A Quaker boycott
Sarah Lawson queries the decision to support the boycott
Meeting for Sufferings is urging us to boycott goods produced by ‘Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories’. This is not a boycott of ‘Israeli goods generally’ but only those from a small area where settlements ‘have been repeatedly condemned as illegal by the United Nations’. Since this statement appeared on the Quaker website it has been noticed by many authoritative bloggers across the internet. The reactions I have seen encompass scorn, indignation, and a sort of sad amusement. Why should that be?
The first sentence provides a clue. The ‘Palestinian Territories’ are ‘occupied illegally’ in the version spread by the Palestinian Arabs, but there are serious doubts whether the land in question is either ‘Palestinian’ or ‘occupied’. It will surprise many to learn that there is nothing illegal about the presence of Israel in the West Bank. But the United Nations has repeatedly condemned those settlements, hasn’t it? There is a sizable bloc of Muslim countries in the UN who condemn them. The Human Rights Council of the United Nations condemns it regularly for its human rights abuses, but the composition of that human rights watchdog includes Libya, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Kyrgyzstan and China, among others. For the Arab states, this tactic conveniently steers attention away from their own human rights abuses while also damning the hated Jewish state in their midst.
So what exactly are the Israelis doing on the West Bank? They took it from Jordan in the Six Day War of 1967, and land gained in a defensive war may be held legally – there are no laws anywhere that forbid it. (How Jordan got it is another matter. Trans-Jordan, as it then was – a newly created state itself – conquered it in 1948 when it attacked Israel. Before that it was part of the British Mandate in Palestine, and before that it was a scrap of the Ottoman Empire. It never constituted a state or belonged to any group called ‘Palestinians’.)
These facts are available to anybody. They are not secrets or arcane information, but they are deliberately overlooked when they contradict the received view. By accepting the Arab version of the story we are allying ourselves with the forces ranged against Israel with an agenda of delegitimising it as a Jewish state.
A real peace effort might be aimed at urging the Palestinian parties in power to recognise Israel, but instead of that Quakers are now boycotting a democracy that has been trying to make peace since 1948, when it agreed to share its much reduced slice of the British Mandate with an Arab state, only to have the Palestinian Arabs demand all or nothing. If the Arabs had accepted the United Nations’ two-state arrangement in 1948, at least four wars could have been avoided, to say nothing of the constant undeclared warfare against Israel. (In March alone 110 rockets were launched from Gaza at Israel. For most of us the Blitz isn’t even a memory, but for many Israelis it is a fact of life.)
Our boycott is largely a symbolic one. Whether the products of the West Bank are labelled or not, we are willy-nilly boycotting the whole country, whatever we like to think. Our effort is supposed to help coerce Israel into single-handedly making peace with people who have never recognised its right even to exist and who make no secret of their wish to destroy it and all its Jewish inhabitants. The only effect our boycott will have is to make Quakers look naïve, anti-Semitic, and ignorant of Middle Eastern history at best and meddlesome colluders in Israel’s destruction at worst.
Comments
This is very one-sided. Leaving aside the 1940s history (a long story in itself, with the destruction of many Palestinian villages and displacement of many Arabs). The writer is trying to rubbish” the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. Why do they not have the right to call themselves what they want? Why is a boycott of settlement goods linked with anti-semitism? It is generally regarded by international law, that an occupying power does not have the right to promote settlements on the territory they occupy. Israeli settlers grab land, steal water and uproot olive trees. The settlement movement is against the long-term interests of Israel itslef and obstuctys the path to fairness for all aprties. If the Palestinians recognise Israel, will Israel recognise a Palestinian state? Will the occupied territories (including Jewish exclaves) be handed back, so that the new state is viable exclaves? This indeed would be a step to peace and justice.”
By DavidH on 21st April 2011 - 9:13
Oh, wow. I had to read and re-read this to ensure that I was reading it right. Sarah is quite right about the legal issue. There is no high negotiating power over Gaza and the WB, which is the bare minimum for their being illegally [or even] occupied”... and this is because of the Arab League’s rejection of UN Resolution 181 in 1948. Egypt merely ‘administered’ Gaza 1948-67 (she set-up a security barrier and refused any movement of populations during that period), but - as Sarah said - Jordan definitely occupied the WB by incoporating it into the rest of the country (something Israel has not done). There’s a pun in Hebrew that the only things occupied in the WB are the cucumbers. In Hebrew, occupied/conquered is the same word as it for pickled/preserved. I can happily have arguments (in the classical sense of the word) with people about the _suitability_ of the Pickle Shelf, but if a position is based purely on legality, it appears to me as morally bankrupt. Niall McCormick said that jurisprudence is peddling in the shallows of philosophy, and I agree. Quakerism is built on a radical tradition, so it strikes me as odd the place such authority in the outward weapons of lawfare. Nor am I opposed to anyone seeking to boycott Settlement products if they please. They should do it properly, though. I know of one kibbutz in Golan and Sheeba [1] which manufacturers complex sewage valves which has been bought by major cities across the world, including Birmingham. Will Brummie Quakers refuse to use the toilets now? Likewise, there are pharmaceuticals and computer micro-technology (what possible military use for compact communication devices could give rise to mobile ‘phones?) produced elsewhere in the WB. >> Why is a boycott of settlement goods linked with anti-semitism? I would caution Sarah that it is not inherently antisemitic (note the lack of hyphenation), but do think it tends towards antisemitism. Martin Luther King said that a convulsive hatred of the Israel state is indinguishable from antisemitism (this was when hundreds or thousands of former Nazis were high-up in Arab League governments). By placing opposition to Israeli policies above all other countries (where’s the boycott of the pistachio industry which is almost exclusively controlled by cronies in Iran?), or by assuming they affect discord across the so-called Arab/Muslim world (when, what we’ve seen of late, is an uprising against the corrupt and brutal domestic governments) maps into the old motif about there being a preternatural, cosmic reach to Jewish political power. Israel has, in many ways, become the Eternal Jew.”
