2022/03/27

Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief: Romirowsky, A., Joffe, A.: 9781137378163: Amazon.com: Books

Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief: Romirowsky, A., Joffe, A.: 9781137378163: Amazon.com: Books



Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief 2013th Edition
by A. Romirowsky (Author), A. Joffe (Author)
5.0 out of 5 stars 2 ratings



ISBN-13: 978-1137378163
ISBN-10: 1137378166Why is ISBN important?


Kindle


Hardcover
AUD 124.46 - AUD 149.84


This book examines the leading role of the Quaker American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) in the United Nations relief program for Palestine Arab refugees in 1948-1950 in the Gaza Strip. It situates the operation within the context of the AFSC's attempts to exercise new influence on the separate issues of pacifism and disarmament at a time marked by US efforts to construct a Cold War security regime in the Middle East and British efforts to retain influence and bases in Arab countries. Using archival data, oral histories, diplomatic documents, and biographical and autobiographical accounts, the authors provide a detailed look at internal decision-making in an early non-governmental organization where beliefs regarding the requirement to provide refugees with skills for self-reliance clashed with intractable political and cultural realities and the realization that only full repatriation or resettlement elsewhere would solve the problem (a lesson that UNRWA and the international community learned only decades later). Faced with impossible solutions, the Quakers withdrew. The story of AFSC involvement in Gaza shows that refugee relief is always political and that humanitarianism can prolong the problems it seeks to solve. (less)



Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief
by Asaf Romirowsky and Alexander H. Joffe
New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2013. 254 pp. $100.

Reviewed by Susan M. Jellissen
Belmont University, Nashville

Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2015

Send
Print

Share6


Romirowsky and Joffe trace the involvement of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)—a Quaker organization founded long before 1948 to assist civilians caught up in the maelstrom of war—in its pivotal role as relief provider to Arab refugees in Gaza under the auspices of the
United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees (UNRPR). Painstakingly combing through personal memoirs, cables, and diplomatic communiqués, the authors construct a rich history of the immediate post-1948 period. The AFSC was determined that its relief mission be short-lived to thwart any "moral degeneration" that might occur from a continuing refugee status. Its preferred solution was "repatriation" (return to homes in the territory that became Israel) but quickly changed to resettlement in adjacent Arab states, such as Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, as a more judicious option. This approach was also seriously considered by the U.S. government—then and now the principal source of monetary aid to the refugee operation—along with a program of political and economic development in the Middle East directly connected to larger Cold War policies.

But the idea of refugee resettlement in Arab states soon fizzled out. As the authors illustrate, both field personnel and those at the policy-making level within AFSC understood that the refugees were being used as pawns by the Arab governments in their propaganda war against Israel. Once UNRPR's mandate expired in 1950, the United Nations established the U.N. Relief and Work's Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) as its replacement, and from then on, the fix was in. For reasons ranging from bureaucratic inertia to self-interest, but most importantly Arab governments' clear desire to maintain the refugee problem, UNRWA has, for the last sixty-five years, provided "relief" to a population that has increased nearly ten-fold and whose questionable refugee status is handed down to each successive generation as their prized—and lucrative—legacy.

As the authors note, a continuing and permanent refugee status became a necessary condition for the fostering of a "Palestinian" identity. Rather than use its influence among the Arab states to implement a resettlement program, which would have ultimately been to the refugees' advantage, the U.S. government pandered to a set of ideas that would prove inimical to long-term regional stability as well as to Israel's security. This ill-conceived approach continues to this day, sustaining the most powerful weapon in the Arab arsenal against the legitimacy of the Jewish state.


Review: Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief
DEC 15, 2016, 8:02 PM
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
EMAIL
PRINT
Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. Please contact us in case of abuse. In case of abuse,
Report this post.
“Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief” by Asaf Romirowsky & Alexander Joffe (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). ISBN: 1137378166.

On the surface, this impressive scholarly work looks narrow in scope: it examines the brief role played by the Quakers in providing relief for the Arab refugees created after the Arab invasion of the newly established State of Israel, work which lasted only from 1948-50 and focused only on the Gaza Strip. But along the way it contains some important broader lessons, and offers many poignant insights about the Israeli-Palestinian-Jewish-Arab-Muslim conflict (my term) in general and the political dimension of the refugee problem in particular.

For some background: Since its creation in late 1949, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has devoted itself to maintaining specifically the Arab refugees above (and their descendants), providing them health, welfare, and education services as well as being a major source of their employment, while all other refugees from all other global conflicts fall under the purview of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Much has been written about the problematic history of UNRWA and its active promotion of the anti-Israel Palestinian narrative, including the infamous “Right of Return” according to which Palestinian Arabs and their generations of descendants are allegedly entitled to return to territory that is now the State of Israel.


State of Jerusalem: The Maqdasyin

Keep Watching



Far less well known is that the international community initially provided relief to the Arab refugees through very different means.

In December 1948, the U.N. asked three organizations, the Quakers’ American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the League of Red Cross Societies, to provide relief. The AFSC was assigned to the Gaza Strip. It is the AFSC story that is explored in this book, and it in particular offers important lessons regarding the roads not taken in UNRWA’s later, and now seemingly permanent, relief effort.

Leaving aside the book’s many carefully researched details about AFSC’s work, consider just this single passage, from a March 1949 AFSC document prepared for the U.N. just two months after AFSC had been in the field:

Following a review of the refugee situation in Palestine generally and more particularly in the Gaza Strip, the AFSC wishes to state its position regarding the continuance of the refugee relief program. The AFSC wishes to withdraw from direct refugee relief in the Gaza Strip at the earliest possible moment compatible with the fulfillment of its moral obligation to the refugee population. It is obvious that prolonged direct relief contributes to the moral degeneration of the refugees and that it may also, by its palliative effects, militate against a swift political settlement of the problem. (p. 86)

This remarkable early passage, Romirowsky and Joffe suggest, “is perhaps the single most perceptive statement made with respect to Palestine refugee relief across some six decades” (87). For one thing, the AFSC acknowledges what it sees as a moral obligation to the refugees, one which derives both from their general Quaker outlook as well as from their short time developing personal relationships with the refugee population. Yet at the same time they remain adamant that their commitment was to be limited in duration, for fear of both contributing to the “moral degeneration” of the refugees and to forestalling a “political settlement” of the problem, namely the Arab-Israeli conflict.

How prescient these remarks seem, nearly 68 years later.ADVERTISEMENT

By becoming a perpetual welfare organization, UNRWA has now produced several generations of dependent people who feel absolutely entitled to the aid that the world bestows upon them—a concern that we now learn was fully apparent at the beginning, as ASFC field reports document both the refugees’ “strong feelings” that the U.N. “has the total responsibility to feed, house, clothe” them and the occurrence of refugee “demonstrations” demanding that U.N. “compensate” them and “maintain” them.

