Jonathan Sacks Has the Cure for Religious Violence, But Who’s Listening?

March 7 2016

In Not in God’s Name, Britain’s former chief rabbi rebuts the charge that religion is, in itself, an incurable source of brutal violence, seeks out the causes of religious violence, and suggests ways such violence—especially in the form of modern-day jihadism—can be checked. Michael Rosen writes in his review:

Sacks’s footing is firmest when he’s interpreting biblical texts and deriving ethical lessons from them; he paints the vivid characters populating Genesis with unrivaled poise, passion, and sensitivity. His language sparkles, too, when outlining the trajectory of Jewish history in its biblical and rabbinic eras, from its bellicose origins to its quietist present and equally so when exploring Christianity’s similar evolution.

Sacks is less persuasive, however, when explaining how that transformation can be replicated today, especially by Islam. For instance, in describing how the Jews sublimated their injunction to destroy the biblical nation of Amalek into a metaphor for pure evil, both internal and external, as a “struggle within the soul,” Sacks suggests how Islamists might reinterpret jihad. But are they listening? Should they be? . . . That the Jews have largely renounced violence hardly means Islamists will do the same.

If this book has a flaw, it’s this: it ought to appeal to all good-hearted religious people. However, the bad-hearted religious people don’t seem to be listening and the good-hearted secular folks don’t really need to. Sacks concludes by urging “an international campaign against the teaching and preaching of hate,” insisting on “reciprocal altruism” and recognizing that “we are all children of Abraham.” Will his call be enough to turn the tide of religious violence? Probably not. Must we heed it anyway? Absolutely.

Read more at Weekly Standard

More about: Jewish-Christian relations, Jihad, Jonathan Sacks, Muslim-Christian relations, Muslim-Jewish relations, Religion & Holidays

American Middle East Policy Should Focus Less on Stability and More on Weakening Enemies

Feb. 10 2025

To Elliott Abrams, Donald Trump’s plan to remove the entire population of Gaza while the Strip is rebuilt is “unworkable,” at least “as a concrete proposal.” But it is welcome insofar as “its sheer iconoclasm might lead to a healthy rethinking of U.S. strategy and perhaps of Arab and Israeli policies as well.” The U.S., writes Abrams, must not only move beyond the failed approach to Gaza, but also must reject other assumptions that have failed time and again. One is the commitment to an illusory stability:

For two decades, what American policymakers have called “stability” has meant the preservation of the situation in which Gaza was entirely under Hamas control, Hizballah dominated Lebanon, and Iran’s nuclear program advanced. A better term for that situation would have been “erosion,” as U.S. influence steadily slipped away and Washington’s allies became less secure. Now, the United States has a chance to stop that process and aim instead for “reinforcement”: bolstering its interests and allies and actively weakening its adversaries. The result would be a region where threats diminish and U.S. alliances grow stronger.

Such an approach must be applied above all to the greatest threat in today’s Middle East, that of a nuclear Iran:

Trump clearly remains open to the possibility (however small) that an aging [Iranian supreme leader Ali] Khamenei, after witnessing the collapse of [his regional proxies], mulling the possibility of brutal economic sanctions, and being fully aware of the restiveness of his own population, would accept an agreement that stops the nuclear-weapons program and halts payments and arms shipments to Iran’s proxies. But Trump should be equally aware of the trap Khamenei might be setting for him: a phony new negotiation meant to ensnare Washington in talks for years, with Tehran’s negotiators leading Trump on with the mirage of a successful deal and a Nobel Peace Prize at the end of the road while the Iranian nuclear-weapons program grows in the shadows.

Read more at Foreign Affairs

More about: Iran, Middle East, U.S. Foreign policy