Some 90 participants, Jews, Christians and Muslims from 22 countries world-wide including bishops and clergy from various Christian denominations in Europe and the Middle East, the Vatican representative, rabbis from Israel and other countries, met in Aachen, a border town that from the inception of history has at the same time stood for the idea of a (Western) Christian Europe, based on the demarcation between Occident (Latin Christianity) and Orient (Muslims) with Jews sometimes acting as the link between them Aachen also witnessed the first attempts at establishing cross-cultural contacts and interreligious, that is Christian-Jewish-Muslim encounters in Western Europe. It was also the city that witnessed the crowning of Charlemagne at a time when one single currency was common coin throughout Europe. The right setting therefore to identify and explore a number of major concerns of our age within the short space of three days, making sure also that there was time for person to person meeting, talking and exchanging experiences as well as expertise with this cross-section of participants in the congenial setting of the Episcopal Academy of the Diocese of Aachen. We could not have wished for a more generous host and partner than its director, Dr Hans Hermann Henrix, whose long experience in and commitment to the interreligious encounter lent insight and sensitivity also to preparing the programme, and whose attentive administrative staff, head chef and kitchen personnel made our stay exceptionally pleasant.

Background

Prof Dr Stefan Schreiner, chair of the conference planning committee, summarized the underlying concerns by referring to the changes if not physical yet in the character of traditional boundaries affecting the political, socio-economic and cultural conditions in Central and Eastern Europe. There the boundaries no longer separate, but join. Likewise, decades of inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue in Western Europe have at least brought about changed attitudes to an understanding of the other’s religion or culture.

On the other hand the boundaries between countries, religions and cultures have not vanished, they appear to gain a stronger profile or are even being replaced by higher walls. It is barely ten years since Samuel Huntington published his Clash of Civilizations. At the time many dismissed his thesis, today it seems that he may have been right.

The need for boundaries and their positive influence are noted mainly when they have been denied or even destroyed. Latest manifestation of the credibility crisis arising from policies dictated by an abuse of power or a sense of powerlessness, are evident from our daily news. These leave us in little doubt about the consequences resulting from a shift, or even loss of boundaries if people lose sight of the concepts of right or wrong. The same goes for ethical and moral boundaries, whether based on religious, philosophical or ideological viewpoints.

Conference Structure

After careful consideration a few issues were identified for exploration during the three conference days.

Different from previous conferences, this year’s programme put the emphasis on widest possible participation. With the exception of the keynote address there were no lectures. Instead, there were three Panel discussions in plenary with simultaneous translation into English, French and German. Otherwise the work was done in smaller group seminars. To allow for full in-depth expression each topic was dealt with in separate English, French and German language groups. A much appreciated welcome innovation. It was interesting to note the different emphases accorded the same topic in the different language groups depending on the different cultural, historic and contemporary experiences.

Opening of conference

After a festive dinner at the conference centre, participants proceeded by coaches to the historic Coronation Hall in Aachen Town Hall, the interesting and symbolic setting for the Sunday evening opening attended also by religious leaders, local and Federal Government representatives and Ambassadors from ICCJ member countries. After the welcome by ICCJ President John Pawlikowski and Dr Henrix , the 2004 ICCJ International Sir Sigmund Sternberg Award for sustained intellectual contribution in the furtherance of interreligious understanding that has had impact and influence beyond the society and borders of the recipient’s country for the first time was presented to a Muslim, His Eminence Reis-Ul-Ulama Dr Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia-Herzegovina in recognition of his understanding of the need for active involvement, his spiritual guidance, intellectual contribution and social efforts in the pr9omotion of interfaith and cross-cultural dialogue at all levels as a means of furthering reconciliation between people of different religions and cultural traditions in the interest of peace and harmony among nations.