More importantly, the AFSC saw immediately that the refugees were being used in the service of political agendas. After its extensive work in global refugee relief after World War Two the AFSC understood the importance of resettlement and rehabilitation: that is, of finding the refugees new, permanent homes and equipping them to make a living. Their efforts to this end in Gaza, however, were repeatedly foiled, as revealed in internal AFSC documents. The Egyptians (for example) had a policy, one staffer notes, of refusing

all requests for refugee transfer out of the Gaza Strip, even for individuals called to a specific employment opportunity … The policy is in fact … a reflection of some obscure notion that “possession” of 200,000 Gaza refuges is some sort of lever in international bargaining. (139)

More generally, he reported, “The Arab Governments do not want the refugee problem solved on its merits, and will willingly accept solution only if their political price is met” (140).ADVERTISEMENT

To this day the Arab world continues to refuse to resettle these refugees—now, via their descendants, numbering in the many millions—in order to use them as “levers” in their ongoing battle against the Jewish state.

In similar ways AFSC communications document the difficulties in formulating definitions of “refugee,” the widespread fraud that was present in the registration of refugees, and the problem that internationally supported schools were being used to brainwash Arab children with hateful anti-Israel propaganda. It was largely because the AFSC objected to such a corrupt, and apparently unending, relief system that it chose to exit from Arab refugee relief in 1950. Meanwhile the organization that inherited the task—UNRWA—has gone on to propagate these problems, exactly as the AFSC feared.

Today, unfortunately, the AFSC leverages its history and past good work in order to contribute to the global battle against Israel. The AFSC’s support for the BDS movement is one element. Another is the way in which anti-Israel radicalism are introduced into Quaker schools through the intellectual leadership provided by the AFSC. The many local Quaker fellowships around the country, although greatly reduced in number from their 20th-century heyday, are important tools for the AFSC to shape local BDS efforts, usually in association with other Christian, pro-Palestinian, and “anti-war” groups. All this is predicated on a distinguished history that the AFSC both leverages and disregards.

Romirowsky and Joffe have done a terrific job shedding light on a previously unilluminated corner of this intractable conflict, in so doing making crystal clear some key lessons that should have been, but were not, learned.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHORAndrew Pessin is a philosophy professor, Campus Bureau Editor at The Algemeiner, co-editor of "Anti-Zionism on Campus," and author most recently of the novel, "Nevergreen," an academic satire examining campus cancel culture and the ideological excesses that generate it. For more information, visit www.andrewpessin.com.



















Editorial Reviews

Review




Review


'Romirowsky and Joffe trace the involvement of the American Friends ServiceCommittee (AFSC) a Quaker organization founded long before 1948 to assist civilians caught up in the maelstrom of war in its pivotal role as relief provider to Arab refugees in Gaza under the auspices of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees (UNRPR). Painstakingly combing through personal memoirs, cables, and diplomatic communiqués, the authors construct a rich history of the immediate post-1948 period. [ ] As the authors illustrate, both field personnel and those at the policy-making level within [the] AFSC understood that the refugees were being used as pawns by the Arab governments in their propaganda war against Israel. [ ]This ill-conceived approach continues to this day, sustaining the most powerful weapon in the Arab arsenal against the legitimacy of the Jewish state.' -Susan M. Jellissen, Belmont University, USA, Middle East Quarterly



About the Author
Author Asaf Romirowsky: Asaf Romirowsky is a Middle East historian. Author Alexander H. Joffe: Alexander H. Joffe is an archaeologist and historian.
Read less


Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Palgrave Macmillan; 2013th edition (December 18, 2013)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 263 pages
==
Religion, Politics, and the Origin of Palestine Refugee Relief
by Asaf Romirowsky and Alexander H. Joffe
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 2013) 254 pp.

Reviewed by Joseph S. Spoerl, Professor, Philosophy Dept., Saint Anselm College

This book is a carefully researched study of the earliest efforts to provide relief to the Palestinian Arabs who became refugees during the first Arab-Israeli war, or Israel’s War of Independence, in 1948. While other groups, such as the Red Cross, provided emergency aid, this book focuses primarily on the role of the American Quakers (or “Friends”) operating through the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). In addition to surveying all the available literature on the subject, the authors did extensive research in the Quaker archives in Philadelphia.

For about 18 months, the AFSC provided relief to Palestinian Arab refugees in the Gaza Strip. The AFSC built schools and clinics and taught vocational skills. Unlike other organizations, the AFSC actually took the trouble to conduct an accurate census of refugees and thereby reduced the refugee rolls, fought corruption and fraud, and got costs under control.

The Quakers had the quaint idea that it would be morally harmful to the refugees for them to remain on relief for too long. The goal, they thought, must be to help them start new lives and become self-supporting again, if not in Israel then elsewhere. When it became clear to them that the refugees themselves insisted on perpetual relief since repatriation to Israel was not feasible, the Quakers terminated their operations in Gaza, handing the work over to UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which began to operate in 1950 and continues today, the population of “registered refugees” having burgeoned in the meantime from 735,000 in 1949 to over 5,250,000 today. (UNRWA, bowing to pressure from the Palestinians, unilaterally decided some years ago to define “Palestinian refugee” status as inheritable by patrilineal descent in perpetuity, thus guaranteeing the exponential growth of the very population that still demands a “right of return” to Israel proper.)

This book shows that key features of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute were set very early. The Quakers noticed the refugees’ pronounced tendency to blame all their troubles on anyone but themselves. It never apparently occurred to any of them that the Palestinian leaders that many of them had presumably supported (e.g. Hajj Amin al-Husseini) bore much responsibility for the disaster of 1948. The Quakers documented the Egyptian government’s refusal to allow any movement of the refugees out of the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt until 1967), and they recognized that the Arab governments did not want the refugee problem solved, since they wished to use the refugees as a weapon to continue the struggle against Israel.

The US government, which played by far the largest roll in funding and establishing UNRWA, encountered the same recalcitrance on the issue of resettlement. In the 1950s, the US tried to resettle the refugees in other countries, but the Arab states and the refugees themselves would accept nothing less than repatriation to Israel; barring that, they felt entitled to demand UN-funded welfare in perpetuity. The welfare continues to flow, with the US and even Israel fearing that any cutoff in aid will create instability in the areas populated by the refugees (the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon).