By A Mac G on 21st April 2011 - 12:21
I meant to add about Golan and Sheeba that sovereignty of the Sheeba Farms has been renounced by the high negotiation power (i.e. Syria). Therefore, under that thing called international law, ownership passes to the current administrating force.
By A Mac G on 21st April 2011 - 12:30
How staggeringly biased, or misinformed, can one get? Sarah Lawson’s “Opinion” in The Friend of 22 April takes the biscuit. First, she denies that “the land in question is either ‘Palestinian’ or ‘occupied’”. In all the pre-1984 maps, and for centuries before, it was called Palestine. No educated person can deny it was occupied by a succession of conquerors (unless one calls the British Mandate something else). She admits later that Israel took the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 war. If it was not Jordan’s, how come taking it from them makes it Israel’s? Do I have a right to take a burglar’s ill-gotten gains? Sarah Lawson then claims the occupation or whatever it is, is not illegal. International law may be beyond many of us but continuous defiance of UN Resolutions and the Conventions of War cannot be called legal. How can she so airily dismiss the UN when the only justification for the existence of Israel is that it was created by the UN? (Were this not so I for one would argue that Israel had no right to exist; at least, not in Palestine.) Sarah also suggests that the UN’s findings can be dismissed because some countries with bad Human Relations records are members of it. Which nations have perfect records? She also implies that because Palestine was never an independent state it cannot become one. She says it ‘never belonged to anyone called Palestinians’. True, if one stresses the word ‘belonged’. But it is undoubted that people called Palestinians, living in the land called Palestine, had secure property rights under the Ottomans, and under the British and Jordanians. The only occupying power to confiscate Palestinian people’s homes and farms have been the Israelis. (Actually, the Israeli Supreme Court has frequently found the IDF and the Settlers to have defied Israeli law in this respect.) Sarah then brings out the argument that anyone disagreeing with her on this matter is ‘anti-Semitic’. For how long are Israel’s supporters going to continue with this false argument? For how long are we going to be weakened by it? It’s a wicked but sadly effective ploy. Does opposing Cameron’s cuts make one anti-British? If, as Sarah claims, Israel has been ‘trying to make peace since 1948’ they’ve set about it in a pretty ineffective manner. The bombing of Gaza is only one example of what can hardly be called ‘trying to make peace’. I agree with Sarah in that the Palestinians were mistaken in not accepting the two-state solution in 1948. But this is said to be because Israel had already imprisoned all their qualified leaders. (There’s hardly a single Palestinian man who has not spent time in Israeli prison, usually for trivial offences, or for what is eventually found by the Israeli courts not to be an offence.) I believe that the Israeli defence force could neutralise the amateur rocket launchers if they wanted to. They have some of the world’s most sophisticated armaments. But the puny, inaccurate rocket attacks on an isolated town give Israel the propaganda advantage which Sarah exploits in her contention that ‘for many Israelis the blitz is a fact of life’. She clearly has little idea of a blitz. Sarah ends with the ‘poor little victim’ line. Far from being the victim, Israel is very strong, impregnably supported, but grossly aggressive and punitive. The continued claim to be under attack is good for its ‘defence’ designers and industries, good for excusing Israel’s poor economic performance, good for attracting massive aid from the government and the people of the USA, good for the psychology of a nation that has indeed suffered greatly – but not at the hands of the Palestinians.
