During the recent war in Gaza, one of the founding partners to the so-called Hamilton Jewish Arab Muslim Dialogue was ominously unrestrained in castigating Israel (Hamilton Spectator, Jan. 14). Defending Hamas as “the rape child of a brutal occupier,” he also referred to Israel as “the assassin, the thief, the terrorist.”

He ranted that Israel was “responsible for 60 years of land and property confiscation, and of uprooting an entire population from their natural environment” and that “Israel has no moral standing whatsoever to portray itself as the victim, or even trumpet the usual refrain about defending itself against Palestinian terror.”

In the light of this very obvious violation of a “code” whereby all members of the dialogue committee had agreed “to avoid debate on the Mideast conflict and refrain from comments or actions that could be perceived to be critical of the group or their interests,” UJA Federation of Hamilton summarily terminated its participation in the dialogue initiative. Given the circumstances, federation leaders had little option but to withdraw. However, what is more to the point is why they chose to engage in this charade in the first place.

From the outset, there were countless warning signs that the dialogue, as constituted, could not, and would not, work. This latest breach of its guiding principles was one among many. And while arguably the most blatant, it differed little in tone and intent from previous acts of bad faith by dialogue partners who have sought to demonize the State of Israel and its supporters.

With each offence there was a rationalization and a pledge to immediately re-commit to the same dialogue framework. Meanwhile members of the Jewish community who drew attention to the inherent risks of what was occurring were marginalized, labelled as “detractors.” Even after the dismantling of the dialogue committee, an article in last month’s Hamilton Jewish News proclaimed that the federation’s “involvement with the [dialogue] committee has been a valuable experience.” Notably absent was any hint of acceptance that the process may have been misguided, the objectives flawed and the outcome embarrassing.

An effective dialogue requires mutual respect and mutual recognition among all participants. When such components are lacking, there’s no point to continuing the deliberations.

With each contravention of the dialogue committee’s own rules of engagement, there was ample opportunity for the local federation to pull out of the failing experiment. In choosing not to do so, our leadership has been tainted by what has turned out to be no more than a cynical public relations exercise that has fomented distrust, divided our community and made a mockery of civil discourse.