In the complex landscape of conflict resolution and societal healing, one often overlooked factor plays a crucial role: religious leadership. This article explores the pivotal role of faith leaders and theological frameworks in fostering lasting peace and justice.

This paper delves into the intricate relationship between religious leadership and peacebuilding processes. At the heart of this discussion is a bold assertion: The effective promotion of transitional justice and sustainable peace is inextricably linked to the active involvement of religious leaders and the presence of a robust, supportive theology.

This premise challenges us to reconsider traditional approaches to conflict resolution and peacebuilding. It suggests that secular methods alone may be insufficient in addressing the deep-rooted issues that often fuel conflict, particularly in societies where religion plays a significant role in shaping cultural norms and individual worldviews. By examining these aspects, this paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on conflict resolution and offers new perspectives on integrating religious dimensions into peacebuilding strategies.

 

The Importance of Religious Leadership in Peacebuilding

The significant role of religious leadership in interreligious dialogue becomes evident when considering the deeply rooted religious identities within both Israeli and Palestinian societies. A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that 80 percent of Jews in Israel express belief in God.^[1] Similarly, Muslim religious identity has increasingly become a cornerstone of Palestinian society.^[2] Thus, the religious identities of both peoples have become central to the discourse on the conflict and the prospects for coexistence.^[3]

However, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has never been an isolated affair between Israelis and Palestinians. Since the British Mandate, international involvement has consistently been a decisive factor.^[4] Israeli actions against Palestinians often resonate throughout the broader Muslim world, illustrating the conflict’s extensive religious, political, and ideological implications.^[5] Conversely, the ongoing intervention of European countries and the United States in the conflict is also motivated by religious sentiments, particularly a pronounced concern for the fate of the Holy Land.^[6] The complex relationship between Western Christianity and Judaism, especially post-Holocaust, adds layers to the theological discourse on Israel.^[7] This complexity is vividly illustrated in the context of Israel, particularly during the period following the Oslo Accords and the Second Intifada in the 2000s. During this time, the religious conflict in Israel intensified, often becoming intertwined with political issues.^[8] The cycle of violence witnessed in this era was frequently fueled by religious motivations, with religious narratives and beliefs being used to justify political actions and viewpoints.^[9]

The second point is more straightforward. We have already attempted to promote peacebuilding without involving religious discourse. Over the years, both the State of Israel and the representatives of what would later become the Palestinian Authority have engaged in peace talks and initiatives that largely excluded religious figures.^[10] In fact, these figures have often been viewed as significant obstacles to the peace process.^[11] However, such efforts have proven ineffective. One of the main reasons is the lack of trust between the parties and their skepticism about whether the leadership of the opposing party genuinely represents them. This brings us back to the first point. If the majority of the Israeli public, particularly in Jerusalem, perceives religion as an integral part of their identity, it becomes challenging for a completely secular leadership to represent them.^[12] Moreover, there have been notable power struggles within religious groups in Israel, between the authority of the state and that of religious leadership, which the State of Israel itself has at times recognized and honored.

 

Current Challenges in Pursuing Religious Involvement

Considering these factors, the absence of a robust political theology dedicated to promoting peacebuilding in Israel raises critical questions. Below, I will explore three main reasons for this:

1. The primary challenge is understanding the role of religious leaders in the political discourse and determining how religious and political discussions either run parallel, oppose, or complement each other. The exclusion of religion from peace talks over the years is not coincidental.^[13] There is a prevailing belief that the religious aspects central to the conflict—such as the concept of Holy War, the religious significance of the Land of Israel for both Judaism and Islam, and the status of Jerusalem and its sacred sites—are irreconcilable.^[14] In conflicts over sacred spaces or religious issues, the deity—representing the primary interest—is notably absent. Believers lack the authority to relinquish any rights on behalf of their deity.^[15] In such conflicts, unlike disputes between human parties where compromise or enforced agreements are possible, reaching a settlement is extremely challenging.
2. Another significant reason is the inherent tension between religious principles and the norms of international politics, which are largely shaped by Western discourse. A prime example is the criticism of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is often viewed as a product of the European Enlightenment.^[16] Political discourse tends to emphasize secular governance, human rights frameworks, and diplomatic protocols that may not always align with religious teachings or values.^[17]

