Letters - 18 October 2024
From no hate to genuine radicalism
No hate
Thank you Richard Seebohm, for your thoughtful article in the Friend of 27 September. Can I commend your personal contribution to the peace debate of ‘No hate’?
I have great admiration for all those working to reduce conflict from the classroom to the borders of countries. The patience and commitment to do this is overwhelming.
However I would agree with Richard, it has limitations. This is when certain personalities rise from the crowds and take people and their countries into conflict, which many would not have chosen. The power of these individuals is remarkable. They can be very persuasive and know all the tricks of the ‘trade’ to sway public opinion.
One of these is to create a common enemy. We saw it in Nazi Germany with the Jews. The hatred that can be nurtured is quite unbelievable. It creates a view that one is of better worth than another; that the ‘other’ is but dirt on the shoe, or even worse. And it continues to be used today, and continues to be a very successful way of gaining power.
So the slogan ’No hate’ may hit a chord. If your hate is so great you consider the ‘other’ as worse than a dog and definitely without the consideration of being just the same as any human, with all the same emotions, hopes and pain levels, maybe you should be asking yourself ‘what is happening?’’
Barbara Mark
Members and attenders
Kim Hope’s letter of 27 September points to yet another case where the formal distinction between members and attenders obstructs the smooth functioning of the Society.
The supposed requirement of the Charities Commission [in fact a mandate in Quaker faith & practice] that trustees be in membership could probably be avoided by amending our governing document, but the problem is more general.
As our numbers dwindle, we must find a way around the prescription of Quaker faith & practice making membership a requirement for certain roles – being obliged to appoint as treasurer a scatty and innumerate member rather than a former accountant who merely attends is foolish.
I propose that where Quaker discernment sees that an attender who wishes to remain such is willing and able to fill a particular position, then the Area Meeting may confer upon that person the title of adjunct member, without the business of visitation, for as long as they remain in post. I do not believe that the Charities Commission would object to this entirely reasonable stratagem in the case of Quaker trustees.
Martin Drummond
Credit where credit is due
Thank you Rebecca Hardy (27 September) for highlighting the moral complexities in many of our everyday decisions in your article in the Quaker week edition of the Friend.
However, it is the Conflict Minerals Campaign (CMC) and not Quaker Congo Partnership UK (QCP) which is working to highlight the issue of child labour in the mining of minerals for electronic gadgets and electric cars.
CMC campaigns for the people of Congo (DRC) to benefit from their mineral wealth.
QCP and CMC collaborate and work closely together in the same part of Eastern DRC.
QCP is working with Quakers in DRC to promote and build peace, improve health and support small scale economic projects with women. We are currently raising funds to bring cleaner water to the village of Mukwezi. With improvements in quality of life perhaps fewer children will need to work in mines.
Catherine Putz
Balance of reporting
Every edition of the Friend seems to have some reference to the conflict conducted on several fronts by Israel.
Listening to the BBC news at six o’clock on 2 October, I was surprised to hear that ten Israeli soldiers had been killed in Lebanon yet the twenty killed that same day in Gaza scarcely got a mention.
Obviously not being able to have reporters in Gaza makes balanced reporting difficult, but I constantly grimace when the two organisations opposing Israel are defined as terrorist groups by the British government and other countries.
What concerns me is not that these comments are included, because that designation is accurate, but when it comes to mention of the West Bank we are just given one word, which is ‘occupied’.
Given the fact that ‘terrorist’ has a negative meaning, and ‘occupied’ is neutral, if not positive, the addition of just one word ‘illegally’ would reinforce the longstanding resolutions from many organisations, including the United Nations, that increasing numbers of Israeli settlements in the West Bank do in fact constitute an illegal occupation. That would correct the balance of reporting.
Richard Stewart
'Principled impartiality'
I’m dismayed to see Britain Yearly Meeting calling on the UK government to limit trade with Israel, at the same time as a group from Meeting for Sufferings is recommending ‘genocide’ and ‘apartheid’ as appropriate words for Israel’s actions towards Palestinians. [See 'Meeting for Sufferings: October afternoon session' for the most recent discernment.]
Singling out Israel for high-profile criticism, which we don’t level against dozens of other states that are in breach of human rights, is a stark example of what the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance defines as antisemitism.
And highlighting the wrongdoings of one side in the Middle East conflict can serve only to make both sides feel more aggrieved and more aggressive. Sadly, our lovingly intended Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel is fundamentally flawed by a similar anti-Israeli bias.
Alas, Friends, we are fuelling not quenching the flames.
When I went on a study trip to Israel-Palestine two years ago with the Council for Christians and Jews, I heard Palestinians and Israelis united in asserting that outside interventions are helpful only if they make sense to both sides. We visited some inspirational initiatives that bring the two communities into dialogue, like the wonderful Roots project in the West Bank.
And here in Britain, by far the most effective education I’ve seen on Israel-Palestine is the scrupulously non-partisan schools programme run by the charity Solutions Not Sides.
I pray as Quakers we will soon learn to follow such role models: they are much closer to the ‘principled impartiality’ we currently claim for ourselves.
Tim Robertson
Genuine radicalism
How refreshing to read Imi Hills’ splendid Quaker Week article headed ‘Long-term solutions’ (27 September)!
At eighty-one, I do not have youth on my side. But I think Imi is wholly right in her demand for genuine radicalism among Friends in facing up to the pressing issues of our day rather than getting bogged down in questions of how to manage our decline.
Moreover, although Imi pleads that we draw inspiration from our present strengths rather than focussing ‘too much on our past’ it’s worth asserting that the spirit of George Fox is certainly on her side. She states that if we are a church we are ‘perhaps even an “anti-church” church’.
George Fox and the early Friends were even more forthright in condemning such generally accepted features of churches as steeplehouses, hired ministry, prayer-books, prepared sermons and of course ‘tythes’.
As for ‘reputational damage’, early Friends rejoiced in affronting the pieties of their age, and we should do the same where truth requires it.
Whether such a stance will lead to growth I don’t know; but let’s be Children of Light and Friends of Truth, and take the consequences.
Jo Dales
Editor’s note: Last week we listed Tim Rouse as a co-clerk to Young Friends General Meeting. In fact, he left that role in May, and was speaking in a personal capacity. Many apologies for the error.
