Guest Blog: Interfaith dialogue isn't naive

Given the stakes, particularly in the Middle East, one may raise an eyebrow at the lack of support for interfaith dialogue from the political leadership in Israel, Palestine and Jordan. It's even more surprising how little attention interfaith initiatives generate in the media.

Past weeks have, once more, served as testimony to the extraordinarily sensitive situation regarding the Holy Sites in Jerusalem. Unrest reawakened in the area surrounding the Al Aqsa Mosque - a site which perhaps epitomizes the need for dialogue between adherents of the different faiths.

While the world sat back and carefully watched the unraveling of the "first act," little was said in the way of a proposed solution for peaceful dialogue. Rather, most observers preferred to point the finger of blame at one of the sides.

Moderate and level-headed leaders of the different religious communities, who may well differ in their opinions or interpretations but who nonetheless win the grudging respect of one another for being "Men of God," were not asked during this wave of renewed unrest to sit together and talk over differences.

For those who doubt the added value of interfaith dialogue and demand more "practical" and security-oriented solutions, such a dialogue could simply be called "the formation of a mechanism, comprising religious leaders from both sides, the aim of which is to prevent escalation of an already tense political reality."

However it's described, such a mechanism will certainly better serve the situation than merely waiting for it to subside, closing one's eyes and hoping for the best, or pointing fingers.

Consider the role of the different churches in the South African struggle for freedom, leading to the rise of Nelson Mandela and the change of government in 1994. The religious leadership's role in creating national solidarity was one without which the transfer of power would doubtlessly have not been as smooth as it was.

In the conflict in Northern Island, Catholic and Protestant religious leaders throughout the process accompanied the various political groups and lent a much-needed religious legitimacy to decisions taken along the way. The main contribution of their involvement was to take on board those whose faith was a substantial element in their ideology and political thinking.

In the Balkans, religious leaders were incorporated into the process at a much later stage and were thus far less conducive to promoting mutual understanding and in lending it legitimacy.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, political leaders have failed time and time again to realize the tremendous importance of incorporating their religious counterparts into the negotiation process. This was evident in Oslo - understandably, given that it was the first real platform for dialogue and thus a basis for learning. Nonetheless, the lesson was not learned and the religious sector continued to be alienated in later attempts to reach understanding. This sent a clear message to those whose faith remained a core element of every-day life - a vast percentage in the Middle East - that "you are not part of this discourse."

To use the recent skirmish in Jerusalem as a point-in-case, the political leadership in Israel does not normally communicate with the Palestinian leadership on matters relating to day-to-day life in Jerusalem (in order not to acknowledge any Palestinian political rights in the city prior to Final Status negotiation). Israel also often neglects the involvement of the Jordanians, despite the fact that in the Israeli-Jordanian Accords, recognition was given to Jordan as having special status with regard to the Islamic Holy Sites in Jerusalem.

The result, while certainly unintended, is Israeli failure to overcome fears and paranoia rampant in Palestinian public opinion. Despite the understanding that it is in no-one's favor - least of all Israel's - to allow for the deterioration of the situation, Israel nonetheless somehow manages to feed into all the conspiracy-related theories of the other side.
 
The frequent display of flyers from marginal, ultra-nationalist religious groups, such as the "Temple Mount Faithful," for example, calling for Jews to ascend the Temple Mount, does nothing to calm these conspiracy theories. Although mainstream Israeli society hardly pays attention to such rhetoric, mostly discarding it as nonsensical, it is these extreme voices which are heard by the Palestinians, in Jordan and in the rest of the Arab and Muslim world.
 
Yet certainly no one side is ever wholly responsible for a misunderstanding. Palestinians of Israeli nationality, who see themselves as charismatic leaders of the Palestinian Muslim population in Israel, do much to exacerbate this paranoia. Such leaders regularly bus in extremist Israeli Muslims "to protect Al Aqsa." Naturally, such steps do little to inspire peace of mind among Israelis.

The popularity of these leaders is such that more often than not, Palestinian religious and political leaders outside of Israel cannot afford to be sidelined by them. Therefore, politically, they find it essential to be at least as vocal.

Over the years, meaningful initiatives have been taken to encourage interfaith dialogue: In 2002, the Alexandria Process was launched, during which representatives of the three monotheistic religions met in Alexandria, Egypt. The Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land grew out of the Alexandria Declaration, in which a commitment was made to "ending the violence and bloodshed that denies the right to life and dignity" in the Holy Land.

This Council thus formed a committee comprising the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, the Supreme Sha'aria Courts in the Palestinian Authority and Waqf, and the Christian Ordinaries in Jerusalem, including the three Patriarchates and two bishoprics.

In 2006, the Jerusalem Center for Israel Research, headed by Professor Yaakov Bar Siman-Tov initiated a body of Palestinian, Israeli and European intellectuals and religious leaders to discuss ways in which violence and religious strife might be reduced or eliminated in Jerusalem.

In July of this year, President Shimon Peres spoke at an interfaith conference in Kazakhstan, addressing some 150 religious leaders from around the world, including a large delegation of imams. He called on King Abdullah to meet with him in Jerusalem, Riyadh or elsewhere "in order to fulfill his prayer for peace between all people, without differences of religion."

These are but a few of many more examples.

Interfaith dailogue, however, is not a task suited to one research center or individual statesmen. Such attempts thus far have been only partly successful and lacked true impact. To truly have a chance of making a difference, there must first and foremost be serious and ongoing support given to such initiatives by political leaders in Israel, Palestine and Jordan. They must be incorporated into any form of dialogue between the parties to the conflict.

A fully-supported body comprised of religious leaders, could sit down together and, rather than bunker down in their respective self-righteousness, take the necessary steps to lowering the flames of strife.

Ruth Wasserman (nee Lande) is currently a doctoral student in Middle Eastern Affairs in Oxford University, a former advisor to President Shimon Peres and co-director of the Lod Community Foundation.