Scriptural Reasoning with Israelis and
Palestinians[1]
Miriam Feldmann Kaye[2]
Three Faiths Forum and Hebrew University
Preamble
In October 2010 the Cambridge Inter-Faith
Programme (CIP) at the University of Cambridge's
Faculty of Divinity, in conjunction with Three Faiths
Forum Middle East (3FFME), commissioned the
implementation of Scriptural Reasoning (SR)
interreligious seminars for Muslims, Jews and
Christians in Israel. The aim of this endeavour was
to assess the use of the SR method in the Israeli
context, and to offer recommendations for the
continued use of SR in other public dialogue
contexts.
SR began as a scholarly enterprise, practiced in
universities, theorized in its own journal: since
then it has developed SR programmes with prison
chaplains, police, dozens of grassroots community
groups and through international video-conferencing.
It has also been adapted to educational settings by
the Three Faiths Forum UK (3FF), where it is run
across the UK in numerous schools and
universities.
The Context
For the past four years, 3FF has pioneered an
educational programme in Israel, translating and
adapting its existing work to the Israeli/Palestinian
setting. The intention of the year's commission by
CIP to implement Scriptural Reasoning was to focus
and develop the programme and consider its use as a
method of enhancing community cohesion in the region.
Towards the end of this piece I will consider its
implementation in Israel in comparison with other
countries where SR work has been presented.
Israel, a country of around 7 million, comprises
around five and a half million Jews and one and a
half million Israeli Arabs. (The language I use here
to describe religious groups is language that is
accepted by most Israeli Arabs and Jews alike.) The
original intention had been to develop seminars
between those in mainland Israel and those over the
green line (pre-1967 borders) in the Palestinian
Authority sections of the West Bank. The Three Faiths
Forum had been developing relations with an
organization in the Palestinian Territories (area B)
for a few years, yet due to technical and political
difficulties the meetings could not be continued. It
was therefore decided that the SR sessions would be
run inside Israel focusing on relations between
Israeli Arabs (some Christian; most Muslim) and
Israeli Jews.
When discussing the application of SR to the
context of Israel, the framework of discussion is
immediately different from that in the UK, USA or
Canada. In Israel there are continual violent
outbursts marking expressions of difference—be that
in terms of living conditions, opportunities,
education, economic factors, and ultimately,
narratives of ontology. What is at stake, if
narratives continue to diverge, and are not countered
by moves towards equality and shared narratives
through citizenship, is human life. This makes the
efforts at aiming to 'resolve' or manage the conflict
through civilized discussion crucial in the
experimentation of SR against this backdrop.
Educational Settings
The study that has been undertaken is based on a
series of ten facilitated SR seminars for groups of
students (ranging from twenty to forty students per
group) over the course of the year 2010-2011 at
Hadassah Hospital, Ein Karem, and Kaplan Medical
Centre in Rehovot.
Our decision to trial SR in hospitals was in part
a response to a public statement by the Israeli
Ministry of Health encouraging all hospitals to train
doctors and nurses in Cultural Competency. We were
able to present SR to hospital authorities as an
appropriate fit for that category. The resultant SR
seminars now form a mandatory component of medical
and nursing studies in three hospitals in Israel.
In addition to this, we work in universities, in
particular at the University of Haifa, where a group
has recently been established in conjunction with the
Jewish–Arab Centre.
This programme has been developed in consultation
with other interfaith organisations (Interfaith
Encounter Association, Interreligious Coordinating
Council for Israel, Peres Centre for Peace, Jerusalem
Foundation, Jerusalem Centre for Ethics Mishkenot
Shaananim, and Jerusalem InterCultural Centre).
The SR Approach
Purportedly 'neutral' Israeli institutions, such
as universities and hospitals, are often held up as
bastions of coexistence. However, when probed further
with SR participants, such a presentation assumes the
relinquishing of strong religious and cultural
identities on the part of those entering the
institution, and leaves religious differences
unacknowledged and unaddressed.
