Prof. Ron Shaham, an Israeli academic, is challenging what he describes as a widespread Israeli perception that Islam is "an aggressive, violent, bloodthirsty religion that hates Jews and seeks to take over the world." His critique, published in Haaretz, targets Israeli thinkers who he says cherry-pick religious texts and ignore moderate voices to make endless conflict seem inevitable.
Shaham's argument isn't a defense of Islam's record — he's explicit about that. "I'm not here to defend Islam's battered reputation," he says. But he's concerned that Israeli right-wing intellectuals are using selective readings of Islamic texts to serve a political agenda: portraying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a civilizational clash that can't be resolved through negotiation or compromise.
The Academic Debate
The scholars Shaham criticizes argue that Islam's foundational texts contain inherently violent elements that drive Muslim hostility toward Jews and Israel. They point to Quranic verses, hadith collections, and historical examples of Islamic conquest to build their case. Shaham counters that this approach ignores the diversity of Islamic thought, the existence of moderate voices within Muslim communities, and the political contexts that shape how religious texts are interpreted and applied.
His concern is that by framing the conflict as rooted in Islamic theology rather than territorial disputes or political grievances, these thinkers "extinguish every glimmer of hope for reconciliation." If the problem is Islam itself, the logic goes, then peace becomes impossible — Muslims can't stop being Muslim, so Israelis must prepare for permanent conflict.
The Political Stakes
Shaham sees a clear political purpose in this framing. It serves the Israeli right by making territorial compromise appear naive or dangerous. If the conflict isn't about borders or settlements but about an existential religious war, then withdrawals from the West Bank or negotiations with Palestinian leaders become acts of civilizational surrender rather than strategic choices.
The Haaretz piece includes a photo of Muslim women at a demonstration in Paris, with a caption noting that "many Muslims actually want to integrate into Western culture." The image choice underscores Shaham's argument that Israeli discourse often ignores the reality of Muslim communities in the West who've adapted to secular democratic societies without abandoning their faith.
The Security Reality
What Shaham's critique doesn't fully address is why so many Israelis have adopted this darker view of Islam. October 7 wasn't carried out by secular nationalists — Hamas operatives invoked religious justifications as they murdered civilians. Hezbollah's arsenal isn't aimed at Israel because of a border dispute — the organization's founding charter calls for Israel's destruction in explicitly Islamic terms. Iran's regime doesn't fund Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a geopolitical chess move — Supreme Leader Khamenei frames Israel's elimination as a religious duty.
These aren't cherry-picked texts. They're the stated ideologies of the armed groups Israel faces. When Hamas's charter quotes hadith about killing Jews, when Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah invokes Quranic verses to justify rocket attacks, when Palestinian Islamic Jihad names itself after the concept of holy war — Israeli concerns about religious motivations aren't invented by right-wing intellectuals. They're responses to the language Israel's enemies use to explain their own actions.
Shaham is right that portraying all of Islam as inherently violent is both inaccurate and politically useful to those who oppose territorial compromise. But he's addressing an Israeli public that's watched peace processes collapse into waves of terrorism, that's seen Gaza become a launching pad for rockets after Israel withdrew, and that's heard religious justifications for violence from multiple armed groups. The challenge isn't just correcting Israeli misperceptions about Islam. It's explaining why the specific Muslims Israel is in conflict with keep invoking religious justifications for violence — and what that means for the prospects of peace.
Why This Matters:
The debate Shaham has entered reflects a deeper Israeli struggle over whether the conflict can be resolved through political compromise or whether it's become an intractable religious war. If Israeli thinkers convince the public that Islam itself is the problem, support for territorial withdrawals or negotiations with Palestinian leaders will collapse — why negotiate with people whose religion demands your destruction? But if Shaham is right that these portrayals cherry-pick evidence and ignore moderate voices, Israel risks missing opportunities for de-escalation with Palestinian partners who don't share Hamas's ideology. The framing matters because it shapes what policies Israelis will support: security arrangements and confidence-building measures if the conflict is political, permanent military control if it's civilizational. What neither side of this debate can escape is the reality that Israel's actual adversaries — Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad — do invoke Islamic theology to justify violence, making it difficult to separate legitimate security concerns from broader anti-Muslim prejudice.