Viewing the Arab/Israeli Conflict
The "Ongoing Nakba" Theory
The "ongoing Nakba" theory, emerging in the late 1990s, claims the 1948 displacement of ~700,000 Arabs is not past history but a continuous Israeli process of ethnic cleansing, settlement expansion, demolitions, and dispossession, denying Palestinians self-determination. It portrays Israel’s existence and policies as perpetual catastrophe.
The "Islamic Waqf" Theory
The Islamic Waqf Theory argues that a primary reason the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has remained unresolved for decades is the Islamic religious doctrine that the entire land of historic Palestine is an eternal sacred endowment (waqf) belonging exclusively to Muslims, making any form of Jewish sovereignty theologically unacceptable to large segments of Palestinian and Islamist leadership.
Israeli land is an eternal Islamic waqf — a sacred trust that must remain under Muslim control until the Day of Judgment.
The main difference between the two theories is that the first does not believe the conflict is to do with religion and instead it is to do with violating human rights -> the collective rights of the Palestinian people.
The following table show events and people in history significant to the Arab/Israeli conflict and how different theories view them.
| Event / Figure | Historical Account | Ongoing Nakba | Islamic Waqf |
|---|---|---|---|
| Herzl and Early Zionists | Theodor Herzl founded modern political Zionism in response to European antisemitism (Dreyfus Affair, pogroms). His vision was a national home for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland after 2,000 years of exile. Early Zionists were largely secular but drew on deep historical and religious Jewish attachment to the land. | Herzl and the early Zionists were European settler-colonialists who conspired with imperial powers to steal Palestinian land. They treated Palestine as empty real estate for Jewish settlement, ignoring the indigenous Arab population that had lived there for centuries. | Herzl's project was viewed as the beginning of a foreign assault on Islamic waqf land. Early Zionists were seen not as returning natives but as European interlopers attempting to establish non-Muslim sovereignty on sacred Islamic territory that could never be legitimately ceded. |
| 1898 Rashid Rida Journal Entry (Al-Manar) | In 1898, Islamic reformer Rashid Rida published an article warning against Jewish immigration to Palestine, arguing it threatened Muslim interests. His opposition reflected both political concerns and the religious view that Palestine was part of the Islamic domain. This early rejectionism shows that religious framing of the conflict existed from the very beginning of modern Zionism. | Rashid Rida's 1898 article was an early and prescient warning from an Arab intellectual about the dangers of Zionist colonialism. It demonstrated that opposition to Jewish settlement existed from the very beginning of modern Zionism. | Rida's writings represent an early articulation of the religious and civilizational danger posed by Jewish settlement on historically Muslim land. His arguments helped lay the ideological groundwork for the view that any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine was incompatible with Islamic interests — later formalised through waqf doctrine. |
| 1917 Balfour Declaration | The Balfour Declaration expressed British support for a 'national home for the Jewish people' in Palestine. The declaration came after centuries of Jewish persecution and the recognition of Jewish indigenous rights. | The Balfour Declaration was a classic act of colonial betrayal in which Britain promised the land of the indigenous Palestinian Arab majority to European Zionist settlers without their consent. It launched the systematic dispossession that defines the ongoing Nakba. | The declaration is interpreted as an illegitimate attempt by non-Muslims to transfer sacred Islamic land to Jews. Under waqf doctrine, the land is an eternal endowment that cannot be promised, sold, or politically allocated by foreign powers — making any Jewish national project on it fundamentally illegitimate. |
| Jewish Migration (Aliyah), Land Purchases, Malaria and Arab Migration | Jewish immigrants legally purchased land — often from absentee Ottoman landlords — and transformed malaria-infested swamps into productive farmland. This created economic opportunities that attracted Arab migrants from surrounding regions (British census data confirms Arab population growth during this period). | Jewish immigration and land purchases were part of a deliberate colonial strategy to displace the indigenous Palestinian population and create facts on the ground for a future Jewish state. The economic development was simply a tool of dispossession. | All Jewish settlement activity is considered illegitimate encroachment on the waqf. Even legal land purchases are rejected under this doctrine because the land cannot be permanently transferred out of Islamic ownership. Jewish development is often framed as an attempt to erase the land's Islamic character. |