Our hypothesis for this study was that SR would be
useful tool in promoting deeper forms of engagement
and cohesion between participants, by allowing them
to engage peacefully and seriously with one another
while acknowledging and exploring their respective
religious identities.
SR is not intended to produce agreements about the
texts studied, or conclusions about the relative
worth of different texts (as with some forms of study
where explicit comparison is the focus).
Rather, it is intended to create a safe space within
which participants can develop a deeper understanding
of each of the religious identities represented in
turn—and in which each participant can learn more
about his or her own religious identity by exploring
it with the help of others who differ.
SR and the Political Conflict
In order to create such a 'safe space', Three
Faiths Forum Middle East has taken no official
political position on the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict, as this would undermine their ability to
work with Jewish, Muslim and Christian citizens of
Israel who themselves hold political positions across
the spectrum. Ideologically, the very notion of
'taking a position' makes it difficult to teach the
understanding of opposing narratives.
The focus of the SR project on religion rather
than politics has manifested itself in the encounters
between participants, allowing them to momentarily
shelve political differences without denying them.
The significance of such an exercise is the
invitation to participate in a fruitful and friendly
exchange of religious ideas, values and precepts in
order to strengthen interpersonal tools of listening
and learning, and deepen mutual understanding and
self-understanding. Our politically 'neutral'
position has allowed participants actively to discuss
issues close to their hearts without feeling that a
common political position needed to be reached as a
precursor or as a result.
Nevertheless, religion and politics can't simply
be separated. On the one hand, many high-level
interfaith meetings in Israel proclaim the need of
religious leaders to be the ones to 'make peace in
God's name'. On the other hand, the reality is often
very different, and religion is seen to be the cause
of the conflict and not the solution to it.
The SR programme seeks to promote a different
perception of how religion may play a role in the
pursuit of peace. It pursues the possibility that
religious practices of scriptural interpretation can
be used to help participants explore each other's
religious identity (and explore their own religious
identities) in a way that does not reduce to
politics—and that it is therefore possible to find
practices of coexistence in which religion is
acknowledged, and in which explicit attention to
religion helps make the coexistence possible.
Methodology
The analysis below draws on feedback from
directors of educational institutions and
participants as presented in written questionnaires
and spoken feedback recorded in transcript.
Questionnaires were completed immediately after the
seminar and were semi-structured. All feedback has
been translated from written or spoken Hebrew from
recorded notes over the past twelve months (December
2010-December 2011).
Analysis
1. 'Shared Reasoning' and not Comparative
Study
At the outset, the participants expressed relief
that they were not expected to compare religious
texts. It seems that this has been a central point of
success for SR in the region—that the focus was on
exploring how each text, and thus each religion, is
seen through the lens of personal interpretative
frameworks. The language used during the seminar
encouraged multiple opinions to surface, against the
notion of a singular or preferred viewpoint: 'the way
I understand this text/the way this verse is taught
in my community' versus 'your version leaves out the
important part about X/this section preaches peace
even more because…'. Resistance to setting one's
religion above the others comprised a theoretical and
practical ground rule for the conversations. The
study of the texts alongside each other yet on the
terms of the religious believers as protagonists of
their own faiths allowed for the presence of
different interpretations to be exciting, and not
competitive. I will term this interfaith motif as
'shared reasoning'.
Whilst certain other dialogue programmes present
prepared sheets of religious texts to groups with
participants from Israeli and Palestinian
backgrounds, this aspect of the SR approach has been
found to be unique by the participants:
I have never studied Torah with Christians and
Muslims, even though they are good friends of mine.
