Harry's Place

Thanks, David T.

Even if you have been forced to eat your words, I think you will agree that it’s in a good cause.

I now intend to write to the Friends to thank them for standing by their principles.

Very best,

MITNAGED

Thank goodness for that. Any Quakers reading, I offer the same apologies as David for my previous comments which may not have been in the right ordering.

Muggsie, even to you.

It’s good to have a victory for a change. Perhaps now Quaker groups in other cities can be persuaded to look further than the ends of their noses when asked by groups with less than honest agendas for rooms to hold meetings/spread propaganda.

Mitnaged, good work!

I would just like to point out that Nixon was a quaker

I vaguely know a UK Quaker who said that it was distinct from US Quaker(ism?)? Perhaps that explains why Tricky Dick was no pacifist?

“I now intend to write to the Friends to thank them for standing by their principles.”

Well done. MITNAGED. I will do the same, as is only right, seeing that I wrote to them last week to object.

I,d feel more comfortable had The Quakers and not the Palestinian organisation cancelled the event.

I fail to understand how this cancellation reflects kindly on The Quakers seeings it wasn’t them who actually cancelled the affair.

Nice one, though if we do need to have words with the quakers again I’d advise against calling them insincere, hypocrite etc. and aim at nudging them into self examination instead, least if you want them to change their behaviour that is, if you want to groove on calling them names instead go right ahead I guess. Sure you all know this anyway really… Except morgoth.

Good.

Yes, (some sections) of US Quakers are much more like mainstream protestant churches than what you would find in the UK – they sometimes even have ministers and stuff, and services with hymns and a homily and so on.

My experience of Friends in Scotland (corporately and individually), for what that is worth, is that they tend to be inter alia, slow-moving (certainly not a bad thing), rather pedantic, and inclined to see the best in people or groups until conclusively proven otherwise, rather than insincere or hypocritical.

I honestly couldn’t see how they could NOT know about the backgrounds of the people they were hosting.

I appreciate, now, that perhaps not everybody follows this issue as closely as I do. Others, more patient and sensible than me, sat down with the Quakers and provided them with the evidence that I assumed they knew. They sat down themselves with the pro-Hamas/Hezbollah groups and verified it. That is all anybody could ask them to do.

So, I have learnt a valuable lesson

Good news – a win

David T – They sat down themselves with the pro-Hamas/Hezbollah groups and verified it. That is all anybody could ask them to do.

I was not aware that Quakers led a monastical life in the UK. If they don’t and claim still ‘unknown facts’ …………….

I’m not quite sure that a lesson has been learnt here other than that possible exposure can work wonders.

Well hooray! I also emailed various people at Friends House and Westminster Meeting and – eventually – got the same reply.

Apology accepted Alec – and I apologise for my earlier tone, but as I just said to David in email: I stand by what I said – albeit in rather too prickly tone – in the HP threads: as soon as you start to think “but isn’t it OBVIOUS”, it’s a clear sign that it is not obvious and needs to be meticulously, slowly and politely spelled out.

There’s another lesson too: Quakers take a very long time to do anything but once they do, it’s usually the right thing :)

It occurs to me that the Quakers were not hypocritical but rather naive.

I agree with Lily – let’s hope that this will set a precedent.

The unmitigated creepiness in all this, of course, is IUPFP’s blatant refusal to renounce their support for violence.

That should sound alarm bells far and wide.

I knew very little about IUPFP although the “About us” section on its website at http://www.iupfp.com/news_detail.php?id=319 speaks volumes and its objectives are very reminiscent of what is written in the Hamas Charter. Given those, it’s hardly surprising that it didn’t want to opt for peaceful resistance or any negotiation – that would have been too much like selling out Hamas.

Feh! Like they didn’t know.

Nixon was of a Friends Church in California which, as Ven says, may have pastors and the like. Most African Quakers hail from this tradition, and there was a crossover in Louisiana with the KKK.

Many US Meetings are, however, unprogrammed as in Britain and Ireland.

Smedley Butler and HC Hoover were also Quakers.

they make lovely porridge oats, too.

I am very heartened by this response. After a dispiriting time, my faith in the Quakers has been restored.