UNRWA answers to no one but the UN General Assembly, which is totally dominated by pro-Palestinian states. The vast majority of UNRWA employees are Palestinian “refugees” who have turned it into a rent-seeking organization that seeks above all else to keep itself in existence and maximize its income. UNRWA leaders publicly insist that Palestinian “refugees” have a “right of return” to Israel proper – a demand that has played a key role in sabotaging peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, since no Israeli government could ever agree to it.

It was the US and British founders of UNRWA who chose to make it autonomous instead of putting it under the General Secretary of the UN, thinking this would make it easier for the US and Britain to control it. Romirowsky and Joffe note wryly that UNRWA’s founders “failed to conceive that the relief organization would survive over sixty years and along the way, fall into the hands of its charges” (p. 117). UNRWA has become a major obstacle to the Israeli-Palestinian peace that successive US governments have been trying to broker now for decades.

Peace and Revolution: The Moral Crisis of American Pacifism: Lewy, Guenter: 9780802836403: Amazon.com: Books

Peace and Revolution: The Moral Crisis of American Pacifism: Lewy, Guenter: 9780802836403: Amazon.com: Books




Follow the Author

Guenter Lewy
+ Follow



Peace and Revolution: The Moral Crisis of American Pacifism Hardcover – April 1, 1988
by Guenter Lewy (Author)


Hardcover
AUD 8.80
20 Used from AUD 3.414 New from AUD 15.313 Collectible from AUD 11.65

Looks at how four pacifist organizations, the AFSC, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the War Resisters League, and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, have given up the ideals of nonviolence to support leftist dictatorships and liberation fronts

Report incorrect product information.


Print length

296 pages
Language

English
Publisher

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
Publication date

April 1, 1988
======================

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Charging that American pacifism since the Vietnam War has lost its conscience by abandoning the principle of nonviolence, Lewy, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts, critiques four leading pacifist organizations: the American Friends Service Committee, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the War Resisters League and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. He contends that these groups are experiencing the same basic conflict between the ideal of nonviolence and that of liberating the oppressed, especially in the Third World. He accuses them of supporting Communist-dominated movements in Vietnam and Central and South America to the exclusion of such struggles as the Afghans' revolt against the Soviet Union. Lewy (America in Vietnam) further warns that the alliance of pacifists with New Left and antiwar groups gives them political and religious clout"peace at any price"that could endanger American interests.
Copyright 1988 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Library Journal

Lewy is highly critical of American pacifism from 1965 to the present, arguing that it has lost the philosophical consistency and moral integrity it once possessed. Examining four prominent pacifist groupsthe Fellowship of Reconciliation, War Resister League, Women's International League of Peace and Freedom, and American Friends Service Committeehe concludes that they have abandoned their commitment to nonviolence because of hostility to American democracy and infatuation with Third World revolutions. Lewy points up serious moral and political questions about contemporary pacifism, but his prosecutorial tone and hard-line Cold War ideology make this less the sober, penetrating analysis the subject deserves and more a narrowly political polemic. Mel Piehl, Valparaiso Univ., Ind.
Copyright 1988 Reed Business Information, Inc.


Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 1st edition (April 1, 1988)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0802836402

Book Review

AFSC: Faith Groups Urge Congress To Cut Pentagon Spending – InsuranceNewsNet

American Friends Service Committee: Faith Groups Urge Congress To Cut Pentagon Spending – InsuranceNewsNet

American Friends Service Committee: Faith Groups Urge Congress to Cut Pentagon Spending

WASHINGTONFeb. 19 -- The American Friends Service Committee issued the following news release:

Over 30 faith-based organizations released an open letter calling on Congress to prioritize essential investments in green energy and sustainable infrastructure, affordable healthcare, and in pandemic relief--and to find the money to make these investments by cutting the bloated Pentagon budget.

The letter reads, "whether Congress is prioritizing creating jobs, addressing climate change, or repairing relationships with other nations, cutting Pentagon spending is part of the solution." It goes on to note that defense spending is notoriously inefficient at job creation, that the Pentagon emits more greenhouse gasses than many countries, and that the United States' endless wars have been devastating communities abroad.

"The Biden administration has promised to 'Build Back Better,' and Congress has the opportunity to help him do this by decreasing the massive and wasteful Pentagon budget, and putting that money into addressing the global problems of our time, including climate change and global health," said Tori Bateman, policy advocacy coordinator with the American Friends Service Committee. "Pouring money into weapons, war, and the pockets of defense contractors doesn't keep us safe--it takes resources away from our communities."

* * *

INN NAIFA Webinar 2022-04 Body Leaderboard

February 18, 2021

Dear Members of Congress,

As 31 faith-based organizations from across the United States, representing many different faith traditions, we call on you to prioritize a sustainable, peaceful recovery for the country while developing the government's budget for fiscal year 2022. The Administration has signaled a commitment to investing in green energy and sustainable infrastructure /1, in affordable healthcare, and in economic support for people struggling with the effects of the pandemic /2. These are essential investments- and we can find the money we need to make these investments a reality by cutting the bloated Pentagon budget.

We are called by our faith traditions to prioritize caring for people, and to turn away from violence and corruption. The Hebrew Bible calls people "stewards" of the land, urges them to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and prophesies nations forging their "swords into ploughshares."

Whether Congress is prioritizing creating jobs, addressing climate change, or repairing relationships with other nations, cutting Pentagon spending is part of the solution. Defense sector spending is notoriously inefficient at job creation- spending in education or healthcare can create double the number of jobs for the same investment /3. The Pentagon emits more greenhouse gasses than many countries /4, and has been devastating communities abroad in endless and unnecessary wars.

Instead of spending money on weapons and war, we need to be investing in things that address the urgency of climate change and build resilient communities- including clean energy and sustainable infrastructure. Ensuring that low-income and marginalized communities have the infrastructure they need for clean air, water, broadband, and public transportation is key.

Addressing climate change and sustainable infrastructure will put the country on a path to a more equitable future- and create good jobs at the same time.

We also need reductions in the Pentagon budget in order to invest in public health- an especially essential investment in this time of pandemic. Everyone must have access to affordable, quality healthcare. Congress should prioritize funding testing and treatment for COVID, and expansion of Medicaid.

By reducing Pentagon spending, we would also free up funds to invest in foreign assistance, diplomacy, and peacebuilding. Conflict can be solved in nonviolent ways when we address the root causes like global hunger and poverty, and use all of our nonviolent, sustainable foreign policy tools like diplomacy and peacebuilding. Congress must reduce the bloated Pentagon budget, and invest instead in real solutions for communities experiencing conflict.

