Meeting for Sufferings: Sufferings reaffirms boycott commitment
Meeting for Sufferings reaffirmed Friends' decision to boycott settlement goods and considered further options
Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM) trustees asked Meeting for Sufferings for advice and discernment regarding a proposal to explicitly exclude investments in companies profiting from the occupation of Palestine from BYM’s investment policy.
BYM does not currently hold such investments. However, the investment policy does not explicitly exclude them. Minutes from both Devon and Sussex East Area Meetings have asked BYM to consider adding this.
A paper prepared by BYM staff, with input from the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), outlined the background to this issue and the implications of such a step. It concluded with three positions that Sufferings could take: ‘to rescind or to reaffirm its 2011 decision to boycott settlement goods’, ‘to encourage [BYM trustees] to exclude from its investments companies profiting from the occupation of Palestine, and to amend the BYM Investment Policy accordingly’, and ‘to go further and ask Friends to ensure they also exclude from their Meeting and personal investments any companies profiting from the occupation of Palestine, as suggested by QPSW [Central Committee]’.
Helen Drewery, head of witness and worship for BYM, emphasised that churches in Palestine have asked for this next phase in boycott, divestment and sanctions. She described it as ‘a bold step’ – with Quakers being one of the first churches in Britain to do it if Meeting for Sufferings advised BYM trustees to take that decision.
Friends were united in reaffirming Sufferings’ 2011 decision to boycott settlement goods. However, ministry urged caution on taking further steps.
One Friend asked how the Society would be able to identify companies in a ‘global world of interconnected companies’. They spoke of Amnesty International struggling with this issue. They referred to an upcoming database of such companies, mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which is due for publication in 2019.
Another Friend ministered on the ‘profound’ effect such a decision could have on EAPPI and felt that it is ‘too precious a thing to risk’. This was echoed by a Friend who said ‘EAPPI is very, very valuable and very Quakerly’. Although they were ‘saddened and horrified’ by the situation in Palestine, ‘sacrificing EAPPI is not the right thing to do’.
One Friend asserted that ‘we don’t know for sure that that would be the result’ and felt that the UNHRC database would be timely and helpful.
A Friend acknowledged that it may not be possible to know all the companies involved, but asked whether that was a reason not to boycott those that are known.
Helen Drewery highlighted that the paper had received significant input from EAPPI and that, based on the experience of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), they ‘don’t think there will be appreciable risk’.
The Sufferings minute reaffirmed the 2011 decision, acknowledged that BYM’s current investments don’t include companies profiting from the occupation of Palestine, and encouraged BYM trustees ‘to amend their investment policy to ensure that this remains the case… [recognising that] this may be difficult’.
The minute concluded: ‘We continually pray for both Israelis and Palestinians, keeping them together in our hearts, and looking forward to a future of loving and generous cooperation.’
Comments
It is very disturbing to see MfS still pursuing its one-sided approach to the immensely complex issue of Israel-Palestine. For example, what is it doing to boycott the Islamofascist regime in Gaza with its commitment to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state?
By frankem51 on 19th October 2018 - 6:56
There is nothing one-sided to the simple matter of the continued and spreading occupation of one people’s land by another people.
By JohnN on 24th October 2018 - 11:43
The Palestinians’ land is under occupation because they refuse to make a peace deal, even after signing up to the Oslo Accords 25 years ago. They have been offered their own state time and time again, first in 1948 (they refused and went to war instead and lost) and lately with the two-state solution. Again they have refused this solution because both Fatah and Hamas are committed to the ‘liberation of Palestine’ which means the abolition of Israel as a Jewish state. In the meantime Fatah takes Israel’s money and whinges about it while Hamas resorts to provocative demonstrations and rocket attacks. What is simple is that THE PALESTINIANS NEED TO MAKE A DEAL.
By frankem51 on 24th October 2018 - 17:40
Please login to add a comment
