Zionism was originally a rebellion against religious Judaism and the PLO Charter was essentially secularist. But because the conflict was allowed to fester without a resolution, religion got sucked into the escalating cycle of violence and became part of the problem.

Armstrong is arguing that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict did not begin as a straightforward “religious war.” Early political Zionism, in her view, was a largely modern, nationalist project that often positioned itself against traditional rabbinic authority, while the PLO’s founding program was framed in secular, nationalist terms. The longer the conflict persisted without a political settlement, she suggests, the more religious symbols, narratives, and institutions were drawn into the struggle—both as sources of identity and as tools of mobilization—intensifying absolutist thinking and justifying violence. The quote underscores her broader thesis that unresolved political grievances can “sacralize” a conflict, making compromise harder.