| 1920 Jerusalem Riots (Nebi Musa) | During the Islamic Nebi Musa festival, Arab mobs attacked Jewish neighbourhoods in Jerusalem, killing several Jews and injuring many. The riots were incited by religious and nationalist leaders, including Haj Amin al-Husseini, who framed Jewish immigration as a threat to both Arab and Islamic interests. This was one of the first major outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence in modern Mandatory Palestine. The riots occurred during a religious festival, and leaders used Islamic rhetoric to mobilise violence. | The 1920 Jerusalem Riots were a spontaneous popular uprising by indigenous Palestinians against British colonial rule and early Zionist settlement. The violence was a natural response to Jewish encroachment on Palestinian land. | One of the earliest violent expressions of resistance to Jewish presence blended religious and nationalist rhetoric. Religious leaders framed Jewish immigration as a direct threat to Islamic control over sacred land, helping establish a pattern where opposition to Jewish sovereignty was mobilised through Islamic themes that later aligned with the waqf doctrine. |
| Haj Amin al-Husseini (Grand Mufti) | Haj Amin al-Husseini was appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921 and became the most powerful Palestinian leader. He used his religious authority to oppose Jewish immigration and statehood, inciting the 1929 and 1936-39 riots. During World War II, he allied with Nazi Germany and broadcast anti-Jewish propaganda. He framed Jewish sovereignty as a threat to Islamic control over sacred territory. He bears significant responsibility for the violent rejectionism that characterised Palestinian leadership for decades. | Haj Amin al-Husseini is portrayed as a heroic national leader resisting British colonialism and Zionist encroachment. His Nazi collaboration is often ignored or justified as 'anti-imperialist' resistance. | As the highest Islamic religious authority in Palestine, al-Husseini used his position to frame Jewish immigration and sovereignty as an existential threat to Islamic control over waqf land. He explicitly called for jihad to defend the sacred territory, establishing the religious-rejectionist template that later groups like Hamas would follow. |
| The Arab Revolt of 1936–1939 | This was a major Palestinian uprising against British rule and Jewish immigration, involving strikes, boycotts, and violence that killed hundreds of Jews and British personnel. Led by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who called for jihad to protect the Islamic land from Jewish control. The British eventually suppressed it, but the revolt demonstrated that Palestinian leadership would use violence rather than accept any Jewish state. | The Arab Revolt of 1936–1939 was a heroic popular resistance against British colonial oppression and Zionist settler-colonial encroachment. It was a legitimate national liberation struggle by an indigenous people facing dispossession. | One of the earliest large-scale expressions of religious-political mobilisation to defend the waqf. The Grand Mufti framed the revolt in explicitly Islamic terms, calling for jihad to protect sacred Islamic land from Jewish takeover. Religious leadership and rhetoric transformed opposition into a broader defence of the eternal Islamic waqf. |
| 1947 UN Partition Plan | The UN offered the Jewish people a truncated state on approximately 55% of Mandatory Palestine. Jewish leadership accepted the compromise despite receiving a small, fragmented territory. Arab leaders rejected it entirely and chose war. | The UN Partition Plan was an illegitimate Western-imposed division that awarded the Jewish minority (recent immigrants) more than half the land, including the most fertile areas, while denying the Palestinian majority self-determination. It was the first major international step in the theft of Palestinian homeland. | The rejection was not primarily about the percentage of land offered, but about the principle. Any acceptance of a Jewish state — even on a small, fragmented portion — would have meant formally relinquishing part of the eternal Islamic waqf. This was viewed as a religious betrayal, not a political compromise. |