By spetter on 23rd April 2011 - 21:26
>> How staggeringly biased, or misinformed, can one get? Sarah Lawson’s “Opinion” in The Friend of 22 April takes the biscuit. So, shall we agree to tolerate in The Friend only those views which have been vetted and approved by the occupants of the Society’s facing bench? >> In all the pre-1984 maps, and for centuries before, it was called Palestine. Your inadvertent slip of the finger puts me in mind of another book in which protagonists redefine the historical record. All maps? Or just some? What about those which referred to contemporary Israel and the WB as a Greater Syria? A map is an expression of power by the ruling forces, and does not necessarily have any bearing on what the inhabitants define themselves as. If, as you imply, you are aware of the historical record, you will know that much of what is now Israel and the WB had been Jewish-majority for centuries… Jerusalem Old City, for instance, was Jewish-majority according to the first census of modern times conducted by the Ottomans in 1842. >> But it is undoubted that people called Palestinians, living in the land called Palestine, had secure property rights under the Ottomans, and under the British and Jordanians. Until the late 20th Century, the non-Jewish inhabitants of the region looked to Damascus or Ramallah or Cairo or Nazareth for their identity, with Palestinian” - not an Arabic word - always referring to the Jewish inhabitants. Still, at least by accepting that Arab inhabitants of the region had secure property rights, you are by extension accepting that they had the rights to sell this – often at exorbitant prices – to Jewish buyers in the 19th Century and beyond. >> No educated person can deny it was occupied by a succession of conquerors (unless one calls the British Mandate something else). So now we’re backing to the actual year Nineteen Eighty-Four, where disagreement aint just wrong but ‘uneducated’ or inconceivable. I have to ask, d’you speak Arabic or Hebrew (preferably both)? D’you have academic training in the history or current events of the region, or have read literature written by those who do? >> If it was not Jordan’s, how come taking it from them makes it Israel’s? If Sarah is saying that Israel has full right to all territory in the WB and the remove the non-Jewish population, then I’ll disagree. The question does remain why not nearly the same levels - in fact, none at all -of outrage were directed at Arab-on-Arab violence and injustice. >> Do I have a right to take a burglar’s ill-gotten gains? Well, yes you do. It’s called The Proceeds of Crime Act. >> Sarah Lawson then claims the occupation or whatever it is, is not illegal. International law may be beyond many of us but continuous defiance of UN Resolutions and the Conventions of War cannot be called legal. The UN is not a supra-democratic, and the various resolutions you say Israel is in ‘clear breach’ of are either non-binding or call for equal participation of other parties. It’s fair enough if you >> How can she so airily dismiss the UN when the only justification for the existence of Israel is that it was created by the UN? (Were this not so I for one would argue that Israel had no right to exist; at least, not in Palestine.) No. The “only justification” for the existence of Israel is that Jews wanted self-determination. It is Imperialist in the extreme to dismiss the wishes of local inhabitants and place them as entirely subservient to outside Governments. >> Sarah also suggests that the UN’s findings can be dismissed because some countries with bad Human Relations records are members of it. Which nations have perfect records? So, why are you seeking perfection from Israel? Furthermore, the rot in the Israel-obsessed UN bodies is not down to a few peccadilloes… it’s down to their spending all their time – and Western tax-money – on denouncing everything and anything Israel does with nary a cheep about the hundreds of thousands of Darfuris killed. Sudan is described euphemistically as a “area of concern”, Libya actually chaired the Orwellian UN Human Rights Council (and, when kicked-off, Syria sought to replace her) and then the UNHRC had the sheer effrontery to _congratulate_ Sri Lanka for the destruction of the LTTE and mass-killings of thousands of Tamil civilians. >> (Actually, the Israeli Supreme Court has frequently found the IDF and the Settlers to have defied Israeli law in this respect.) Are you now saying that the Israeli State respects international law? I’ve become lost in all the knots of your argument. >> Sarah then brings out the argument that anyone disagreeing with her on this matter is ‘anti-Semitic’. No, she did not. >> For how long are Israel’s supporters going to continue with this false argument? So criticism of Israeli cannot be antisemitic? Never? Under no circumstances? I’ll let you into a secret, Israelis don’t go on about antisemitism half as much as some people do. >> For how long are we going to be weakened by it? Hang on, is this about Palestinian Arabs or is it about you? >> It’s a wicked but sadly effective ploy. Has anyone notice how convulsive hatred and untrammelled criticism of Israel never is off our front-pages and streets? Yes? Good. Let’s file the above under “disproven”. >> Does opposing Cameron’s cuts make one anti-British? Unless you can demonstrate that British citizens have been subjected to the same levels of hatred and violence as Jews have historically, this comes across as belittling anti-Jewish racism. >> I agree with Sarah in that the Palestinians were mistaken in not accepting the two-state solution in 1948. But this is said to be because Israel had already imprisoned all their qualified leaders. Such as? >> (There’s hardly a single Palestinian man who has not spent time in Israeli prison, usually for trivial offences, […] There is hardly a single Israeli who doesn’t have a relative or know someone who has been killed or injured by terrorist violence. Over one thousand civilians were killed and ten thousand injured during the Second Intifada, over 70% women and children… at soft-targets such as restaurants, shopping arcades, street-gatherings. Ordinary people like you