‘Bridges of Light’

In many churches, there is embarrassment surrounding the topic of Israel. After 7 October 2023, this conversation has certainly not become any easier. How can you discuss Israel without heated tempers and cold hearts? How can we be related to Israel in the current situation? And how should you view the Palestinians? In two articles, I would like to offer some thoughts for reflection on this topic. Today, part 1: lessons for the church from an iftar in Israel.

On Wednesday, 5 March, I attended a special event in the Old City. Jews, Christians, Muslims and Druze gathered on the roof of the Aish HaTorah World Centre (www.aish.com). From this roof, we had a beautiful view of the site where the temple once stood and where the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque now stand.

In his opening remarks, Rabbi Daniel Rowe spoke about the long history of this place. Before Judaism, Christianity, and Islam existed, Melchizedek, the king of Salem (Gen. 14:18-20), lived here. This priest of the Most High blessed Abraham. The name of this place means ‘peace’. In the words of Rabbi Rowe: ‘Jerusalem is the place for all people, Jewish or not, to come together in peace.’

Iftar
The Aish HaTorah World Centre hosted an iftar this evening. An iftar is the meal that Muslims eat immediately after sunset during the month of fasting. What made this evening extra special was that we were guests at Aish. Aish is a Jewish organisation that works worldwide to connect Jews with the Orthodox Jewish tradition. It is not self-evident that this organisation would host an event like this.

Aish organised this iftar in collaboration with the Interfaith Encounter Association, an organisation that promotes interfaith dialogue. The evening was entitled ‘Bridges of Light’, an appropriate name, because that evening, ‘bridges of light’ were indeed built.

In addition to the fantastic (kosher!) meal, there were also two rounds of discussions. In the first round, representatives of different traditions discussed the theme ‘Co-existence in times of crisis’ – living peacefully side by side in difficult times. Rabbi Daniel Rowe emphasised that there is a covenant that is greater than the covenant with Israel: the covenant with Noah. He also underlined that, according to Jewish tradition, Ishmael died as a righteous man and was reconciled with Isaac.

Two perspectives

The second round of discussions was more tense in terms of content, as it focused on the question of what the future of the country (or countries) should look like. Led by Alex Traiman, Rabbi Daniel Rowe and Palestinian activist Samar Sinijlawi engaged in a conversation on the theme of ‘Building Bridges: Israeli and Palestinian Perspectives’.

Samar had visited Yarden Bibas shortly before. Yarden Bibas was Shiri's husband and father of the two youngest hostages, the red-haired boys Ariel (4 years old) and Kfir (9 months old), all three of whom were murdered in Gaza. He went to Yarden to offer his apologies on behalf of the Palestinian people for the death of his wife and two sons. During this round of talks, he also shared something about his own life story. Until the First Intifada (1987-1993), he had not experienced any conflict, but after that, things changed and he became a supporter of Fatah. He then spent five years in prison for his actions. There he learned Hebrew. He stated, ‘We must learn to see through the eyes of the other.’ In his contributions, he strongly emphasised the Palestinians' own responsibility in this conflict. “Palestinians must change their narrative: we must recognise your right to live here. And you must remember that there have always been others living alongside you.”

One statement that stuck with me was: ’The enemies of the Palestinians are not the Israelis, but the fear in the Jews. We must defeat this enemy.’ In other words: we must ensure that Jews can live safely. He envisioned an Israeli state with an Arab minority and a Palestinian state with a Jewish minority. “Within that Palestinian state, the safety of the Israelis is our responsibility.”

Rabbi Rowe recounted how he grew up with the idea ’that the Palestinians all hate us.’ He, too, had learned to listen first to the other person's story in order to see reality through their eyes. He also emphasised that religion has the power to overcome fears. When asked if he could imagine a Jewish state that did not include Hebron, for example, he replied that we are now living in the time before the coming of the Messiah. By saying that, he left room for a two-state solution: after all, the world is not yet perfect. At the same time, he emphasised that it would be essential for him that Jews could continue to visit important religious sites in a Palestinian state.

Talking about Israel in the church

There are several points from this iftar that are significant for churches elsewhere in the world. The first point I would like to mention is the fact that people from different faith traditions came together this evening. They listened to each other and accepted each other's differences. Different theological and political views did not stand in the way of an open attitude of listening. The intention of the conversations was not to convince the other person of your own opinion.

In the conversation about Israel, it strikes me that a (large?) proportion of the people who express their views on this subject find it difficult to listen to the other person, or are so convinced of their own point of view that there is no room for other points of view. A characteristic of wartime is that enemy images seem necessary to keep reality manageable – along the lines of: ‘My side is right and the other side is wrong.’ However, this iftar showed that even in times of war and division, it is possible to build bridges and seek connection with the other side.

In the second round of discussions in particular, the speakers sought a way forward. In doing so, they both created space for a two-state solution. For me, this is not about promoting one particular solution, but much more about the attitude that this reflects. It is an attitude that expresses the need to move forward together and to find a solution together. This requires concessions from both sides. It means that both parties not only recognise each other's right to live here, but also recognise each other's pain.

Finally, if it is possible to engage in dialogue here in Israel, why should it not be possible in the church? What is stopping us from listening to each other? Listening does not mean giving up your own point of view, but being willing to see the world through the eyes of the other. An open attitude to listening is not always easy; on the contrary, it can be confrontational and painful. That is why I would like to explore this further in my next contribution and see how the conversation about Israel can build ‘bridges of light’ in the church.