As the United States works to recover from the economic and public health disaster of COVID-19, it is essential that we invest in clean energy and infrastructure, healthcare, and peacebuilding, instead of giving handouts to defense contractors and pouring taxpayer dollars into endless wars. This year, Congress must pass appropriations bills that cut the topline Pentagon budget, eliminates the unaccountable Overseas Contingencies Operations fund (OCO), and re-invests that money into a sustainable, healthy, and peaceful recovery for our communities.

Sincerely,

Alliance of Baptists

American Friends Service Committee

Bridges Faith Initiative

Center on Conscience & War

Christian Peacemaker Teams

Church World Service

Church of the BrethrenOffice of Peacebuilding and Policy

Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach

Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces

Disciples Center for Public Witness

Disciples Refugee & Immigration Ministries

Franciscan Action Network

Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL)

InterReligious Task Force on Central America

Islamic Society of North America

Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd

National Council of Churches

Pax Christi USA

Pennsylvania Council of Churches

Presbyterian Church Office of Public Witness

Presbyterian Peace Fellowship

Provincial Council Clerics of St. Viator

Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association

Sisters of Mercy of the Americas - Justice Team

Sisters of Mercy of the Americas NH

The United Methodist Church - General Board of Church and Society

Union for Reform Judaism

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries

Footnotes:

1/ The Biden Plan to Build a Modern, Sustainable Infrastructure and an Equitable Clean Energy Future. 2020. Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website

2/ Build Back Better: Joe Biden's Jobs and Economic Recovery Plan for Working Families. 2020. Joe Biden for President: Official Campaign Website.

3/ Garrett-Peltier, H., War Spending and Lost Opportunities. Brown University

4/ Crawford, N.C., 2020. Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War. Brown University.

[Category: CaptureV]

When Did the Quakers Stop Being Friends? - The Tower - The Tower

When Did the Quakers Stop Being Friends? - The Tower - The Tower
December 2013
The Tower Magazine
When Did the Quakers Stop Being Friends?

Asaf Romirowsky and Alexander H. Joffe

Co-authors of "Religion, Politics, and the Origins of Palestine Refugee Relief (Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming).click for full bio >>
~ Also in this issue ~
We Really Need to Talk About Corruptionby Jonathan Schanzer
A Different Way to Lean Inby Beth Kissileff
When Did the Quakers Stop Being Friends?by Asaf Romirowsky and Alexander H. Joffe
Dare We Say It? The Mullahs Must Goby Michael Ledeen
Jabotinsky’s Lost Moment: June, 1940by Rick Richman
~ Also by Asaf Romirowsky and Alexander H. Joffe ~
When Did the Quakers Stop Being Friends?by Asaf Romirowsky and Alexander H. Joffe
From the Blog
- 07.12.19 -
Britain Confirms Iranian Attempt To Intercept Tanker In Strait Of Hor
- 07.12.19 -
Jewish Doctor Mike Pays Save a Child’s Heart 5,000th Patient a Vis
- 07.12.19 -
PA Doubles Pay-To-Slay Salary of Terrorist Behind Murder of Three Israeli Teens
- 07.12.19 -
Report: Iran Never “Repurposed” Fordow Nuclear Facility in Breach of JCPOA
- 07.11.19 -
Twitter Takes Down Louis Farrakhan’s 2018 anti-Semitic Tweet After Policy Change
Save



email
Send to Kindle

The religious group known as the Quakers has sacrificed its founding religious principles at the altar of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
In the summer of 2013 an unusual gathering of students took place in an undisclosed location in upstate New York. Sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) along with Jewish Voice for Peace, the “We Divest Campaign Student Leadership Team Summer Training Institute” offered a five-day program to trains campus activists and organizers in the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) movement, a loose coalition of anti-Israel groups seeking to cripple the Israeli economy. Promising “fun in a summer-camp like environment” for only a $100 registration fee—the rest is subsidized by the sponsors—AFSC’s program included “extensive campaign development coaching,” “grassroots organizing skill building,” “media and messaging trainings,” “anti-oppression analysis workshops,” “relationship building with activists on campuses nationwide,” “strategy sessions with BDS movement leaders,” and more. Participants represented some of America’s best-known elite universities, including the University of Pennsylvania, Brown, Brandeis, Loyola, Oberlin and Georgetown.

The conclave did not go unnoticed among critics of BDS concerned at the prospect of teens and young adults being taught the tactics of harming the Jewish state. The Anti-Defamation League stated that such camps would “indoctrinate the next generation of activists with biased messages intended to single out Israel.” Shurat HaDin, an Israeli nonprofit that helps terror victims navigate the legal systems of countries around the world, announced that it was investigating whether the camp violated federal and New York state anti-boycott laws.

But there is a bigger reason to be concerned. The camp’s main sponsor, the Quaker-affiliated and well-funded AFSC, has in recent years propelled itself to the forefront of the BDS campaign. This once-venerable group, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and an influential member of the anti-war, pro-disarmament, and social justice movements, has become a leading proponent of anti-Israel activism. Their chosen method is to “support [BDS] campaigns which aim to end corporate support for Israel’s settlement policy and thereby contribute to ending settlement growth and construction.”


BDS advocates protest the opening of a Max Brenner chocolate store in Parramatta, Australia. Photo: Kate Ausburn / flickr

Yet clearly their aims go beyond stopping settlement construction. In 2008, the AFSC, along with other similarly minded religious groups, hosted a gala dinner with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the guest of honor, despite Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, and genocidal threats against the Jewish state. Ahmadinejad, however, is only the most extreme example of the AFSC making dubious friends. The participants in its BDS summer camp were mostly Palestinians or Palestinian-Americans associated with the group Students for Justice in Palestine—an organization notorious not only for its vicious rhetoric against Israel, but for going so far as shouting down pro-Israel speakers on campus and harassing Jewish students.

AFSC’s recent turn is increasingly difficult to reconcile with its longstanding opposition to violence, war, and hatred. Affiliated with the Religious Society of Friends, the pacifist Christian sect commonly known as the Quakers, the AFSC consistently portrays itself as a loving, compassionate, healing organization that seeks only to end suffering and conflict around the world. Indeed, the BDS movement itself has been described by one Quaker group as “the transforming power of love and nonviolence, having faith that enmity can be transformed and that oppression can give way.” Stressing the religious origins of their ideology, they asserted that “seeking God’s guidance,” they are working toward “a just and lasting peace.”

Unfortunately, even a cursory look at the AFSC’s attitudes toward Israel over the past 60 years reveals something very different. Its views on Israel have slowly evolved from a nominally neutral, though not particularly sympathetic, point of view to a violently hostile stance. The group now engages in apologetics for anti-Israel terrorism, accuses the Jewish state of all manner of crimes, and seeks to actively undermine its economy and security.

