The bridge connecting Israel with the West Bank Photo: Chadica/flickr CC.
Boycott, divestment and sanctions
Ian Kirk-Smith reports on Meeting for Sufferings
Meeting for Sufferings (MfS), held at Friends House on Saturday 2 April, returned to the issue of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) as a response to the occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Many contributions were made representing a wide diversity of opinions and experiences, and a minute agreed to support a boycott of goods from the occupied territories ‘until such time as the occupation is ended’.
A thoughtful discussion on the subject at Meeting for Sufferings in early February, after which a minute had not been agreed, had been followed by much discussion and correspondence on the subject – in articles, letters, emails and minutes from Area Meetings. The decision to devote some two hours to discernment on the issue had been prompted by this background and the importance of the issue.
Friends were reminded of words from Quaker faith & practice: ‘Above all we must take risks for God: look around us to the people who need help; listen to those who experience oppression; engage in the mutual process of liberation.’ (Quaker faith & practice 24.49)
A long period of discernment was allocated to allow Friends adequate time to be prompted by ‘the guidance of the spirit.’ Those present were reminded that ‘prayerful preparation’ was the ‘bedrock of our discernment’.
Friends were asked to take special consideration of the views of Jewish and Israeli groups who were working for peace, and of the experience of those who had been on the Ecumenical Accompaniment programme (EAPPI).
A Friend, who had extensive experience of both individuals working for peace and peace groups in Israel, gave a wide ranging account of their position on the issue. She said: ‘Most peace groups are in broad support of the campaign for a boycott of goods that are produced within the occupied territories.’ It was, she said, ‘a matter of principle’ for many of the groups. They believed that ‘the occupation of other people’s land’ was wrong and that it was damaging the international reputation of Israel.
‘Our best hope for peace,’ a Friend said, ‘is to support Palestinian nonviolent action.’ This, she argued, would ‘subvert the logic of armies’ and put pressure on Israel ‘to create the conditions for peace.’ The issue was not about ‘vengeance or fear,’ she said, ‘but a principled call for justice’ and was led by a concern and love for both Israelis and Palestinians.
A Friend revealed that his Meeting had held discussions with members of the local Jewish community. While some of the group had expressed reservations about a boycott, others were in broad support of a ‘targetted’ boycott. They were glad that Quakers were addressing the issue and were interested in engaging with, and in listening to, them.
A Friend said there was a need for opinions to be based much more soundly on fact. ‘Discernment,’ she said, ‘must be rooted in compassion but it must also be based on knowledge and understanding.’
A Friend revealed that in late March Friends in Kingston had met with representatives from both a local orthodox synagogue and a local liberal synagogue. They had heard a deep expression of concern that many people had ‘ignored the physical and psychological trauma caused by Palestinian attacks on Israel’ and that ‘the separation barriers were regrettable but necessary’. It was also stated that ‘the peace process had failed because the Palestinian leaders were untrustworthy’ and that ‘building confidence’ was much more important than ‘gestures’ such as boycotts.
A representative reminded Friends of the need to understand the deep historical and emotional ties that three faiths had to the same land.
‘What,’ a Friend asked, ‘are we good at?’ He answered the question himself, by quoting Rufus Jones: ‘We are good at quiet processes and small circles. We are good at facilitating dialogue. We should proceed in a way that facilitates and encourages the language of dialogue.’
He urged Friends to make what is an ongoing, private commitment of so many members and attenders into a public and ‘owned’ decision of the Society.
Another Friend reminded those present that Israel was ‘one of the fastest growing economies in the world’ and was sceptical that a boycott would actually do anything practical but, he admitted, it would have a ‘symbolic significance’.
‘We cannot control how we are perceived,’ a Friend said, ‘but we can be truthful.’ She reflected a feeling expressed by many Friends that to ‘speak truth to power’ in this case Quakers should support a boycott.
