Dialogue, Liberal Education, and the Conflict in Israel

As the directors of Xavier’s annual program in the Holy Land, we have taken dozens of students to Israel each December over the past ten years.  Sadly, we were forced to postpone our trip after the attack by Hamas on October 7 and the ensuing war.

The focus of our program is interfaith dialogue.  We introduce students to the challenges of having a conversation with someone from a different background or faith and encourage them to practice such dialogue even before our departure by visiting mosques, synagogues, and churches here in Cincinnati.  When we arrive in Israel, we are joined by the Jesuits and visit dozens of religious communities, including smaller religious minorities such as Ahmadiyya Islam, the Bahai, and the Druse communities.  We have also learned about religious diversity in private audiences with the Archbishop of Jerusalem, also known as the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem.

These conversations are sometimes difficult.  Our students are not afraid to ask serious and challenging questions about religion and politics.  Yet, the conversation does not descend into name-calling or finger pointing because our students have learned that true dialogue requires respect for the opinions of others and a willingness to listen to a narrative that may be different from their own. 

Dialogues are difficult because, in addition to acknowledging different narratives and acknowledging the pain of others, we are forced to resist simplifying a complex set of stories into a single, simple narrative.  Everyone yearns to move beyond pain and suffering toward a solution, but there are often no shortcuts or easy answers.

We were dismayed to read the editorials in the Newswire that attempt to simplify the conflict.  Undoubtedly, the authors wish to find solutions to the crisis.  But, one cannot solve a problem without first understanding its complexity and learning the facts on the ground.  To accuse Israel of genocide, apartheid, and racism assigns all blame to one side in a highly complex and age-old conflict. Such accusations are intellectually dishonest, educationally reckless, and morally wrong. They cheapen and distort the gravity and meaning of these heavily freighted approbations. If every act of war is genocide, then the word loses its meaning and impact.

This is the very opposite of dialogue.  It is incitement, and the results can be seen at universities across the country, where anti-Jewish hate speech and violence have reached unprecedented levels.

The dogmatism that destroys dialogue is also the enemy of liberal education.  As educators and as students, we must learn to live with complexity and resist the urge to simplify moral, political, and intellectual problems.  We cannot understand the world from bumper sticker slogan or cartoons.  We must return instead to studying and understanding the world in all of its frustrating and challenging tensions in order to better our world.