Dr Ceric’s gracious acceptance also served as the conference keynote address in which her referred to the common roots of the three Abrahamic religions, pointing at the resulting obligation to peace and dialogue, criticizing at the same time do not perceive of other religions as partners but rather as a danger. He raised the question: What is our time? Is it, do we make it a time of conflict or dialogue? A time of intolerance or tolerance? A time of non-violence or violence? A time of fear or hope? And above all. A time of distrust or trust? A timer of historical myths or the argument of historical responsibility; of the argument of poor political compromise or of the argument of strong moral commitment: of the argument of sinful behaviour or of Adam’s humble repentance; of the argument of falsehood or the argument of Abraham’s truth: of the argument of cowardice or Moses’ courage; of the argument of revenge or of Jesus’ love; of the argument of injustice or the argument of Muhammad’s justice? He affirmed his belief that ours could be the best of times if we appreciate that the law is not in the book but in the heart and that life is not for tearing but for sharing? Referring to the experience of his own country he was aware that often it is the physical and geographical proximity that leads to conflict. He urged that a common road from cosmogony to eschatology of Judaism, Christianity and Islam would lead humanity to a middle path of the Ethics of Sharing.

Responses were given by Dr Josef Homeyer, Bishop of Hildesheim and ICCJ Honorary President, Rabbi David Rosen. Both touched upon the potential for violence inherent in religion. Bishop Homeyer spoke of the responsibility of religion, particularly in light of nine-eleven when in the mind of the public it had become a menace rather than a promise. The wise man is considered mad, the prophet as one going berserk. Since nine-eleven religion seems to have no language and no image. Humanity is ruled by the political scenario. He asked how can religion ethically retain its essential hope for a perfect world as a universal message? But he also posed the question whether apart from a misunderstanding of the history of religion, religion basically does not also contain an element of violence. While both Dr Ceric and Bishop Homeyer sought to explore the question “how is it that..” David Rosen tried to tease out the way religion is wrapped up with the very question of human identity itself. Because religion is bound up with human identity, he argued, religion seeks to give meaning and understanding to who we are as individuals, as part of families, communities, peoples, nations and indeed beyond with our cosmos at large. It is because religion seeks to give meaning to these different components of our identity, it is inextricably bound up with that human identity. It tells us who we are thereby also identifying the other who is separate from us. While religion has the potential to be solution it also has the potential to be the problem. We can cope if we see the other in a positive light, if in a negative light our identities are threatened, they close in, we isolate ourselves and as a defense mechanism demonize the other. Religion is abused substantially as a result of fear and ignorance, when frightened we do not move beyond our borders, be they geographical or psychological. Our three religions based on the way of Abraham gives us also the legacy of hospitality, a way not unrelated to justice and righteousness it contains the element of seeing the angel in every human being. Adding to the question “how is it that..” coming back to Dr Ceric’s “what is our time?” Rabbi Rosen concluded that indeed it was a time where we have incredible capacity for evil but it is also a time when as children of Abraham we are called to be a blessing on humanity – a time to realize that in order to truly be so, we must first be a blessing to one another.

Food for thought as we prepared ourselves for the three working days ahead.

Once again each of the conference days started with pre-breakfast denominational morning prayers. For many an important part of affirming our identity in order to join in study and frank discussion with others.

Plenary Panels

The world seen from the centre of Europe – or the Jewish,
Christian and Muslim Foundations of Western Civilization
(Ambassador Peter von Butler, Dr Antony Lerman, Prof Faruk Sen)

