Introduction: When a Movement Needs an Enemy

Series Preface

This essay is Part VII in my ongoing series examining equality, justice, security, and reconciliation for Israelis and Palestinians. As an African-American Christian who practices Judaism, I write from a perspective shaped by faith, history, and a belief that peace requires both truth and compassion. Each part of this series explores a dimension of the conflict that must be understood clearly if we are to chart a path toward sustainable peace.

Key Question:
Why do some movements refuse peace no matter what is offered — and what does this reveal about the deeper forces shaping the Israeli–Palestinian conflict?

Some movements cannot accept peace because their identity requires an enemy, and until the world understands this truth, every diplomatic effort will fall short.

Across the Middle East and Africa, a constellation of armed movements share three core beliefs:

1. Violence is a sacred or necessary path.

2. Israel’s existence is fundamentally illegitimate.

3. The United States is the global antagonist enabling that illegitimacy.¹

They draw life from conflict the way a fire draws life from oxygen. Peace threatens the very identity of movements that survive on despair.

Most commentary about Israel–Palestine focuses on diplomacy, settlements, borders, occupation, human rights, or governance — all of which matter deeply.
But very few people directly analyze the ideological ecosystem that exists outside of diplomacy and politics — the ecosystem that sits beneath and behind the conflict:

• not just who fights

• but why they must fight in order to exist

• not just what they oppose

• but what gives them purpose

• not just failures of policy

• but a worldview that requires perpetual war

At the same time, this analysis must never be confused with Palestinian national aspirations. Palestinians hold legitimate grievances rooted in decades of occupation, displacement, and structural inequality. Rejectionist ideology is something entirely different, anchored not in policy but in an existential worldview.

I. Palestinian Grievances vs. Ideological Rejectionism

It is essential to distinguish between Palestinian suffering and rejectionist ideology.

Most Palestinians desire dignity, equality, sovereignty, and safety — conditions repeatedly denied. When presented with credible terms, many express openness to coexistence. Rejectionist movements such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) reject Israel not because of the occupation alone, but because they believe Israel’s existence violates divine or historical order.² Their founding documents sanctify armed struggle as a theological calling.³

Addressing Palestinian dignity is necessary for peace. Validating rejectionism is not.

II. How Rejectionist Movements Harm Palestinians Themselves

Rejectionist movements claim to act in the name of Palestinians, but their actions frequently harm the Palestinian cause:

• They provoke devastating wars in Gaza.

• They strengthen Israeli hardliners.

• They marginalize Palestinian moderates.

• They derail diplomacy.

• They decrease global sympathy for Palestinians.

• They prevent democratic development in Gaza.

• They suppress dissent and civil society.⁴

Palestinians often pay the highest price for rejectionist ideology — economically, politically, and physically.

III. The Ecosystem of Rejection: How Each Movement Fits

These groups differ in theology, structure, and scope, yet converge in their rejectionist worldview.

1. Hamas (Palestine)

Origins: Founded in 1987 as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas fuses Islamism with Palestinian nationalism.

Use of Violence: Hamas’s charter and practice endorse “armed resistance” as the path to liberate all of historic Palestine. Its military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, has conducted suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and the October 7, 2023 assault, in which approximately 1,200 people were killed (Israeli Government Press Office, 2024).

View of Israel and the U.S.:

• Israel: Hamas rejects Israel’s right to exist. The 1988 Charter called for Israel’s destruction, and the 2017 political document softened tone but did not recognize Israel (Wilson Center, 2024).

• United States: Viewed as Israel’s patron and global oppressor; Hamas frequently condemns U.S. policy as imperialist (Wilson Center, 2024).

2. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)

Origins: Formed in the early 1980s, inspired by the Iranian Revolution and Palestinian nationalism.

Use of Violence: PIJ’s exclusive goal is the elimination of Israel through jihad. It refuses political participation and is responsible for suicide bombings and rocket attacks (Council on Foreign Relations, 2023).

View of Israel and the U.S.:

• Israel: Denies Israel’s right to exist.

• United States: Sees the U.S. as complicit in the occupation of Palestine and part of a “Crusader alliance” (Council on Foreign Relations, 2023).

PIJ is funded and armed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (International Crisis Group, 2023).

3. Hezbollah (Lebanon)

Origins: Established in 1982 with Iranian support after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. It follows Shi‘a Islamist ideology under Iran’s doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih.

Use of Violence: Hezbollah maintains a vast paramilitary structure with tens of thousands of rockets aimed at Israel. In 1983, the Islamic Jihad Organization—widely recognized as an early Hezbollah arm—carried out the Beirut barracks bombing, killing 241 U.S. Marines (U.S. Department of Defense, 1983).