The AFSC, in short, has adopted a pacifism of hypocrisy. It claims to oppose violence, but in practice engages in apologetics for terrorism. It claims to want peace for both sides, but inevitably advocates only for the Palestinians, often in extremist terms. And it has moved closer and closer to a retrograde, supercessionist theology that has been the basis of Christian anti-Semitism for centuries. The saga of the AFSC’s relationship to Israel is a tragic one, in which a once-noble organization has not only embraced an ignoble cause, but has betrayed its own founding principles in the process.
The American Friends Service Committee has its origins in the Quakers—thus named because they tremble or “quake” before God—a Protestant sect founded in England during the mid-17th century. Embracing an extreme form of Protestant theology, the Quakers rejected all traditional sacraments, such as baptism and the notion of the Bible as inerrant Scripture. Instead, the Quakers seek to bear witness to their belief through “spirituality in action.” Its members attempt to follow the “inner light,” which founding Quaker George Fox described as “spirit, and grace, by which all might know their salvation, and their way to God; even that divine Spirit which would lead them into all Truth.” As part of their beliefs, Quakers oppose violence in all its forms and reject any compulsion in religion. Social justice and pacifism have long been central tenets of Quaker belief and activity.

The American Friends Service Committee was formed on April 30, 1917 in response to America’s entrance into World War I. Challenged by public hostility and government disapproval due to their refusal to be drafted, the Quakers formed the AFSC in order to organize alternative forms of service for its members, such as providing medical aid and other non-violent participation in the war effort.

The AFSC slowly expanded over the years, and by the late 1940s it was an established Christian organization with global experience, recognized by national and international establishments as a major provider of international relief, charity, and aid. It was also a profoundly universalist organization that often supported unpopular political causes, embracing humanitarian and pacifist ideals that were radical in the context of both the U.S. and in the American and Protestant contexts.


George Fox, the founder of the Quaker movement. Photo credit: Victuallers / Wikimedia

The dawn of the Cold War, however, proved a turning point in the history of the organization. In April 1947 a faction within the AFSC’s leadership convened a meeting at which the head of the organization, Clarence Pickett, and others argued that tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union had become so intense, and the threat of atomic war so grave, that that the AFSC should abandon its long-standing tradition of political neutrality. Such a stance, Pickett said, could no longer be an article of faith but a crime. The radical nature of this stance was reflected in the words of another participant, who said, “Evolution is too slow. We need revolution in the Society of Friends.” The organization, Pickett and his supporters felt, should actively spearhead a peace movement that would directly challenge America’s Cold War policies. This began the AFSC’s transformation from a religious group to, as one Quaker scholar later put it, “just one more pressure group within the secular political community.”

The AFSC’s newly radical stance took aim at American policies throughout the 1950s and paid little or no heed to repression and terror in Communist countries. This hit its stride during the Vietnam War. The organization bitterly and actively opposed the war throughout the 1960s and ‘70s. Its attacks on American policy in Vietnam were furious and wide-ranging, opposing everything from the escalation of military operations to all forms of aid to South Vietnam to the conduct of the war itself. In addition, the AFSC directly violated American embargoes and sent medical aid directly to North Vietnam. These actions proved to be extremely controversial. In one case, the AFSC was accused of revealing to the North Vietnamese that a prominent Buddhist activist was a CIA agent, prompting one prominent Quaker to hold a sit-in at AFSC headquarters in protest. The AFSC’s activism placed it unquestionably on the side of the American far-Left, where it remains to this day.


The Quakers’ beliefs in nonviolence have not prevented them from supporting bloody despotic regimes.

More importantly, however, this was the beginning of a process through which the AFSC began to betray its own founding principles. While still voicing support for pacifism, the organization increasingly aligned itself with violent Left-wing governments and movements, some of which used terrorism to advance their goals.

Many rank-and-file Quakers were appalled at the AFSC’s overt support for such regimes and movements, as well as its double standards, according to which it supported oppressive Left-wing regimes while attacking the U.S. for supporting oppressive Right-wing regimes. But their protests proved fruitless. The AFSC rejected all criticism as fundamentally illegitimate “red-baiting and McCarthyism.”

Over the past three decades, the AFSC’s ideology has remained essentially unchanged. It still makes occasional nods toward religion and theology, but essentially, its beliefs and activities are entirely secular and entirely conventional on the far-Left. It opposed U.S. intervention in Somalia and claims today that “economic hardship” rather than “ideology” drives the Somalian civil war pitting Islamist terrorists against the federal government. It partially justified Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait by citing the former’s war debts and opposed the American-led response. In one case, AFSC members even volunteered to act as human shields in the event of an American attack.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was cast in similar terms, as yet another American crime that followed years of murderous sanctions. Saddam Hussein is barely mentioned by the organization, and one simply would not know from their description of the war that he was a tyrant personally responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, or that his regime had pursued weapons of mass destruction. The AFSC’s policy towards Iran is similar, demanding the removal of sanctions and dismissing concerns about Iranian nuclear weapons.

Today the group operates collective farms in North Korea and supports a network of Syrians who, in their words, “believe in nonviolence as a means of achieving freedom, equality, dignity, and mutual coexistence to be one community of citizens in all its sects and identities.” Saddest of all, the AFSC’s once-formidable relief and aid efforts are now strictly limited, replaced by an absolute faith in the power of rhetoric and protest to alter behavior. And it is these weapons that the AFSC has now turned against the Jewish state.
The AFSC’s strange and often hypocritical combination of ideology and theology, pacifism and support for violent movements, has marked its attitude toward Israel for many years. But the organization was not always actively hostile toward Israel or Zionism, and its relationship to the Israeli-Arab conflict has been a long and complex one.

The Quaker movement itself has a long historical relationship with the land of Israel. Quakers traveled to then-Palestine as early as the 1650s in order to undertake missionary and educational projects, and like many Protestant sects, they were especially active throughout the Middle East during the second half of the 19th century.

Their activities were mainly confined to the Middle East’s Christian communities. As far as the Jews were concerned, the Quakers shared the supersessionist theology of most American Protestant denominations of the time. This theological position deemphasized the Jewish connection to the Holy Land and derided the Jews as a people forsaken by God. As a result of their pacifism, however, the Quakers were generally not hostile toward the Jews. But Zionism represented a direct challenge to supersessionist theology, and many of the Protestant missionary and aid groups opposed the movement and supported Arab nationalism. The Quakers, for the most part, stayed neutral on the subject, although Quaker institutions in Palestine itself and individual Palestinian Quakers became leading advocates of Arab nationalism and fervent anti-Zionists.