It was difficult but in the end eye-opening,
challenging, and the role-plays were great fun—I am
now rethinking the way I view others in Israel, and
my interactions with them in hospital when I become
a doctor. All in all it was completely new,
enjoyable, and surprising—every student should do
this. (Uri, 28, Jewish, Rehovot)
The absence of any expectation that participants
should compare religious texts (rather than giving
time and appreciation for each on its own) meant
students were less worried about speaking using their
own hermeneutical frameworks. Discussion of scripture
'for its own sake' was seen to reduce the expectation
that they might be required to give up, or defend
against attack, their individual tools of theological
understanding. In terms of intra-faith relations
(relations between participants of the same faith),
the need to present a unified stance on a single text
was lessened. Participants commented on the
simplicity of explaining religious texts and how one
understands them, without having to justify or engage
in a broader comparative discourse, which students
often find intimidating:
I had the feeling that I could talk about Mark 2
(New Testament) and the way we interpret it in the
Armenian community, without the fear that one of my
friends from Catholic or Orthodox understandings
was going to counter what I said. I could just
speak freely. (Marion, 23, Christian, Old City of
Jerusalem)
What I think was important for the students is that
in their studies they are normally discussing what
is right and wrong practice in the hospital
environment. What they were doing here was still
discussing practice in hospitals, but from their
own personal perspectives they learn from their
religions. It was tremendously important for me to
see that their personal views on how they practice
medicine or nursing could be accepted for what they
are and not as if they are some objective thing.
(Ronit, Head of Nursing Studies, Hospital X)
2. Objectives of encounters
Study of religious texts was not a means to an
end: the discussions were not designed to resolve the
conflict, as some believed was the purpose of many
interfaith projects (even though the vast majority of
the participants (97%) had not taken part in or even
were aware of interfaith dialogue programmes).
Rather, the practice itself was an end: dialogue
undertaken peacefully by diverse groups of people.
Many found this to be a relief:
What was great was that I was not expected to deal
with all my issues with the Israeli Jews. I could
go into that meeting with my suspicions, come out
with suspicions, but the difference was that I was
able to sit and talk with them and gradually erase
the hatred I have been taught to feel. (Mahmud, 25,
Muslim, Jenin)
Coming from the 'national-religious' community of
Jewish Israelis, my family would have been
disappointed that I was engaging in an empty,
supposed-to-be-peace-making initiative with people
who in honesty we view to be our enemy. (Dalia, 24,
Jewish, Kfar HaRoeh)
Seemingly in light of this, the ways in which the
political conflict played out were manageable.
Participants were surprised to learn that in order to
sit down and discuss the identities and perceptions
of each other, they did not have to hold left-wing
views of the conflict. The SR process gave the
participants the opportunity to encounter a positive
dialogue opportunity without having to resolve the
painful topic of the conflict. Conversations about
scripture had a personal impact on the experiences of
the students because the experience was emotional and
personal; however, this was positive and not
negative:
When she came in I thought we would have to talk
about politics and peace and stuff like that. I
just don't think I can do that with the
Palestinians yet. I have a brother who was badly
injured in a terrorist attack and I know that I
would have just got too emotional and blocked up
having to talk about that. It was good to speak
about my religion and where I come from instead.
(Eliraz, 26, Jewish, Rishon LeZion)
Actually as coursemates we ignore all this stuff
about the conflict like the political and religious
feelings that put us at war. It was hard to admit
that those feelings were really there simmering
underneath our pretend friendships. I definitely
could not deal with all that in one session, just
too much really. (Farouk, 21, Muslim, Bet Hanina
[East Jerusalem])
I was really nervous that we would have to explain
why we are right in our positions due to what our
religious books tell us. Lucky for us that did not
happen, it was just for the fun of it really! And
surprisingly it was not serious stuff about the
problems here, but actually about just games,
sharing and listening. (Gila, 24,Jewish, Gan Yavne)
The encounter with Three Faiths Forum was
fascinating: it enabled me to get to know my
friends not only as course-mates but also their
religious identities and beliefs. We could not
discuss this before, and we had really needed this
in our group but we have not yet had the
opportunity. We need this. Thank you. (Marura, 25,
Christian Shfaram [Galilee])
My family comes from Jenin. I have two uncles in
prison. I was really not prepared for this. It was
good to speak positively about my culture and
religion and get off to a good start with my fellow
students as opposed to arguing about why they are
still in prison. (Rima, 28, Muslim, Baqa al
Gharbiye)
What much of this feedback hints at is that,
although there appears to be a level of coexistence
that is sustained at these educational institutions,
there are strong feelings of resentment harboured
within many individuals. Whilst many of the students
were in fact on good terms on a social level, engaged
jovially in the role-plays and reading, and listened
attentively to others' interpretations of scriptures,
the sense of conflict is palpable in the feedback. It
has therefore been significant in analyzing the
programme to examine the extent to which the SR
session could really have an impact on the individual
students' perceptions, as well as on the general
feeling at the end of the session.
