Antisemitism
In the issue of 27 March, several letters address the question of antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Again there is a confusion between anti-Zionism – which opposes the existence of the Jewish state – and a dissatisfaction with the current government and policies of Israel. If democratic states were abolished because outsiders were displeased with the elected leaders of them, where would we be?
Oliver Müller’s letter accuses Israel of ‘cruel ethnic cleansing’ and of creating ‘a racist and apartheid state’. The accusation of apartheid has an interesting history. From its beginning Israel has been a mostly successful experiment in the inclusion of Arabs and Jews and all religions and backgrounds into the polity. There are no laws limiting Arab or Muslim citizens’ activities in Israel. It is not remotely like the old South Africa with its rigorous separation of races. There are Arabs in the professions and government. No one thought of the apartheid slur until 1956 when the Soviet Union gave up hoping that Israel might become a communist foothold in the Middle East and planted this misinformation in the west. It gained a new lease on life in 2001 at the misnamed World Conference Against Racism in Durban. It is said that one glance at a Tel Aviv beach is enough to disprove the apartheid lie.
Anyone is welcome to join the Quaker Friends of Israel mailing list or to visit the QFI Facebook page. Contact info@quakerfriendsofisrael.co.uk.
Sarah Lawson
Sarah Lawson says there is little if any difference between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. I disagree, I think there is a huge difference. I don’t believe that I am an antisemite but I do have a huge problem with the way the state of Israel and its supporters have behaved over the years.
Rather than look back at the founding of Israel, will people please look at the behaviour of Israel since its birth, and especially what it has done over the last few years. The establishment of Israel was always going to be problematic because there were people already living in Palestine, but it could have been handled differently, and maybe Europe should have done more to tackle its antisemitism rather than support sending all the Jewish people somewhere else.
Kate Taylor
It is clear to me that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Judaism is an ancient religion and cultural identity. Zionism is a racist, white supremacist, expansionist, nationalist political movement. Its stated aim is to extend its borders all over the Middle East. This is no secret.
Paul Davies (27 March) states that Palestine was ‘created’ in 1988. Actually, the region has had that name for millennia. It is shown on Ptolemy’s map of 150CE.
Jesus, then, was a Palestinian. He was always on the side of the oppressed. He would be horrified by Israel’s genocidal violence.
Paul writes of ‘all groups seeking peace and equality’; Israel palpably shows it does not seek this. It has literally just mandated the death penalty for Palestinian prisoners convicted of deadly attacks (see news, 10 April). It has to be called out as the evil that it is!
Personally I am more worried about the far right and fascism than I ever could be over the stance of Stop the War and CND.
Carolyn Stephens
LGBTQ+ reporting
As a network of Quakers who hold sex realist views, we would like to say how much we appreciated the Friend’s coverage of the Exmouth Meeting that marked LGBTQ+ history (20 March). Rebecca Hardy’s reporting was clear, thoughtful, and refreshingly direct. It made for a genuinely engaging read. What stood out most was the sense that careful, balanced reporting can open space for Friends to reflect more deeply and to find ways of including everyone within our Society. That feels especially valuable just now.
We were also glad to see the milestones recognised, from the equalisation of the age of consent to the reminder from Towards a Quaker View of Sex that ‘where there is a genuine tenderness… God is surely not shut out’. Those moments carry real weight, and it was good to see them treated with care. Above all, the piece conveyed a spirit of inclusion grounded in love in action and that was most heartening.
Emma Roberts & Gavin Waterson, Sex Matters to Quakers
Yearly Meeting preparation
In your reporting of The Kindler’s Special Interest Group Meeting (‘Preparing for Yearly Meeting, part two’, 3 April), Rosemary Brown’s insight struck me as very powerful. (‘[I]f a human being has that of God in him, her, themself, then the soul is not a separate thing, but an inalienable part of the infinite, divine whole… We can see and identify an individual wave as it rises and falls. But it is never separate from the ocean from which it is formed, and into which it inevitably returns.’) I plan to share it with Quakers who do not subscribe to the Friend.
‘bronxite1910’
The write-up of pre-Yearly Meeting Special Interest Group Meetings (SIGM) was excellent reporting. May I add this summary from the Quaker Universalist Group (QUG)?
QUG clerk Tony Philpott opened the SIGM, taking five minutes to explain what QUG is about. He then led the SIGM in a manner similar to QUG’s regular third Wednesday of the month online worship sharing, which has speaker(s), silent worship, and worship sharing for the rest of the hour, followed by free discussion ‘afterword’.
There were three speakers of five minutes, each sharing their universalist perspective in action: Dora Bek from England, myself from Belgium, and Jennifer Schoeck from Canada. There were twenty-eight participants.
