Interfaith Dialogues in Haifa and Jerusalem Against Backdrop of War
In May 2024, my journey to Haifa and Jerusalem was an exploration of interfaith dialogue amidst a context of deep-seated conflict and complex political realities. The ongoing war in Gaza, marked by accusations of genocide in Gaza and pervasive insecurity among Israelis, underscores a stark truth: peace cannot exist without security and justice. This foundational principle challenges interfaith dialogue practitioners to confront the limitations of their work and rethink their approach.
Interfaith dialogue, particularly in regions like the Middle East, often struggles to prove its relevance in the face of acute violence and political deadlock. Critics argue that dialogue, however well-intentioned, can appear detached from the harsh realities of life under conflict. It is seen by some as naive or complicit, offering a veneer of civility while failing to address the fundamental issues of justice and security that underpin peace.
This critique was palpable at the Haifa Laboratory for Religious Studies’ Annual Symposium, where scholars, religious leaders, and activists grappled with the role of dialogue in such a charged environment. The discussions highlighted a crucial need: interfaith dialogue must evolve to engage more directly with the political and social structures that sustain conflict. Peace, as the symposium underscored, is not merely the absence of violence but the presence of justice and security for all communities.
Scholars like John Paul Lederach and Mohammed Abu-Nimer offer critical insights into this evolution. Lederach, in The Moral Imagination, calls for a peacebuilding approach that integrates security and justice into the dialogue process. He argues for a shift from symbolic gestures to transformative engagement that addresses the underlying causes of conflict. Abu-Nimer, in Nonviolence and Peace Building in Islam, emphasizes the necessity of linking interfaith dialogue with social justice and policy advocacy, ensuring that dialogue contributes to systemic change.
In Jerusalem, my conversations with individuals like Uncle Bahjat and scholars at the Truman Institute reinforced this perspective. The deeply personal narratives shared during these encounters highlighted the interconnectedness of security, justice, and peace. Without addressing the fears and grievances of all communities, dialogue risks becoming an exercise in futility, unable to bridge the gap between idealism and the lived realities of conflict.
To sustain its relevance, interfaith dialogue must undergo significant reform. First, it needs to be more inclusive, amplifying the voices of those directly affected by the conflict. These are the people whose security is most at risk and whose pursuit of justice is often unmet. Second, dialogue must be action-oriented, integrating tangible outcomes that address both immediate security concerns and long-term justice imperatives. Finally, it must engage with political structures, advocating for policies that ensure equitable justice and security.
Peace, as the symposium and my experiences in Haifa and Jerusalem affirmed, is a complex and multifaceted goal. It cannot be achieved through dialogue alone but requires a holistic approach that incorporates security, justice, and empathy. Interfaith dialogue has the potential to contribute to this process, but only if it is willing to evolve and confront the deeper political and social challenges that define the conflict. Holding onto this potential, despite the enormity of the task, is the enduring work of interfaith practitioners committed to a just and secure peace for all.
