Israel-Palestine: For Human Values in the Absence of a Just Peace | Page 2

Israel-Palestine: For Human Values in the Absence of a Just Peace

empathy for the “other.”iv It carefully contrasts the First Testament’s views on land with
aspects of the covenant understood by Reformed Christians, and with Muslim and
Christian Palestinian “samud,” or steadfastness on the land. Breaking down the Walls
recognized “daunting and mounting obstacles to the viability of a “two-state solution,” and
called for the “immediate resumption of negotiations” to that end.
Over the years, then, the Presbyterian Church has supported the international
consensus favoring a two-state solution with a shared Jerusalem. Yet as situations change,
the Church must evaluate its positions accordingly. And in the view of many analysts, the
door to a viable Palestinian state is closing rapidly, if it is still open at all.v For example,
Thomas Friedman, a long-standing proponent of “two states for two peoples”, has
suggested that calling for a two-state solution, without acknowledging the reality on the
ground, is an exercise in denial.vi
Israel’s policy trajectory of continued settlements and brutal occupation is deeply
troubling. Not only does it make a two-state solution increasingly difficult, if not
impossible, to achieve, but the emerging, de facto single state’s systematic violation of
Palestinian rights and democratic values is eroding Israel’s moral legitimacy. This has
presented a growing crisis for a church that has historically supported Israel as a homeland
for Jews, and we note growing divisions in the US Jewish community as well.
This resolution takes the position that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) should
advance those efforts that best accord with its values, which have relevance in any political
arrangement, including but not limited to that of two sovereign states—Israel and
Palestine.vii PC(USA) has supported an equitable two-state solution out of fairness and the
belief that it would be far better for both peoples and three faiths to share the land. To keep
open the option of a two-state solution, this report in its language and recommendations
makes a clear distinction between the State of Israel within internatio