- Religion’s Central Role in the Israel-Hamas Conflict: Religion significantly shapes the motivations, tactics, and rhetoric of both sides in the conflict, from Hamas’ use of religious justifications for violence to Israel’s claims on holy lands like the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
- Interpretation of Religion in International Relations Theories: While traditional IR theories, like Realism, often overlook religion’s role in conflict, schools such as Constructivism and certain strands of Liberalism acknowledge religion as a critical factor influencing wars and security dynamics.
- Religious Networks and External Influence: The conflict involves religious organizations, networks, and states like Iran and Qatar, which provide financial and ideological support to Hamas, further complicating the geopolitical dynamics in the region.
International relations (IR) as a subject is not old, and its study began in the early 20th century. The theories and concepts emerged from the writings of ancient scholars like Sun Tzu, Kautilya and Thucydides. Scholars have given their understanding of the issues of wars and securities, like other concepts of IR, from different angles. However, the domain and scholars have not explained the effect of religion on wars and security, nor have IR theories given much attention to the role of religion in IR. The long Israel-Hamas war and the confrontation between Israel and Iran in West Asia posed a curious question in mind about the role of ethnicity and religion in war. There is very little literature available on the topic for a researcher who is curious to know the role of religion in Wars. Stacey Gutakowski, in her paper “Religion and Security in International Relations Theories”, explains how different schools of IR interpret the role of religion in war and security studies. Where she argues that the neo-liberals and constructivists are the ones who incorporate religion as a factor in war and security studies. The paper generated curiosity to look at the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas in West Asia through the lens of religion.
Every day, we read an opinion piece on the current situation in Middle East/West Asia in one newspaper or another website from different angles. Scholars have explained the reasons, historical backgrounds, repercussions, great power game, and many more about the situation. This article will look into the religious part of the conflict and try to see the role of religion in the Israel-Hamas conflict. According to Hassner, religion may shape participant and opponent identity and, in turn, how participants talk about or justify conflict. It can also shape the cause of a war, the legitimacy of targets, the timing and location of confrontations, the concept of victory and defeat, and the materiality and ideascape of soldier life, including how they dress, eat, fight and die.
If we closely observe the conflict, both sides justify the war through their religious norms and beliefs. Hamas, a religious militant group that originated from ‘the Muslim Brotherhood,’ believes in violent means and derives its motivation from the concept of ‘Jihad.’ The targets in this war have been civilians, including children and women from both sides. This has been a recurring pattern in the Abrahamic religions since their inception. Key causes of the war include the acquisition of ‘the Holy Land,’ control over the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the establishment of a religious state, all of which are shaped by religious motivations. Additionally, the way Hamas fighters are willing to sacrifice their lives for the promise of better treatment in the afterlife (Jannat) is also shaped by religious motivations. It is significant to note that Hamas launched its attack on Israel during the Nova Festival. When we connect all the dots, it is clear that religion plays a central role in the conflict.
The realist school understands war and conflict in terms of state security and views the Israel-Hamas war through the lens of ‘survival of the fittest.’ Realists generally do not consider religion, morality, or ethics as significant variables. They justify the conflict using the concepts of ‘structure’ and ‘actor,’ where the structure is ‘anarchy’ that forces the actor—the state—to resort to self-help in order to survive. Hence, war between the two is seen as inevitable, with peace only achievable through the annihilation of one side or the maintenance of a large power disparity between them.
The liberal school understands the complexity of the conflict and emphasizes the role of law, regimes and cooperation in order to end the war, citing two-state solutions for both Palestinians and Jews. Unlike the realist schools, the accommodation of morality, the rule of law, and cooperation through international institutions exhibit credence to the role of non-state actors and inter-state actors. Hence, the role of religious organizations and networks, either directly or indirectly, in war is accepted by different schools of liberalism. The involvement of religious NGOs and religious lobby groups can also be explained. Qatar’s funding to Hamas and Israel’s lobby pushing pro-Israel sentiments in the US are standard examples one can cite. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and the Al Aqsa Foundation are key sources of financial support for Hamas. Not to forget the involvement of Iran, a theological state as a crucial supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel in the Region.
Constructivism, an IR theory focused on norms, ideas, and rules in international politics, provides the most suitable framework for explaining the role of religion among all available IR theories. Constructivists argue that the social world is a product of human creativity. War and peace are what nations and people make of them. This approach accommodates religion’s ideational and symbolic impact, considering practices and rituals as informal or formal sets of doctrines. Over time, Jews and Palestinian Muslims have become enemies. They chose war instead of peace by rejecting the two-state solution from the beginning. The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin after the Oslo Accords illustrates that they do not wish to resolve the issue but rather continue the conflict.
Copenhagen School, a school of thought within Constructivism, emphasizes explaining how leaders, religious groups, or religio-political groups declare security issues largely confined to speeches. Let’s look into the statements of the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. One can find that they carefully show Israel/Jews as the enemies of Islam, not Palestine and add existing Israel, a Jewish state, to their security threat. Words such as ‘Annihilation of Israel‘, Punishment to Israel, can be seen in maximum statements of these leaders.
In conclusion, it is evident that religion plays a central role in the Israel-Hamas conflict, shaping motivations, tactics, and rhetoric. While traditional IR theories have often overlooked religion’s role, this conflict highlights its significance. From Hamas’ religious motives to Israel’s claim on holy lands, religion permeates the core of the conflict. Although realist approaches may ignore this aspect, liberal and constructivist perspectives offer more nuanced interpretations, acknowledging religion’s influence in conflict and war. Recognizing and understanding the religious dimension of the Israel-Hamas conflict is essential for developing comprehensive peace strategies for the region, considering the push and pull factors beyond traditional variables used to understand war and peace.
(Dr Nanda Kishor M S, Head & Associate Professor, Department of Politics and International Studies, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry, India. He holds an M.Phil. and Ph.D. from the University of Hyderabad and a Post-doc from the University of Leiden. Anmol Kumar is a Research Assistant at Pondicherry University in a Major Research Project on Perception from the Neighbourhood on India’s Foreign Policy. His interests lie in geopolitics, power politics, and foreign policy in West Asia.)
Aayush Pal 
Balaji Subramanian 
Palak Dogra