state. Evidently, the initial conflict is based upon territorial rights and nationalism; however the most destructive aspect has religious origins.
The dominant modes of religious conflict are concerned with religious Zionism and Palestinian- Islamic groups. However, neither of these groups are homogenous and are represented by a variety of organisations which presents a challenge for analysing religious violence. To contextualise the two opposing views, I will examine how religious fundamentalists impact upon the conflict. Zionism is concerned with maintaining Jewish culture, language, identity and institutions which shapes the foundations of Israel’s state ideology (Smooha 2002: 485). Burr and Smith identify four types of Zionism; the hardline Zionist groups are generally ‘Religious Zionists’ who claim Israeli territory under biblical justifications and look to acquire the land in its entirety (2007: 190). The objective of religious Zionism is to attain their rightful settlement as sanctioned by God. This ideology informed the initial creation of Israel and is a view held by the current Israeli government in addition to civilian fundamentalist groups.
The religious opposition to Jewish Zionism and therefore, the state of Israel was the Muslim Brotherhood (Burr and Smith 2007: 203). During the First Intifada in 1987 Hamas was created; a splinter group from the Muslim Brotherhood for the purpose of engaging in active resistance. It is important to understand that Hamas was not the first Palestinian terrorist organisation, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) was already active, but Hamas constituted the first major Islamist organisation (Abu- Amr 1993: 5). Their 1988 covenant religiously opposes the Jewish right to territory and advocates for the violent destruction of Israel (Herzog 2006: 84- 5). Hamas represents an amalgamation of religious violence and political interests and is widely regarded as a terrorist organisation. However, in 2006 Hamas dominated the Palestinian elections and won a clear majority vote (Gunning 2008: 1). In terms of examining religious violence, it is interesting to note that conflict upon a religious basis became central a mere twenty- two years ago. The tensions that emanated from the imposition of Israel and the domination of Zionists over Palestinians (Pappe 2004: 12) have transcended to another level.
Cosmic War
Understanding the deep rooted religious hatreds evident in the Israel- Palestinian conflict is essential for pursuing a peaceful resolution. The concept of ‘cosmic war’ provides context and meaning to the conflict to highlight exactly why the religious struggle is relevant and pervasive. Juergensmeyer positions the concept of ‘cosmic war’ as a major explanation for religious violence, as warring parties place their struggle in divine terms (2003: 149). He outlines how a conflict can be understood as ‘cosmic’ if the confrontation is in defence of identity, a loss is ‘unthinkable’ and cannot be resolved in ‘real terms’ (Juergensmeyer 2003: 160- 1). Essentially the war transcends, although is not necessarily isolated from, political and social grievances. Dualism is also important as each party contends they are defending religious truth which demonises the ‘other’ (Larsson 2004: 112). The condition of cosmic dualism is its appeals to meta-truths and is absolute in nature. Ellens describes this relationship, by stating:
“Cosmic good and transcendental evil are depicted as being in mortal combat on the battlefields of our political policy, our international relations, our social values, and our spiritual quests in the arena of the human heart” (2007: 4).
This battle is premised upon the dichotomies of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, as groups engage in violent conflict to defend their god and therefore, what they perceive as ‘good’ (Ellens 2007: 5). Conflicts of such proportions embody a concept of religious violence that appears both perpetual and hopeless as parties fight to defend a cause beyond reality. The idea that religious beliefs are locked in a violent cosmic battle that transcends human suffering is sickening, dangerous and very real. This analytical lens can facilitate understanding of the Israel- Palestine conflict.
Israel- Palestine’s Cosmic War
In examining the role of cosmic war theory in the conflict it must be understood that neither side of the religious divide homogenously adhere to this ideology. I argue that only the fundamentalists hold genuine and pervasive views that correlate with the concept of cosmic war. The evidence of cosmic dualism is best understood in relation to the previously discussed groups of hardline Zionists and Hamas.