Peter von Butler made three interrelated points: Europe – Trans-Atlantic relations - Peace and stability in the Near and Middle East. Jewish-Christian-Muslim foundations had different origins throughout Europe resulting in different approaches. This was one of the causes that the preamble to the European constitution regrettably contains no reference to God or religion. To achieve the aim of unity with diversity required a mixture of tolerance and knowledge of history. Taking his examples from Germany with its 26 million Catholics, 26 million Protestants and one and a half million Orthodox Christians of whom however only 20% admitted to a close relationship to their church, he also pointed at the difference between the basically secular former East German and the traditional West German parts. Openness to the interreligious dialogue was easier in Germany whose 3.1/2 million Muslims were mainly of Turkish origin, allowing for easier contact than in European countries that have a majority of Mid-Eastern and North African Muslims. Media presentations regrettably influenced attitudes. Germany’s Jewish community – now standing at 100,000 - had undergone rapid growth through immigration of Jews from Russia and former Russian Satellites. Over the past years more Russian Jews went to Germany than to Israel and the USA, which could be seen as assign of growing trust despite isolated cases of desecration of Jewish graves and other antisemitic manifestations. With this sense of trust also comes a more relaxed attitude to interreligious encounter. For more than half a century the mainly Jewish-Christian interreligious dialogue in Germany had been motivated by the conscience about the past. But as a non-nuclear state it has now also become a valuable partner particularly for Islamic countries. The Foreign Ministry has created a Commissioner for dialogue with Islam and 20 Embassies now have the expert advice of Islam attaches.

Desirable as it was in this globalized world that affected all strands of life, Trans-Atlantic cooperation with the USA in interreligious dialogue that goes beyond Europe had its problems. These were mainly based in the European churches endeavour to come to an understanding of an advancing secularisation as against a rapid advance of the 70 million strong Evangelical Right in the USA, often based on personal faith experience ´. But if the USA presents itself as an indispensable nation, then Europe must become its indispensable partner, which means finding common ground for such dialogue.

Lately, interreligious dialogue at any level was hampered to a considerable extent by the unsolved Israel-Palestine conflict and also by the situation in Iraq. This made better contact with press and media even more urgent. Yet he also drew hope from efforts such as Marseilles Espérance and the newly created Interreligious Platform in Brussels. But more information from and about such initiatives was imperative.

He ended his presentation with an emphatic plea to bring down dialogue from academic to grass roots level and to increase cross-information.

Antony Lerman started by asking “where or what is the Centre of Europe from a Jewish point of view:
Auschwitz - which for many Jews that to many Jews seeing the world from the centre of Europe is synonymous with a set of inhospitable concentric circles: a degree of communal decline, falling numbers, lessening of religiosity, growing mixed-marriages and inter-denominational splits; growing anti-Jewish hostility at local level such as desecration of tomb stones and other acts of vandalism, the ‘new antisemitism’ based on vilification of Israel thereby threatening Jewry’s new found self-identification; holocaust fatigue and even the end of the Holocaust taboo; radical Islamist attacks on Jewish communities and individuals in many European countries; above all a Europe confronted with many new issues turning its back on its Jews, European political leaders abandoning concern for the problems facing Jews: undermining of Jewish culture due to globalisation and the growing clash of civilizations leaving Jews weak and vulnerable. A view, which he saw as a distortion of the realities and possibilities of Jewish life in Europe today, namely represented under the word

Brussels – the symbolic embodiment and practical realisation of the belief that the principles of human rights will prevail, allowing full realisation of Jewish emancipation and a remarkable revival of Jewish life despite an admitted rise in antisemitism. If Brussels represents the centre of Europe’s now porous borders he argued that we are living at a time of unprecedented opportunity for Jews in Europe with tremendous opportunities for Jews to maintain their distinctiveness, preserve and develop their culture and religion within the framework of European civil society – provided as Jews we confront frankly who we are and what we want. Yes, it was risky and contained an element of uncertainty when Jewish civilization encountered a wider society with its universe, its heritage sites.

It was vital to get above the trees and look at the bigger picture: For the first time, Jews in Europe are Jews by choice- Antisemitism and a rich Jewish existence can exist side-by-side he argued but there are fundamental structural societal differences between now and the pre-World War II conditions which give added significance to the weight of Jewish revival.

To maintain the progress made, some important conditions need to be met: Jews must realize that they are now subjects of history, no longer its objects. And the time has come to ask ourselves ‘what can we give to Europe?’ – not “what can/ought Europe give to us”.

