Most Israelis today believe Islam is an aggressive, violent, bloodthirsty religion that hates Jews and seeks to take over the world, according to Prof. Ron Shaham. It's a view that's become mainstream in Israeli political discourse, shaping how millions understand the conflict with Palestinians and neighboring Arab states. But Shaham argues these claims aren't just inaccurate — they serve a deliberate political function for Israel's right wing, presenting the conflict as eternal and peace as impossible.
"I'm not here to defend Islam's battered reputation," Shaham says in a Haaretz piece examining how Israeli thinkers portray the religion. "But the problem isn't just that these claims are inaccurate. They also serve the political right by presenting the conflict between us and Muslims as inevitable and extinguishing every glimmer of hope for reconciliation."
Cherry-Picking Texts to Justify Endless War
For Israeli thinkers who portray Islam as inherently violent, peace is a fantasy, the article notes. Shaham argues they cherry-pick religious texts and ignore moderate voices, constructing a narrative that makes endless conflict seem not just likely but unavoidable. It's a framework that removes human agency from the equation — if Islam itself is the problem, then no territorial compromise, no diplomatic breakthrough, no change in Israeli policy can make a difference.
This framing has real consequences. When the conflict is understood as civilizational rather than territorial, when Palestinians are seen primarily as Muslims driven by religious hatred rather than as people living under military occupation, the practical questions that might lead to resolution — borders, settlements, refugees, security arrangements — disappear from view. What remains is a story of existential struggle with no exit.
Ignoring Voices That Complicate the Narrative
The portrayal ignores what's plainly visible to anyone who's spent time in Palestinian communities or Arab capitals: the vast diversity of Islamic practice and belief, the millions of Muslims who want nothing to do with political violence, the everyday coexistence that happens despite the conflict. "Many Muslims actually want to integrate into Western culture," reads a photo caption in the Haaretz piece, accompanying an image of Muslim women at a demonstration in Paris. It's a reminder of realities that don't fit the monolithic narrative.
Shaham's critique matters because it exposes how ideology shapes perception in ways that foreclose political possibility. When Islam is presented as a unified, violent force, every act of Palestinian resistance — whether it's a teenager throwing stones at a checkpoint or a Hamas rocket attack — gets folded into the same explanatory framework. Context disappears. The occupation becomes invisible. Israeli policy choices seem irrelevant.
The Political Function of Religious Essentialism
This isn't theology. It's politics. By casting the conflict in religious terms, Israel's right wing shifts the conversation away from questions it would rather not answer: Why are settlements still expanding? Why has the occupation lasted fifty-seven years? What gives Israel the right to control millions of Palestinians who have no vote in the system that governs them? If the problem is Islam itself, these questions lose their force.
The framing also serves another purpose: it aligns Israel with a broader Western narrative about Islam and terrorism, one that gained enormous power after September 11 and has shaped U.S. and European policy ever since. When Israeli officials describe their conflict with Palestinians as part of a global struggle against radical Islam, they're asking Western audiences to see Israeli military operations through the lens of counterterrorism rather than occupation. It works.
But it comes at a cost. Every time Israeli leaders describe the conflict as religious and eternal, they make the two-state solution harder to defend, even in theory. If Muslims can't be trusted, if Islam itself is the obstacle, then what's the point of negotiating borders or discussing security arrangements? The logic leads inexorably toward permanent control, not separation.
Why This Matters:
Shaham's argument cuts to the heart of how narratives shape political possibilities. When Islam is portrayed as inherently violent and Jews as its eternal targets, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict stops being a dispute over land, rights, and sovereignty that might be resolved through negotiation. It becomes a civilizational struggle with no end. That framing serves the political interests of those who oppose territorial compromise and want to maintain permanent Israeli control over the West Bank. It also makes it nearly impossible for Israelis to see Palestinians as people with legitimate grievances shaped by decades of military occupation rather than by religious hatred. The cost of this narrative is measured in the extinguishing of hope — the belief that peace isn't just difficult but impossible, that the only option is endless management of conflict rather than its resolution.