The Perversion of Dialogue… or how one person can almost derail a well-meaning initiative

The key word in this title is “almost”. But back to that in a moment.

Today is the concluding day of the 8th Doha Conference of Interfaith Dialogue. Sometime a bit later I will give my “keynote” address. Of course, I learned upon arrival that “keynote” means something different in Qatar than it does elsewhere. All speakers, to groups large and small, were invited to deliver a “keynote”. And all were asked upon arrival that the 20-minute time frame really was supposed to mean 10 minutes. These revisions are just a minor annoyance. Any of us who have spoken in as many places and contexts as I have learned to adapt and adjust to these kinds of changes and surprises. Most, though not all, of the speakers so far have honored these revisions with no great damage to their substance [those who have had the most difficulty were those who had prepared fully written texts. Since this was an international conference with 2 official languages, I have true sympathy for those who worked hard to craft a paper in one of these 2 languages even if not their own.]

To return to our topic: The Emir of Qatar, in what appears to be a well intentioned and authentic commitment to reinforcing the image of Qatar as a truly open nation in a part of the world not known for such, has sponsored this conference for 8 consecutive years. This was the first time I was invited. Veterans tell me that the expansion of the invitees to include more Jews and others was noteworthy and welcome. I am not at all sure how they selected us, but most of us who did attend had professional or personal legitimacy to participate in such a Dialogue. Our badges did not list any organizational affiliations, but in my case, as the current chair of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations and as co-chair of the Board of World Religious Leaders, it is hardly a stretch to understand my inclusion.

That legitimacy also meant that most of us have had very extensive experience in interfaith dialogue, in many settings. Those of us with that experience understand the appropriate ethos of such dialogue. To correct a common misperception, such dialogue is not simply defined by mutual self-description; healthy dialogue allows an airing of and exploration of areas where we disagree or even feel threatened by the other. Disagreement is not off limits but experienced dialogists [dialoguers?] have learned how and when to convey those thoughts. Clearly, those committed to dialogue know that building confidence, trust, and understanding are the absolute preconditions. Without those careful steps, there is no context for dealing with the emotions of disagreement.

And, in fact, it is knowing what there will be emotions is what makes it work. In true dialogue, it is the acceptance of the existential angst of the other which enables breakthroughs, and enables a new commonality – and, occasionally even resolution. But when there is a sense of competition of angst and the deligitimizaton of the concerns of the other, it guarantees that trust will never be reached.

Which now leads me to the one person here who has tried in every session to derail. No reader will be surprised that there are numerous elephants in the room when the 3 Abrahamic faiths gather. The one which one participant has chosen to make his cause for this conference [and I suspect others] is his anti-Israel hatred. [Listening to his words in several sessions, hatred is the only fair word]. His words never acknowledge complexity, that correctly or not, Jews have their own existential challenges, and that Christians feel that they are challenged by both Muslim and Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East.

Now, let me say that I do understand this Sheik’s anger. As one whose politics is consistently left of center, I align my own thinking with segments of the Israeli polity which would endorse the validity of some of the complaints. But what makes this Sheik’s participation a non starter for dialogue is that he chooses to give variation of the same speech in every session regardless of the topic on the table, his rant never gives the slightest nod to the sensitivities of others in the room, and that he does not feel bound by the courtesies of such settings. His words only incur annoyance among the majority of participants, even those who may agree with his slant. None here is empowered to solve the problems of which he rants, he allows no room for understanding the sensitivities or even the political positions of the rest of us, and, were it not for the maturity and experience of the majority, it would serve to derail our deliberations.

Fortunately, and now I return to the word “almost” in the title, this is not a group new to such settings, and, while several have publicly and privately rebutted, the conference has not been hijacked. Nor have the even more important bi-lateral relations been hindered. We Jews are not being derailed in our more intimate discussions with our Muslim or Christian partners, and productive and meaningful conversations are taking place.

Some of these conversations, public and private, even rise to the level of authentic dialogue, despite our single antagonist’s efforts to the contrary. In this Muslim and visibly Arab Emirate, a hopeful sign.