While Israel has played a most important part in the post-war self-identity of European Jews, we have now moved into an era in which Israel’s government is taking decisions and following policies which have a direct negative bearing on Jewish communities in Europe, as well as elsewhere of course. There are implications for the Jewish ‘voice’ in Europe to be faced and acted upon.

There was a key contradiction in Jewish support for Israel as an ethno-religiously homogenous state with a guaranteed Jewish majority, which stands in conflict with Jewish support for tolerance, equal rights and multicultural societies in Europe.

The European dream and the project conceived after the Second World War is of fundamental and vital importance for Jews, Muslims and indeed all religious and cultural groups. That is the spirit which as Jews we are obliged to rekindle for the 21st century to finally make Europe go beyond its terrible past and the only way that the problems facing Jews and other minorities can be successfully confronted.

Dr Faruk Sen spoke from his experience as head of the German Centre for Turkish Studies:
Despite the widely spread tendency to identify Islam as at best latent supporter of nine-eleven and other terror atrocities, there can be little doubt about the common ethical values represented in the three Abrahamic religions. Nor can there be any doubt about the part Islam has played in the past and plays today in the history of Europe, as Judaism and Christianity have. To reduce Islam to the terrorism of Al-Qaida and other extremist groups ignores on the one hand the religious substance of Islam and on the other hand diverts attention from the true reasons and background of a violence oriented Muslim minority. The majority of Muslims living in Europe distances itself from those manifestations of violence and lives in harmony with the legal and political norms of the states in which they live. In European terms that concept has become known as “Euro-Islam” und has five pillars:

Compatibility of the Islamic way of life with the norms of the industrial society; Loyalty and adherence to the constitutions of the host countries; affirmation of democratic values; acceptance of pluralism and rejection of Sharia.

Islam in contemporary Europe: The presence of Muslims in today’s European Union is a comparatively new phenomenon. Obviously, individual countries such as Spain contain an historical Islamic legacy, and the presence of Muslims in the Balkans is an age-old phenomenon. Furthermore there are small or very small numbers of Muslim religious communities whose status has long been accepted, such as Muslim Tatars in Poland, Lithuania and Finland. Even today Greece has a Muslim minority that has lived there for many centuries. On the whole however they could be seen as an exotic phenomenon as they never achieved relevant importance and therefore were never a challenged social, religious or political integration. The growth and clearly visible presence in so much of Europe is the result of the general migration movements of recent decades, and also as a belated result of colonialism, as well as a post Second World War need for imported labour. In the face of all this Muslims in Europe continue to find roots and become firmly established in the immigration countries. Integration is often hampered by lack of knowledge that many Muslim countries effectively have separation of state and religion.

In Germany, Islamic communities do not have official legal status and therefore are unable to open schools or offer charitable organisations supported by the state. Meanwhile there are some 2,400 Mosque communities in Germany. As for the relevance of Islam to every day life, it is evident that this is a generation process. With a longer life expectancy comes stronger religious adherence. Interestingly, the longer they are settled in Europe, the stronger grow religion and religious practice. It has become evident that long-term stay in a non-Muslim society results in stronger increase in adherence to tradition and ritual. His experience and study lead him to the conclusion that on the whole immigrants into European society are actively seeking to establish themselves within the prevailing social and economic norms. But part of that process is also the desire to be accepted as separate religious communities. It does not mean that they exclude themselves from the world around them. There is need to recognize that Muslims in Germany are a multi-faceted group like the rest of the population, and like the rest of the population must be allowed to participate fully in all facets of life, including politics.

Israel and Palestine – Searching for borders while dreaming of their absence
(Dr Mahdi Abdul Hadi, Archbishop Boutros Mouallem, Daniel Rossing)

There can be no doubt that this panel was the most moving and thought provoking. The presentations as well as the ensuing discussion were proof of a new maturity in dialogue and an impressive readiness to share in and listen to the other’s pain and vulnerability. Certainly any boundaries the conference participants may consciously or unconsciously brought with them were stretched and moved. The three presenters, each representative of that region’s sense of vulnerability and victimisation in different paradigms were introduced by Rabbi David Rosen, whose introduction has been fully recorded and will in due course become available in print.

