When I say this, I am not saying that this is only a Muslim phenomenon, nor am I attempting to marginalize Muslims. Far from it. In this article, I deal with Muslims because, one, this is my area of expertise and two, because this group represents over one fourth of the world’s population. The religious ideas I explore here continue to exert significant influence around the world.

Right now the public’s focus is on Iran and Hamas, and wondering if they can change. But there are deeper questions that linger. Will the Muslim world as a whole change? Of course, Muslims should not be looked at as a monolith, but these ideas exist and are reinforced through religious leaders, political institutions, schools, activist movements, media outlets, and Muslim communities throughout the world. With this globalized network, there also lies a possible path to establish a new moral consensus concerning Jews.

The transformation required for peace cannot remain the private conviction of individual Muslims or the marginal position of a few reformers; it has to become institutionally authoritative.

Interfaith Interaction Must Change

Much contemporary Western interfaith engagement is shaped by moral idealism, and is partly rooted in liberal Protestant and Catholic traditions. This approach has real value as it emphasizes things like goodwill, shared values, common ground. It holds firmly to the hope that greater understanding can reduce conflict and encourage lasting cooperation. These aims are valuable, but they can sometimes underestimate the depth of the disagreements involved or cause one to see things as much better than they actually are. Moral realism, on the other hand, begins by recognizing that religious communities may hold conflicting truth claims, historical narratives, and moral frameworks that goodwill alone cannot resolve. Dialogue still matters, but it must take those differences seriously rather than assuming that better relationships will eventually make them disappear.

That gap matters most when interfaith dialogue turns to Israel and the Jewish people, where conciliatory language can easily mask deeper convictions. When moral idealism is employed, the assumption is that something of significance has been accomplished when Muslim leaders condemn antisemitism, then use moderate language and express a willingness to coexist with Israel under present conditions. Moral realism, on the other hand, goes much further. It seeks to answer a deeper question by looking beyond the superficial and examining religious and political convictions beneath the conciliatory language. Do they truly hold to the conviction that Jewish sovereignty should be morally legitimate and permanent?

Moderation Is Not Yet Recognition

There are Islamic nations that may accept Israel as an existing state based on pragmatic motivations. They may even maintain diplomatic relations that help start economic ties and restrain violence. Yet merely acknowledging that Israel exists is not the same as affirming that Jewish sovereignty is morally legitimate and has a right to endure.

Israel can be tolerated because it is powerful and presently cannot be defeated. None of these positions necessarily recognizes that the state has a moral right to endure.

This distinction is very important because when peace depends solely on a strong Israel can collapse if the balance of power ever changes. In effect, Israel is just being tolerated only for as long as it remains too strong to defeat. Instead, it is a strategic postponement of aggression when the situation ever presents itself, and may represent the present position of many Muslim nations and governments.

It would require a broad and unambiguous affirmation within Muslim religious and political culture that Jews possess a legitimate right to collective self-government and self-determination. It would require saying that Jewish sovereignty is not an offense against Islam simply because it is Jewish.

On the other hand, this affirmation would not require Muslims to approve of everything the Israeli government does. Nor would it mean that Palestinians must give up their national identity, stop seeking........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)