Calling for a negotiated settlement to end the Middle East conflict at this moment in history carries roughly the same practical weight as a candlelight vigil and a collective prayer for peace — sincere in impulse, ceremonially satisfying, and utterly disconnected from the structural realities on the ground.

The persistent faith in negotiation as the universal solvent of human conflict runs aground most completely on a single category of dispute: the religious war, where one or both parties believe they are fighting not for territory, resources, or political power, but for God. Here, the failure of negotiation is not incidental — it is structural.

The Fundamental Problem: God Doesn’t Sign the Accord

Negotiation presupposes that the parties at the table are the relevant decision-makers — that they can bind themselves and their constituencies to an agreement. In a religious war, this assumption collapses. The combatant fighting under divine mandate is not the relevant decision-maker. God is. And God does not show up at the table, does not initial the draft terms, and cannot be held to the resulting agreement.

Any human leader who claims to negotiate on God’s behalf faces an inescapable dilemma: either he has the authority to reinterpret divine will to suit circumstances — in which case the religious framing was always a political instrument — or he does not, in which case no agreement he signs is binding on the cause he claims to represent. This is not a theoretical problem in the Middle East — it is the explicit, codified position of the principal actors arrayed against Israel.

Hamas’s founding charter frames all of Palestine as an Islamic waqf, a........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)