A major indication that cosmic dualism is evident within the Israeli cause is the assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzkah Rabin. In 1995, Rabin was shot by a Jewish activist who opposed Rabin’s commitment to fostering peaceful relations with the Palestinians (Peleg 1997: 277). Rabin had been engaging in dialogue with the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat and was formulating a compromise regarding territory and prospects for coexistence (Juergensmeyer 2003: 157). The activist, Yoel Lerner was a religious Zionist who would accept nothing less than the completion of the Israeli state, considering Rabin’s peaceful policies as anti- Jewish and a betrayal (Juergensmeyer 2003: 49). Peleg examines the motivations behind the assassination in terms of religious Zionism and considers a ‘sense of deception’ as the catalyst for violent struggle (1997: 230). The increasingly secular developments in Israeli politics as highlighted by Rabin’s engagement with Palestinians, was seen to contradict the creation of Israel. In considering this notion, Ranstorp offers a perception of religious violence that is concerned with religious identity; terrorists often feel required to maintain their religious identity through violent demonstration (1996: 46). Similarly, Juergensmeyer discusses how political struggles are transformed through the application of religious beliefs to reject secularism (1997: 18). Rabin’s assassination exemplifies how cosmic dualism shapes the fundamentalist understanding of the conflict; the advancements made towards peace were considered unacceptable. His actions were considered contradictory to the Jewish cause and therefore, to the defence of religious truth.
Hamas represent the Islamic- national opposition to Israel and have drawn their ideology into the cosmic war framework. The militant wing of Hamas has been responsible for innumerable terrorist attacks, the majority of which have killed Israeli civilians (Herzog 2006: 85). As previously described, Hamas refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist and has pursued a relentless campaign against the Jewish state (Juergensmeyer 2003: 150). The group has been somewhat ambiguous as the original Charter calls for Israel to be replaced by an Islamic state (Abu- Amr 1993: 12) but more recently, the group has hinted at a more moderate stance including negotiation with Israel (Klein 2007: 442). However, one concept has been made absolutely clear: Hamas will not recognised Israel as a Jewish state. The cosmic implications of the conflict have remained and constitute the core of Hamas- Israeli relations. Former leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated that the Islamic- Arab war with Israeli facilitated the need for Hamas (Juergensmeyer 2003: 150). In this context, it appears that Hamas represent religious ideology that shapes the cosmic war; the violence that Hamas has instigated was in direct response to the need for a group to defend and represent Palestinian Muslims. The creation of Hamas transformed the conflict from territorial and political disputes towards an intense religious battle. The Palestinian struggle was fundamentally redefined with the introduction of a major religious player who explicitly based their doctrine in religious opposition to Israel.
Possibilities for Peace
The scope for a peaceful resolution in Israel- Palestine is limited by the concept of cosmic warfare. In recalling Juergensmeyer’s conditions for cosmic war, both sides of the religious divide are defending their identity, cannot accept defeat nor can the conflict be solved without the destruction of one or both. In the context of cosmic dualism, compromise is not possible; the war is fundamentally absolutist. The state of war will continue until one reigns over the other and ‘universal peace’ is recognised (Larsson 2004: 116). Understanding peace is just as crucial as understanding violence; a cessation of violence does not always translate to peace, as cosmic wars are concerned with absolute victory. The compromise devised between Rabin and Arafat was rejected by the fundamentalist on both sides (Juergensmeyer 2003: 157).
I argue that genuine and sustainable peace is stalled by uncompromising, narrow minded and narcissistic hardliners that refuse to consider the conflict holistically. Instead, fundamentalists prefer to focus upon a grand cosmic narrative that disregards the destruction and tragic consequences of violence. Killing in the name of God, whichever one that may be, is more important than building peace and negotiating political disputes. This precise attitude dooms Israel- Palestine to perpetual war until one can triumph over the other or they mutually destruct. Peace will be impossible until hardliners from both sides open their eyes to reality and embrace humanity rather than ideology.