A powerful contribution highlighted the complexity and tragedy of the situation when a Friend remembered two stories that had made a deep impression on him. One was of a pregnant Palestinian woman who had collapsed at a checkpoint because of the severe heat. The Israeli soldiers present did not help her. She recovered. The other was of a young Palestinian woman who, within a fortnight of this incident, blew up a checkpoint with an explosive device that she had strapped to her body.
The incidents, the Friend said, showed the complexity and tragedy of life in the region but also offered an insight into the ‘fear’ that some feel and the ‘utter hopelessness’ of others. He also reminded Friends that, in history, the abused so often became ‘the abuser’.
A Friend emphasised that ‘the Israelis are the stronger’ and that, because of this, they ‘must make the moves.’ A decision to boycott, she said, was not permanent. It could be lifted at a future date. ‘We are,’ she argued, ‘giving a message. We must also stress the reason. It is because the people who have asked us to boycott will suffer most from the decision. But they are still asking us to do it. We must remember this. We must, sometimes, give hope.’
Another Friend acknowledged the depth and strength of opinions held, both for and against the idea of a boycott, within the Religious Society of Friends.
He said: ‘I am aware of the levels of anger, aggressiveness and entrenchment. I have found myself agonising over this issue. We have had decisions to make in the past where there were strongly held views, such as on same-sex marriage, but where there was a level of compassion that was missing here.’
‘Just as we are seeking to bring healing to the Middle East, we should also seek healing amongst ourselves as Quakers.’
The weight of two thousand years of oppression, suffered by Jews, was strongly presented by a representative. ‘This,’ he said, ‘was a real concern. However, if we do nothing then we are supporting the powerful, not the powerless. And doing nothing is not an option.’
‘Whatever decision is taken,’ a Friend stressed, ‘it must be made clear why we are making it. We must be clear that we acknowledge the pain, fear and suffering experienced by both sides. We must stress our wish to support Jewish peace groups and the deep, prayerful, consideration that we have given. It is a decision that only applies to goods produced in the occupied territories.’
Comments
I was heartened to see that meeting for sufferings has considered the Kairos document at last. With our strong leading, experience and peace stance on the Israel/Palestine conflict, we Quakers have a lot to offer the peace process. The Quaker decision to support the boycott and divestment of goods from the occupied territories is long overdue and a debate is urgently needed at local and national level in BYM. We should have non doubts about adding our voices to this call. We can and should say a decisive NO to trading in these goods that are taken illegally. Quakers have always given strong support to the United Nations. We should have no doubts about supporting the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 calling on Israel to withdraw from the Palestine territories it occupied in 1967. Israeli expropriation of Palestinian resources from the occupied territories and and continued collective punishment of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, including denial of medical care and house demolitions are also in breach of the Geneva convention, which we Quakers have also supported. The call to boycott and divest is an opportunity for us to stand up and be counted. That we Quakers find the human rights violations committed against the Palestinians a violation of all we stand for. Our commitment to equality means that we will stand up and be counted when we witness abuses around the world as well as in our own communities with our friends and neighbours down the road, at the synagogue or mosque if it happens to them too, with gay and lesbian members of our meetings vulnerable to attack, to Moslems in our community fearing attack from white racists, and wherever else we might find it. The idea that a well tempered Quaker refusing to buy goods produced in breach of the Geneva convention or labelled by Waitrose as Israeli products when they are Palestinian….do we really think that is an act of anti-Semitism? I think not! British Quakers conduct in the 2nd world war must surely give the lie to any such charges. There are very many of us in membership who are ethnically Jewish. We are attuned to the whiff of anti-Semitism. To boycott produce from the occupied territories is the right thing to do. Each one of us can begin our own boycott right now, find the information on the internet and just get started. Meanwhile, we can work towards a decision at yearly meeting that can express what we really feel about what is happening there and lend our support, our experience and our commitment to peaceful ways, to the peace process.
By miriam on 13th February 2011 - 17:07
Please login to add a comment