Dr Mahdi Abdul Hadi in an effort to simplify a presentation of this complex story and to bring to attention something different and something new from a Palestinian perspective he outlined seven borders.

1. the border of refuge – the border of searching for survival illustrating it by a story of four Palestinians travelling from Amman to Baghdad searching for work as refugees. The only way was to travel in a small truck dying en route of thirst.
2. the border of fear, of vulnerability illustrating it by a story of refugees trying to go via Allenby Bridge and the requirement to strip and had to accept the humiliation, the dehumanization. This created not only anger and frustration but added a new border: that of hate enhanced by other acts of humiliation and deprivation experienced under occupation including different time structure even in Jerusalem between the West and the East
3. which created a new border: that of a new identity, a new culture at the time of the first Intifada including watches set at Palestinian time, burning shops, throwing stones. You, the occupier, want to come here: do so at our terms, at our time, at our shops opening and closing times. Forging a new identity of the occupied, marking in their own way the 1967 green line
4. the border of knowledge – knowing the others. Referred to Edward Said and the effort to try and bridge the Christian Arab identity and that of the occupied Palestinians
5. after the failure of Camp David in July 2000 and Sharon’s visit to Al Aksah/the Temple Mount – the border of holy sites. No trust in the other’s religious tradition of the Temple Mount, not because Israel is the occupier, but because Israel infringed on their religious tradition. Referred to experiences in Hebron. All this led to the second Intifada, the Al Aksah Intifada. A new military Intifada
6. the border of the visible wall, which he sees as a sharp knife cutting his flesh. Every city is a prison. The new culture of prison. How does one survive in the prison and retain one’s identity, values, traditions, memory.
7. the culture of self-sacrifice – killing themselves and killing the others. He gave the example of individual families and the self-sacrifice in the face of feeling abused, and the feeling of utter frustration, and of revenge.

These borders are part of his “memory” a wake-up call for change. There was a crisis of leadership, he admitted, but there was no crisis of the vision to end the occupation.

Archbishop Boutros Mouallem presented a number of spontaneous reflections. Particularly regarding the European vision of the world. But there are other regions, other perceptions. Refers to the Latin expression of from the West comes the law, from the East the light. Despite all the differences between the two how are they affected by the modern concept of globalisation? What happens to the many minorities. The case of Israel-Palestine is dramatic. >The Jewish people, victim of Nazism, had to prevent another Holocaust. The traumatized conscience of the world helped it to secure peace and security, even though this was only possible at the cost of another people, the Palestinians. Was there not need to acknowledge the failure of politicians in their search for peace? And so turn to religion – to our descending from Abraham. Poor Abraham, who before being Palestinian or Israeli, Jews, Christian or Muslim was Mesopotamian (Iraqi – Poor Iraq). Without intending to replace them, men of religions should be the first counsellors of politicians. What are we doing with out so-called joint humanity, our brotherhood? It is not humanity that was created by God as we are told. today humanity creates a God after its sad image. There is need for serious search for responsibility. There is need for new prophets, and above all for a heroism of genuine pardon. so that the two people can live together in peace.

