Israel-Palestine: For Human Values in the Absence of a Just Peace | Page 37

Israel-Palestine: For Human Values in the Absence of a Just Peace
of Jewish persecution, the horrors of the Shoah, and the persistence of anti-Semitism
today have allowed Zionists to continue portray to the project of building a Jewish state
as morally valid, without counting the cost to the Palestinian families being displaced.
In the end, the debate about whether or not Israeli policies and practice should be
labeled “apartheid” should not distract us from the substantive issues at stake. The
overriding moral from the history of South Africa’s liberation struggle is the central
importance of recognizing the human dignity and letting all parties to the conflict feel
that they have meaningful opportunities to shape a common future. Only when one ceases
to label those with a different perspective as “other”, thereby devaluing or dismissing
their views, can one begin a genuine search for accommodation and mutually acceptable
options.
Faith communities are often best placed to champion this message—as they did
in South Africa—because of the depth and richness of their moral teachings. The
international ecumenical movement against apartheid was effective largely because it
acted in solidarity with local churches that had deep roots in all of South Africa’s
communities. In the Middle East, as in South Africa, the Church is called not to align
itself behind one particular political “solution,” but rather to persist in lifting up God’s
call for justice and dignity for all humanity. Often this implies that the Church must
stand with the marginalized and those with less social, economic and political power,
amplifying their voices and helping to level the playing field in the struggle for selfdetermination.
South Africa’s experience carries a message of hope. For decades, the struggle to
dismantle apartheid and implement non-racial democracy seemed to make little progress
in the face of a heavily-armed and intransigent state. Growing moral outrage prompted
few political concessions, either from the apartheid state or from members of the
international community who allowed perceived strategic or economic considerations to
trump ethical concerns. But once that seemingly impenetrable façade began to crumble, it
did so rapidly. In the space of a few months in 1993, public opinion amongst white South
Africans underwent a sea change. People who had previously bought into the state’s
portrayal of every African political leader—and particularly Nelson Mandela—as a
dangerous terrorist, suddenly saw Mr. Mandela as a national treasure, a statesperson with
integrity, humility and moral fortitude. Meanwhile, the African National Congress, which
enjoyed by far the widest support in black communities, showed little inclination to use
its enhanced bargaining position to wring new concessions from the faltering state, but
instead adhered closely to its longstanding demands for non-racial democracy, human
rights and equal protection under law. At the very moment when South Africa seemed to
be on the verge of descending into renewed violence and even greater bloodshed, a
yearning for peace and reconciliation prevailed, clearing the way for a negotiated
settlement and a democratic transition that has lasted over two decades, despite ongoing
challenges. The Church is uniquely qualified to identify and nurture the glimmers of hope
in a hurting world, even in those situations that appear the most intractable.

C. Putting Values into Action by the Presbyterians and the Church
What can we do, given the impasse for achieving a political settlement in IsraelPalestine? Should PC(USA) wait for other US religious groups to become concerned, and
focus on interreligious dialogue? Should the church now shift the emphasis of its

36