Translating theological language into the realm of international politics is difficult, requiring a delicate balance where religious principles intersect with global political expectations without compromising core beliefs. Religious leaders engaged in peacebuilding efforts must carefully articulate their perspectives in ways that resonate with broader audiences while remaining faithful to their ethical and moral frameworks. The translation process is crucial. It requires not only linguistic proficiency but also a nuanced understanding of how their theological insights can contribute to global discussions on conflict resolution, justice, and human rights. Thus, language plays a crucial role.^[18]

Furthermore, religious leaders are expected to adopt or adapt the theological language of another religion to engage in discourse.^[19] Even if not fully adopted, they are encouraged to find appropriate translations of agreed-upon terminology within their own religious tradition. The process of globalization significantly shapes interreligious discourse, impacting religious dialogue and society in multiple ways.^[20] It acts as a catalyst for interreligious dialogue by compelling global citizens to acknowledge and embrace diversity. However, globalization also intensifies competition among religious groups and threatens unique group identities.^[21] Religion should not be instrumentalized for political influence; rather, it is a core aspect of identity and culture. Religious leaders have an obligation to grapple with the implications of war and peace within their own traditions, rather than being swayed toward liberalism or secularism by external forces.

3. Another key challenge we face in integrating religious leaders into the discourse of peacebuilding is the delicate balance between internal and external perspectives.^[22] In our contemporary context, religious communities never exist in isolation; they constantly engage in dialogues and debates with other groups that share the same culture, religion, or national identity. It is erroneous to assume that a single religious leader can represent an entire religious group, as the diversity of viewpoints and tensions makes such representation complex and multifaceted. This challenge is particularly apparent in the Israeli context, where every individual is affiliated with a religious group, even if they do not personally identify as religious.^[23] Consequently, there is significant internal tension within a group regarding how it should be portrayed and represented. When religious leaders participate in political or social discussions, they must navigate and consider the perspectives of internal factions and the inherent tensions they face.

An illustrative example of this internal struggle is evident in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, where the debate over the Jewish versus democratic identity of the State of Israel has led many Jewish religious leaders to refrain from engaging with political discourse.^[24] Engaging with this conflict or supporting a peaceful resolution may be perceived as compromising the Jewish character of the state.^[25] This national conflict has a profound impact on the definition of religiosity itself. While there is a desire to separate religion and politics, it is increasingly evident that such a separation is not easily attainable. Acknowledging and integrating religious perspectives into political discourse is crucial for fostering meaningful dialogue that respects diverse identities and promotes inclusive peacebuilding efforts.^[26]

 

Potential Solutions Through Political Theology

To address these challenges, it is crucial to explore solutions that can enable religious leaders to actively engage in peacebuilding processes. One key approach is to foster environments where political discourse fully appreciates the complexities of religious thought.^[27] The Western perspective on religion, largely influenced by the concept of individual authority and the notion that religion should not intrude into public discourse, has led to a perception that introducing religious discourse into politics could undermine democratic values. This view is rooted in the idea that religion is a private matter and should be separated from the public and political spheres.

In Judaism and Islam, where religious and political thought are often intertwined, radical groups, often opposing democratic ideals,^[28] have been inclined to openly integrate their religious worldview with their political stance. In contrast, proponents of democracy within these religious traditions frequently avoid blending their religious beliefs with their political views,^[29] adhering to the Western notion of keeping religion and politics as separate domains.

