Freedom and speech
Trish Carn writes about an ‘eye-opening’ experience
Who should and should not be permitted to hire our Meeting houses? What criteria should guide refusal? These questions are faced by all Meeting houses that hire their premises to other groups and were central to an instructive story that unfolded in Cambridge Jesus Lane Meeting last year.
My husband and I are the wardens of the Cambridge Jesus Lane Meeting House. It is used by a wide variety of groups. One of them, a regular hirer, is the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. They had booked a room for Thursday 11 May to host a talk by Thomas Suárez on his book State of Terror: How terrorism created modern Israel. It is a provocative book, the subtitle of which is ‘How terrorism created modern Israel’. In the book Suárez argues that the cause of the seemingly intractable Israel-Palestine conflict is not the commonly depicted clash between two ethnic groups – Arabs and Jews – but the violent takeover of Palestine by Zionism, a European settler movement hailing from the era of ethnic nationalism.
On 21 April the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC) organiser emailed me saying that she’d had calls asking her to cancel the talk. The calls stemmed from criticism of a talk Thomas Suárez gave in late 2016 at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London. I did some background research on Thomas Suárez and read several reviews of the book. I felt that there was no reason to cancel the talk.
On Friday 5 May, six days before the booked meeting, Anthony Silkoff of the Board of Deputies of British Jews emailed us personally as wardens, asking the Meeting ‘to reconsider the room booking’ on the basis that the speaker has, according to one critic, ‘repeatedly and unapologetically made comments that are very offensive to the Jewish community’. I sought the advice of Marigold Bentley (Quaker Peace & Social Witness and secretary to the Quaker Committee for Christian and Interfaith Relations) and Marisa Johnson (Europe and Middle East Section executive secretary of the Friends World Committee for Consultation). Neither saw a reason to cancel.
I had read part of State of Terror and felt the book was not anti-Semitic, but neither the Zionists nor the British government came out looking good. Some of the quotes, from Jews at the time, were hard to take. However, they were from public documents in the National Archives held at Kew.
An unusual phone call
On Saturday 6 May I received an unusual phone call. The caller, who did not introduce himself, referred to a letter sent from the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD). He then said that we had to cancel the upcoming meeting because the book to be discussed at the event was full of lies. The caller was very insistent, but didn’t identify himself until I interrupted him and asked point-blank: ‘Who are you?’ He replied: ‘Jonathan Hoffman.’ He told me that I ‘had to read’ his review of the book, State of Terror, on Amazon.
With the receipt of the BoD request, the matter went beyond our remit as wardens. As the Premises Committee’s clerk was out of town and time was short, it was referred to our Local Meeting (LM). I was very glad I had done my research and read part of the book and various reviews. This put me in a better position to deal with Jonathan Hoffman’s call. He told me: ‘Well, you will only consult EAPPI [Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel] people!’
We disagree
This was wrong. I knew our clerk was approaching the local Jewish community and I had already spoken to people who were not part of EAPPI. After further exchanges, I said: ‘Well, there is no point continuing this discussion, as we disagree’, and hung up. He continued to try to influence me by sending several emails giving website addresses about the SOAS meeting and his own blog.
One person, among a number of people I consulted, said that it was best to cancel, as we ‘had to think of our reputation as Quakers’. This concerned me. I felt there was a danger of limiting free speech. I believe, as Quakers, that we should try to be aware of all sides of a story. This is the only way we can decide how we are moved to go forward. Listening to all sides is not being anti-Semitic, in my eyes, but being anti-prejudice – so we can decide for ourselves. Thomas Suárez can also be challenged, as can any speaker, in a public forum – on points of fact or his interpretation of them.
Discernment and decision
On Sunday 7 May, the LM heard the letter from the BoD, replies from the PSC and several other responses to queries the clerk had sent. This included a response from Thomas Suárez to the clerk’s questions. It was passed on through the PSC. He replied that the strongly worded views were, in fact, his own. The LM heard ministry from Friends with many concerns. After three-and-half hours the discernment of the Friends present was to cancel the PSC booking. People had started drifting off after an hour-and-a-half, so the discerning group had become smaller and smaller.
At 3:45pm the clerk emailed the minute to both the PSC and the BoD. At 6:03pm I received an email from Jonathan Hoffman. All the letters were in capitals: ‘THANK YOU FOR YOUR DECISION!’ I was surprised at this communication. It had not been the wardens’ decision. I was also irritated at his use of capital letters, which, in an email, I perceived as aggressive.
The minute
The minute stated that: ‘We are deeply uncomfortable with the language used in the comments to which our attention has been drawn.’ It was felt that some of the remarks made in the past by Thomas Suárez were more likely ‘to impede a process for peace and reconciliation and make it harder, not easier for those involved to hear others’ experiences and work through difficult truths’. I was disappointed at the decision, but respected the discernment.
