When two religious nationalisms fight, is it different?

There are many examples of intractable world conflicts where it appears that two religious nationalisms are fighting each other. India- Pakistan, Northern Ireland and Israel-Palestine conflicts immediately come to mind. It has been argued that resolution of these conflicts has been more difficult because of the presence of religious nationalisms. The main reason given is that as religious nationalists (believing they are following God's orders or believing that even if they suffer now, they would get big rewards later) are less ready to make compromise, resolution of conflicts in which they are fighting each other is improbable, if not impossible.

Are these conflicts different than those conflicts where ethnic nationalisms are fighting each other or a civic nationalism is fighting with a religious nationalism? 

This question is important because to resolve conflicts, one has to first understand them. However, to answer it, one has to believe or at least accept that religious nationalisms are different and distinct from other types of nationalisms. Looking around, one can see most of the religious nationalisms have developed an ethnic dimension, if they didn't had it from the start. Jews have always been proud of a separate ethnic identity. There are Jews who think themselves only ethnically Jewish, so is their identity religious or ethnic? (See how this issue confounded researchers surveying American Jewry Who counts as a Jew?) Similarly, Irish and Scots have strong attachment to their ethnicities and religious identity has been the dominant collective identity for Iranians more recently but a belief in Persian/Iranian identity is not far from surface.

It is more like there are many ethno-religious nationalisms, rather than pure religious nationalisms as Omer and Springs in Religious Nationalism: A Reference Handbook (2013)

Another related issue is mixing of territorial nationalism and religious nationalism. Many conflicts that were initially only territorial later developed religious justifications because the two combatants belonged to different religions. 

Was Northern Ireland conflict religious/sectarian from the start and always remained so? Keeping in view that both Israelis and Palestinians were initially led by secular leaders/parties/organizations for decades, it can questioned whether the initial conflict between them was defined by their religions? Similarly, India has always claimed to be a secular entity, so claiming that the Indo-Pakistan conflict is between rival religious nationalisms does not seem right.

I personally think that religious identity is just like other collective identities. When conflicts become entangled with identities, they become difficult to resolve. A long-term conflict between two groups links the identities of the groups with the conflict and an explanation of the bad behavior of the 'other' becomes part of both collective identities. These collective identities are difficult to change. Leaders and elites, who might (or might not) have once promoted the social construction of 'other', would find that re-interpretation or re-orientation of collective identity based on mutual respect was not easy as Dov Waxman argues in Democracy and Conflict Resolution: The Dilemmas of Israel's Peacemaking (2014)

National identities cannot just be revised at will. Attempts by policymakers and political elites to redefine national identities from above are by no means always successful and risk provoking fierce domestic opposition, as Rabin’s assassination tragically demonstrates.

One can also give the example of Mahatma Gandhi who was killed by a Hindu nationalist when Mahatma was perceived to be working against Hindus interests. Benazir Bhutto can also be thought of the victim of religious nationalists who thought Bhutto was trying to change/damage their interests/identity.   

        

Who counts as a Jew?

On February 20th, Pew's report 'A Portrait of Jewish Americans' was discussed. Here (Who Counts as a Jew?) Rachel Gross discusses how Pew researcher dealt with the tricky question, who counts as a Jew. As Rachel argues there is a long history of cultural Jews. So the study not only counted 'Jews by religion' but also 'Jews of no religion', the former being 78% of the total Jews. 

Gross supports Pew's definition and argues,

'The concept of religion is a modern Protestant creation, and modern Judaism has never fit comfortably into the category, despite the best efforts of Jewish thinkers and communal leaders. In the United States, Jews have embraced American conceptions of religion as an individual matter of belief and choice rather than one mandated by ethnicity and community, giving rise to dynamic, changing community structures and rituals.'

'But beyond the door of the synagogue or Jewish communal center, American Jews’ spiritual lives are rich, complex, and hard to pin down. Divisions between Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (the culture) are no longer useful, if they ever were. Simplistic “religious” and “secular” Jews no longer accurately describe the diversity of American Jewish practice, if they ever did. As the Pew researchers highlight at the beginning of their report, “Jews by religion” and “Jews of no religion” are both overwhelmingly proud to be Jewish and have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people.'

This reminds me of reading about Hinduism and the difficulty in answering the question, who counts as a Hindu.  Hinduism, according to many scholars, was more a culture than religion until atleast the eighteenth century. It was the British colonial administration that first united all Hindus (on paper and under law) as believers in a distinct religion when it decided to make Hinduism the residual religion of all Indians. Hindu nationalists have now the unenviable task of not rejecting any major groups from the definition of Hindu but also drawing more clear boundaries so that who is a Hindu is more distinguishable.