and me have had to pick pieces of their loved ones our of their hair, or comfort their children who continue to wet their beds or scream in their sleep at memories of exploding buses or rockets raining down on their heads. Not that you would know this from your laundry list of Palestinian Arab misfortune. >> […] or for what is eventually found by the Israeli courts not to be an offence.) I’m still lost. Are you saying that the Israeli State respects international law? >> If, as Sarah claims, Israel has been ‘trying to make peace since 1948’ they’ve set about it in a pretty ineffective manner. The bombing of Gaza is only one example of what can hardly be called ‘trying to make peace’. Operation Cast Lead came after urban areas in Sderot or Ashkelon had been shelled for years, and the immediate cause was when gunmen invaded Israeli territory, killed several soldiers and kidnapped another (Gilat Shalit). It’s perfectly fair to argue that the response was unnecessary, but when you noticeably omit mention of this, I wonder just how honestly you “condemn on violence on both sides”. Shalit has been held captive for five years now, and consistently refused access to the Red Cross. Where are Friends campaigning for him just as they do for Gitmo detainees? >> I believe that the Israeli defence force could neutralise the amateur rocket launchers if they wanted to. They have some of the world’s most sophisticated armaments. I find that pacifists make terrible military analysts. These rocket launchers are mobile and used/concealed within civilian areas – often from schools or even mosques. If the IDF did what you suggest, it would: a) be doing what it currently is doing; b) be risking the deaths of civilians who have been put in harms-way by the operators of the rockets-launchers. And you would doubtless cry foul. >> But the puny, inaccurate rocket attacks on an isolated town give […] If someone were lobbing wonky hand-grenades into your street, I suspect you’d find a reason not to go to the shops. Once you are quite finished with sneering at Sderot, consider Daniel Viflic who was killed when a laser-guided anti-tank missile was fired at the yellow school bus in which he was travelling in southern Israel. Minutes beforehand, the bus had been jam-packed with other children. >> […] give Israel the propaganda advantage […] I’ll give you a tip. If you don’t want to be thought of as antisemitic, don’t suggest that Israelis see the death/injury of the fellows as simply a political tool. >> […] which Sarah exploits in her contention that ‘for many Israelis the blitz is a fact of life’. She clearly has little idea of a blitz. I would recommend a mathematician to exponent away the log in your eye before you criticize the mote in others’. >> good for excusing Israel’s poor economic performance, You’ll find that Israeli industry and intellectual capital is thriving.”
By A Mac G on 24th April 2011 - 17:54
Both Israelis and Palestinians have long histories of suffering and injustice at the hands of others and of each other, and both have responded to defend themselves in ways which have betrayed their own humanity and denied the humanity of members of the other side. It is almost impossible for those of us who have not had to live in such difficult circumstances to imagine their experiences, or to be certain that we would have responded better. The history of the area and its peoples is complex. It has to be known to understand the past and the present situations, and it must be transcended if peace and justice are to be achieved. Too many newspaper columns have been disfigured by letters and articles which have claimed that one side is entirely in the right, and the other in the wrong. Sarah Lawson’s article is an unfortunate example of one of these. I hope that any further contributions to The Friend will be sensitive enough to recognise the humanity, the aspirations and the responsibilities of both Israelis and Palestinians.
By DavidHitchin on 25th April 2011 - 9:06
There is a pattern developing here of rise-up-sit-down ministry. If others disagree with my interjections, I would be happy to hear this… instead what I am seeing is drive-by attacks on Sarah Lawson, and steadfast ignoring of anything which contradicts what the speaker already has decided. David, in the ffriendliest possible way, if Sarah’s piece is a polemic, then it’s distinct in Quaker circles only because of the object of its criticism. Corporal Jones would have something to say about the response. In this very thread you have one commenter dismissing the blind terror experienced by Israelis under constant mortar, rocket and - now - laser-guided anti-tank missile attack. I hope the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs come to the same frosty peace and eventual acceptance as the French and Algerians have. The Society will and, indeed, should not have no part in this if it continues to judge one side by the most charitable motives whilst the other is damned by the harshest possible standards.
By A Mac G on 25th April 2011 - 9:47
A Mac G has answered the objections of spetter better and in great detail than I could. However, I feel obliged to make a few further comments in response to David H and spetter. When I said that the Blitz was a way of life for Israelis in reach of Hamas rockets, I was referring to their having to be constantly alert for attacks. During the Blitz of World War II, it took a German bomber 22 minutes to reach London from the Kentish coast. Israelis, in contrast, have a maximum of 15 seconds to take cover when the siren goes. The truth may seem one-sided, biased, or biscuit-taking if you have never heard it before or dismiss it out of hand.
By Sarah Lawson on 2nd May 2011 - 10:18
Above: for ‘better and in great deatail’ read ‘better and in greater detail’ In reply to DavidH about Palestinians calling themselves whatever they want to, the joke is that they considered themselves part of Arab Syria and at the time of the Peel Commission in 1937 a local spokesman declared that there was no such country as Palestine and that ‘Palestinewas a term invented by Zionists! Later it became expedient to become ‘Palestinians’ after all.”
