Boycott, divestment & sanctions: supporting both sides
Quakers have been invited to discern an appropriate response to a call for action. But what should it be?
We write in response to Simon Gray’s article (18 February).
It is surely a task laid on Quaker Peace & Social Witness (QPSW) that it should bring important issues before Friends for consideration and discernment, preparing careful minutes and background papers to help the process. In the case of the call for ‘Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions’ we were able to draw on the ongoing experience of running the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) and on work being done jointly by EAPPI staff and our Economic Issues programme on urging the supermarkets to clearly label products from the settlements on occupied Palestinian territory, which are illegal under international law.
A minute from QPSW Central Committee in December inviting Meeting for Sufferings to consider the subject was warmly received, and on 5 February there was no sign of reluctance to discuss the complex and painful issues. Friends considered the three papers before them deeply and agreed to take the issues back to their Meetings for further study and reflection. Many have already requested copies of the papers from the Recording Clerk’s Office to help them do so – and to meet the demand they are available on the BYM website (www.quaker.org.uk – on the home page)
Central Committee – which is made up of Friends from across the Yearly Meeting, as is Meeting for Sufferings – is not calling for one specific action, but for Friends in BYM to consider a range of possible actions – from a personal decision to avoid buying products from the settlements, where these can be clearly identified, through to corporate divestment from companies which support the Israeli occupation (such as those which built the separation barrier) or boycott of Israeli products as a whole. Quakers in Ramallah, who live with the occupation daily, have called on Friends around the world to address these challenges.
Of course we reject the violence on all sides. We work for peace, alongside Palestinian villagers who have been cut off from their fields by the separation barrier, alongside Israelis who are campaigning for a just peace and with partners in twenty other countries who advocate for an end to the occupation. The paper from QPSW staff reads in part:
‘Friends’ rejection of all war and violence as a means of settling disputes means that we are committed to a search for alternatives. As a peace church this issue is a core part of Friends’ struggle with the world as it is and the world as it should be. Friends want and work for peace and justice in the world but it must be delivered through honesty and negotiation and not through violence and suffering. We are reminded that the means are the ends in the making. Friends want to ensure positive behaviour by governments and nations including adherence to international law and resolving international conflicts in just and sustainable ways.’
We hope Friends will study the papers provided, including the discussion paper from the Quaker Council for European Affairs, will perhaps invite an Ecumenical Accompanier to speak locally, will hold what are sometimes still called ‘threshing meetings’, will pray for guidance, and will, when they are ready, bring their leadings back to the central forum of Meeting for Sufferings for further testing.
Douglas Rennie, co-clerk QPSWCC
Gwen Schaffer, co-clerk QPSWCC
Helen Drewery, general secretary
