A difficult balance
Linda Burgum and Ursula Sharma consider the challenge of responding to injustice
How do Friends best respond to the injustices occurring on a daily basis in the occupied Palestinian territories without attracting accusations of anti-Semitism?
Central Manchester Meeting were approached several months ago by Amnesty International with a request to share a joint vigil around their campaign to persuade the UK government to ban the importation of Israeli settlement goods. We are fortunate in having a space in front of our Meeting house that lends itself well to such witness and we are located in the city centre.
Three members of our Area Meeting have spent time in the West Bank in the past couple of years, either as ecumenical accompaniers or with the Working Retreat organised by Quaker Voluntary Action, and therefore have first-hand knowledge of some of the problems. They have all given talks to our Meetings about their experiences and we feel the Area Meeting is familiar with the issues. The vigil was, therefore, well supported.
We were aware that this subject arouses strong feelings, but believe it is important that we do not allow the prevalent narrative of equating all criticisms of the actions of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism to silence us. We needed to be able to back up our position with evidence, and we were satisfied that we could do this.
We had a clear policy of avoiding any signs and symbols that could be interpreted as offering unqualified support for all Palestinian actions. For instance, someone came to join the vigil draped in a Palestinian flag and was asked to remove it.
Over the past fifty years Israel has forced thousands of Palestinians off their land to build settlements that exclusively house Jewish Israeli settlers. This contravenes Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that ‘the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies’.
There is international consensus on the illegality of the settlements. They have been condemned in the Security Council and other UN resolutions as illegal. Yet, despite this the Israeli government continues with its programme of expanding the settlements.
Meeting for Sufferings in 2013 reaffirmed its earlier decision in 2011 to boycott goods from Israeli settlements. It was clearly stated that Friends are not boycotting Israel itself, but that settlements cause harm and poverty to Palestinians and are widely recognised as an obstacle to peace in the region.
Trying to maintain a position which respects individuals on all sides but takes issue with specific actions that disregard human rights can be a difficult balance to achieve in these days of oppositional and confrontational politics. However, as Quakers, it seems to us that to do so springs from a deep imperative within us.
Comments
The phrase “the prevalent narrative of equating all criticisms of the actions of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism”, used by Linda Burgum and Ursula Sharma in their article “A difficult balance” (The Friend 16.8.2018), might be taken as dismissing the pain of anti-Semitism expressed by Jewish organisations recently. However, the Jewish statements I have read are quite clear that they are not equating all criticism of Israeli government actions with anti-Semitism, but ask that the actions of Israel should be assessed as other nations, and not as part of narratives that are anti-Semitic. I think that the issue the article seeks to address (how to criticise actions of the government of Israel without being anti-Semitic) deserves to be addressed without suggesting, unintentionally, that there is no real problem of anti-Semitism. I hope this is what the authors meant to do, and that Quakers generally will consider the possibility that anti-Semitism may sometimes become part of our narrative. We should be alert. Best wishes, Andrew Roberts.
By Andrew Roberts on 16th August 2018 - 19:21
I’m glad Manchester Friends are taking such a thoughtful position and are not associating themselves with the Palestinian cause generally or with the unscrupulous Islamist militants who run Gaza.
The UK Government objects to the settlements so why do Quakers have to take further action? Aren’t the wars in Syria and the Yemen or the expulsion of the Rohingyas causing much greater suffering? The Israelis say that the Palestinians won’t negotiate on the basis of what they can realistically expect from a two-state solution. Is there any truth in that?
I think Quakers should support the moderates on both sides and encourage them to talk. A boycott is unlikely to be effective and will be misunderstood.
By frankem51 on 16th August 2018 - 22:55
Please login to add a comment