The feedback in this regard shows that whilst
interpersonal relationships are maintained, they are
of a somewhat superficial nature. According to much
of the feedback, the 'real' issues are not up for
discussion as there has been no safe way to ease the
underlying tensions. On the surface relations are
good, yet when the nature of those relations is
explored, and the façade of coexistence is revealed,
the civilities are seen as a cover of fear for the
reality of the conflict.
3. 'Respect' as Ignorance
The term 'respect' arose numerous times in the
students' perceptions of each other's faiths and
backgrounds. It seems that this so-called 'respect'
is not based on knowledge or experience of the
culture of the other, but rather on an expectation of
'respect' as a ground-rule for civility in the
workplace. Once we engaged in questions of knowledge
about the other, students often had very little to
say and were afraid to ask their fellow students. The
respect was, therefore, simply not sufficient —as was
shown in descriptions of inter-faith relations in the
classroom prior to the SR seminars. In those seminars
we ended up working 'behind' slogans of 'respect' and
'tolerance', which, when scraped away, stood for
little knowledge and engagement with the other.
It was so interesting, I learnt so much about
people of other religions in Israel through my
friends on my course. Personally I respect everyone
and their faith but I did not know much about it
and now I feel better informed. We have not had
workshops like this until now and it is something
that can really enhance our working in hospitals,
to know about what people believe in and how they
express it. It is our duty to participate in such
things as they make life more beautiful and this is
especially necessary in Israel. (Maysalun,
26,Muslim, Shfaram [Galilee])
I respect everyone from other religions and
backgrounds. It is important in my religion that
even though not everyone is of my religion we must
respect each other and be tolerant. People need to
be more respectful. I am opposed to the Muslim
violence and so are most Muslims, and to the Jewish
zealotry of the land. (Rima, 22, Christian,
Nazareth)
There are great friendships amongst the students.
Everyone respects everyone else and works together.
Even though they do not know each other well they
have a great respect for each other as human beings
and future fellow doctors… In breaktimes (recess)
they tend to sit in groups of their own
religious/cultural communities. (Joyce, Head of
Cultural Competency for Medical Students, Hospital
Y)
In the above quotations, there are contradictions.
On the one hand, 'respect' is stated, but on the
other hand, it does not feature in the daily lives of
the students. The 'respect' that the participants
speak of for individuals of other faith backgrounds
has a reverse meaning. From our findings we can see
that 'respect' represents an accepted way of speaking
about others whilst simultaneously
disrespecting their worldviews and beliefs.
'Respect' has come to be a soundbite of civility—a
civility we can identify as a cover that can be
easily unravelled to reveal disrespect.
This has become a central point in working with
groups who already 'know' each other, at least on the
face of things. Whilst many other inter-faith
programmes successfully bring together diverse groups
from different places in the country, very few work
with groups already working together. Many programmes
are open to those who wish to participate in dialogue
with others, yet this is criticized as 'preaching to
the converted'.
The niche that the SR programme has found is
working with groups of young people who include
Muslims, Christians and Jews in contexts where a
sense of superficial coexistence already exists—where
the assumption is that their being together every day
implies that they are integrated. Yet in these
spheres there remains a cognitive segregation where,
even though professional integration is desirable,
anything deeper than this rarely occurs.
4. Compulsory Engagement in SR as
Students
Dialogue is often considered, by the naysayers of
peace-work, as succumbing to an 'empty liberalism'.