Conclusion
Religious violence has devastated Israeli- Palestine and is based upon a fundamentalist rhetoric that does not necessarily resonate with the civilian population at large. I have discussed religious perspectives in a historical context to emphasise that fundamentalism emanated from a multitude of issues. It is apparent that religious views have transcended into a ‘cosmic war’ which perpetuates the ultimate dualism between ‘good’ and ‘evil’. However, what is clear is that such an absolutist perception is not widely held by either side; religious Zionists and Palestinian Islamic group, Hamas are the dominant groups that adhere to such perspectives. This was epitomised by the assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzkah Rabin by a Jewish activist looking to reinstate religious Zionism as the primary ideology of Israel. Similarly, Hamas’ 1988 charter explicitly states that Israel must be destroyed if there is to be Palestinian victory. The concept of cosmic dualism has shaped violent religious acts and prevents a meaningful peace process.
‘Peace’ is a fickle concept; individuals and groups have different, sometimes contradictory perceptions of peace and how it should be achieved. Moreover, there isn’t an overarching framework that determines which kind of peace is correct or justified and whether it is even possible. The alternative to complete peace is resolution or coexistence; however this may not be possible either given that one view of peace may not include the existence of the other. This is the vicious cycle that Israel- Palestine is caught within and religious fundamentalists accept that their idea of peace will ultimately embrace destruction and suffering. Such a mentality must be broken for the conflict to end; a seemingly impossible task which will require the will of the people to value human life over fighting for a religious deity.
REFERENCE LIST
Abu- Amr, Z. 1993. ‘Hamas: A Historical and Political Background.’ Journal of Palestine Studies, 22(4): 5- 19
Ellens, J.H. 2007. The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. 2nd ed. Westport: Praeger Publishers
Juergensmeyer, M. 1997. ‘Terror Mandated by God.’ Terrorism and Political Violence, 9(2): 16- 23
Juergensmeyer, M. 2003. Terror in the Mind of God: the Global Rise of Religious Violence. 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press
Klein, M. 2007. ‘Hamas in Power.’ Middle East Journal, 61(3): 442- 59
Gunning, J. 2008. Hamas in Politics: Democracy, Religion, Violence. New York: Colombia University Press
Herzog, M. 2006. ‘Can Hamas Be Tamed?’ Foreign Affairs, 85(2): 83- 94
Larsson, J.P. 2004. Understanding Religious Violence: Thinking Outside the Box on Terrorism. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing
Pappe, I. 2004. A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Peleg, S. 1997. ‘They Shoot Prime Minsters Too, Don’t They? Religious Violence in Israel: Premises, Dynamics, and Prospects.’ Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 20(3): 227- 47
Ranstorp, M. 1996. ‘Terrorism in the Name of Religion.’ Journal of International Affairs, 50(1): 41- 62
Smith, D.W. and Burr, E.G. 2007. Understanding World Religions: A Roadmap for Justice and Peace. Maryland: Rowan and Littlefield
Smooha, S. 2007. ‘The Model of Ethnic Democracy: Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State.’ Nations and Nationalism, 8(4): 475- 503
Ellens, J.H. 2007. The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. 2nd ed. Westport: Praeger Publishers
Juergensmeyer, M. 1997. ‘Terror Mandated by God.’ Terrorism and Political Violence, 9(2): 16- 23
Juergensmeyer, M. 2003. Terror in the Mind of God: the Global Rise of Religious Violence. 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press
Klein, M. 2007. ‘Hamas in Power.’ Middle East Journal, 61(3): 442- 59
Gunning, J. 2008. Hamas in Politics: Democracy, Religion, Violence. New York: Colombia University Press
Herzog, M. 2006. ‘Can Hamas Be Tamed?’ Foreign Affairs, 85(2): 83- 94
Larsson, J.P. 2004. Understanding Religious Violence: Thinking Outside the Box on Terrorism. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing
Pappe, I. 2004. A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Peleg, S. 1997. ‘They Shoot Prime Minsters Too, Don’t They? Religious Violence in Israel: Premises, Dynamics, and Prospects.’ Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 20(3): 227- 47
Ranstorp, M. 1996. ‘Terrorism in the Name of Religion.’ Journal of International Affairs, 50(1): 41- 62
Smith, D.W. and Burr, E.G. 2007. Understanding World Religions: A Roadmap for Justice and Peace. Maryland: Rowan and Littlefield
Smooha, S. 2007. ‘The Model of Ethnic Democracy: Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State.’ Nations and Nationalism, 8(4): 475- 503
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.