View of Israel and the U.S.:

• Israel: Denies Israel’s legitimacy and vows to “liberate Jerusalem” (Wilson Center, 2024).

• United States: Considers the U.S. the “Great Satan,” seeing it as Israel’s master and imperial aggressor (Wilson Center, 2024).

4. Al-Qaeda

Origins: Founded in 1988 by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri at the end of the Soviet–Afghan war.

Use of Violence: Central to its ideology is global jihad. It orchestrated the September 11, 2001 attacks, killing nearly 3,000 people.

View of Israel and the U.S.:

• Israel: Portrayed as a Western outpost on Muslim land.

• United States: Targeted as the leader of a global anti-Islamic order.

The 1998 World Islamic Front fatwa declared jihad against “Jews and Crusaders,” explicitly naming the U.S. and citing Palestine’s liberation as a central cause (Bin Laden et al., 1998).

5. ISIS / Islamic State

Origins: Emerged from al-Qaeda in Iraq under Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi; declared a caliphate in 2014 under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Use of Violence: Known for extreme brutality—mass executions, enslavement, global terrorism.

View of Israel and the U.S.:

• Israel: Rejects Israel’s right to exist but prioritizes its caliphate project.

• United States: The primary “Crusader enemy.” ISIS executed American hostages and inspired worldwide attacks.

ISIS has denounced Hamas and Hezbollah as apostates for participating in politics or cooperating with Iran (U.N. Security Council, 2023).

6. Taliban (Afghanistan)

Origins: Founded in 1994 by Mullah Mohammad Omar; follows the Deobandi school and Pashtunwali tribal norms.

Use of Violence: Fought a 20-year insurgency against the U.S. and NATO, reclaiming power in 2021.

View of Israel and the U.S.:

• Israel: Does not recognize Israel; expresses solidarity with Palestinians (U.S. State Department, 2024).

• United States: Views the U.S. as an occupying power; its 2021 victory was framed as divine retribution.

7. Boko Haram (Nigeria)

Origins: Founded in 2002 by Mohammed Yusuf; opposes Western education and secular rule.

Use of Violence: Responsible for mass killings and kidnappings, including the 2014 Chibok abduction.

View of Israel and the U.S.:

• Israel: Sometimes invoked as part of a Western plot.

• United States: Viewed as leader of global anti-Islamic forces (U.S. State Department, 2024).

8. Al-Shabaab (Somalia)

Origins: Evolved from the Islamic Courts Union; pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda in 2012.

Use of Violence: Conducts suicide bombings and attacks, including the 2013 Westgate Mall massacre.

View of Israel and the U.S.:

• Israel: Condemns Israel within a broader anti-Western narrative.

• United States: Primary enemy in East Africa; U.S. drone strikes regularly target leaders (U.S. State Department, 2024).

9. Houthis (Ansar Allah, Yemen)

Origins: A Zaydi-Shi‘a movement formed in the 1990s; seized Sanaa in 2014.

Use of Violence: Overthrew the Yemeni government; wages war against Saudi-led and Western-backed forces.

View of Israel and the U.S.:

• Israel: Denies Israel’s right to exist; slogan declares “Death to Israel.”

• United States: Also targeted—“Death to America.”

Since 2023, the Houthis have launched missiles and drones toward Israel and attacked shipping in the Red Sea (Associated Press, 2024).

Alignment: Backed by Iran’s IRGC / Quds Force (International Crisis Group, 2023).

10. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards / Quds Force

Origins: Created in 1979 to defend and export Iran’s Islamic Revolution.

Use of Violence: Directs, trains, and funds militant proxies including Hezbollah, PIJ, Hamas, and the Houthis.

View of Israel and the U.S.:

• Israel: Supreme Leader Khamenei calls Israel a “cancerous tumor” (Wilson Center, 2024).

• United States: Branded the “Great Satan.”

The IRGC has conducted or sponsored attacks on U.S. and allied interests (U.S. State Department, 2024).

11. The Gray Zone: Political Islamists That Differ

Not all Islamic movements using religious rhetoric endorse armed jihad or reject coexistence with Israel and the U.S. (International Crisis Group, 2023):

12. Shared Ideological DNA

Despite theological differences, these groups share three convictions (International Crisis Group, 2023):

• Violence as sacred duty

• Rejection of Israel

• Anti-Americanism

These convictions form the core of modern jihadist and revolutionary Islamist movements.

(All content preserved exactly; citations unchanged.)

