Space and Place of Jerusalem; Sociology of Religion and Inter-Cultural Sociopolitical Peace and Conflict

Abstract

The study presents cultural, religious and peace and conflict discourse on Jerusalem (Israel-Palestine conflict), attempting to remain outside the realpolitik and examine sociopolitical-religious synergy and critical peace and partially integral human securitisation. Interculturalism, multiculturalism, and such notions emerged in the 1970s, emphasising different cultures' equivalence and dialogue. Besides cultural and territorial determinants of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the status quo is conditioned by a religious rather than a secular approach to political organisation. Both civilisations view their inhabit area through religious rights, turning history into theology and different theology into sociopolitics. It presents a human conflict. While religion and nationalism based on power have often contributed to antagonism, and violence, the objectives of the three monotheist religions addressing peace suggest a shift towards mutual compromise from hegemonic visions to practical expectancies. Jerusalem is the holy place where all confessions have the right of residence. Infiltration of faith into this political dispute, Islamism, and Judaism is a religious aspect disputed between Jews and Arabs. Conflicts are mainly due to territory, and religion gives it a higher purpose within narratives regarding supernatural rights. Despite the inter-religious tensions and passions involved in the contradictory faith elevation at this religious source, the internal and external peace is influenced by politics. The holy city of Jerusalem is a perpetual “poor” case-study paradigm. The future sociopolitical life must work around healthy inter-cultural, inter-religious, socioeconomic development, and critical human security. The revenge practice could negatively influence (any) peace process–causes related to social, psychological, historical, cultural, and societal stagnation. Balkans–Bosnia and Herzegovina is a comparable paradigm to the Israel–Palestinian question. Similar policies maintain, clerical, national, and ethnopolitical patterns materialise, i.e., critical peace stalemate persists.