This division reflects a broader tension between religious traditions and modern secular democratic ideals, posing challenges to incorporating religious perspectives into public discourse in a way that respects both the integrity of the religious worldview and  democratic values.^[30] It calls for a nuanced understanding of how religious beliefs and practices can inform public life without compromising democratic values. It also calls for a recognition that religious and political thinking in traditions like Judaism and Islam can offer valuable insights into democratic discourse, rather than being inherently opposed to it.^[31]

Thus, what is required is a genuine dialogue between religious leaders and politicians, where both sides are open to changes and adaptations. This dialogue should transcend traditional boundaries, allowing for an exchange that acknowledges and respects the intricacies of religious beliefs while also considering the practicalities and realities of political governance.^[32] Such a dialogue aims to create a space where religious perspectives and political strategies can coexist and inform each other, leading to more nuanced and comprehensive approaches to societal issues. It is a dialogue that seeks not just to reconcile differing viewpoints but to integrate them in a way that enriches and enhances the broader discourse, fostering solutions that are reflective of the diverse fabric of the community.^[33]

From the perspective of religious leaders, there is a need for theological engagement that confronts political realities and interprets them through the lens of their religious beliefs. This involves addressing complex issues that transcend internal community concerns and the broader dynamics of global power. The application of “theology” in this context, however, presents challenges, particularly because of its strong association with Christian traditions.^[34] Despite this, it is crucial to recognize that both Judaism and Islam possess rich traditions of religio-political thought. These traditions provide deep insights into how these religions perceive the world, covering a broad spectrum of topics from the nature of the divine to the role of religion in society and politics, and spanning ethical, philosophical, and legal considerations.^[35] These comprehensive frameworks are instrumental in understanding and navigating the complexities of the world.

Furthermore, Judaism and Islam have had to adapt to the reality of modern democratic nation-states, a situation that did not naturally evolve from their religious doctrines.^[36] This necessitates the development of a thorough religious thought process that not only reconciles but also aligns the religious worldview with the democratic political system. Such adaptation requires a nuanced understanding of both religious doctrines and democratic principles, aiming to harmonize these seemingly disparate elements into a coherent and functional whole.

From the political perspective, it is essential to recognize that democracy, in its current form, should not be perceived as a fixed or sacrosanct concept. The integration of religious thought into political discussions ought to be flexible and open to contributions from various sectors, encompassing both religious and political spheres.^[37] Genuine dialogue is predicated on the willingness to question and potentially revise existing structures and ideologies. Holding any current situation, or a singular political or cultural ideology—often exemplified by strong advocates of liberal democracy—as inviolable significantly limits the scope for authentic dialogue between religious and political entities.

For meaningful discourse to occur, it is necessary for both religious and political realms to make concessions and adjustments. From a religious standpoint, this might entail reinterpreting or recontextualizing certain doctrines to align more closely with democratic principles. On the flip side, the political approach may need to accommodate and appreciate religious perspectives and values within the public domain, acknowledging their capacity to enhance societal well-being and governance. Such a balanced approach fosters a dynamic and inclusive discourse, positioning religious thought not merely as a participant but as an active, constructive force in the evolution and shaping of democratic systems. This allows for a richer, more multifaceted dialogue that can better address the complexities of modern society, benefiting from the diverse insights and values that religious perspectives bring to the table. For peacebuilding efforts to be truly effective, they must initially be separated from the constraints of specific political ideologies, such as liberal democracy.

Additionally, recognizing the profound impact of internal social tensions on the potential for peacebuilding involvement highlights the importance of dialogues within religious groups. These internal discussions are crucial, if not more so, than those with external parties.^[38] The intricacies of internal dynamics often form the basis for broader engagements. Therefore, establishing forums for internal discussions among religious leaders within their own communities is not merely beneficial but imperative.

Such dialogues are a vital step in recalibrating and localizing the discourse, enabling communities to address their unique challenges and perspectives before entering into broader, more complex inter-religious or international dialogues.^[39] This approach strengthens the foundation for external dialogue and plays a pivotal role in managing the international dimensions of conflicts. By solidifying internal consensus and understanding, religious communities can present a more unified and coherent perspective in larger forums, thereby contributing to a more effective and meaningful dialogue process.

These internal spaces provide leaders with the opportunity to openly discuss the political landscape and its implications in a manner that aligns with their religious identity, free from external interruptions. This environment fosters respect and understanding, allowing for the expression of diverse viewpoints within religious communities. By engaging in such internal group work, religious leaders can develop nuanced theological perspectives that reflect their realities and the possibilities for peace.

