WHEN ACADEMICS and political pundits reflect on the Middle East conflict, they group the world's three largest religions together. The recent violence between Israelis and Palestinians makes evident that differences exist among their religions. In reacting to this conflict, America must come to terms with the fact that each faith's claims exclude those of the others.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam are grouped together because of their monotheism, their massive followings and their common claim to Abraham as an ancestor. For their followers to peacefully live together, however, they must come to terms with their differences and reach a level of comfort with them.
On March 18, National Public Radio recently featured Kanan Makiya to discuss his book "The Rock: A Tale of Seventh-Century Jerusalem." In the interview, Makiya attempts to unify the three big religions by relating them all to a rock. This rock was where Abraham, the father of all these religions, was going to sacrifice his son. This was the place where Solomon had built his temple, and for Muslims it was the place where Mohammed was supposed to have flown to heaven on a winged horse. Christians believe that this is the Rock of Calvary, where Christ was crucified. A concentration on this commonality is meant to distract us from what Samuel Huntington described as the clash of civilizations. While Makiya is to be praised for his historical accuracy, peace will not come to people through a common heritage.
Makiya thinks it a cute irony that all three major religions look to this rock as a tangible representative of God in this world. He makes much of the people's worship of the rock in light of its mundane qualities. His feeble attempt at reconciliation through the common artifact ignores the deeper problem of land disputes in the holy land.
The problem in the Arab-Israeli conflict is that the land over which they are fighting is thought to be sacred by both religions. The Jewish leader Joshua demonstrated the importance of rocks as a sign to the people of their commitment to God. When the Israelites came into the land to which God brought them, Joshua dedicated a stone saying, "This stone will be witness against us. It has heard all the words the Lord has said to us" (Joshua 24:27). The irony of the rock is that it - an inanimate object-- never defied God's law. It challenged the Israelites throughout history who, although complex human beings, constantly failed to live up to that law.
The fight over the territory in Jerusalem where Makiya's rock rests is an example of the sanctity that modern day religious warriors give to such stones.The dual claims to that territory cannot be disputed or refuted by third parties such as the United States. Each side's commitment is backed by citizens willing to commit suicide or kill innocents from the other side.
America's distanced perspective on the conflict renders us detached and ineffective. We believe that we are seeking the best alternative by advocating peace before settling the greater issues of the conflict. The United States avoids judging who is right in the matter, while it demands peace. Without this judgement, true peace never will be achieved. In "Mere Christianity," C.S. Lewis describes security in religion, reflecting America's unsuccessful request for peace in the Middle East: "In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth - only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair."
The American idea of peace is based on the American idea of the secular state, placing it above religious conflict. It is clear that none of the American diplomats wish to take sides in the conflict over whose claim to the rock is correct. These claims boil down to religious belief. If we do what McIntire professor Neil Snyder suggested and support Israel - supposedly to gain favor with God - we risk alienation by our Arab allies and trading partners. On the other hand, American politicians do not have enough stake in the Arab-Israeli conflict to support the Palestinians and risk losing the Jewish vote.
American foreign policy should not be based on the fear of alienation or the shuffle of international alliances. Instead, our international politics should consider the reality of the faiths held by warring factions. Makiya's book talks about the commonality between the three major religions, but since all three claim to worship the true deity, we are faced with inevitable conflict.
The original Jewish law is intended to continually turn the people back to God for thanksgiving and for their needs. The Muslim idea of Jihad is about a struggle between the evil forces of this world and of the good works outlined in the Koran. Both religions stress an achievement-oriented salvation, one which has been linked to occupying contested lands in Israel.
If America takes one side in this conflict, they are preferring one religious belief. If we intervene simply because of an immigrant constituency, our intentions will be misunderstood.
For those of us in America dealing with this clash of civilizations, we must become more fully aware of the differences between the faiths. Abraham claims that he was told by God to take his son to the rock for sacrifice. If he was wrong, the Jewish faith is based on a lunatic. Muslims claim that Mohammed ascended into heaven on a winged horse from that same rock. If he is wrong, Islam is based on a fairy tale. Christians believe that the place of the rock is where Jesus was crucified. If he was not the Son of God, Christians worship a liar. If either of these is correct, however, the believer is faced with a mutually exclusive crisis of faith. One of these men may lead us to the mystery of the universe. It seems there is more at stake in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than some of us wish to admit.
(Matt West's column appears Thursday in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at mwest@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | April 15, 2024Amid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
