‘It is essential to speak out for justice; but how it is done is crucial.’

Taking a stand is not the same as taking sides, says John Lampen

I welcome the reports and letters in the Friend which give me an insight into the deprivations of the people of Palestine, particularly when they are based on personal observation. They amplify what I saw on my own visit. Consequently, I support the boycott and divestment campaign, as many justice-loving Jews do. (I am more ambivalent about sanctions, having seen in South Africa how they can hurt the people they are trying to help.) I also welcome those who explain the needs, fears and hurts of the Jewish people. I need help in understanding the background.

What I find difficult is the contentious tone of some of the letters. It is essential to speak out for justice; but how it is done is crucial. Argument over who has suffered more will not resolve the problems. If Quakers engage in a war of words, are we in danger of mirroring what is happening there? Is there a risk that in criticising the beliefs of someone else, we are claiming a piece of moral high ground which we do not really deserve?

I also welcome the Friends who take a stand against injustice and oppression in other places. Those who ask why Quakers only take an interest in Palestine don’t always understand this. Individual Quakers may feel they can do more by supporting the Tibet Relief Fund or writing to the Chinese government than by urging Yearly Meeting to adopt it as a concern. Countless peace and justice organisations rely on this kind of support. We need to remember that corporate Quaker peace work will probably be ineffective unless we already have some credibility from previous or present engagement in the region. It may sound unlikely, but when I was in Northern Ireland people sometimes cited the Quaker relief work during the potato famine as one of the reasons for trusting me. (The even-handed work of local Quakers in the prisons during the troubles was another reason.) To arrive among the Rohingyas, say, and tell the Burmese army that ‘we’ve brought you the Quaker Peace Testimony’ will have no impact. What basis for action would we have there?

It is sometimes claimed, too, that Quaker peace work requires a strictly neutral position. Historically speaking, this is simply not true. John Woolman’s witness towards slave owners, and Hendrik W van der Merwe’s powerful conciliation between all groups in apartheid South Africa, were certainly not muted when they perceived oppression.

Justifications for our corporate concern about Palestine have often been explained in these pages. I will cite two: our service to the World Council of Churches by coordinating the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) in the UK and Ireland gives us credibility, and our wish to support the heroic nonviolent witness of Palestinian Friends like Jean Zarou provides a strong motive. You may feel that Yearly Meeting has got the emphasis wrong. Then you have the opportunity to try to rebalance it – but not by criticising (even implicitly) Friends who think differently, and certainly not by denying or ignoring the truth of what they have actually observed.

---

Comments

Please login to add a comment