Cynicism has, for many Israelis—Jews and Arabs, as
well as Palestinians, come to typify attempts to
enact meaningful conflict resolution in this region.
One distinct sentiment is that of reluctance to
engage in dialogue. Dialogue is perceived as sitting
down with those already convinced that dialogue is
important; or as 'preaching to the converted' (a term
so often used), and there is an expectation that both
'sides' consist of those already on the way to a
consensus on the subject up for discussion.
There is truth in this stereotype, but the SR
seminars avoid it in two ways. On the one hand, there
is the refusal to prioritise consensus, already
discussed. On the other, there is the fact that
participation in the seminars was non-voluntary, and
so inevitably drew in a wider cohort than those
already convinced by the idea of dialogue. One of our
tasks in the seminars has therefore been to take
responsibility for sceptics whose negativity towards
the methods of dialogue available contributes to
their non-participation in existing groups.
5. Self-Understanding
Since the very task of getting people of different
backgrounds to have a positive experience of
engagement with one another is so complex in the
Middle East, it was an achievement to see encouraging
feedback come through. Much of the sense of enjoyment
came through an experience of having learnt about
one's own faith as well as that of the other. In this
way, SR goes beyond, and builds on, the 'shared
reasoning' described above: it does not simply allow
participants to learn more about each other and about
the differences between them, but allows them to
discover more about themselves with the help of all
these others.
It was very interesting, I loved it, not only did I
learn about my fellow students and their religious
values, but also how to relate better to Jewish and
Christian patients in hospital. I did not expect I
would learn more about my own faith through
studying with others, but reading and discussing
the Qur'an with fellow students opened my eyes to
the way I understand the Qur'an. I love to be
around people of other cultures. Thank you! (Inas,
25, Muslim, Tira, Central Israel)
I learnt lots about other people's religions and
cultures, and I could really see what gets people
talking. Once we were talking, I felt I could
really get to know my coursemates personally, and
therefore respect them more as I will no longer
stereotype them. I want to learn more about other
people and to share with others, in particular
about the Qur'an and how it informs my life. Thank
you for this. And thank you for providing materials
in Arabic—it was great to learn Qur'an in our own
language. (Rania, 21, Muslim, Umm-al-Fahm)
It is rare that I get to sit and study and explain
my own religion without my imam explaining its real
meaning. (Amjad, 24, Muslim, Jaffa)
Normally study is a very serious matter in my
religion, it was quite new to do role-plays in
conjunction with the study, a new sort of thing.
(Bulus, 29, Christian, Nazareth)
6. Developing the Theological Methodology:
Informal Education, Drama and Role-plays
After the first two seminars in the first six
months, it was decided that an element of
ice-breaking would serve to loosen up mental barriers
between participants. This insight has now taken the
form of playing games, miming and role-plays
appropriated to the hospital context. It has served,
in a context of suspicions, to relax an otherwise
serious situation, to encourage involvement from all
participants of both genders, to foster good-feeling
between fellow students, and to become aware of the
dynamics at play within the group.
To be exposed to different cultures—not just to the
ideas but the people!—of different faiths was very
challenging. It raised my temperature! It was a
fantastic seminar, and the discussion in particular
was warm and fascinating. (Jaris, 26, Christian,
Kfar Ba'ani [Galilee])
The seminar was so interesting—I heard and learnt
things that I have never encountered before. It was
to come face to face with my friends of other
religions and cultures in Israel, my country.
(Hodaya, 26, Jewish, Ramot [Jerusalem])
7. 'Secular' Theology and Participants
It has been observed in the seminars that the vast
majority of Muslim and Christian participants,
regardless of their personal religious commitments,
have demonstrated fluency in the reading and
interpretation of their respective scriptures.
Jewish participants often consist of a mixture of
self-identified 'religious' and 'secular' worldviews.
The more religious ones are reluctant to study with
non-Jews (in particular those from more traditional
communities such as 'Hardalim' Haredi-Dati-Leumi—and
those from Orthodox Ethiopian traditions) due to a
perceived lack of Halakhic credence to engage in such
an activity, and possibly a fear of accidentally
disseminating discrepancies in the text, and in
Judaism as a whole.
