Is the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, which dominates our entire life, assuming a more and more religious character? I am afraid it is. The historical conflict began as a clash between two national movements, which used religious motifs only as a decoration. The Zionist movement was nonreligious from the start, if not anti-religious. All the great rabbis of the day, rejected the basic thesis of Zionism, that the Jews are a “nation” in the European sense, instead regarding the Jews as a holy people held together by observance of the divine commandments.

Moreover, in the eyes of the rabbis, the Zionist idea itself was a cardinal sin. The Almighty decreed the exile of the Jews as punishment for their sins. By organizing mass immigration to the country, the Zionists rebel against God.

All this changed in the wake of the Six-Day War. The Jewish religion staged an astounding comeback.

On the Palestinian side, something similar happened, but against a quite different background. The Arab national movement, too, was born under the influence of the European national idea. Its spiritual fathers called for the liberation of the Arab nation from the shackles of Ottoman rule, and later from the yoke of European colonialism. Many of its founders were Arab Christians.

When a distinct Palestinian national movement came into being, following the Balfour Declaration and the setting up of the British government of Palestine, it had no religious character. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who quickly assumed the leadership of the Palestinian struggle against the Zionist immigration. The mufti failed miserably, and his failure played a part in the catastrophe of his people. In the 1950s, Palestinians idolized Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, the standard-bearer of secular, pan-Arab nationalism. Later, when Yasser Arafat founded the modern Palestinian national movement, he did not distinguish between Muslims and Christians.

George Habash, the leader of the “Arab Nationalists” and later of the “Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine”, is a Christian. This situation changed with the outbreak of the first intifada, at the end of 1987. Only then did the Islamist movements, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, start to take over the national struggle.

The astounding victory of the Israeli Army in the Six-Day War, which looked like a miracle, effected a profound political and cultural change in Israel.

Israel has not become a religious state. It still has a large secular majority. However, because of their role in the settlement enterprise, the “religious” people have acquired a huge influence over the political process. They have practically prevented any move toward peace with the Palestinians. They have also provoked a religious reaction on the other side.

The Palestinian resistance to the occupation, which reached a peak with the outbreak of the first intifada in 1987, has given a big push to the religious forces. Until then, these had been growing quietly (not without the encouragement of the occupation authorities, which saw in them a counterweight to the secular PLO.) The first intifada led to the Oslo agreement and brought Yasser Arafat back to Palestine. But the new Palestinian authority failed in its aim of putting an end to the occupation and establishing a secular Palestinian state. With settlements continually expanding all over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian public increasingly tended to support armed resistance. In this struggle, and with the limited means available, the religious factions excelled.

The anger of the Palestinian public over the corruption that has infected sections of the secular Fatah leadership has increased even more the popularity of the religious, whose honesty is unquestioned.

For years I have been haunted by a nightmare: That the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would change from a national to a religious confrontation.

A national conflict, terrible as it may be, is soluble. Not so religious conflicts. Religious Jews believe that God promised them all of the holy land. In the eyes of Muslim believers, the whole country is a waqf (religious trust), and it is therefore absolutely forbidden to surrender any part of it to unbelievers. Is a compromise between these forces possible? Certainly yes, but it is much more difficult. A devout Muslim is allowed to declare a hudna (armistice) for a hundred years and more. Ariel Sharon, who began the evacuation of settlers, spoke about “long-range temporary arrangements”.

In politics, “temporary” measures have a tendency to become permanent. But wisdom, sophistication and a lot of patience are needed to reach a resolution of the conflict in these circumstances.

On the day Arafat died, many Israelis were angry with me for saying (in a Haaretz interview) that we shall yet long for this secular leader, who was both willing and able to make peace with us. I said that his elimination removes the last obstacle to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Palestine and the entire Arab world.

One did not need to be a prophet to see that.