Meeting for Sufferings: Behind the words
Ian Kirk-Smith reports on the session on Israel/Palestine at Meeting for Sufferings
The conflict in Israel/Palestine and the effect of government welfare cuts, the two key subjects on the agenda, produced strong, thoughtful, contributions at Meeting for Sufferings held at Friends House on Saturday 13 April. In April 2011, Meeting for Sufferings made a decision to support the boycott of goods from settlements in the Occupied Territories. These are towns, exclusively for Jewish Israelis, which have been built on Palestinian land in contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since then an Israel-Palestine Working Group, set up by Devon Area Meeting in 2011 to consider what further action Quakers might take in relation to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, has met on six occasions. It has also consulted a number of Local Meetings.
Background
Lucid, informative and interesting background information was made available. A report from the Working Group included a historical background to the conflict, reported on Quakers and the present situation and made some recommendations. It echoed proposals, in minutes, from other Area Meetings. Its recommendation was radical: ‘The Working Group have become convinced that to promote the changes we all want, it is necessary for us to take part in the economic boycott of Israel until it complies with international law.’
Another paper described the decisions taken by Meeting for Sufferings, how they were followed up and some of their consequences. The possible implications for any change of policy – such as a widening of the boycott – were set out.
At Meeting for Sufferings, Julia Bush of Quaker Peace & Social Witness (QPSW) Central Committee explained the three areas the committee was engaged with. First, management of the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI). Second, the QPSW economic issues programme. Third, participation in political advocacy – in partnership with other NGOs and groups.
Friends were reminded that in 2012 QPSW Central Committee advised not to extend the boycott. It encouraged, instead, a strengthening of advocacy and links with Israeli peace groups.
Julia said she personally supported the QPSW position. She stressed that a wider decision to boycott could undermine advocacy and strategic partnerships. Friends were trying, she said, to emphasise the illegality of the settlements. A boycott of Israel would require different arguments, affect important relationships, and jeopardise Quaker work. The ‘quiet work’ that Friends do is essential. The decision to take a wider boycott might even threaten the continuation of the Quaker management of the EAPPI initiative and open the way for punitive actions by the Israeli government.
Dialogue
Paul Parker, recording clerk of Britain Yearly Meeting, talked of the current dialogue with the Jewish community in Britain. There have been seven meetings between Quakers and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. They have been difficult and tense. He said: ‘It has been hard to find a shared space. Only at the end has there been real dialogue.’
Paul stressed the idea of timescales. To some Jewish people, he explained, ‘the Holocaust happened yesterday.’ It is still a raw wound. There is still great fear and great hurt. He said: ‘We have got to be mindful not to judge but to seek to understand what is happening behind the words.’
A Friend from the north of England said the decision made to boycott Israeli-produced goods in the Occupied Territories was the right one. Another Friend stressed that we should speak out in what is right – regardless of the consequences. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people is wrong. We should state that. If we have a meaningful relationship with groups over the years we should be able to explain that.
Quiet diplomacy
One Friend expressed her respect for those Friends who engage in ‘quiet diplomacy’. It is something special to Quakers. She said: ‘I would be very upset if we were to go along any path that would endanger this.’ A wider boycott, a Friend also worried, might ‘create more harm than good.’
A Friend, who had been an ecumenical accompanier, described how she could not speak when she returned home because she ‘was consumed with anger.’ She stressed, however, that there were many things that could be done: ‘The settlements are illegal. We should refuse to trade with them. I want to encourage us to take more action with the things we can do: such as joining Amnesty International and signing petitions. We got involved in the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. We contacted our MP and MEP. We met with Alistair Burt. I gave him a copy of Olives and Barbed Wire. We can go to local shops and highlight goods they are selling that were produced in the Occupied Territories. I have written five times to my local cook shop.’
Moral decisions
A Friend talked about her experience of being on a cruise. She had visited Jerusalem and Nazareth. She recalled being told, by a Quaker, that ‘if we had an Israeli guide I should regard everything they said as lies. That was the most intolerant thing I heard. Our guide was a secular Jew. He was against orthodox Jews, with large families, taking land in the Occupied Territories.’
The guide had explained, she said, that Israelis and Palestinians must live together and share the land and water and sky. She urged Friends to respect the complexity of the situation: ‘We speak of Israeli people as if they are all one amorphous mass. They are not. Moral decisions are difficult. I think we just have to accept the difficulty.’
Friends were united in highlighting the injustices experienced by the Palestinian people, in strongly criticising the current policies of the Israeli government and in endorsing the decision to boycott settlement goods from the Occupied Territories. There was, however, a genuine sense of seeking a distinctive and spirit-led Quaker way forward.
Right ordering
A London Friend questioned the comparison of a boycott of Israel today with that of South Africa at the time of apartheid. She said: ‘They are not the same. Eighty-five per cent of people in South Africa supported the boycott. It is not the same in Israel. To say that it worked in South Africa and that it would work in Israel is too simple.’
She suggested that Friends make a decision at a personal level: ‘I make personal decisions on what I buy. I select. I don’t know if it is right ordering for me to ask that of my worshipping community.’
A Friend talked of a member of her Meeting who had just returned from Gaza and who is ‘so angry that she cannot speak of it’ and who believes that ‘we should boycott Israel’. However, the Friend tempered this. In a measured tone, she suggested ‘we need time to regain a sense of balance’.
Another Friend reflected: ‘We have to bear in mind the trauma that the Jewish people have had to carry. We could, as a body, have an attitude that holds the Jewish people in the light as well as the Palestinian people.’
Creative alternatives
Creative alternatives to a wider boycott were suggested. Every member of the United Nations is required to produce a human rights report. Israel does not do this. A Friend suggested: ‘Could this not be an issue that we could take up – to be raised and challenged?’
A Friend had been thinking about the words ‘speak truth to power’. ‘If we are to do that’, he believed, ‘we must hold on to our position to be neutral. So we can speak to and hear both sides. If we start boycotting Israel we lose our neutrality and lose our capacity to speak truth to power.’
A Scottish Friend asked: ‘Do you want to be right or do you want to be effective? By engaging in a wider boycott we would be setting ourselves against the Jewish people and harming our ability to work in “quiet circles”.’
The story was told of a Palestinian doctor who had lost two daughters in the conflict. His response was to create a foundation to educate Israeli and Palestinian young people. A Friend, recounting the story, said: ‘If he can take the long view then so can I.’
Be pro-justice
A representative of one of the Area Meetings that had proposed a wider boycott explained some of the reasons for their decision. He said that one was because ‘it was impossible to carry out the April 2011 recommendation to boycott goods from the Occupied Territories. The Israeli government has made it so. It is largely ineffectual what we are trying to do.’
He found words, however, that seemed to capture the spirit of the Meeting: ‘Some of us have been involved in other practical proposals – in contacting retailers and Jewish groups. Instead of using the word “boycott” what we should be talking about is “‘trade justice’”. At the moment, he said, the situation for Palestinians is not fair.
A Friend, at the end, quoted the words of a leading Palestinian Quaker: ‘Don’t be pro-Israel. Don’t be pro-Palestinian. Be pro-justice.’
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.