Daniel Clarke Flynn
Not our way
I read in a recent edition of the Friend that it has been proposed to rename Quaker faith & practice as Our Quaker Way. Why? What is wrong with the existing title, which clearly states what the book is about? Our Quaker Way does not.
Are Quakers no longer in favour of plain speaking? Are we no longer a religious group? Do we no longer have beliefs or a faith? I may be mistaken but I thought the Revision Committee’s job was to revise the book of discipline, not to replace it with a book with a different title. It is not as though the words Quaker faith & practice are some form of Quakerspeak, unintelligible to those outside or new to Quakerism. They are clear, plain English: clearly stating the subject of the book.
Does removing the faith from Quakerism mean we now have to go back to the Charity Commission to explain we can no longer be considered a religious organisation? We must remember we are not a Society of Friends but the Religious Society of Friends. In suggesting the new title I think the Revision Committee members are either embarrassed that we are a religious body or have forgotten it.
I do not believe my concern over this inappropriate name change is limited to just a few Friends. When it was mentioned after Meeting for Worship on Sunday, every Friend present strongly thought that this was the wrong decision.
Jonathan Riddell
I am prompted to echo the cry of dismay at the removal of the word ‘faith’ from the title of the revised book of discipline. In my view, ‘faith’ is not intrinsically religious, or even spiritual, but can be. We talk about having faith in our leaders, in humanity, in our own capacity for action. Faith involves trust and belief and optimism. Daniel Clark Flynn’s Thought for the Week (27 March) expresses this well, implying that unity with the source of our being is attainable, that life has meaning, and that there is order in the universe. These are spiritual concerns but not necessarily religious.
I would suggest that the original title of our book reflects these concerns without compromising the broader-than-Christian scope of modern Quakerism.
Dorothy Jerrome
Editor’s note: Our mailbag has been full of letters like the above pair. But please remember (per Michael Phipps (10 April)) that the suggested title is for Yearly Meeting to approve, and Friends will have the opportunity to discern there.
Comments
Not our way.
If we go back sixty years or so our book of discipline was “Christian faith and practice in the experience of the Religious Society of Friends”. Just over thirty years ago this changed to “Quaker faith and practice” with the subtitle “The book of Christian Discipline of the Religious Society of Friends”. Our practice has been to change the name of our book of discipline during each revision. My understanding is that the justification for this is that the process goes beyond revision. It is about producing a new book of discipline to reflect how the Religious Society of Friends has evolved and therefore a change of title has been deemed appropriate. Perhaps before passing judgement on the proposed title we should wait until have had an opportunity to reflect on the whole text of the first draft of our new book which will be available for our consideration and discernment in November.
In Friendship.
By Richard Pashley on 2026 04 16
Carolyn Stephens assertion that “Jesus, then, was a Palestinian.” is misleading, to be generous. The city of Bethlehem where Jesus was born was in Judaea at the time of his birth. He was crucified beneath a sign proclaiming him “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”
The Roman province of Judaea was renamed Syria Palaestina following the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE) which was long after Jesus’ crucifixion. Historians agree this was part of Rome’s effort to weaken the association between the land and the Jewish population and to integrate the region more fully into the wider province of Syria.
At that time, there was no population that identified as “Palestinian”; the term “Palaestina” functioned as a geographical or administrative label rather than a self-identified identity. The name itself was not new, deriving from earlier Greek usage and ultimately from the Philistines, an ancient people of probable Aegean origin who had long since disappeared as a distinct group.
By Ol Rappaport on 2026 04 16
How much are we wedded to the exact words in the titles of our Discipline? How much do they signify?
The first printed publication that we can recognise as Book of Discipline for British Friends was called “Extracts from the minutes and advices of the Yearly Meeting of Friends held in London from its first institution”. What?! Have we given up London? And then it became “Rules and Discipline”. What?! Have we given up advice? Then there were three volumes: “Christian Doctrine/Practice/Government”. What!? Have we given up doctrine? Then there was “Christian Life, Faith and Thought”. What!? Have we given up thought? And then came “Christian faith and practice in the experience of the Society of Friends” (note: no “Religious” there, referring to the church as the “Religious Society of Friends” seems to be a mid-19th century innovation that tends to come and go afterwards). What!? Have we given up life?
And then the current “Quaker Faith and Practice”.
Some do seem to think that the current QF&P gave up on mentioning Christ, but I’ve counted how many times that person is mentioned in our Books of Discipline over time and it very much peaks in the later 19th century. That and the epithet “Religious” may be symptoms of the evangelical turn that London YM took. But the “Red Book” is not notably short of mentions of Christ in general nor compared to other 20th century Disciplines.
By Keith Braithwaite on 2026 04 16
Please login to add a comment