By Sarah Lawson on 2nd May 2011 - 10:48
David H asks why a boycott of settlement goods should be linked with anti-Semitism. It is to do with the context of the boycott. It comes with a great deal of baggage. It recalls the notorious Kauf nicht bei Juden” campaign of the Nazis’. The very fact that this and so much else is focused narrowly on Israel, the only Jewish state in the world, when many other countries are guilty of worse behaviour, suggests that there is a negative connection with Judaism. If not, why are people not similarly incensed at China or North Korea or Iran or Zimbabwe, to name only four? Why no demonstrations against Libya or Syria? Why does Israel arouse such hatred? Why is it uniquely condemned for defending itself? These are not really rhetorical questions; they genuinely puzzle me. I can’t think of any answer except anti-Semitism. That is why I say that Quakers will come across to others as anti-Semitic, whatever we say our motives are.”
By Sarah Lawson on 2nd May 2011 - 21:57
I am not sure how much point there is in this exchange. People come from very different ‘places’. If it would serve any useful purpose (which I doubt) I would be very interested in an objective unbiased analysis of my response to Sarah Lawson’s letter and A McG’s response to mine. I find his arguments mostly unconvincing, and it would seem his view of mine is similar. Yet presumably we are both educated, Quakerly adults who consider ourselves fair-minded and well-informed. I am not anti-Jewish (or ‘anti-Semitic’.) When I was a young adult my only racial prejudice was against Arabs and I was great admirer of Israel. Two of my sisters married Jews and we are a loving extended family, though one of my nieces is an ardent supporter of Israel with views similar to those of Sarah Lawson. I think they respect my opinions even if they do not agree. I remained more pro-Israel than pro-Arab until I began to read reports from Quakers who had been there. Eventually I went on a study tour which included input from staunch Israeli patriots. I went again independently, and travelled in Israel and in the West Bank. I have read quite a lot about the situation and been to conferences on the subject. I have talked at length with EAPPI veterans and also with Christian Peace Makers, who lean over backwards to see both sides. I am reminded of saddening conversations about Northern Ireland and South Africa with intelligent, decent people from both sides, always similarly convinced of the other side’s heinous, unforgivable crimes and their own side’s justification and moral superiority. But in each case, a complex dispute between a people who were originally almost the sole occupants of a territory opposing relative newcomers who felt justified in occupying the formers’ territory. The Israeli/Palestinian situation includes a rich complexity in which it is easy to find reasons to support one’s prejudices. But the basic situation is fairly simple. From the Palestinians’ point of view, against all their protests, much of the country they regarded as theirs was taken, under the authority of the UN, to create Israel. Then more territory was and still is being taken by Israel. It is not at all surprising that they feel outraged at the apparent injustice, and that a militant minority of them see violence as their only hope. Nor is it surprising that some people in countries with links to Israel feel moved to protest at the injustice. (There are good reasons why protests about injustice in other countries are not so vociferous.) The viewpoint of Israelis and their supporters is more complex, owing much to the persecution of the Jews and their resultant sense of insecurity. There is the shame felt by modern Westerners about the persecution, and sympathy about the holocaust, which results in non-Jews being hesitant to criticise Israel, for fear of being regarded as anti-Semitic. Jewish insecurity results in Jews in Israel and beyond being fiercely, often excessively, determined to defend and support the Jewish homeland. The situation is exacerbated by the disproportionate influence (due to proportional representation and fragile coalitions) of militant Orthodox Jews who are convinced that the land is theirs because God said so over 2000 years ago. Moreover, unrecognised by many, the influence of the massive Christian Zionist lobby in the USA ties the hands of the US Government. But at its most basic the situation is very similar to that when Europeans were taking their continent from Native Americans, using trickery and superior weaponry (and tales of Red Indian atrocities) to drive the remnant into small, unproductive reservations. Many would argue that it is right and normal for a strong nation to conquer and take over a weaker nation’s country. Others would argue that by the 21st Century, civilisation should have got beyond accepting that might is right.
By spetter on 7th May 2011 - 12:04
spetter said From the Palestinians’ point of view, against all their protests, much of the country they regarded as theirs was taken, under the authority of the UN, to create Israel. Then more territory was and still is being taken by Israel.” No doubt this is the Palestinians’ point of view, but the fact remains that there was no such historical country. Remember that the early Zionists were very careful to buy land (usually at an inflated price) from absentee landowners. Remember too that a huge chunk of the original Mandate for the “Jewish Homeland” became Trans-Jordan. It is also worth remembering that there was a restricted quota for Jewish immigration to this “Homeland” even when it was a matter of life and death during the War, but Arab immigration went unchecked and many of the present-day Palestinians are descended from relatively recent immigrants from North Africa and other Arab countries. Another point that should perhaps be made is that the State of Israel would probably have been created even without European immigration. Even now a sizable proportion of the population is made up of Jews whose families fled from, or were evicted from, the surrounding Arab countries. My understanding is that the impetus for the State of Israel was as much (or more) about the self-determination of a stateless people as about European Zionism. I’m inclined to think that the “Christian Zionist lobby” in the USA is a mythical beast. There are hundreds of lobbies, of course, including the substantial Quaker one, FCNL. Is a powerful lobby the only reason you can think of for Americans being generally sympathetic to Israel? If so, what is the reason for the prevailing pro-Palestinian stance in the UK?”