The objective of this internal theological exploration should not be to achieve uniformity in beliefs but to encourage a variety of interpretations within each religious tradition. Each community has unique insights to offer, and by contributing these perspectives, the overall dialogue on issues such as transitional justice can be enriched.

This emerging theology, developed through internal group dialogue, can serve as a bridge between religious perspectives and the broader political discourse. It enables religious leaders to ground their contributions in their traditions, ensuring that their input is authentic.

It is important to note that this approach does not necessarily aim to produce a uniform opinion advocating for peace and coexistence. Rather, it allows for a spectrum of religious responses—a departure from the current situation where political-theological discourse is often dominated by extremist viewpoints. By encouraging a diversity of religious perspectives, the discourse can be enriched, offering a range of solutions to complex issues and contributing to a more inclusive and representative approach to peacebuilding and coexistence.

In conclusion, effective interreligious dialogue in the Israeli–Palestinian context requires a multifaceted approach that recognizes the complex interplay between religion, politics, and identity. By addressing these challenges, interreligious dialogue initiatives may be better equipped to contribute meaningfully to peacebuilding efforts while respecting the deep-rooted religious and cultural identities of all involved parties.

However, given the intricate interconnection between religion and politics in this context, it may be necessary to move beyond traditional interreligious dialogue. The solution might lie in fostering a dialogue between religion and politics itself, acknowledging the inseparability of religious and political identities in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This approach could create a space for religious leaders and political figures to engage directly, bridging the current gap between religious discourse and political decision-making. In doing so, it could lead to more holistic and sustainable peacebuilding efforts.

 

Bibliography

Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. “Religion, Dialogue, and Non-Violent Actions in Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 17, no. 3 (2004): 491–511.

An-Na’im, Abdullahi Ahmed, Jerald D. Gort, Henry Jansen, and Hendrik M. Vroom. Human Rights and Religious Values: An Uneasy Relationship? Rodopi and Eerdmans, 1995.

Appleby, R. Scott. The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.

Ariarajah, S. Wesley. “Religious Diversity and Interfaith Relations in a Global Age.” Quest 2, no. 2 (2003): 11.

Badse, Christoffer, and Rebecca Swank. Religion and Human Rights: Universalism, Cultural Relativism, and Integration. Danish-American Dialogue on Human Rights, 1997.

Barak, Oren. “The Failure of the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process, 1993–2000.” Journal of Peace Research 42, no. 6 (2005): 719–736.

Baumgart-Ochse, Claudia. “Democratization in Israel, Politicized Religion and the Failure of the Oslo Peace Process.” Democratization 16, no. 6 (2009): 1115–1142.

Ben-Johanan, Karma. Jacob’s Younger Brother: Christian-Jewish Relations after Vatican II. Harvard University Press, 2022.

Ben-Porat, Guy, and Dani Filc. “Remember to Be Jewish: Religious Populism in Israel.” Politics and Religion 15, no. 1 (2022): 61–84.

Bunt, Harry. “Multifunctionality in Dialogue.” Computer Speech & Language 25, no. 2 (2011): 222–245.

Cornille, Catherine. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Inter-Religious Dialogue. Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.

Dessel, Adrienne, Mary E. Rogge, and Sarah B. Garlington. “Using Intergroup Dialogue to Promote Social Justice and Change.” Social Work 51, no. 4 (2006): 303–315.

Donnelly, Jack. “Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Analytic Critique of Non-Western Conceptions of Human Rights.” American Political Science Review 76, no. 2 (1982): 303–316.

Englard, Izhak. “The Legal Status of the Holy Places in Jerusalem.” Israel Law Review 28, no. 4 (1994): 589–600.

Etkes, Immanuel. Messianism, Politics and Halacha: Religious Zionism and the “Territories” 1967–1982. Carmel, 2023 [in Hebrew].

Frisch, Hillel, and Shmuel Sandler. “Religion, State, and the International System in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict.” International Political Science Review 25, no. 1 (2004): 77–96.

Gavison, Ruth. “Jewish and Democratic? A Rejoinder to the ‘Ethnic Democracy’ Debate.” Israel Studies 4, no. 1 (1999): 44–72.