By the time of Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, the AFSC was at the height of its international prominence. In December 1948, the group joined the International Committee of the Red Cross and the League of Red Cross Societies in order to provide relief to Palestinian refugees. The AFSC’s area of operation was the Gaza Strip, and during almost 18 months in the field it did an exemplary job. The organization provided food, set up schools and clinics, and faced down the Egyptian military. Unlike any other relief organization at the time or since, the AFSC conducted an accurate census and reduced its rolls of Palestinian refugees. It also rooted out fraud and corruption, and kept costs under control. And despite their pacifism, the AFSC learned to be what it described as “hard boiled” with the Egyptians, the refugees, and the international community in general.


The AFSC has been at the forefront of the Palestinian solidarity movement since the beginning.

But by the end of 1949, it was clear to the AFSC leadership that the refugees would accept no solution to their predicament but repatriation to their former homes in what was now Israel. Barring that, they demanded to remain on permanent international relief. Even vocational education was considered suspect. In the minds of the refugees, improved job skills could result in them being resettled elsewhere.

At the same time, it was clear to the AFSC that even if the refugees did accept resettlement, no Arab state would accept them. The only possible solution would be political, not economic. And such a solution did not seem likely in the near future. To its credit, the AFSC could not countenance participating in an open-ended relief program, which it believed would intensify the “moral degeneration” of the refugees and the degradation of their skills, self-reliance, and self-respect.

As a result, the AFSC withdrew from Gaza in early 1950, turning its responsibilities over to the United Nations organization UNRWA. For more than 60 years since, the AFSC’s warnings about the detrimental effects of open-ended relief programs have gone unheeded, whether by UNRWA or by any of its international patrons, including the United States. Today, Palestinians view relief and eventual repatriation (the “right of return”) as absolute rights. And the Arab states, with the exception of Jordan, remain steadfast in their refusal to do anything except warehouse Palestinians in permanent refugee camps.

The refugee program was also, in effect, the last time the AFSC acted with formal neutrality in regard to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its interests at the time were purely humanitarian, and it did not take an explicit or official political stance in favor of one side or another. This would soon undergo a radical and permanent change.
Throughout the 1960s and especially after the 1967 Six Day War, the AFSC began to take a more explicit and fervent pro-Palestinian stance, applying its growing radicalism and willingness to accommodate the use of violence to the Middle East conflict. As the 1970s saw the rise of Palestinian terrorism as a major source of global violence, the AFSC began to take a disturbingly understanding approach to the issue. A 1972 AFSC pamphlet, Nonviolence: Not First For Export told its readers:
Violence is expressed in the agony of millions of men, women and children who in varying degrees suffer hunger, poverty, ill-health, lack of education, non-acceptance by the fellowmen. It is compounded by the slights and insults of rampant injustice, of exploitation, of police brutality, of a thousand indignities from dawn to dusk and through the night.

In the context of such “structural violence,” the pamphlet continued, “before we deplore terrorism it is essential for us to recognize fully and clearly whose ‘terrorism’ came first, so that we can assess what is cause and what is effect.”

It was clear enough that, in regard to Israel the AFSC had no doubts about whose “terrorism” came first. The pamphlet expressed, for example, deep understanding toward the Palestinian Fedayeen—“those who sacrifice themselves”—terrorists whose main purpose was to infiltrate Israel and kill civilians. Indeed, it came close to regarding terrorism as a legitimate form of “sacrifice.”

Another pamphlet also more or less endorsed the Palestinian “right of return,” which if implemented would result in the effective destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. “That the Arab governments,” it said,
Cannot resettle Palestinian refugees in more or less permanent situations against their will should be obvious. Moreover, both the refugees and the host governments have been constantly haunted by the fear that successful resettlement would help the Israelis and the world to forget the injustice done to the Palestinians and to accept a large-scale fait accompli.

Perhaps making up for lost time, the AFSC’s anti-Israel activities began to intensify. In 1973, the AFSC called for a U.S. embargo on arms and other aid to Israel, and in 1975 adopted “a formal decision to make the Middle East its major issue.” It quickly opened an office in Israel, installed specialized staff members at regional offices in the U.S., and began advocating for the Palestinians in Israeli and international courts. Israeli officials quickly discovered, however, that the new AFSC representative in Jerusalem was attempting to organize on behalf of the PLO. Only the threat of a negative PR campaign from the AFSC leadership prevented the representative—who was not a Quaker—from being expelled.

That the AFSC’s newfound passion for the Palestinian cause was beginning to undermine its commitment to its own ideals was depressingly clear at a 1977 conference that sought to bring Israelis and Palestinians together. Despite supposedly seeking for reconciliation and harmony, the conference in fact became an emotionally manipulative assault on the Israeli participants. One observer noted that
A spokesman for the Arab-American university graduates not only blamed Israel for the Palestinian diaspora but said that by arming the Christians, Israel created a Palestinian Auschwitz at Tal Zaatar. The applause was loud and sustained. The AFSC moderator asked that the usual question-answer period be suspended. He called for one minute of silence so that the audience might “feel” the horrors that were so vividly described.

In another session,
Jewish participants were asked to tolerate some anti-Semitic remarks in order to keep the lines of communication open. It was argued that Palestinians cannot be expected to be understanding or asked to cool their anger until justice was achieved. Instead we must concentrate on erasing stereotypes including the one that associates the PLO with terrorism.

The AFSC organizers later treated the Jewish and Israeli participants to a “social evening predominantly devoted to the singing of Hebrew songs and dancing the hora.”

Such displays of bad faith and emotional blackmail became depressingly commonplace. A participant in a 1975 Quaker mission, for example, recounted how his group had
Visited Yad Vashem and Ramallah Friends Meeting in the same day. Some cried in Yad Vashem while others questioned the psychological validity of preserving this bitter memory. Later we attended the Friends Meeting in occupied Ramallah, joined hands and sang one of the few permitted protest songs—We Shall Overcome. All of us were shaken, some to open weeping, by the experience.

By 1977, the AFSC was careening dangerously close to outright anti-Semitism and “replacement theology”; they now appeared to believe that the Palestinians were the “new Jews.” As one member put it, “Now Israelis are making Jews out of Palestinians. In the Palestinians, I recognize my Jews.”

Such sentiments stem from a religious foundation of Christian anti-Semitism: The idea that the Jews are no longer the “real” Jews, but have been superseded by Christianity, which is “the Israel of the spirit.” This theology has only become more prominent among Quakers in recent years.
The AFSC has moved ever closer to the Palestinian cause since the 1970s. Today, this is expressed through fieldwork, lobbying, and activism, in particular through the BDS movement. The AFSC also helps organize Palestinian groups involved in civil disobedience in the West Bank, and has recently cosponsored a conference in Tel Aviv advocating for the Palestinian “right of return.”