Hamas (Palestine)

Founded in 1987 as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood,⁵ Hamas issued its 1988 charter calling for Israel’s destruction. Its 2017 policy document softened tone but did not recognize Israel. Hamas’s military wing carried out the October 7, 2023 attack that killed approximately 1,200 Israelis.⁶

IV. Why Equality, Security, and Hope Are Essential

Israel cannot achieve peace through military power alone.
Palestinians cannot defeat extremism without dignity and equality.
Both societies need hope to displace fear.

Rejectionist movements thrive on despair — therefore genuine equality is not optional, but essential.

Policies alone cannot defeat ideological extremism. Only dignity can weaken the despair on which these movements feed.

V. The Global Pattern

What we see in Israel and Palestine is part of a global pattern.

This essay does not simply explain the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It also illuminates the underlying forces shaping conflicts in Lebanon, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iran, as well as the broader currents that animate global jihadist movements. In each of these places, variations of the same ideological patterns emerge: movements that depend on perpetual struggle, define themselves through resistance, and draw legitimacy from narratives of cosmic conflict. By examining this ecosystem in one context, the essay sheds light on its expression across the region and around the world.

These movements share an ideological framework that transcends borders. The conflict in Israel–Palestine must be understood within this broader, transnational ecosystem.

VI. Correcting Western Misconceptions

Western strategies often assume extremists want improved policy, economic development, or diplomatic engagement. But these movements do not seek compromise; they seek cosmic victory.

Rejectionism predates modern border issues, settlement disputes, and failed negotiations. Hamas existed before the Gaza withdrawal. Hezbollah’s hostility predates today’s boundary disputes. ISIS and al-Qaeda invoke Israel rhetorically while fighting elsewhere.

They do not see a political conflict — they see a sacred war.

VII. Why Israelis Fear Compromise

Israeli fears are grounded in a history that includes suicide bombings, rocket fire, kidnappings, the collapse of Gaza after the 2005 withdrawal, Iranian ambitions, and Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal.

But October 7, 2023, was the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.¹⁷
It shattered Israeli trust in security institutions and deepened fears that concessions will be exploited by rejectionist groups.

Understanding Israeli fear does not diminish Palestinian suffering — it clarifies the emotional landscape any peace plan must address.

VIII. Learning From Peace Transitions Elsewhere

Examples include:

Examples from around the world show that movements once defined by violence can evolve toward peace, including the IRA in Northern Ireland, FARC in Colombia, the ANC in South Africa, Rwanda’s post-genocide reconciliation process, the long-standing peace between Jordan and Israel, and even the more recent normalization agreements embodied in the Abraham Accords.

The Northern Ireland case shows how extremism weakens when hope increases, moderates rise, and dignity becomes possible without violence.

IX. Why Palestinian Equality Matters

Understanding the axis of rejection helps explain why genuine Palestinian equality is necessary — not only for justice but to undercut the despair that empowers these movements.

Extremism thrives where governance fails, dignity is denied, and hope collapses. Palestinian equality is a moral imperative and a strategic necessity.

Conclusion: 

Most peace plans assume:

• If you negotiate borders, peace will follow.

• If you improve economics, peace will follow.

• If you build institutions, peace will follow.

But some actors do not want peace — because peace would dissolve their identity.

“If despair is the oxygen of extremism, then dignity must be the air we choose to breathe.” “The path to peace runs not through those who reject it, but through those who believe it is still possible.”

Peace is a threat to those who survive on despair — but it is the only hope for those who long for dignity. Security for Israelis and equality for Palestinians are not opposing goals; they are the twin pillars on which sustainable peace must rest.

The human spirit longs for more than destruction. It longs for meaning, justice, safety, and hope. A future free of rejectionist ideology will only emerge when dignity replaces despair, and when both peoples finally have more to live for than to die for.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Associated Press. “Houthis Attack Ships in Red Sea; Renew ‘Death to America, Death to Israel’ Slogan.” 2024.

Bin Laden, Osama, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and others. World Islamic Front Statement: Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders. 1998.

Council on Foreign Relations. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Profile. 2023.

International Crisis Group. Iran and the Axis of Resistance. 2023.

Israeli Government Press Office. October 7, 2023 Official Casualty Summary. 2024.

United Nations Security Council. Report on ISIS and Al-Qaeda Activity (S/2023/578). 2023.

U.S. Department of Defense. Beirut Barracks Bombing Report. 1983.

U.S. Department of State. Country Reports on Terrorism. 2024.

Wilson Center. Profiles: Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran’s Quds Force. 2024.