By Sarah Lawson on 7th May 2011 - 22:25
SPETTER ==> I am not sure how much point there is in this exchange. Your entry to this discussion appeared marked by belligerence and dismissal of any views which diverged from your easily certain views of the conflict as not just wrong, but inconceivable. Then there was your, quite frankly, appalling dismissal of the very real fear and threat faced by Israeli civilians. It put me in mind of this visit to Sderot by an EAPPI team: http://www.eappi.org/du/news/ea-reports/r/browse/17/article/4837/sderot-a-second-visit.html … taken down, but available in Cache: http://tinyurl.com/6ammoy5 ==> ==> While we were still at the house, a mother of three came to tell us the stress of living in Sderot. She told us of the high anxiety levels suffered by many people, especially mothers, as they wave goodbye to their children in the morning. Many adults suffer stress-related illnesses and many children receive counselling. ==> ==> Our group of eight Ecumenical Accompaniers stood in a mute semi-circle under the caved-in roof, as we listened to the woman with minds still full of Palestinian checkpoints, daily humiliations, house demolitions and all the other manifestations of the Israeli occupation. The fear felt and terror experienced by Israeli civilians is real and palpable. This group would have seen concrete caterpillars which children are taught to dart into so to avoid shrapnel blasts – sometimes laced with rat poison – and blast craters. Yet, even when speaking directly to terrified Israelis the group seemed, dare I say it, _bored_. It is not a zero sum game to feel for the human story on the Israeli side, and does not imply an empathy failure for the Palestinian Arab side. The same might not be said from reading the above. ==> ==> The woman tried to break the silence. Oh, that was just discourteous of her. This one is a long chalk better: http://www.quaker.org.uk/journal-letter-eappi-december-2007-0 … but even in it the writer admits to entering a military establishment “totally unannounced”. If I were to go to St Petersburg, I’d check my wallet. If I went to Lima, I’d take-out insurance. If I went to Delhi, I’d drink bottled water. To expect to be able to sally forth into a conflict zone, just because we are Quakers, suggests to me that both sides are seen simply as abstractions. Furthermore, the writer also says they were fortunate to find an Israeli woman who spoke perfect English. You mean, one of their number didn’t speak Hebrew? They went into a non-Anglophone town looking for people to speak to, and hoped to find an English speaker… that puts me in mind of Brits who go on holiday to Spain or Greece without a word of the language. And also think about it, what sort of brutal occupying power allows critics to wander around freely and speak to military personnel? Try that in Sri Lanka or Egypt or Turkey… no, actually, don’t. I don’t want to see anyone get hurt. ==> People come from very different ‘places’. If it would serve any useful purpose (which I doubt) I would be very interested in an objective unbiased analysis of my response to Sarah Lawson’s letter and A McG’s response to mine. Sarah and I have made statements which we believe to be factual, so it should be easy for others to provide a counter-argument. Arguments are good. They involve the exchange of ideas and views. They do not involve designating one’s position to be a copper-plated truth whilst those of others’ are subjected to unassailable levels of verification. I remember Jocelyn Bell Burnell saying that her Quaker upbringing had put her in good steed for a life of scientific enquiry, because of the constant analysis and re-analysis of her perceptions. ==> I find his arguments mostly unconvincing, and it would seem his view of mine is similar. Yet presumably we are both educated, Quakerly adults who consider ourselves fair-minded and well-informed. If this is a sign of your entering into the spirit of an argument – in the classical sense – then I am satisfied. Yet, I have provided referenced responses to your points, and you appear to still be basing your position on emotion and what you believe to be right. It isn’t a level playing field. Furthermore, you appear still unable to mention Daniel Viflic. ==> The Israeli/Palestinian situation includes a rich complexity in which it is easy to find reasons to support one’s prejudices. Indeed. ==> I am not anti-Jewish (or ‘anti-Semitic’.) There is no gold standard of antisemitism. Jews, like any other ethnic group, should be able to wish for summat better than simply being not-dead. I wouldn’t take any insistences from an EDL-supporter that they were not motivated out of some form of anti-Muslim bigotry, for instance. My grandparents were missionaries in East Africa before and after independence. They loved and spoke the languages of the local Africans – not too hot on the Luo, though – and thought the Happy Valley, White Mischief types to be dreadful. But, by today’s standards, their views definitely would be considered a bit dodgy. ==> When I was a young adult my only racial prejudice was against Arabs and I was great admirer of Israel. So, rather than admit that this was misplaced or naïve, you appear to have overcompensated. Gerald Kaufmann went on a comparable political peregrination, from chauvinistic Zionist to professional Israel-basher. In a recent interview, he said that he’d been disappointed when Israel ceased to be summat like Southend-on-the-Med following the mass-arrival of non-European Jews following their expulsions from Arab-majority countries, and became ‘oriental’ in its cruelty. Personally, I think this reflects his feelings towards Arabs more than anything else. ==> Two of my sisters married Jews and we are a loving extended family, though one of my nieces is an ardent supporter of Israel with views similar to those of Sarah Lawson. Again, it is not a zero sum game. It is possible to be pro-Arab without being anti-Israel. I was