| 1948 Arab-Israeli War (Israel’s War of Independence / al-Nakba) | Five Arab armies invaded the day after Israel declared independence, seeking its destruction. Israel fought for survival and won. Approximately 700,000 Palestinians fled or were displaced amid the fighting; simultaneously, about 850,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries. | The 1948 war was a deliberate, premeditated ethnic cleansing (Plan Dalet) in which Zionist forces expelled approximately 750,000 Palestinians, destroyed over 500 villages, and seized their property to engineer a Jewish majority state. This foundational catastrophe (Nakba) is not a one-time event but the ongoing policy of displacement and erasure. | Framed as a religious war to defend the waqf against Jewish sovereignty. The invasion was justified in many religious circles as a jihad to prevent the establishment of a non-Muslim state on Islamic sacred land. The resulting Palestinian displacement is often portrayed as the consequence of failing to fully protect the waqf from Jewish control. |
| 1967 Six-Day War | Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran (an act of war), massed troops for invasion, and Arab leaders openly called for Israel's destruction. Israel launched a preemptive strike to defend itself and achieved a stunning victory in six days. Israel offered to trade land for peace; the Arab League responded with the 'Three No's.' The war was initiated by Arab military mobilisation and threats of annihilation. | The 1967 war was an unprovoked war of territorial aggression and expansion aimed at realising 'Greater Israel.' Israel's surprise attack and subsequent occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem began the settlement project and triggered the Naksa (setback), displacing hundreds of thousands more Palestinians. | The loss of East Jerusalem and the West Bank was experienced as a profound religious humiliation. The capture of Al-Aqsa Mosque and additional waqf territory intensified the sense that Jewish sovereignty represents an ongoing desecration and theft of sacred Islamic land. This deepened the religious imperative among rejectionists to eventually reverse the loss. |
| 1973 Yom Kippur War | Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on the holiest Jewish day, nearly overrunning Israel before Israeli forces rallied. Israel eventually prevailed. | The 1973 war was a legitimate Arab military effort to reclaim territories illegally seized in 1967. Israel's 'victory' came at immense cost and exposed the unsustainability of occupation. The war forced the world to recognise Palestinian national rights. | Celebrated by many as a legitimate strike to reclaim waqf land. The attack is often remembered in Islamist narratives as a religious act of resistance against Jewish control, even though it ultimately led to Egypt making peace — a decision later criticised by rejectionists as a betrayal of the waqf principle. |
| Sinai Desert Withdrawal & Peace with Egypt (1979–1982) | Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula — captured in a defensive war — in exchange for a full peace treaty with Egypt. Egypt under Sadat prioritised national interests over pan-Arab rejectionism and Islamic religious claims to the land. This stands in contrast to Palestinian leadership, which has consistently refused similar compromises. | The Sinai withdrawal is often downplayed or portrayed as Israel being 'forced' to withdraw. The success of the Egypt peace treaty is ignored because it contradicts the narrative that Israel never offers real peace or makes genuine concessions. | Egypt under Sadat was willing to deprioritise the strict waqf doctrine for pragmatic state interests (recovering territory, economic benefits, US alliance). This stands in sharp contrast to Palestinian leadership, which has consistently refused similar pragmatic compromises because of the religious prohibition against recognising Jewish sovereignty on waqf land. |
| 1987–1993 First Intifada | This was a violent uprising involving stabbings, firebombings, and terrorism against Israeli civilians and soldiers. The intifada demonstrated that Palestinian leadership (who encouraged and organised much of the violence) preferred violence over state-building. Islamic groups like Hamas gained prominence during this period, framing the conflict in religious terms. | The First Intifada was a spontaneous, mass popular resistance against brutal military occupation, land theft, collective punishment, and daily humiliation. Israeli forces responded with excessive and often sadistic force, exposing the apartheid character of control. | Interpreted as grassroots religious and national resistance to defend the waqf. The uprising is often framed as a legitimate popular jihad against Jewish rule over Islamic sacred territory, with religious leaders and groups playing a significant role in sustaining the violence. |
