Earlier this week, I appeared on a panel at a TAC-sponsored conference on the theme of “Realism and Restraint.” I am honored to have been asked to speak, and had a wonderful time. So will you if you come next time we do one of these things!

I appeared on the third panel, which covered the subject of Religion and American foreign policy. My co-panelists were:

• Damon Linker, who spoke critically about the “just war” tradition (if you want to get a good idea of what he said, check out his columns on the subject here and here);
• Sam Goldman, who spoke about the Christian Zionist tradition in its liberal variant (epitomized by Reinhold Niebuhr), and how that variant came to be eclipsed by a right-wing apocalyptic alternative (epitomized by the likes of John Hagee but with roots that go back to the Puritans); and
• Father Thomas Zain, who spoke about the plight of Christians in the war-torn lands of Syria and Iraq, how American foreign policy is exacerbating their travail, and how, in his words, what is needed is “not protection but peace.”

Myself, I spoke about the ways in which the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is increasingly of a religious dimension, and hence less-amenable to resolution.

Once upon a time, Zionism and Palestinian or pan-Arab nationalism faced off against each other, and in that contest over land and independence it was easy to understand how the baby might be split, even if it proved extremely hard to get both sides to agree on what kind of split might be fair. But the settlement movement in Israel and the rise of Hamas and even more extreme organizations among the Palestinians have made that less and less conceivable. It’s hard to compromise on commandments.

And this poses a challenge for an American foreign policy that has historically been anchored by the assumption that it is our job to facilitate such a compromise, whether by standing solidly with Israel (so that the other side understands it cannot win by force and must negotiate to get half a loaf), or by pressuring both sides (so that each side can point to the practical necessity of confronting their own rejectionists). We don’t have the standing to opine on religious matters, and hence are generally resented when we do. So it’s worth looking for an American policy that better insulates us from the consequences of a failure to achieve the necessary compromise.

I think I did ok, not great. Leon Hadar, another frequent TAC contributor who has written eloquently on the same subject, but he appeared on a different panel, so while the conference attendees did have the opportunity to partake of his wisdom, they had to settle for his thoughts on public opinion and the making of foreign policy. If you’re interested in his thoughts on religion and the Arab-Israeli conflict, they can be found here.

And you can watch the entirety of the conference here.