Gopin, Marc. Holy War, Holy Peace: How Religion Can Bring Peace to the Middle East. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Habermas, Jürgen. “Notes on Post-Secular Society.” New Perspectives Quarterly 25, no. 4 (2008): 17–29.

Habermas, Jürgen. “Religion in the Public Sphere.” European Journal of Philosophy 14, no. 1 (2006): 1–25.

Halliday, Fred. “Relativism and Universalism in Human Rights: The Case of the Islamic Middle East.” Political Studies 43, no. 1 (1995): 152–167.

Hashemi, Nader. Islam, Secularism, and Liberal Democracy: Toward a Democratic Theory for Muslim Societies. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Hroub, Khaled. “Palestinian Nationalism, Religious (Un)claims, and the Struggle against Zionism.” In When Politics Are Sacralized: Comparative Perspectives on Religious Claims and Nationalism, Edited by Nadim N. Rouhana. Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Kelman, Herbert C. “The Role of National Identity in Conflict Resolution: Experiences from Israeli-Palestinian Problem-Solving Workshops.” In Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction, edited by Richard D. Ashmore, Lee Jussim, and David Wilder. Oxford University Press, 2001.

Landau, Yehezkel. Healing the Holy Land: Interreligious Peacebuilding in Israel/Palestine. United States Institute of Peace, 2003.

Merkley, Paul Charles. Christian Attitudes towards the State of Israel. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001.

Mi’ari, Mahmoud. “Transformation of Collective Identity in Palestine.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 44, no. 6 (2009): 579–598.

Milton-Edwards, Beverley. “Political Islam and the Palestinian–Israeli Conflict.” In Islamic Attitudes to Israel, edited by Efraim Karsh and P. R. Kumaraswamy. Routledge, 2013.

Mirilovic, Nikola, and David S. Siroky. “Two States in the Holy Land?: International Recognition and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” Politics and Religion 8, no. 2 (2015): 263–285.

Moyaert, Marianne. “Interreligious Dialogue.” In Understanding Interreligious Relations, edited by David Cheetham, Douglas Pratt, and David Thomas. Oxford University Press, 2013.

Moyaert, Marianne. “The (Un-) Translatability of Religions? Ricœur’s Linguistic Hospitality as Model for Inter-Religious Dialogue.” Exchange 37, no. 3 (2008): 337–364.

Mutua, Makau. Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

Orian Harel, Tal, Ifat Maoz, and Eran Halperin. “A Conflict within a Conflict: Intragroup Ideological Polarization and Intergroup Intractable Conflict.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 34 (2020): 52–57.

Popovska, Biljana, Zhanet Ristoska, and Pablo Payet. “The Role of Interreligious and Interfaith Dialogue in the Post-Secular World.” Academicus International Scientific Journal 16 (2017): 33–44.

Reiter, Yitzhak. “Religion as a Barrier to Compromise in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” In Barriers to Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, edited by Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov. Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 2010.

Rekhess, Elie. “The Islamic Movement in Israel and its Connection with Political Islam in the Territories.” In The Jewish-Arab Rift in Israel: A Reader, edited by Ruth Gavison and Dafna Hacker. Israel Democracy Institute, 2000.

Ritzer, George, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Globalization. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

Roy, Sara. Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza: Engaging the Islamist Social Sector. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.

Sagi, Avi. A Challenge: Returning to Tradition. The Shalom Hartman Institute, 2006.

Scheffler, Thomas. “Neither East Nor West: Inter-Religious Dialogue and Local Politics in the Age of Globalization.” In East is East and West is West?: Talks on Dialogue in Beirut, edited by Leslie Tramontini. Stollfuß Medien, 2002.

Smooha, Sammy. “The Arab Minority in Israel: Radicalization or Politicization?” Studies in Contemporary Jewry 5, no. 1 (1989): 59–88.

Smooha, Sammy. “Ethnic Democracy: Israel as an Archetype.” Israel Studies 2, no. 2 (1997): 198–241.

Sorek, Tamir, and Alin M. Ceobanu. “Religiosity, National Identity and Legitimacy: Israel as an Extreme Case.” Sociology 43, no. 3 (2009): 477–496.