largely ambivalent towards the conflict – although, as a gauche teenager watching the Israeli Eurovision entry in 1991, I wondered how anyone could hate a country whose women looked like that - until I encountered the antis. I remember after the Dolphinarium Massacre in 2001, and I was in the office with a newspaper carrying reports of stacks of teenage girls’ bodies with their mobile ‘phones ringing. A colleague was sneering. I recognize political psychopaths when I see them. ==> From the Palestinians’ point of view, against all their protests, much of the country they regarded as theirs was taken, under the authority of the UN, to create Israel. The scenario you describe has taken place with pretty much every new country since 1945 and over much larger geographical areas, with the possible exception of Czech Republic and Slovakia. (The former Soviet Republics, although marred with varying degrees of ethno-nationalism, were based on former boundaries.) By making Palestine a unique case, it is suggesting either that those other millions of others are less important or that when Jews are involved, it becomes more important to oppose it. Neither is a particularly pleasant path to go down. It is also erroneous. About half of the territories west of the River Jordan were assigned to a Jewish State based on historical Jewish majority habitation. And they also were the most unproductive: scrubland, marshland and desert which had been worked upon on recent decades. As has been said – and, as you appear to be wishing out of existence – Palestinian Arabs did not see themselves as attached to the geographical area called Palestine, or even called Palestinians. Yasser Arafat, for instance, was often mocked for his Egyptian accent. On its formation, the UNWRA definition of a Palestinian Arab was someone who had lived there over a two year period in the mid-1940s. Thus, it included a great many who had moved from modern Egypt or Lebanon or Syria or Jordan or even beyond to work on Zionist building/economic projects. The historical ‘Palestinian Arab’ homeland never was just the small area which Jews also sought. Plus, for all your empathy for dispossessed Palestinian Arabs, there appears no mention of the Mizrahim or Yemenite who were expelled from Arab-majority countries in a very short period of time, and absorbed into Israeli society at its financial cost or UN-handouts. ==> There is the shame felt by modern Westerners about the persecution, and sympathy about the holocaust, which results in non-Jews being hesitant to criticise Israel, for fear of being regarded as anti-Semitic. Once again, anyone notice how untrammelled criticism of the Israel State never is off our streets and screens? Yes? Why keep trying to say otherwise? Especially with yourself as a brave truth teller. And another dodgy position to take is that sympathy for Jewish suffering is a sign of moral confusion. ==> Eventually I went on a study tour which included input from staunch Israeli patriots. I went again independently, and travelled in Israel and in the West Bank. Think about this very carefully as well. How would you be able to travel freely if Israel were this brutal occupying power? ==> I have read quite a lot about the situation and been to conferences on the subject. Without knowing what these are, I cannot say if they’re competent or polemic. ==> I have talked at length with EAPPI veterans and also with Christian Peace Makers, who lean over backwards to see both sides. Such as one of the links I gave above? I would have more respect for the EAPPI and CPT if they sent teams to the school-run in Sderot, or Coptic churches in Egypt. ==> But at its most basic the situation is very similar to that when Europeans were taking their continent from Native Americans, using trickery and superior weaponry (and tales of Red Indian atrocities) to drive the remnant into small, unproductive reservations. In my experience, insisting on describing conflict A in terms of conflict B is either an attempt to confuse the issue or a difficulty in seeing _either_ conflict in terms of participants; instead seeing it all the individuals involved as abstractions. But, if you must. Israeli Jews could equally be seen as the Native Americans, for reasons about their historical presence as I explained above. Palestinian Arabs, however, are in a great part descended from recent migrants - well within living memory - who came to the area with the increasing economic activity from Jewish DIY. And, as late as 1977, PNLO leaders were admitting their adoption of the Palestinian” label was culturally and historically weak, and that their intention would be for a union with neighbouring Arab States… that is, they _had_ functioning areas to go to if only the hatred of Israel could be put aside in favour of improving their own lot. Lastly, following this analogy, it’s a bit rich of Europeans who’ve appropriated entire continents and who consider themselves entitled to travel freely to become preoccupied with denying the same to Jews (I don’t think this is necessarily is happening in Israel, but that’s the argument). Especially when they can see Israeli history only through the prism of non-Jewish European activity. It’s almost as if [post]/Christian European society is seeing Jews as a dark reflection of their souls, and projecting all their angst and moral disgust at themselves onto Jews. Again. Just as Jewish suffering is appropriated for a [post]/Christian European narrative and denied to Jews. Again. An updated version of this is the amateur psychotherapy in which Jews are portrayed as being mentally deranged after the Shoah, thus as Howard Jacobson said, not only consigning them to the horror of the Einsatzgruppen or Babi Yar or Iasi or Auschwitz, but also denying them ownership of their own grief… instead showing them to be insufficiently noble in suffering. There is all the love in the world for dead Jews. It’s the ones trying to remain not-dead who are the problem.”
