No, it’s not. Take it elsewhere.
It is an ethno-nationalist conflict, not a “religious war”.
Most of the Zionist founding fathers were socialists and atheists.
On the other side, many of their Arab adversaries were followers of some form of Arab nationalism, and came from a variety of religious backgrounds (that is, they were by no means all Muslim) - they were darlings of revolutionary marxists in the '70s. Marxists were hardly the most “religious” of folks (well, unless you consider Marxism a religion).
See for example the career of George Habash - Christian background, Marxist, anti-Israeli terrorist.
A conflict that historically had many atheists on both sides doesn’t look much like a “religious war”. Though some on the Arab side have grown a lot more “religious” in recent decades, with the rise of militant Islam generally in the region.
It’s like the Prots and Papests in Ireland: They’re not really fighting over doctrine or liturgy, but, rather, religious identity has long since morphed into ethnic/tribal identity (and really was that to begin with).
Another way for an atheist to look at it: Israel was not the only place considered at various times and by various people as a “Jewish homeland”.
Uganda, some place in Siberia, Madagascar and Alaska were all considered at one point or another.
Of them, only the proposal for Siberia ever took off. Apparently, it still exists in that a tiny number of Jews still live there.
Why was a “Jewish homeland” necessary? Not, as one may think, because Jews by and large wanted one necessarily - rather, because of the threat to their lives from their non-Jewish neighbours (or a desire on the part of those non-Jewish neighbours to deport them).
In short, it was their identity as Jews that mattered - as a matter of ancestry, not as a matter of religion. Often, it was an identity imposed on individuals whether they wanted it or not.
You do not get to order other posters to go elsewhere.
The comparison to the Troubles in Northern Ireland is extremely close. No one had battles over Transubstantiation; the battles were over the cultural clans that were defined by the church one’s parents attended, (since many of the battlers did not even attend church, themselves).
You do not have to pay attention to attempts to help your understanding. You are not permitted to tell them to go away.
[ /Moderating ]
That is not a theological question. it is a cultural question. A declaration that religion played no role, at all, in the various feuds would be overstating the case. However, the issue is simply not one of “religious war.” it is not, for the reasons that have already been pointed out by multiple posters.
No, it really isn’t. Fuck this. I’m out.
If we define religion as “vaguely supernatural-based doctrine” and “religious war” as a war wherein at least one faction buys into a religion and the leadership exhorts the masses using at least vaguely religious terms, then all wars of history have been religious, even WWII.
So clearly that’s not a useful set of definitions. So we need to arrive first at what we think the terms really do mean. Then we can start to talk about whether any given war, current or historical, qualifies as a religious war.
Competing cites from current media babble are not going to be enlightening. That’s how we get to the place where “religious war” means whatever the speaker or audience guesses it means. Today. For this particular set of combatants.
That way lies fruitless bickering and hurt feelings.
Israel-Palestine threads often melt down badly - but I must admit, I’ve never seen one melt down like this before. 
As for “religious war” - I’d define that as something that, at least mostly, was inspired by a desire to impose one’s religion, or extend the influence of one’s religion, over a territory or population, or to obtain religious benefits for the participants: as in the First Crusade, the Albigensian Crusade, or the wars of Islamic expansion.
Of course, like every war, most religous wars have more than one motive: the opportunity for plunder and glory may have played as much a part, depending on the individual, as religious indulgences in motivating knights to sign up for the First Crusade.
I’d say that the war is a “religious war” where the primary ostensible motive was a religious one (imposing one’s religion on others, gaining territory to extend the influence of one’s religion in pursuit of some sort of religious manifest destiny, or gaining personal religious benefits such as indulgences – or protecting oneself against others attempting one of these goals).
That’s a very good question. Can those of you who have said that the Israeli-Palestine conflict and the Irish conflict are not religious wars please tell us what current wars actually qualify as “religious wars” in your mind. If you are the mind that there can be no such thing as a “religious war”, please be upfront about it.
Would it be fair to say that today the Orthodox establishment is more Zionist than the religious moderates (Reformists?)?
I don’t see where the thread melted down. It was just one poster.
Right now, the current conflict with ISIS is a religious war. Similarly, the current conflict in Nigeria with Boko Haram.
If you mean “Reform Judaism”, that movement is mostly a North American thing - it has little presence in Israel, as far as I know.
Within Israel, the main issue is secular vs. religious. Zionism is orthogonal to that classification.
Fair enough - but that poster was the thread starter. Just remarking that it was an odd reaction.
What makes the ISIS conflict more a religious war than the Israeli-Palestine conflict?
Because the goals of ISIS are more explicitly religious - to create an Islamic Caliphate that will carry forward the ‘program’ of Islamic Manifest destiny, and to terrorize or intimidate everyone within theor territory into accepting a particular interpretation of Islam.
In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the goals of both sides were much more similar to those of any other ethno-nationalist group - to create an etnically-based “homeland” in a defined territory (Jewish on the one hand, Palestinian on the other). While there have been some on both sides with expressly religious/millenial goals, they aren’t historically representative of mainstream thought on either side.
Put it this way: can you picture George Habash (a Christian Marxist) fighting on behalf of ISIS?
So the difference would be the goals of those who lead, and not those who necessarily follow? I’m not sure all the young people that are joining up with ISIS are doing so “to create an Islamic Caliphate that will carry forward the ‘program’ of Islamic Manifest destiny, and to terrorize or intimidate everyone within their territory into accepting a particular interpretation of Islam”-that just doesn’t seem to bee a message one would use to entice a teenager to leave friends and family with.
Huh? My impression is that young people are joining for exactly that reason. To provide a sense of being part of something far more significant, and to gain purely spiritual/religious rewards. Why do you think people willingly sign up to become suicide bombers? It isn’t for material reasons.
I think it’s fair to say that 72 virgins and an eternity in Paradise are material rewards, even if you have to be dead to receive them.
Ah, that would be a “no”. 
Material rewards are, by definition, material - that is, something that is verifiably present in this world.
It might not be that particular goal, but the method used to reach the goal that attracts a certain type of person. I found a very interesting Mother Jones article that says that some people find a need for a “black-or-white” fundamentalist world, and that ISIS actively recruits these people.