Women better at doing interfaith than men post-October 7, report finds

“Likewise, female religious leadership has shown an ability to deal with complex and emotive issues in nuanced and emotionally sensitive ways in faith and interfaith settings. More should be done to include these voices in dialogue on these issues.”

Interfaith activists involved in Muslim-Jewish group NIsa-Nashim Julie Siddiqi (left) and Dr Lindsay Simmonds (Photo: Gaby Wine)[Missing Credit]

The research team also found that “that the more time a group had spent together beforehand, the better they were able to handle difficult conversations about Israel-Palestine”.

By contrast, where a group had come together specifically to discuss the Israel-Palestine issue without spending time together, it was more likely to fail.

Choice of language had proven to be a “stumbling block” in many interfaith encounters.

One Jewish group facilitator in the north of England reported that among Muslim communities “’Zionism’ is a dirty word [and] trying to reclaim that is very difficult” .

“Ceasefire” could also be a “toxic” word and one person involved in an interfaith initiative in the Midlands said “because it didn't call for a ceasefire, lots of Muslims [were] furious”.

One Jewish interfaith activist in Manchester said he now felt more concerned about his safety in some parts of the city.

A Muslim activist reported problems at school for his daughter because “her dad is known to be engaging with people who are supportive of the Israeli government’s war on Gaza. So it's very difficult, so it affects me deeply, personally as well, because it's almost like you're seen as a sellout”.

Some reported that the IHRA definition of antisemitism “restricted” conversations and felt uncomfortable about it. “I can only speak about Israel to people I know well,” one person said.

But the report recommended that policy-makers should provide “support for groups wishing to explore difference between communities and explore the uncomfortable difficult divergences of opinions within interfaith circles”.

Among other issues was the difficulty in finding “neutral” ground to host meetings. The report observed that while churches had sometimes offered space, they might not be considered neutral territory by other faith. Public cuts had also reduced the availability of civic venues and some groups did not have the means to hire them.

Some interfaith leaders were unprepared for the level of anger in their communities post-October 7, with one council worker saying they often felt “completely out of my depth”.

While there had been “significant setbacks” since October 7, none of the participants in the study “expressed purely negative feeling about the future of interfaith”, the report stated.

Many people remained “committed to continue the work of bringing faith communities together and building closer relations across religious differences”.