‘Rather
than creating new conflicts, it merely made existing ones more
difficult to resolve.’ Discuss with reference to the impact of religious
fundamentalism on regional security in the period c.1970 to 2000.
Basic structure
Religious fundamentalism has made existing
conflicts more difficult to resolve.
Where, how and in what ways.
However, it has also created new conflicts.
Where, how and in what ways.
Evaluative conclusion
Was it one and not the other? Was it one more
than the other?
Made existing conflicts more difficult to resolve.
Principal examples:
The Middle East
Kashmir and why [India
and Pakistan]
Briefly establish the
existing conflict.
Sudan
Fully explain why the advent of religious
fundamentalism has made the conflict more
difficult to resolve
For all 3 emphasise that fundamentalism had made conflicts more difficult to resolve because:


It is uncompromising
…because fundamentalism is based
upon literal interpretations of scripture.
Fundamentalists will not compromise
because their political stands [on
Kashmir, on Israel etc.] are sanctioned
by God. You do not compromise with
the word of God. Views are dogmatic,
based on Manichean perspectives.
In short, if there is no room for
compromise, the chances of conflict
resolution, especially if others are
similarly uncompromising, are
significantly reduced.
For example:
Middle East conflict since before 1947 and after
1947.
Uncompromising
Gush Emunim and Hamas, Islamic Jihad
uncompromising:
Gush Emunim: Eretz Israel, East Jerusalem
Hamas etc. attitude to Israel/ Palestinian issue
Contrast with the compromising nature of
secular politics: Rabin, PLO, Oslo
Violent
Settler violence
Jihad violence
Chances of peace reduced.
It legitimizes the use of violence
[emphasise the concept of jihad]
…because the use of violence often
leads to violent counter reaction.
Violence increase insecurity of others, it
polarizes, it adds to mistrust, especially if
it is directed at civilians. Governments
will not negotiate with groups who use
1
violence.
However, it has also created new conflicts.
Fundamentalism created Iran.
Iran as an exporter of violent fundamentalist
groups, from Afghanistan to Lebanon, to the
West Bank.
Fundamentalism and Saudi Arabia
The Saudis and Wahabism. Why new?
Because only after Soviet invasion of the
Afghanistan that the Saudis began large scale
support of madrassas etc., and largely to counter
export of Iranian influence in Islamic world.
Conflicts have been created throughout the
Islamic world as fundamentalism came to
represent a new revolutionary force for change.
The Moslem Brotherhood, Algeria, JI
Conflict has also been created between Islamic
fundamentalists and Western targets.
Al Qaeda and the ‘war on terror’.
Lewis:
‘Their critique is, in the broadest sense, societal.
The Islamic world, in their view, has taken a
wrong turning. Its rulers call themselves
Moslems and make a pretense of Islam, but they
are in fact apostates who have abrogated the
Holy Law and adopted foreign and infidel laws
and customs. The only solution for them is to
return to the authentic Moslem way of
life…Fundamentalists are anti-Western in the
sense that they regard the West as the source of
the evil that is corroding Moslem society, but
their primary attack is directed against their own
rulers.’’
Islam as a revolutionary ideology which gave a
coherence and a justification for the challenge to
unpopular governments. Fundamentalists seek a
profound reorganization of society along
religious lines.
Daniel Doron, "With the momentous upheavals
rocking the Muslim World, the Arab-Israeli
conflict is a sideshow with little geopolitical
significance." It is a derivative conflict in which
Israel is "the target of convenience for Islam's
great sense of hurt and obsessive hostility
towards the West."
The operational message is that the United States
"must refocus its policy on the basic problems
facing the Islamic world rather than only the
Arab-Israeli conflict." Jerusalem's attempts to
turn that conflict into a Jewish-Moslem
confrontation and to place America on its side to
help contain radical Moslem forces in the region
may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The result
is likely to be strengthened anti-American
feelings in the Middle East and anti-American
terrorist acts, which, in turn, will invite a new
round of American military intervention.
2