And as it has become more and more extreme, the AFSC has moved further from its original ideas, which it now deploys almost wholly as quasi-religious platitudes. It speaks of the Quaker “spirit of love,” its even-handedness, and its commitment to non-violence. Yet it almost never criticizes the Palestinian Authority or Hamas for their violations of these principles, whether through terrorism, incitement, or an outright refusal to accept a peace agreement with Israel. It has called, for example, for an end to divisions between Hamas and Fatah in order to carry out a united struggle against Israel, even though Hamas is an openly anti-Semitic organization that has yet to recognize Israel’s right to exist in any form. In regard to Hamas’ indiscriminate use of rockets against Israeli civilians, the AFSC simply notes that “it is important to look at the firing of rockets by Palestinian armed groups in context,” since this it is “intertwined” with “ongoing Israeli military actions in Gaza.” Whether or not this is in comportment with the Quaker spirit of love is left unmentioned.

Indeed, it often seems that the AFSC makes every possible effort to deflect attention from Palestinian violence and other abuses, claiming that “acts of physical violence gain attention, but the daily nonviolent resistance by Palestinians against the structural violence of the occupation goes unnoticed”; nor does any of the AFSC’s literature on U.S. aid to Israel and the Palestinian Authority mention the billions of dollars in aid stolen by Palestinian leaders.

The group also discounts any possibility that the Palestinians could have any responsibility for the failure to reach a peace agreement. In a 2012 letter to Congress, the Quaker’s lobbying group, the Friends Committee for National Legislation, claimed that “there have been no meaningful negotiations since at least 2001,” which it blamed on “the U.S.’s failure to hold Israel accountable for its continued expropriation of Palestinian land and natural resources.” That the Palestinians had, in fact, been offered peace in 2000 and turned it down, and then launched a terrorist war, was left completely unmentioned.


BDS advocates from Code Pink, which frequently partners with the AFSC, protest Ahava products outside a store. Photo: Code Pink / flickr

Nor is this hostility confined to the issue of the Palestinians. A lobbyist from the same group wrote in March 2013 that a congressional pledge to back Israel if it found it necessary to attack the Iranian nuclear program was a “Back Door to War with Iran Resolution,” and claimed “thousands of activists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbied every senator’s office in support” of the resolution, which “lays the groundwork for—a U.S./Israel attack on Iran.” In fact, it did nothing of the kind, merely promising American support for Israel in case of an Israeli military strike against Iran. Unsurprisingly, the AFSC is among the most fervent supporters of the international community’s recent accord with Iran, which Israel has strongly opposed.

The AFSC appears to regard its support for the BDS movement as equally righteous. Its advocacy of BDS is “contextualized by Quakers and AFSC’s long support for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions as economic tactics that appeal to human conscience and change behavior.” The group relates this to its opposition to slavery, segregation, apartheid, and other reprehensible phenomena. But it also betrays itself by claiming to support, in accordance with its “principles and history,” all “nonviolent efforts to realize peace and justice in Israel and Palestine,” even though this is demonstrably not the case, and has not been for years, given the organization’s support for Palestinian groups that both advocate and practice extreme forms of violence.

To the extent that it still retains some religious character, the AFSC is fully aligned with the most radically pro-Palestinian Christian denominations. The Quakers are members of the World Council of Churches, which played a major role in issuing “A Moment of Truth,” otherwise known as the Kairos Palestine document. This theological statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict expresses a form of “liberation theology” that casts the Palestinians as the “new Jews.” Palestinians are, in effect a sacred, chosen people and a moral force struggling against oppression. In this case, the oppressor is the Jews, whose covenant is considered obsolete and whose religion is believed to be outdated if not barbaric.

Indeed, the Kairos Palestine document explicitly speaks of Jesus as “casting a new light on the Old Testament, on … themes such as the promises, the election, the people of God, and the land.” This “new light,” of course, constituted the claim that the Jews were no longer “elected,” and that Christians were now “the people of God.” This unreconstructed supersessionism may be one of the reasons the document refers to the creation and existence of Israel as one of the great injustices of history, to be corrected by “ending the occupation and establishing justice,” which will help lead to the “Kingdom of God, a kingdom of justice, peace and dignity.”

This messianic anti-Zionism may be one of the reasons the AFSC has adopted a view on the conflict that, despite protestations otherwise, effectively negates Israel’s right to exist. Indeed, the AFSC’s own manifesto on the conflict, Principles for a Just and Lasting Peace in the Middle East, is described by the organization as supporting the “implementation of refugees’ right of return.” This would result not in justice, peace, or dignity, but rather the end of the Jewish state.
Such beliefs and activities are a tragic betrayal of the AFSC’s own history and religious origins. It may be that a movement like the Quakers, which has seen its numbers dwindle along with other liberal Protestant denominations, sees anti-Zionism as a last resort; a movement with powerful emotional appeal on which it can draw in order to maximize its power. If so, then it has undone a great deal of the good it once did, and substituted hypocrisy and bad faith instead.

Once a byword for humanitarianism and faith, it has now become, in effect, a brand—one on which the AFSC can trade as it exploits the putative neutrality and pacifism it stands for in order to advance hostility toward Israel and, with its promotion of the “right of return,” an end to Israel itself.

In the end, the AFSC’s story reflects the tensions between pacifism and politics, between aid work and political activism, and between neutrality in the Middle East conflict and religious anti-Zionism. It demonstrates that small religious movements are susceptible to hijacking by radicals, and suggests that pacifism may inevitably engender its opposite. The organizations slide has been a long one, and at the moment it shows no sign of or interest in reversing it. Today, only the “inner light” of individual Quakers will bring about change.



Banner Photo: Fellowship of Reconciliation / flickr

When Did the Quakers Stop Being Friends? / Asaf Romirowsky and Alexander H. Joffe


Ann Morrell of the American Friends Service Committee meets with Iranian schoolgirls during a 2009 trip to that country. Photo: Fellowship of Reconciliation / flickr




BDS advocates protest the opening of a Max Brenner chocolate store in Parramatta, Australia. Photo: Kate Ausburn / flickr




George Fox, the founder of the Quaker movement. Photo credit: Victuallers / Wikimedia




BDS advocates from Code Pink, which frequently partners with the AFSC, protest Ahava products outside a store. Photo: Code Pink / flickr




OverlaysSHARETWEETPreviousNext

Everyday Prophets - Friends Journal

Everyday Prophets - Friends Journal



Everyday Prophets


Reviewed by Laura Jackson

April 1, 2017

By Margery Post Abbott. James Backhouse Lecture, 2016. 52 pages. $14/pamphlet; $8/eBook.
Buy from QuakerBooks

The two words in this title seem so antithetical—one so ordinary, one so formidable. Yet it is just this perceived incompatibility that provides both the space and the energy for Abbott to explore what prophetic ministry has meant and might continue to mean within Quaker history and tradition.

