Letters - 10 October 2014
From the two-state solution debate to the Quaker Week edition
Two-state solution debate
On the 13 October the House of Commons will debate the motion that the new Palestinian state ought to be recognised by the UK. The backbench debate is entitled ‘The Future of the Two-State Solution in Israel and Palestine’. The coalition government opposes the motion on the grounds that it will not do so until there has been a peace settlement agreed. In other words, it can be argued that the state of Israel is, therefore, able to decide the agenda in Westminster and the foreign policy of the UK by acting in such a way as to decide the outcome of this domestic debate.
I would argue that the business of politicians is that of talking to people and so, by denying the Palestinians any formal diplomatic status in the United Nations, the politicians there are preventing them from having any practical means to arrive at a peace settlement. As the colonial power entrusted with the care of the Palestinians after world war one, the UK has a particular duty of care towards them. I think that there is a case to be made for both Israelis and Palestinians being offered representation in the Commonwealth as an alternative forum for arbitration between them. Perhaps there are other arguments to be made to our MPs?
David B Lawrence
Concerns
As Friends, we are often reluctant to express our concerns about various issues. Many Friends hold contrary views and we do not wish to upset them: our views may be seen as contrary to received Quaker wisdom.
There are three issues in particular where we need to have open and respectful dialogue among ourselves: we need to ‘bite the bullet’. All three of these have been touched on in recent issues of the Friend. The danger is that they will all be avoided!
1. We have inherited many much-treasured ancient Meeting houses. Some of these are being well used by twenty-first century Friends. Others are not! The question is: Are we content to leave these for future generations of Friends to inherit as financial millstones?
2. Many Friends have benefitted, and in some cases suffered, from private education (Quaker or otherwise). David Bartlett’s recent letter (19 September) highlights our dilemma. Are we content to perpetuate today’s ‘haves’ buying privilege so that their children may become tomorrow’s ‘haves’? And in the name of Quakerism?
3. The current situation in Iraq led a Friend to tell me that they were seriously facing the question as to whether they could retain their pacifism! It may be that pure pacifism in the current Islamic State situation makes us complicit in the death, torture and rape carried on by this non-Islamic force. Can we really ‘pass by on the other side’?
Michael Yates
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.