Some Reflections on the Jewish-Christian Dialogue in the Light of the Six-Day War

In the domain of dialogue, an authentic crisis consists of one situation only—that in which one party with draws from confronting an issue raised by the other party. Only such a discrepancy—when one party falls silent and fails to respond to an issue which deeply involves the other party— can be considered to precipitate an authentic crisis. Such a crisis was precipitated in the Jewish-Christian dialogue when the Christian partner fell silent during the period aptly de scribed as the "Munich period." Inasmuch as the state of Israel was, for him, a purely political entity, it could not come within the purview of his dialogue with Judaism, because that religion was, to him, like Christianity, a purely religious entity. The reality of Judaism qua religion, however, does not allow this neat division between faith and politics, for Judaism is, in its very essence, inextricably tied to an ethnic dimension, that is, to Jewish nationhood, and, as such, to all its "secular" aspects, including the political. But this bond, which is dis tinctive and peculiar to Judaism, is not easily appreciated. It calls for a sustained, elaborate theological exposition. This the Jewish partner failed to offer, and the Christian partner cannot be blamed for having molded Judaism's theo logical image after that of his own religion. Still, the crisis which inevitably ensued may yet prove a blessing in disguise, in having so poignantly shown the bankruptcy of the dialogue when pursued as a mere humanitarian encounter and, as a result, leading to the reconstitution of the dialogue as an authentic theological encounter.