For decades, interreligious dialogue has been a space where differences in theology, belief, and practice could be explored with respect. But ICJS Jewish Scholar Benjamin Sax, Ph.D., argues that one issue consistently breaks that fragile trust: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“People can disagree on deep theological matters and still remain in community,” Sax explained. “But when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, conversations often collapse. It animates our worst impulses and draws unyielding lines in the sand.”
Sax’s forthcoming book, Is Dialogue Possible? The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Question of Antisemitism (Bloomsbury, 2026), tackles that collapse head-on. More than a study of antisemitism, the book is both a guide for practitioners of interreligious dialogue and a historical exploration of how Jews and others have defined antisemitism across centuries.
At the heart of Sax’s argument is the recognition that accusations of antisemitism—while sometimes accurate—are also frequently weaponized to shut down discussion.
“If antisemitism is used to shut down conversations about whether or not Israel is an apartheid state, or Israel is a colonial project, or anti-Zionism is a legitimate political position or theological position, then we simply can’t have any reasonable conversations because those positions aren’t a priori antisemitic,” he said.
“My book is trying to find ways to help people understand when assertions are antisemitic and when they’re not.”
To do this, Sax traces the evolving definitions of antisemitism.
He outlines the “eternalist” view, which sees antisemitism as a permanent, transhistorical condition—the “longest hatred.” In this framework, criticism of Israel is often equated with hatred of Jews.
By contrast, “historicists” argue that antisemitism changes over time and context, making it a phenomenon that must be understood in specific historical and political circumstances.
Sax shows how these schools of thought shape today’s fierce debates. He asks provocative questions: If anti-Zionism is automatically antisemitic, could any Palestinian be considered anything other than antisemitic? Such framing, he argues, not only misrepresents Palestinians but also narrows the possibilities for dialogue and solidarity.
The book does not shy away from difficult assertions—whether about apartheid, colonialism, or human rights. Instead, Sax insists that people of faith can and must learn to articulate their convictions in ways that are not hateful. He offers historical and contemporary examples of interreligious leaders who have risked vulnerability in order to create spaces for honest, if painful, encounters.
Underlying the project is urgency. Rising antisemitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia, and authoritarianism are fraying democratic institutions and fueling violence in the United States and abroad.
“Jews and Muslims are being targeted here in America because of this conflict,” Sax said. “If we can’t figure out how to talk about it here, what right do we have to imagine peace there?”
Ultimately, Is Dialogue Possible? does not offer easy answers. Instead, it invites readers—especially those engaged in interfaith work—to resist propaganda, avoid weaponized accusations, and recognize their interlocutors as good-faith actors. For Sax, that is the only way to preserve the possibility of dialogue in an age of fear.
“Everybody is afraid and under siege and there’s an impulse to want to organize and be in solidarity with people more like you,” he said. “And I would suggest that the sphere of people who are more like you is bigger than you think right now.”
8/21/25