According to Abbott, the task of prophetic ministry, what she calls “the Big Picture,” is to nurture and evoke a consciousness or a perception that provides an alternative to those of the dominant culture around us. When, through our own experience, we come to see violence, suffering, or injustice with new eyes, we may find ourselves called to share and act on this revelation. But how do we find the courage and the humility to follow the guidance of our spirit? And what role, Abbot asks, can our meetings play in nurturing an individual’s “calling” when, within both the member and the meeting, “fear rises or when the comfort of what one once was lures us to inaction”? How do we listen each other into fuller life and trust that the Spirit is at work?

Abbott fears that for Friends, the willingness to be visible may be slipping away. We have grown fearful to share within our meetings callings that at first seem incomplete or unformed. And, while recognizing the value of Quakers’ “cherished list” of informants for ethical decision making—simplicity, peace, integrity, community, and equality—Abbott finds these insufficient in themselves to embrace fully either the source or the power of an individual’s call to “prophetic action.” We can be opened more deeply and with greater vulnerability to the voice of the spirit within, she writes, when we feel ourselves part of a community that is “carrying a vision of the New Creation, the Kingdom of God, that is being formed on earth.”

Interspersed throughout Everyday Prophets are stories taken from interviews Abbott conducted with individual Friends about their experiences listening for and trying to faithfully follow the voice of “deep spiritual guidance.” One Australian woman is called to persuade those of Anglo heritage to “pay rent” to Aboriginal people for use of their land; a lesbian couple from an evangelical yearly meeting whose Faith and Practice condemned such a commitment, remain present in their community; an older man arrives at an understanding that, under divine guidance, every aspect of our lives has the potential to be ministry and each act, however small, can be prophetic. There is no hierarchy of prophetic action, only a measure of faithfulness to the call.

Abbott is an experienced sailor and finds in the skills required to sail her small boat through rough seas apt metaphor for those embarking on a prophetic journey. While our boat may be small, the sea so large, and our journey unmapped, we do not have to fear being lost at sea. Many of our Quaker practices and beliefs, such as our direct relationship with the god or Spirit, a comfort with expectant silence, trust in continuing revelation, and practice in waiting on “way to open,” are available to help us “right ourselves and find the course that is ours to follow.” Each of us who chooses to raise the sails and ride the “voice of the wind” that calls us across the vast openness of the sea can, according to Abbott, provide witness to another way of being that is grounded in “beauty not fear.”

I plan to recommend that our meeting read Everyday Prophets, and I believe that we will be enriched and emboldened by reflecting together on the life of the Spirit in our community. How are members inhibited from or encouraged to share what we experience as a call from the Spirit? Is the Spirit alive in our meeting and are we willing to step out of our comfort zones to explore its movement among us? What are the ways we resist seeing the world around us with new eyes? How do we respond to an individual’s struggle to understand what the Light is revealing to her?

Margery Post Abbott is a member of the Religious Society of Friends and has served as clerk of Friends Committee on National Legislation. Her monthly meeting has formally minuted its support of her ministry as a writer and teacher on Quaker spirituality and history. Everyday Prophets was delivered as a lecture at the 2016 national gathering of Quakers in Australia.

 Order online from quakersaustralia.info or ipoz.biz/quaker-publications.

Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)

The Anti-War: Peace Finds the Purpose of a Peculiar People - Friends Journal

The Anti-War: Peace Finds the Purpose of a Peculiar People - Friends Journal
The Anti-War: Peace Finds the Purpose of a Peculiar People


Reviewed by Paul Buckley

April 1, 2017

By Douglas Gwyn. Inner Light Books, 2016. 208 pages. $30/hardcover; $17.50/paperback.
Buy from QuakerBooks

Doug Gwyn may have given more thought to the environment that incubated the earliest Friends than any other Quaker. In The Anti-War’s two interrelated essays, he digs down to the roots of our peace testimony and lays bare the ways in which it has evolved over the past 350 years. Each section is built on a section of scripture. The first essay, “Peace Finds the Purpose of a Peculiar People,” examines 1 Peter 2:4–17—one of the sources of early Friends’ claim to be a “peculiar people”—the second, “Militant Peacemaking in the Manner of Friends,” explores the significance of the Book of Revelation for the Children of Light. Don’t let yourself be put off by his use of the Bible; it illuminates the unique calling we have to model a society that is more than merely against war. Gwyn demonstrates that Friends are—or could be—the Anti-War.

First, a couple of definitions. In the King James Version, I Peter 2:9 is translated, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people . . .” In contemporary versions, instead of “a peculiar people” you will find “a people belonging to God.” The first Friends believed this verse referred to them. They belonged to God. They were called by God to fulfill a peculiar (i.e., God-chosen) role in this world—to live in peaceful relationships with each other and the rest of creation. This meant not merely forswearing violence; it was a life of total covenant faithfulness with Creator and all creatures—a model of interaction that is by its nature completely devoid of force and coercion. Violence does not have to be weeded out. It cannot grow in this soil.

Today, pacifism is frequently propounded as an ethical imperative—a superior philosophy that would yield practical benefits if only everyone would adopt it. This is very different from the situation of both the first Christians and the first Quakers. They embraced the consequences of covenant faithfulness. The surrounding cultures knew implicitly that this utterly rejected the bases of their civilization. Both peoples were rejected and persecuted, becoming internal exiles in their homes. “Their plea was no naïve plea to ‘give peace a chance.’ It was an apocalyptic unmasking of the machinations of worldly power, corruption, injustice, and violence . . . and advanced through revolutionary patience and suffering.”

The Anti-War is not something unseen to wish for. It is not practical or an effective plan to achieve a realizable goal. It is an alternative template for living in a society that is blind to alternatives. It will puzzle and offend others. It does not react to each new provocation with thoughtful and relevant answers. It dares us to stand still in the Inward Light until we can see clearly.

I read this book in September 2016 and again after the November elections. Seeing the reactions of my Friends to those elections made it clear the degree to which many Quakers identify building the kingdom of heaven with the platform of one American political party. This book can be an inoculation against that condition. It reveals the spiritual and religious bases of our testimony against war. It can help you find your purpose as one member of a peculiar people.

Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)