Taraki, Lisa. “The Islamic Resistance Movement in the Palestinian Uprising.” Middle East Report 156 (1989): 30–32.

Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Harvard University Press, 2007.

[1] Pew Research Center, “Israel’s Religiously Divided Society,” March 8, 2016, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/03/08/israels-religiously-divided-society/.

[2] Khaled Hroub, “Palestinian Nationalism, Religious (Un)claims, and the Struggle against Zionism,” in When Politics Are Sacralized: Comparative Perspectives on Religious Claims and Nationalism, ed. Nadim N. Rouhana (Cambridge University Press, 2021): 365–386; Sara Roy, “A Brief History of Hamas and the Islamic Movement in Palestine,” in Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza: Engaging the Islamist Social Sector (Princeton University Press, 2013): 19–50; Sammy Smooha, “The Arab Minority in Israel: Radicalization or Politicization?” Studies in Contemporary Jewry 5, no. 1 (1989): 59–88; Elie Rekhess, “The Islamic Movement in Israel and Its Connection with Political Islam in the Territories,” in The Jewish-Arab Rift in Israel: A Reader, ed. Ruth Gavizon and Daphne Hacker (Israel Democracy Institute, 2000); Mahmoud Mi’ari, “Transformation of Collective Identity in Palestine,” Journal of Asian and African Studies 44, no. 6 (2009): 579–598.

[3]Herbert C. Kelman, “The Role of National Identity in Conflict Resolution: Experiences from Israeli-Palestinian Problem-Solving Workshops,” in Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict Reduction, ed. Richard D. Ashmore, Lee Jussim, and David Wilder (Oxford University Press, 2001).

[4] Hillel Frisch and Shmuel Sandler, “Religion, State, and the International System in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict,” International Political Science Review 25, no. 1 (2004): 77–96; Nikola Mirilovic and Daniel S. Siroky, “Two States in the Holy Land?: International Recognition and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” Politics and Religion 8, no. 2 (2015): 263–285.

[5] Beverley Milton-Edwards, “Political Islam and the Palestinian–Israeli Conflict,” in Islamic Attitudes to Israel, ed. Efraim Karsh and P. R. Kumaraswamy (Routledge, 2013).

[6] Paul Charles Merkley, Christian Attitudes Towards the State of Israel (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001).

[7] Karam Ben-Johanan, Jacob’s Younger Brother: Christian-Jewish Relations after Vatican II (Harvard University Press, 2022).

[8] Claudia Baumgart-Ochse, “Democratization in Israel, Politicized Religion and the Failure of the Oslo Peace Process,” Democratization 16, no. 6 (2009): 1115–1142.

[9] Mohammed Abu-Nimer, “Religion, Dialogue, and Non-Violent Actions in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict,” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 17, no. 3 (2004): 491–511.

[10] Guy Ben-Porat and Dani Filc, “Remember to Be Jewish: Religious Populism in Israel,” Politics and Religion 15, no. 1 (2022): 61–84.

[11] Yehezkel Landau, Healing the Holy Land: Interreligious Peacebuilding in Israel/Palestine (United States Institute of Peace, 2003); Marc Gopin, Holy War, Holy Peace: How Religion Can Bring Peace to the Middle East (Oxford University Press, 2002).

[12] Oren Barak, “The Failure of the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process, 1993–2000,” Journal of Peace Research 42, no. 6 (2005): 719–736.

[13] Ben-Porat and Filc, “Remember to Be Jewish.”

[14] Yitzhak Reiter, “Religion as a Barrier to Compromise in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,” in Barriers to Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, ed. Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov (Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 2010).

[15] Izhak Englard, “The Legal Status of the Holy Places in Jerusalem,” Israel Law Review 28, no. 4 (1994): 589–600.

[16] Christoffer Badse and Rebecca Swank, Religion and Human Rights: Universalism, Cultural Relativism, and Integration (Danish-American Dialogue on Human Rights, 1997).

