From Religious Narrative to Geopolitical Project

Introduction

At its root, the issue is not merely linguistic or exegetical, but extends to a more consequential question: what happens when a particular religious reading becomes the basis for political legitimacy extending across time?

If the concept of a “divine promise” associated with descent from a prophet is presented as warrant for a permanent political right to land, and major powers adopt this understanding or employ it within their strategic vision, the narrative no longer remains within the domain of theology, but enters directly into the domain of geography and politics.

First: Defining the Hypothesis

The hypothesis rests on three interrelated pillars: the existence of an exclusive divine promise concerning a particular land; the association of this promise with descent from a prophet; and the treatment of this lineage as the basis for a permanent political right that transcends historical periods.

Put succinctly: political legitimacy derives from a religious–genealogical bond, not from contemporary sovereignty or international law.

Second: The Idea’s Passage from Interpretation to Reality

If a state adopts this conception as part of its identity, and this vision intersects with doctrinal currents in the West—such as certain strands of Christian Zionism—political support ceases to be merely support for a strategic interest and is redefined as part of a theological conception of history. At this moment, the most consequential transformation occurs: land is presented not as the object of a political dispute, but as the fulfillment of a sacred promise.

Third: Redefining Legitimacy

When geography is understood as an unquestionable divine right, political settlements become concessions concerning something sacred; opposition becomes opposition to a “historical right” rather than to a contemporary policy; and expansion is recast as restoration rather than acquisition. Here, the terms of the debate change: the discussion is no longer about borders and sovereignty, but about the interpretation of a historical destiny.

Fourth: The Effects on the Arab and Islamic World

Weakening the definition of right: Discourse shifts from the rights of peoples and international law to disputes over texts and narratives, complicating the formulation of a clear political argument in international forums.

Normalizing privilege based on lineage: Accepting the idea that lineage confers perpetual ownership establishes a criterion grounded in descent rather than justice and contemporary sovereignty—a criterion that is difficult to challenge politically when clothed in religious terms.

Erosion of moral standing: When the narrative of an “exclusive promise” prevails, opposition to policies may be portrayed as a rejection of a historical right, rather than as a defense of a political reality open to debate.

An internal psychological effect: Confusion in defining identity and right, intellectual division over the nature of the conflict, and weakness in moral and strategic mobilization. Nations weaken when their criteria for defining justice become unsettled.

Fifth: The Balance of Power and Its Decisive Role

Western support—whether arising from strategic or doctrinal considerations—provides long-term political depth. Yet the decisive factor is not the narrative alone, but the balance of power. However powerful a narrative may be, it does not become an enduring reality unless supported by institutions, an economy, and alliances. Conversely, narratives are not confronted through theoretical argument alone, but by building a countervailing power capable of imposing a different definition of legitimacy.

Sixth: Where Does the Real Danger Lie?

The danger lies neither in religious faith itself nor in the exegetical debate over the identity behind a historical name, but in turning a theological idea into the basis for perpetual political legitimacy, backed by a great power, amid division and weakness on the opposing side.

The following may then occur gradually: the entrenchment of facts on the ground; the de facto redefinition of borders; the normalization of an imbalance of power; and the transmission of the conflict to new generations in an increasingly complex form.

Seventh: The Danger of Believing Weak Reports

The identification of “Israel” with Jacob, peace be upon him, is often based on hadiths that are weak or whose authenticity is disputed. The compilers of the Six Books did not include them; they are not a matter of consensus among hadith scholars; and there is no definitive evidence from the Qur’an.

Believing these reports has direct effects: conferring spurious legitimacy makes the identification appear to be a historical–religious fact when it is merely an interpretive judgment or a weak report; facilitating political instrumentalization, because any narrative based on a weak report can be exploited to justify political rights or geographical expansion outside the bounds of law and justice; weakening the internal intellectual position through confusion in defining right and division between those who reject such instrumentalization and those who accept it; and creating an ethical and political vulnerability, since accepting weak reports opens the door to justifying measures on the ground in the name of religion without methodological scrutiny.

In short: believing this report on the basis of weak hadiths supplies an argument for supporting an assumed right to land before the major powers and heightens the danger of the narrative. It remains textually unsubstantiated, yet is employed in practice as a basis for politics and geography, while the Arab and Islamic world remains in a precarious position.

Conclusion

The problem lies not in the name or the report in itself, but in the capacity of any narrative to redefine the criterion of right and direct it according to political interests. In the modern international system, legitimacy is built on recognized sovereignty, the will of the population, international law, and the balance of power.

But when the criterion of justice is replaced by that of descent and lineage, the danger lies not in the text itself, but in the way the narrative is translated into geographical and political reality. History makes clear that geography is protected not by disputation over reports, but by political, economic, and intellectual power capable of imposing and protecting its definition of right.