| Oslo Accords (1993) & Peace with Jordan (1994) | Israel recognised the PLO, withdrew from territory, and took historic risks for peace. Jordan made a full peace treaty shortly after. Palestinian leadership under Arafat did not. Arafat used Oslo as a platform for continued struggle rather than genuine peace. He never fully accepted Jewish sovereignty. | Oslo is blamed entirely on Israel for not giving enough or for 'bad faith.' Jordan's peace is rarely mentioned because it undermines the 'Israel never wants peace' narrative. The accords are seen as another Israeli trick to fragment Palestinian territory. | Both Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) were able to make peace because their leaderships subordinated the waqf ideology to national interests. Palestinian leadership (PLO/Arafat) could not, because their identity and power base were tied to the religious-nationalist rejection of any Jewish state on waqf land. Oslo failed because Arafat never truly accepted Jewish sovereignty. |
| Suicide Bombings 1994–2004 | Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad launched a campaign of suicide bombings that murdered over 1,000 Israelis. These attacks were deliberately timed to destroy the peace process. Hamas and PIJ explicitly justified the attacks in religious terms as 'martyrdom operations' to defend Islamic land. | The suicide bombings of 1994–2004 are often portrayed as a desperate response to Israeli occupation, settlement expansion, or specific provocations. The strategic intent to destroy the peace process is downplayed or denied. The religious motivation is minimised. | Suicide bombings were explicitly justified by Hamas and PIJ as 'martyrdom operations' (istishhad) to defend the waqf land and resist Jewish sovereignty. Religious framing — rewards in paradise, defence of Islamic territory, and the religious duty to fight the occupation of waqf land — was central to recruiting bombers and sustaining public support. This campaign represented the violent enforcement of the waqf doctrine against the Oslo process. |
| 2000 Camp David Summit & Second Intifada | At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and shared sovereignty in Jerusalem — the most generous offer in history. Arafat rejected it without a counteroffer and launched the Second Intifada: suicide bombings that killed over 1,000 Israelis. This proved that even generous territorial concessions were unacceptable because they required recognising permanent Jewish sovereignty on land considered an Islamic waqf. | Camp David failed because Israel refused core Palestinian demands: full sovereignty in East Jerusalem, a viable contiguous state, and implementation of the right of return. Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque ignited the Second Intifada — a legitimate uprising against ongoing occupation and settlement expansion. | The rejection at Camp David is a textbook example of the waqf barrier in action. Even an offer of 95% of the disputed territories plus shared sovereignty in Jerusalem was unacceptable because it required formal recognition of permanent Jewish sovereignty on land considered eternal Islamic waqf. The subsequent Intifada was largely justified in religious terms as resistance to this violation. |
| 2005 Israeli Disengagement from Gaza | Israel unilaterally withdrew every soldier and every settler from Gaza in 2005, giving the Palestinians a chance to build a state. Instead, Hamas was elected in 2007, turned Gaza into a rocket base, and used aid to build tunnels and weapons. The disengagement showed that Israeli concessions without Palestinian acceptance of Jewish sovereignty simply create new platforms for attack. | The 2005 disengagement was a cosmetic 'withdrawal' that maintained Israeli control over Gaza's borders, airspace, and sea access — creating an open-air prison under siege since 2007. The move was designed to fragment Palestinian territory and facilitate further West Bank settlement expansion. | The withdrawal changed nothing fundamental under the waqf doctrine. Removing settlements from one part of the land while Jewish sovereignty continued elsewhere was viewed as insufficient. Hamas's rise and subsequent attacks were seen by many as the correct religious response — continuing the struggle to fully reclaim the waqf rather than accepting partial solutions. |