Daniel Rossing on his part did not envision or dream of the absence of borders. There is no being, individual or communal, without relationship, and there is no relationship without borders. In the given situation in which the Other is neither “other” (because there is a lot of similarity), nor “brother” relations tend to be highly charged. Because of the similarity there is need for borders within which each can freely celebrate and share the differences that make each unique. He supports a two-state arrangement for Israelis and Palestinians. If Israel/Palestine is the holy land of three faiths and the homeland of two peoples, than living in that narrow strip at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, people, land and faith are intimately entwined. It has been said that one of the reasons the Oslo process failed was that it was a secular peace plan imposed by secular leaders on a Holy Land. He believes that there can be no agreement upon borders that will allow peaceful relations without the participation of religious leaders and the input of their respective religious traditions. Therefore the First Alexandria Declaration in January 2002 was a welcome breakthrough by religious leaders including David Rosen and Archbishop Mouallem committing themselves to a joint quest for peace with reconciliation. In conflicts, frequently fuelled by respective memories of the past and visions of the future each side must review its memories as well as its visions in light of existing realities. Messianic hopes and dreams can be a vital source of strength and inspiration, but care must be taken lest the visions of the future invade the present in the form of dangerous notions or realized eschatology. He also referred to the fact that words and use of words are the principle means of reconciliation and peacemaking in Western culture and Western interfaith dialogue. However, when Jews, Christians and Muslims, or Israelis and Palestinians meat in the Holy Land they do not share a common native tongue. It is the first time in nearly two millennia that a Jewish majority comes face to face with Christian communities who share a long history as minorities. That new experience means that it is the Jewish side that must take the initiative in reaching out to Christians and in re-examining long-held negative attitudes towards Christians. During the past half century, he concluded, Western Christians have made sincere efforts to understand the Jewish and Muslim minorities in their midst as they understand and define themselves. The time has also come for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslims to strive to understand the Christian minorities in the Holy Land as they understand and define themselves.

Jewish-Christian-Muslim Relations – Visions and Reality
(Dr Zdzislav Bielecki, Rabbi Dr Alon Goshen-Gottstein, Bishop Christopher Herbert, Imam Dr Abduljalil Sajid)

In this Panel the presenters spoke from their experience and involvement in their national organisations. Their papers will in due course be made available.

Instead of the customary biblical text study it was decided to mark the
The 800th anniversary of the death of Maimonides – Jews, Christians and Muslims in the perspective of Maimonides
(Rabbi Dr Andrew Goldstein, Prof Dr Stefan Schreiner, chaired by Imam Dr Abduljalil Sajid)

At first sight this study session did not appear to fall within the framework of the conference theme. Yet on second sight it was evident that it actually fell well within that framework. Even though the RaMBam’s understanding of the three monotheist religions and their relationship as well as their demarcation are probably in the main a matter of historical interest, it soon became apparent that a number of questions confronting Maimonides as well as their impact on Jewish, Christian and Muslim perspective were not all that remote from issues explored by the conference.

In a fascinating session taking participants out of the immediate concerns of the conference, yet indelible part of it, Andrew Goldstein presented some texts from the ‘Thirteen Principles of Faith’, the ‘Letter to Obadiah the Proselyte’ and the ‘Epistle to Yemen.’ He suggested that it seems that Maimonides was postulating that Christianity and Islam existed as a first step in preparing gentiles to eventually accept the real truth to be found in Judaism. That Jews were the first Noachites and then accepted Ultimate Revelation. Christians and Muslims who accepted the Noachite laws were Jews in potential, whose religions were a possible preparation for them to accept the Ultimate Revelation vouchsafed to Jews. A daring and unique position, though as he tried to show, statements found elsewhere in Maimonides’ work could serve to tell a different story.

His presentation was brilliantly supplemented by Stefan Schreiner’s detailed knowledge of every event, personality, correspondence surrounding the life and work of that 12th century Jewish sage whose preferred occupation was that of a physician whose philosophy and medical writings have remained of considerable interest to Christians.

The Seminars

There were three main seminar topics each divided into two sections:
(Presented below are just a few random selections of certain points raised by the one or other presenter. There has not yet been time to prepare an overview or summary of every one, but I shall in due course prepare and then circulate a report fully covering every seminar.)

