Moving Interfaith Dialogue Beyond Doctrine

Jan. 25 2016

December brought two significant developments in Jewish-Christian relations: a statement from the Vatican affirming the sacredness of Judaism in Catholic doctrine and a statement from an Orthodox Israeli organization describing Christianity as a component of the divine plan. Examining these statements, Peter Berger argues that dialogue between the faiths must not be limited to doctrinal questions, an especially important point for those who do not subscribe to a literalist interpretation of their scriptures:

Jews and Christians who cannot understand the Scriptures in . . . a literal way don’t really have the problem [of resolving] how the two covenants relate to each other—both are historically questionable. The question of whether they have a common faith must be addressed through a much more nuanced assessment of the core of each tradition, rather than through the quasi-juridical decision [as to] whether the same covenant covers both traditions. . . . I think that such an assessment will lead to the proposition that yes, Jews and Christians do have a shared faith in the same God.

The other questions, about common moral and political concerns, will also have to be addressed beyond the [strictly doctrinal issues]. These concerns have been strongly expressed in interfaith statements for many years since World War II—that anti-Semitism is a blasphemous offense against God and man; that any persecution of people because of their religion is morally unacceptable; that the state of Israel has a fundamental right to exist in safety. And recalling the Holocaust is a useful help in formulating every one of these concerns.

Read more at American Interest

More about: Anti-Semitism, Holocaust, Interfaith dialogue, Jewish-Christian relations, Religion & Holidays

Egypt Has Broken Its Agreement with Israel

Sept. 11 2024

Concluded in 1979, the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty ended nearly 30 years of intermittent warfare, and proved one of the most enduring and beneficial products of Middle East diplomacy. But Egypt may not have been upholding its end of the bargain, write Jonathan Schanzer and Mariam Wahba:

Article III, subsection two of the peace agreement’s preamble explicitly requires both parties “to ensure that that acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, or violence do not originate from and are not committed from within its territory.” This clause also mandates both parties to hold accountable any perpetrators of such acts.

Recent Israeli operations along the Philadelphi Corridor, the narrow strip of land bordering Egypt and Gaza, have uncovered multiple tunnels and access points used by Hamas—some in plain sight of Egyptian guard towers. While it could be argued that Egypt has lacked the capacity to tackle this problem, it is equally plausible that it lacks the will. Either way, it’s a serious problem.

Was Egypt motivated by money, amidst a steep and protracted economic decline in recent years? Did Cairo get paid off by Hamas, or its wealthy patron, Qatar? Did the Iranians play a role? Was Egypt threatened with violence and unrest by the Sinai’s Bedouin Union of Tribes, who are the primary profiteers of smuggling, if it did not allow the tunnels to operate? Or did the Sisi regime take part in this operation because of an ideological hatred of Israel?

Read more at Newsweek

More about: Camp David Accords, Gaza War 2023, Israeli Security