On Monday 8 May an article in the Jewish Chronicle stated: ‘Jonathan Hoffman, an activist who is familiar with the book, said “I am very pleased that the Wardens of the Friends Meeting House had second thoughts”.’ The decision to cancel the booking was made by Cambridge Jesus Lane Friends – not by the wardens. This is a mistake that, as a warden, I found upsetting. I had felt Thomas Suárez should be allowed to speak.
It is a mistake that the Jewish Chronicle has not corrected, despite a courteous request to do so. We have, on the other hand, had calls and letters from several Meetings wishing the talk had gone ahead. The PSC held their meeting with Thomas Suárez (as scheduled) at another venue in Cambridge.
In a video of his talk, which was made available to us, Thomas Suárez made it quite clear that his position was to reject all forms of prejudice and oppression, including racial and religious.
Because there was so much hurt and concern from members of the Meeting who had been unable to attend LM, we have since held a Threshing Meeting, which has been helpful but not fully solved (or salved) the hurt and upset.
On the Amazon page containing his review of State of Terror Jonathan Hoffman had posted a banner: ‘The book was so bad that even the Quakers refused Suárez a platform in Cambridge – and the meeting had to be moved to a top-secret location.’ I felt this was unfair. The decision made by Cambridge Jesus Lane Friends was not based on the quality of the book – but on a concern that some language that might be used by Thomas Suárez might cause hurt.
Those few Friends who finally made the decision to cancel were anxious that he might cause further offence. They were being cautious. They had not read the book. Looking at Amazon recently, the banner has now been removed from the review, for which I am grateful.
Questions
There seemed to me much more heat than light in the attack on Thomas Suárez by Jonathan Hoffman. I found the experience of it all very upsetting, but it did prompt interesting questions. Is State of Terror a ‘meticulously researched work’ and the ‘first comprehensive and structured analysis of the violence and terror employed by the Zionist movement’, as some have written, or one that ‘lies and distorts’ the truth, as others assert?
Who should be permitted, and who not permitted, to use our Meeting houses? Do we apply the criteria consistently? Should we control what people say when they are in our Meeting houses? What exactly is the ‘truth’ and who can we trust to tell it?
I do not pretend that there are any easy answers to these questions.
Comments
Quakers collectively should avoid being seen to be taking sides in the very difficult and emotive issue of Israel-Palestine. If there are Friends who wish to align themselves with aggressive Zionism or the equally aggressive pro-Palestinian movement, they should do so in a personal capacity and not in the name of the Society.
By frankem51 on 14th June 2018 - 17:12
Trish Carn is to be congratulated for the stand she took following pressure from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and Jonathon Hoffman in particular.This same Jonathon Hoffman enter St James Church last year to protest against a talk given by Professor Avi Schlaih demonstrating a disrespectful and aggressive attitude, even displaying the Israeli flag in church. I’m afraid “the reputation of Quakers ” will not be enhanced by being cowed by such pressure.
Sometime ago I met someone who was a military policeman in Palestine during the British Mandate who experienced terrorist actions by both Irgun and the Stern Groups. I think some Cambridge Friends may have been enlightened by Thomas Suarez’ talk.
By TWJ 123 on 18th June 2018 - 21:53
Dear TWJ
You are entitled to your opinion. You will wish to join the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, if you have not already done so. However, you are not entitled to turn the Religious Society of Friends collectively to your point of view. It is high time that anti-Zionists took their political activism out of the Society and into the secular domain, where it belongs.
By frankem51 on 19th June 2018 - 8:24
Dear frankem51,
Are you saying that the Religious Society of Friends should, as a corporate body, not seek to influence secular affairs? If so your view of Quakers is different from mine. If faith is to mean anything it must be transformed into action. Antisemitism may be a real issue currently, but as members of the Jewish community recently wrote in the Guardian, criticism of Israel, of its displacement of Palestinians and of its denial of their rights is not antisemitic, and neither is criticising laws and policies of the state of Israel as racist and falling under the definition of apartheid. And calling for boycott,divestment and sanctions against Israel to oppose these policies is not antisemitic. It seems there is a chasm between us.
By TWJ 123 on 19th June 2018 - 21:54
You raise some important questions. Could we meet to discuss? I’m regularly in Friends House but will travel. Please email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). In friendship
By frankem51 on 20th June 2018 - 8:53
At one time it was the National Front who sought to hold meetings in Meeting Houses. Friends’ decisions were easier then. In my Meeting what swayed us was not the NF Policies but their attempts to drag us in with lies and misrepresentations. I hope Jesus Lane Meeting will publicly assert that it was not their warden but the whole Meeting after prayerful consideration.
This will no doubt lead them into deeper waters, but not as deep as early Friends!
There have always been Friends who, sadly, would prefer to keep quiet and not get involved, but that is not Quakerism.
By john0708 on 7th July 2018 - 9:07
Please login to add a comment
