296 · Ben Mollov
less clear as to how that process could be facilitated.^23 I suggest that the
intercultural dialogue with roots in religious heritage can provide an ap-
proach for accomplishing that goal.
From the Micro to the Macro
As I have emphasized, the discussions that occurred in both the Bar-Ilan–
Hebron dialogue and the Israeli-Palestinian dialogue in Gaza focused
on commonalities in religious practice, which allowed both groups to
perceive something familiar in the other. But there are additional layers
in this process. Religion, as noted, was utilized as a medium to channel
discussion at least initially from charged, immediate political issues to a
topic that could help “humanize” each side to the other. However, reli-
gion also ultimately explains the fundamental basis and attachment that
both groups have to the land they both claim.
Thus, after some type of relationship or trust was established, each
side came to challenge the basis of the other’s connection to the “Holy
Land” in general and Jerusalem in particular. With each side recognizing
that a fundamental clash of interests, informed by culture, is evident in
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the two sides recognize that two choices
are then present.
As suggested earlier, culture with its basis in religion is a central foun-
dation for identity. According to one specialist in conflict management,
Marc Ross, “culture shapes what people consider valuable and worth
fighting over,” and an increasing number of conflicts today have been
considered to be “identity-based” struggles.^24 Thus, in a real sense, when
Israelis and Palestinians conduct a religiously based dialogue, they are
dealing with the core issues of their political conflict, which are informed
by religious cultural heritage.
They have two choices: fight to the death, or try to reach some type of
accommodation based on equilibrium of forces and aspirations, which is
vital to the stability of any social system in which several actors are pres-
ent and in conflict.^25
And once there is a viable equilibrium, informed by the knowledge
that a stalemate exists, the basis can then be created to work toward win-
win solutions through cooperative efforts that will potentially advance
the welfare of each side. The exact drawing of borders or precise treaty
provisions is outside the domain of practitioners of “people-to-people”