By A Mac G on 9th May 2011 - 12:11
SARAH LAWSON ==> If so, what is the reason for the prevailing pro-Palestinian stance in the UK? Within the Society, at least, part of it is, I do think, self-indulgence. I’ve spoken to numerous Friends who said they supported Israel pre-67 when she was thought to be a plucky little resistance fight. On defeating five Arab armies, however, she became a State oppressor. Basically, wanting to be seen to be opposing State power, speaking truth to it but not considering that maybe some truth should be spoken back. The individuals involved, on both sides, become simply abstractions. Historically, though, a principal conduit for Christians travelling to the region was the British Syria Mission, which included modern Syria and Lebanon and Israel/Palestine (cf. the belief there was a geographical area called Palestine with its distinct national group). Last century Friends such as Kees Boeke and Theophilius Waldmeier were involved, as were from what I can glean, the founders of Ramallah MM. The land which formed the proposed Jewish State was largely side-lined ‘cos it was of low-interest and poor economic output. I have a feeling the first MfW in Jerusalem was just a couple of years ago, organized by someone I know from elsewhere.
By A Mac G on 9th May 2011 - 12:14
Lastly, check this proggie from Israeli TV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cggZu0QQUU&feature=related It was candid camera, in which actors purported to show a coffee seller refusing to sell to an Arab woman. Watch the responses! My favourite is a toss-up between the first two men – whom I’ll euphemistically describe as “white van” types – who pointedly washed their hands and left the shop, and the woman who said “I am an Iraqi-Jew, so don’t you dare serve me!”.
By A Mac G on 9th May 2011 - 12:15
Thank you, A Mac G. That is very interesting. It must be confusing to support the underdog and then find that you have to switch sides when the underdog successfully fights off its attackers! It doesn’t leave much room for ethical principles in the equation. Besides being genuinely puzzled by the extreme pro-Palestinian phenomenon, I was also suggesting that this stance also often sounds like: ‘I am right. Those who have a conflicting opinion must have been got at by some sinister force’. It is also the old ‘Jewish Lobby’ trope, according to which Jews have a mysterious control over everything (except possibly the phases of the moon, but then I haven’t read the Hamas Charter recently). Frankly, I would hope that Quakers wouldn’t fall for this second-hand, formulaic kind of thinking. It is possible that a different opinion comes from a thoughtful reading of historical sources and not some prejudiced whim. It is just possible that such an opinion may not actually be ‘staggeringly biased or misinformed’. It is just possible that the shoe may be on the other foot.
By Sarah Lawson on 9th May 2011 - 23:39
Sarah Lawson and A Mac reveal a disturbingly cynical approach to the discernment of Sufferings to adopt the boycott of Israeli settlement goods. The overwhelming reason to do so is a response to the unjust,cruel and inhumane treatment meted out to the Palestinian population by the Israeli state. Both of you make your case by arguing legal details, shifting territorial and state borders and colonial powers in the region. What you have overlooked and been dismissive of is the destruction of a people, their homes and their way of life to be replaced by immigrants from other parts of the world. I lived with my family in Israel prior to and during the 67 war in Ra’anana which had been a Palestinian olive grove before europeans moved onto the land. Many members of my family live there, it was a racially divided town with we white Jewish kids forbidden to play with black Jewish kids from Yemen and attending separate schools. Ra’anana is now a city largely populated by white South Africans. Some of my relatives left Israel after 48 and came to England having fled Germany in the 30’s. I am a Jew who does not support the anti democratic Israeli Jewish state that privileges Jews over non Jews because the bible says its the Jewish homeland. My home is here in England. Israel is not the home of the Jews. Increasing scientific evidence shows that Ashkenazi Jews share the same DNA as their non Jewish neighbours in eastern europe where my family came from. There are some critics of Israel who are motivated by antisemitism. There are some who are not. There are also many antisemites - many christian groups, the EDL and the KKK in the US, who support Israel because they currently hate Moslems more than they hate Jews or it fits their biblical reading. Every Jewish family I know contains a wide diversity of views on Israel. Fortunately we are at a stage in the UK now where we are able to hear a diversity of Jewish voices on Israel. The humanitarian principles that are central to the Jewish faith -do unto others as you would have them do unto you- are being aired in synagogues by religious Jews appalled What Israel is doing in the name of judaism. Israel feeds off antisemitism to justify its inhumane treatment of palestinians and Israeli citizens who oppose their government or refuse to serve in the army or the occupied territories. Quakers in Britain continue to seek a faith and life based on the urging of the spirit not the word of the bible. I see no reason why we would abandon the central tenet of our faith when discerning how to respond to the urging of the spirit in response to what we see happening in Israel/Palestine.
By miriam on 13th February 2012 - 1:53
Probably the least informed article I have ever read on the subject. Probably not worthy of publication. Probably not worthy of comment. Sorry for commenting. Shalom!
By Padraic Murray on 16th August 2013 - 8:09
Please login to add a comment