[17] Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im Jerald D. Gort, Henry Jansen, and Hendrik M. Vroom, Human Rights and Religious Values: An Uneasy Relationship? (Rodopi and Eerdmans, 1995); Fred Halliday, “Relativism and Universalism in Human Rights: The Case of the Islamic Middle East,” Political Studies 43, no. 1 (1995): 152–167; S. Wesley Ariarajah, “Religious Diversity and Interfaith Relations in a Global Age,” Quest 2, no. 2 (2003): 11.

[18] Harry Bunt, “Multifunctionality in Dialogue,” Computer Speech & Language 25, no. 2 (2011): 222–245.

[19] Marianne Moyaert, “The (Un-) Translatability of Religions? Ricœur’s Linguistic Hospitality as Model for Inter-Religious Dialogue,” Exchange 37, no. 3 (2008): 337–364.

[20] George Ritzer, ed. The Blackwell Companion to Globalization (John Wiley & Sons, 2016).

[21] Thomas Scheffler, “Neither East Nor West: Inter-Religious Dialogue and Local Politics in the Age of Globalization,” in East is East and West is West?: Talks on Dialogue in Beirut, ed. Leslie. Tramontini (Stollfuß Medien, 2002); Biljana Popovska, Zhanet Ristoska, and Pablo Payet, “The Role of Interreligious and Interfaith Dialogue in the Post-Secular World,” Academicus International Scientific Journal 16 (2017): 33–44.

[22] Tal Orian Harel, Ifat Maoz, and Eran Halperin, “A Conflict within a Conflict: Intragroup Ideological Polarization and Intergroup Intractable Conflict,” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 34 (2020): 52–57.

[23] Tamir Sorek and Alin M. Ceobanu, “Religiosity, National Identity and Legitimacy: Israel as an Extreme Case,” Sociology 43, no. 3 (2009): 477–496.

[24] Sammy Smooha, “Ethnic Democracy: Israel as an Archetype,” Israel Studies 2, no. 2 (1997): 198–241.

[25] Ruth Gavison, “Jewish and Democratic? A Rejoinder to the ‘Ethnic Democracy’ Debate,” Israel Studies 4, no. 1 (1999): 44–72.

[26] Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Analytic Critique of Non-Western Conceptions of Human Rights,” American Political Science Review 76, no. 2 (1982): 303–316; Makau Mutua, Human Rights: A Political and Cultural Critique (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002); An-Na’im et al., Human Rights and Religious Values; Halliday, “Relativism and Universalism in Human Rights.”

[27] Jürgen Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere,” European Journal of Philosophy 14, no. 1 (2006): 1–25.

[28] Scheffler, “Neither East Nor West.”

[29] Popovska, Ristoska, and Payet, “The Role of Interreligious and Interfaith Dialogue.”

[30] Ariarajah, “Religious Diversity and Interfaith Relations.”

[31] Marianne Moyaert, “Interreligious Dialogue,” in Understanding Interreligious Relations, ed. David Cheetham, Douglas Pratt, and David Thomas (Oxford University Press, 2013); Catherine Cornille, The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Inter-Religious Dialogue (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).

[32] R. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000).

[33] Abu-Nimer, “Religion, Dialogue, and Non-Violent Actions”; Gopin, Holy War, Holy Peace.

[34] Ben-Johanan, Jacob’s Younger Brother.

[35] Avi Sagi, A Challenge: Returning to Tradition (The Shalom Hartman Institute, 2006); Immanuel Etkes, Messianism, Politics and Halacha: Religious Zionism and the “Territories” 1967–1982 (Carmel, 2023) [in Hebrew].

[36] Nader Hashemi, Islam, Secularism, and Liberal Democracy: Toward a Democratic Theory for Muslim Societies (Oxford University Press, 2009); Gavison, “Jewish and Democratic?”

[37] Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere”; Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Harvard University Press, 2007).

[38] Abu-Nimer, “Religion, Dialogue, and Non-Violent Actions”; Gopin, Holy War, Holy Peace.

[39] Adrienne Dessel, Mary E. Rogge, and Sarah B. Garlington, “Using Intergroup Dialogue to Promote Social Justice and Change,” Social Work 51, no. 4 (2006): 303–315.