| Netanyahu's Containment Policy, Shrinking the Conflict & Qatar Funding to Gaza (2009–2023) | After decades of Palestinian rejection of every peace offer, Israel adopted a pragmatic policy: maintain strong security, encourage Palestinian economic development where possible, and manage the conflict rather than chase illusions. The controversial Qatar funding was a calculated risk to prevent an economic and humanitarian collapse while keeping Hamas contained. This policy acknowledged that the religious-ideological barrier made traditional peace processes unrealistic. | Netanyahu's containment policy is portrayed as a deliberate Israeli strategy to keep Palestinians weak, divided, and suffering. Qatar funding is blamed entirely on Israel as proof of bad faith and a divide-and-rule strategy. | This policy explicitly acknowledges the waqf barrier: since Palestinian leadership cannot accept Jewish sovereignty on religious grounds, Israel focuses on containing the resulting threat while improving Palestinian quality of life where possible. Qatar funding was a calculated risk to prevent larger explosions. It reflects the reality that the religious-ideological rejection makes traditional 'peace processes' futile in the near term. |
| 7 October 2023 Hamas Attack | On October 7, 2023, Hamas and its allies carried out the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust — 1,200 murdered, including systematic rape, burning families alive, and mutilation. Hamas explicitly framed the attack in religious terms as jihad and martyrdom to defend the Islamic land (al-Aqsa flood). Hamas planned on Hezbollah, the IRGC and two million Israeli Arabs (according to Hamas documents) joining the fight, but in the end, they did not. | 7 October was a legitimate act of armed resistance by an occupied, besieged people breaking out of an open-air prison after 75+ years of dispossession, apartheid, and blockade. It was a desperate response to decades of Israeli oppression. | 7 October is often portrayed in rejectionist circles as a bold religious strike to defend the waqf. The attack is framed by Hamas and its supporters as part of the ongoing jihad to resist Jewish sovereignty over Islamic sacred land. The massacre was justified in religious terms as martyrdom and the defence of waqf territory. |
| Gaza War (2023–present) | After October 7, Israel launched a war to destroy Hamas's military infrastructure. Hamas deliberately embedded its tunnels, rocket launchers, and command centres under hospitals, schools, and mosques, using Palestinian civilians as human shields. Israel took extraordinary measures to minimise civilian casualties (roof-knocking, phone calls, leaflets, evacuation warnings). Hamas frames the war as religious jihad (al-Aqsa flood). | Israel's response to October 7 constitutes genocide: indiscriminate bombing, mass forced displacement of 1.9+ million people, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and engineered humanitarian catastrophe. It represents the intensification and acceleration of the ongoing Nakba — the systematic erasure of Palestinian presence and national life from the land. | The Gaza War is interpreted by many rejectionists as further proof of the need to continue the religious struggle rather than accept any Jewish state on waqf territory. High Palestinian casualties are often justified as the price of this religious war against Jewish sovereignty. Hamas's refusal to release hostages or accept ceasefires is framed as steadfastness in defence of Islamic land. |
| Pallywood | Pallywood refers to the documented pattern of Palestinian media and activists staging, manipulating, or selectively editing footage and images to portray Israeli actions negatively and exaggerate Palestinian suffering. Examples include staged "deaths," fake injuries, actors pretending to be wounded, and selective editing that removes context. This is a form of information warfare designed to influence international opinion and delegitimize Israel. While not every Palestinian media report is fabricated, there is a well-documented pattern of manipulation that has been exposed by independent analysts and journalists. | Pallywood is dismissed as Israeli propaganda or "hasbara" designed to delegitimize Palestinian suffering and cover up Israeli crimes. Any mention of media manipulation is seen as an attempt to deny real Palestinian victimhood and Israeli atrocities. | Pallywood can be seen as part of the broader information jihad to defend the waqf by shaping global perception. By portraying Israel as an aggressor against Muslims and Islam, it mobilizes international support (especially from Muslim countries and Western left-wing activists) for the religious struggle to reclaim Islamic land. The religious framing makes the conflict appear as a defense of Islam against infidel aggression. |