Existing Borders

Part A: Current limits of dialogue

One of the English language sessions was presented by Prof Lars Dencik, Denmark, who asked what makes ancient belief systems clash in contemporary society? To what extent is this due to immanent elements in the religious systems as such or to what extent is it rather due to political exploitation of people’s need for affiliation with what they perceive as their ‘in-group’. He briefly introduced a model on conflicts in which conflict behaviour, conflict attitudes and the conflict as such (i.e. contradicting interests) are seen as relatively independent aspects.

The other was presented by Jane Clements who introduced the familiar concept of different models of dialogue exploring in particular how recent controversies such as the canonisation of Edith Stein and the Mel Gibson film highlight our differences. She also considered how in exploring each other’s texts (as Jews, Christians and Muslims) varieties within our own traditions as well as between them could provide limitations

The German group’s presenter was Dr Hans Hermann Henrix who concluded that the topic boundaries has considerable implications in Jewish-Christian relations. The border always seems to appear at moments of acute controversy. These are moments of alienation, of misunderstanding, of rejection and retraction. Moments of experiences that make it difficult to understand that a border can also be a place of fruitful realisation. Differences and incompatibilities are part and parcel of the reality of the relation of Judaism to Christianity.

Part B: Testing and recognizing borders

English group l: presenter Prof Lars Dencik offered the thought that globalization, including increased migration and increasing multi-culturalization of contemporary societies is a fact which in many societies fosters a neo-tribal backlash, such as growing islamophobia, re-emerging antisemtism and Islamist rejection of Western values and terrorism against individuals and groups of other denominations. To what extent is this rooted in religious convictions implying acting in the name of one’s God and in the service of religious ‘truth’?

English group 2: Dr Victor Goldbloom, Canada, suggested to consider the issue in reverse order: that a border needs to be recognized and defined in order to be tested. He also considered ongoing borders in some societies such as barriers to the full participation of women in both the religious and secular worlds.

German: Presenter Dr Eva Schulz-Jander, Germany explored the issues of diverse meaning of the concept border: geographical, political, social. economic and cultural. Were there in fact insurmountable boundaries: theological, of space and of time? She presented examples of vanishing borders such as in Europe, and through globalisation; the creation of new borders and the consequences resulting from the insight that the dismantling of old borders creates new ones.

Trespassing borders and beyond borders

Part A: Presentation and misrepresentation of the Other in the Media

(this was a joint English and German seminar) Presenter: Dr Konstanty Gebert, Poland: Media is always ethnic, he stated, in the sense that being produced in the language of a given ethnic group, it unavoidably strengthens the reader’s identification with that group. Historically, the development of the press in 19th century Europe solidified existing nationalism and also facilitated the survival of threatened ones in nations deprived of their own state. This rule holds true also for borderline cases, such as the Zionist press in early 20th century Europe, transforming Jewish self-identity from religious to national. On the other hand the media aspires to being universalistic and to cover also the world beyond the ethnic group in whose language it is produced. But even then the proportion of coverage allocated to ‘us’ vs. ‘the rest’ reinforces the ethnic connection. Paradoxes of ethnicity in the media are highlighted in cases when media either cover an ethnic conflict, or even more when they themselves are part of it. The crucial tenet of impartiality, often assumed to be the bedrock of journalistic practice, rarely holds when the journalist and his media describe a bloody clash while expected not to make value judgments, and it becomes completely untenable when the ethnic group for which the media write or broadcast is party to that conflict. The relationship between journalistic obligation, individual conscience and group solidarity needs to be fleshed out in more detail.

Part B: The diplomacy of dialogue

German: Presenter: Dr Eva Schulz-Jander who asked: What precisely is diplomacy. Tried to clarify the boundaries of trespassing, diplomacy and dialogue, stake out the borderlines of your interests and those of the other: To differentiate does not mean going different ways. . What do I aim at when getting into dialogue? What are the boundaries of permissible use of words? What language, what words to I select? Avoid hierarchical language! Avoid ‘I – your’ terminology; Try to put yourself into the other’s situation. How would I feel in his stead? Listen and don’t interrupt. Dialogue is not a game with winners and losers. Seek common solutions. Dialogue is essential. Seek to create confidence! Be open with information, Do not retract just because others protest. Do not relinquish your position if you feel it is the right one, but make sure that it does not harm your counter-part. Seek to hold personal talks.