The other side of the coin is that of the secular
Jews, who, if they classify themselves as Jews at
all, pronounce the irrelevance of scripture
altogether.
It was really nice reading stories from Talmud
(Torah commentary) but it is not that important in
addressing the things we really need to address.
Having said that it was good to just have a
starting point of discussion. (Bar, 28, Jewish,
Ramat Gan)
The main part was the drama and the fun. I just
wanted to say that the texts didn't really interest
me as I am a secular Jew, but everyone else seemed
very interested by them, so it clearly worked in
getting us to explore things about one another.
Basically, we do not have other opportunities like
this, so it was useful. Even if I do not think the
Tanakh is divine, if there is such a thing, they
can be used as stories and legends to get us
talking. (Erez, 25, Jewish, Mevaseret Zion)
The role of 'secular' participants must be
reconsidered in light of the SR focus on religion,
even in places where religion is disregarded. Those
who valued religion certainly engaged more in the
seminar, and the role for those who self-identify as
'secular' must not be perceived as less important.
Our interim suggestion, which demands further
attention, but which appeared to make secular
participation possible, has been to suggest to those
secular participants that they view the scriptures as
they would any piece of high literature—worthy of
serious discussion, without any commitment to ideas
of divine revelation or religious authority.
8. Points for Further Consideration
• The limitations of the research over the past
year must be considered. Some examples of these would
include the limited age range (all participants in
the seminars were in their 20s) and limited
professional range. It is hoped in the future that
the programme will be delivered beyond the medical
and university contexts to businesses and government
offices.
• There were also limitations in the number of
seminars participants were able to attend. The
seminar should really comprise a weekly component of
the cultural competency course, yet the students are
also expected to work on their own 'projects' that
address these issues. This year (2012) we hope to
utilize the SR programme in consulting with students
on their individual projects to help them broaden the
scope of their research in hospitals to include
interreligious as well as intercultural spheres of
interaction.
• Various other questions were raised by the
specificity of the context for this study, which
might be answered by means of studies in other
cultural contexts. Is the success of the programme in
the Israeli context related to the decidedly secular
nature of the university or place of study? Must
there be a majority of religiously-affiliated
participants in order for a study of scripture to be
experienced as engaging and exciting? Since
presenting about SR in Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
and visiting a Serb-Croat dialogue centre, I have
written a journal article that compares and contrasts
intercultural methodologies between Israelis and
Palestinians, on the one hand, and Serbs, Croats and
Bosniak Muslims on the other. The article addresses
contemporary Bosnian concerns about ridding religion
from the public sphere in light of past conflicts,
and the experimentation of SR in Israel as
highlighting the role of religion in the public space
and acknowledging its prominence.
• To ensure the development of the programme,
those participants who demonstrated enthusiasm about
the seminars should be invited to take part in a
professional training in how to facilitate SR
sessions within their communities and beyond. The
expertise and knowledge must be disseminated to the
students in order that they can present it at staff
meetings and more niche professional settings where
it is not the norm for external organisations to be
present.
9. General conclusions
SR practice has successfully allowed for the
exploration of the identities, ideas and practices of
participants from each religious community—and, as we
see repeatedly in the feedback, participants have
gone more deeply into their understanding of each
other and more deeply into their understanding of
their own traditions. By promoting better
understanding of the other, and by learning more
about oneself from the other, the programme has
contributed to the development of a deeper form of
community cohesion.
The lesson that might be learned from the
experience of organizing and facilitating these
seminars is that participants must each speak from a
particular place. This is how tendencies towards
pretentious homogeneity can be unravelled.
Notes
[1]This article was previously
published by the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme.
[2]The author has submitted a
Ph.D. at the University of Haifa, is a Lady Davis
postdoctoral fellow at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, and is Founding Director of the Three
Faiths Forum Middle East.
Title Page | Archive
© 2012, Society for Scriptural
Reasoning
|
