A view of the countryside and fortified border around the West Bank. Photo: Photo: Marion Doss / flickr CC.
Gaza – what is the issue?
Davorka Lovrekovic, the new general secretary of Church and Peace, the European peace church network, offers a Quaker response
The issue concerning Gaza, for Quakers, is not: Are you pro-Palestine or pro-Israel? The question is: Are you supporting those people in the region who are committed to a vision of living together in respect, security and lawfulness – as good neighbours and joint stewards of the land entrusted to us? Or are you standing with those people who are using violence to maintain the status quo or seeking a solution only for their own constituency? The answer is clear: the division is not between Palestinian and Israeli, but runs through their societies and communities.
Painful issues
I am a German Friend. I am happy that members of my Yearly Meeting were active when Jews – and those who were made Jews by the Nuremberg Laws in the 1930s – were being persecuted. Together with Friends from Britain Yearly Meeting, they found creative ways to help as much as possible, in both countries, and set aside considerations for their own wellbeing.
After the war Friends got involved in the Jewish-Christian dialogue. Because the failure of the Christian churches to act upon their own belief that we are all children of God, and that for us there will only be blessing if we stand with the poor and oppressed, many Friends, and friends from other organisations we work well with, have been deeply engaged in that process. It was, and still is, a necessary and fruitful dialogue if led by truthfulness and fearlessness. We must not avoid the painful issues on both sides. There is still anti-Semitism, and there is the occupation and oppression of Palestinians.
The issues in Israel and Palestine are: security, rule of law and human rights. What does that mean?
Security
Security is badly needed for all people living in the region. There are many concerns: not having security for your child to go to school unharmed (as is the case for Palestinians, and has been the case for Israeli children taking a bus to school), not knowing if you will still have a roof over your head the next day or if during the night a commando will come to demolish your house, not knowing if there will again be a scud rocket threatening your community. The fear of the people – people like you and me wanting to raise their families, work and live – the fear is the same. Palestine has been robbed of its statehood for decades. Israel is being threatened in its statehood. This situation can’t continue. It demands trust-building steps, supported by the international community. Quakers should contribute in standing by all people suffering from a lack of security, because there is no weighing the fear of a person.
Security is never gained and maintained by military means or better security technology. Quakers were deeply involved during the cold war to bring about that awareness. We should learn from that successful story. The spirituality of that question has to be addressed – only then we will be able to move forward. Quakers, as stewards of our Peace Testimony, can contribute to that necessary public and political conversation.
Building trust
Rules of law and human rights are necessary prerequisites for security. As long as established rules, regulations and procedures are not being kept, security will not come. Building trust in small steps, engaging in everything that brings people of good will together for more cooperation on issues of how living together is possible – that is where we can contribute.
We have not, in that regard, yet fully engaged with our own political institutions on a national and European level. We should advocate more along those lines and not engage in separating people even further. There are more people willing to work for nonmilitary security, rule of law and human rights than there are people who would be willing to work for the continuation of the wall in our hearts and minds. We can find them on all levels of public and political institutions.
We should use our good standing as trustworthy advocates and be cautious of one-sided actions. Are we speaking out when we hear about or witness anti-Semitism with the same burning need as we do on behalf of Palestinians? I would say: We should be outspoken about equality, truth and peace for our communities. Where is our tangible support for Israelis speaking out under difficult situations to their own community? Wouldn’t our engagement against anti-Semitism be a necessary support for them to be accepted as trustworthy advocates in their own community?
Supporting peace
I support the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) of the World Council of Churches full heartedly. I wish we had an international peace presence in Sderot, too, to show our support of Israeli people or some similar, tangible sign: You are not alone and we listen and understand and support – but not with military means, because that will not bring peace and security to you.
How can we stay true to our own history of being seekers of Truth and Light? Edward Hustler made it very clear: compassionate listening to the reality of all the people living in the region, supporting and engaging deeply with everyone who has a vision of living together, walking an extra mile with the people – in Palestine and in Israel and in our communities at home.
Comments
Davorka represents the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a problem of two peoples “out there” not being sufficiently “committed to a vision of living together in respect, security and lawfulness”. By contrast, I see the conflict as one in which we Europeans have a massive responsibility, on account of what we have and have not done since 1917, allowing dangerous tension to develop in the region. I think your article lets us off the hook. There is no question that there are elements “behaving badly”, to put it mildly, on both sides, but I don’t think they will be reformed by simply relying on “trust-building steps”. It requires our states (European and American) to provide a framework of political and economic incentives that will induce the players to behave better and gradually cool things down. I think the top priority is to stop the theft of land, water etc. in occupied territory, actions that are not essential to anybody’s security, but are inspired by a biblical view of Judea and Samaria. Let’s put it another way, I live in Kent, once inhabited by ancestors of the Welsh and Bretons whom my Anglo-Saxon ancestors drove out of this place. Now a Welshman could appear on my doorstep and claim my home, quoting the thousand year legend that King Arthur would come back and “drive the English back into the sea whence they came”. Of course I would say “pull the other one, brother”! Isn’t it about time we were equally forthright in the Middle-Eastern case? Lastly, I hope this is taken in the jocular way it is written and I shall not be taken to task for anti-celtism.
By jonathancoulter on 21st February 2013 - 16:33
I have a lot of sympathy for the last point and find the biblical claims to a particular territory unattractive, supported as these are by fundamentalist Christians as well. (And of course it cuts both ways, as which period of time does one choose as the time of rightful ownership?) However…there was a good case for a homeland after the tragedy of the Holocaust, and there were then a considerable number of Jewish people already living in the area. Perhaps the state of Isral should have been placed somewhere else; following your jocular style I could say for example Lincolnshire, or we could remind ourselves that Israel is about the size of Wales? More seriously, if Israel were abolished now, which I think is the underlying wish of many supporters of Palestine, even if the Israeli army and people miraculously agreed, what would happen then? Given that there are precious few Jewish people now welcomed in neighbouring countries - most of these people have fled as refugees- is there not a risk of a total slaughter, a new Holocaust. I would not wish to have this on my conscience and that is why for all its imperfections I am a supporter of Israel’s right to exist. NeilS
By NeilS on 28th February 2013 - 8:44
Neil, I did not argue against the existence of Israel (it is a fait accompli) so your last sentence is a bit of a non-sequitur. I argued for a process that would start with European pressure (BDS) to stop the theiving of land, water etc. in occupied territory. There would need to be a wide range of other reforms both as regards the treatment of Palestinians inside and outside of Israel, but I have not sought to map out a roadmap of how far the reforms should go. But as responsible British and Europeans, I feel we should all agree on BDS to stop the ongoing theft.
By jonathancoulter on 7th March 2013 - 21:41
Please login to add a comment