Creating new borders and moving boundaries

Part A: The descent into new ghettos through introversion

Rabbi Pete Tobias, England, dedicated this seminar to the memory of his mentor the late Rabbi Dr Albert Friedlander, quoting his statement that “the fine edge of our sensibilities has been worn away by the monstrosities of our age. The six o’clock news is the most brutal programme on television – and we do not even turn it off. Each day, murder and destruction flicker across our screen as part of our home life”. Discussion focused on the historical accuracy of the portrayal of the Jewish ghetto experience as one of complete isolation, and particularly on the word ‘liberal’ to represent something ‘good’ while the ghetto was seen as ‘bad’ .

German: Rev Dr Jacobus Schoneveld, Holland dealt with the phenomenon of fundamentalism as encountered in the three monotheist religions, and probably also in Hinduism and Buddhism. He approached the theme from his standpoint in Jerusalem where he spent the past seven years. He dwelt on the various meanings and interpretations of ‘fundamentalism’ including the fact that the fundamentalist experiences freedom as a problem and therefore creates borders around many facets of life and his fellow humans. If these are breached, he resorts to ever stricter boundaries. He believed that as ICCJ we should not limit ourselves to awareness of the danger inherent in fundamentalism but should seek dialogue and encounter with its representatives to understand their concerns, burning questions and worries in the hope to arrive at joint answers.

Part B: Imposing one’s concept on the Other

Rev Jacobus Schoneveld presented a paper in which he cited Articles 18 and 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights leading from that to a challenging analysis and the proposal that within the framework of the ICCJ or the interreligious encounter in general, we freely renounce the right to convince the other or seek to impose our ideas or ideologies and in addition even relinquish the hope that the other may one day share our convictions. This would be a self-imposed boundary, which we would respect in the affirmation to allow the other to be different. We will not do this out of desperation or a sense of shame about past or even current abuses by trying to convert the other, but we shall do this in order to respect the mystery and the otherness of the other.

The many debates during sessions were carried on in the friendship and intimacy so quickly generated during ICCJ conferences during coffee breaks and meal times.

On the Tuesday afternoon we were treated to a most interesting talk and slide show by one of Aachen’s leading historians introducing us to the history and significance of his city, followed by a tour of the city, the cathedral and a reception by the city’s Vice-Mayor Dr Meike Thüllen who took a deep interest not only in the details of the conference but in the work and outreach of the ICCJ. Then followed a visit to the Jewish Community Centre where we had time for prayers in the beautiful synagogue before an official welcome and a supper reception.

At Wednesday’s concluding session the Interfaith Gold Medallion – Peace Through Dialogue was presented to two outstanding personalities:

to Professor Dr Jean Halpérin in recognition of his unique ability to combine being a European in the best sense of the word with the worldwide vision of encounter across cultural divides. For bringing to the non-francophone world the insights and intellectual reflections of French speaking Jewry that have impacted on the Jewish-Christian dialogue whether of a more programmatic nature or expressing particular Jewish concerns, and for having embraced with sensitivity the new avenues offered in various African Christian-Jewish encounters.

and

to Professor Dr Stefan Schreiner in gratitude for an in recognition of courageous and outstanding leadership in the field of Jewish-Christian encounter and dialogue since the time when Europe was still divided in every respect by an iron curtain, and for sensitively and expertly guiding the ICCJ through its Abrahamic Forum Council in broadening dialogue to include Islam wherever the three faith communities encounter each other in our time of vast population movements

To her utter surprise, a Lifetime Achievement Award was presented to Ruth Weyl in recognition of thirty years service to the ICCJ accompanied by a beautiful present in celebration of her upcoming 80th birthday.

Ruth Weyl