I don’t see why anyone should eat any words, least of all David. But for his principled behaviour, who knows what the Quakers would have done? Indeed, but for all the concerted emails and telephone calls to FH, I very much doubt that this meeting would have been cancelled, because they are unlikely to have doubted the meeting organisers’ motives (naivery, or whatever. But looking at the track record over the last 3 months or so …). I received the same email myself today. It has taken several months of persistently chipping away at FH’s teflon coating to get this far. So no, I don’t think anyone needs to eat any words.

Quaker oats are nothing to do with Quakers.

venichka is correct as to the US quakers, with the important caveat that the bulk of meeting houses in the northeast are traditional quakers, and that form of quakerism experienced a bit of a revival following the sixties. So some quaker groups are sort of like methodists with really stripped down churches, others are unreconstructed and only reluctantly abandoned “plain speech” (thees and thou, etc.) and others are more or less hippies with a bit of structure.

After 13 years of quaker education, I feel fairly well qualified to say that traditional quakerism is (a) well intentioned, generally intelligent and a pleasure to associate with and (b) horribly naive at an almost structural level — in my day they made excuses for the Soviet Union, today they make excuses for the Taiban and Hamas. Its what they do.

P.S. Quakers abhor violence, but have been known to make an exception when Nixon is brought up. He was never a regular worshipper, to put it mildly.

Gordon, that’s disappointing. I had assumed some global Quaker stranglehold on the oat processing industry. That’ll teach me, I suppose.

David – since that date is now free in the Friends House diary, perhaps they’d let us have it cheaply for an impromptu Pro-Iranian Democracy / Anti-Islamism meeting!

We can assure them that we don’t condone terrorism or violent “resistance”.

Thanks to all for your generosity to us Quakers.
Like someone said, anyway it’s good news !

Historically, Quakers were not always a pacifist group. They started out as a very militant, very vocal, group, quite supportive of revolutionary violence in the upheavals of the English Revolution. Their quietism and pacifism came later.

“Their quietism and pacifism came later.”

It’s somewhat easier to be a pacifist when you’re protected by the most powerful military force in the history of mankind.

I got a similar letter, too.

MITNAGED was quicker off the mark than I was in circulating it!

As MITNAGED said, it has created a precedent.

Uppty, what a good idea!

It’s not that great a letter or much of a victory really since the Quakers refer to “the occupation” and seemingly see opposing that “occupation” as perfectly fine so long as it is non violent.

In the current context that means that they do not accept Israel’s right to exist.

“that IUPFP does not embrace violence of any kind”

By these standards, only pacifists should be able to speak a Meeting House. That is, Quakers.

I think most members of British Parliament would be banned; as would the majority of British citizens.

What makes Hamas intolerable is their explicitly racist and genocidal agenda and their use of terrorism as a political tool.

Shmuel

“It’s somewhat easier to be a pacifist when you’re protected by the most powerful military force in the history of mankind. ”

Hardly.

The Society of Friends were mercilessly persecuted throughout much of their early history by the English (latterly British state). There were about 1000 Quakers in prison by 1657. George Fox, their founder, was repeatedly imprisoned for expressing his religious convictions. Like many other Nonconformists, Quakers emigrated in their droves to the New World to escape religious persecution.

Given that Nonconformists in general were rather badly treated between the 16th to mid 19th Century (along with Jews and Catholics) by the state, you must – of course – be alluding to the course of the last 100 years. If so, what you claim also stands for those other groups too… and it clearly does not.

OK ermintrude. To be more precise:

It’s somewhat easier to be a pacifist when you’re protected by the most powerful military force in the history of mankind and living in a liberal democracy.

My point still stands. I think my problem with Quakers is this: I find it rather hypocritical that Quakers recommend nonviolent means for others, many who live under the threat of authoritarian violence, while comfortably living in well-protected democracies. I also find it hypocritical that Quakers banned this particular organization after they failed a litmus test that most people would fail (including Quakers if they were being honest about living in a society where they themselves enjoy the benefits of state-controlled violence).

“If so, what you claim also stands for those other groups too… and it clearly does not”

What other groups? Jews and Catholics? But neither are dogmatic pacifists. I don’t understand your second point.

“In the current context that means that they do not accept Israel’s right to exist.”

I’m afraid that’s clearly bollocks. How unfortunate that some people are so keen to seek defeat out of a victory.

Whatever one’s view of the Israel-Palestine issue (and frankly, as someone who’s supportive of Israel’s security and its democracy, I find it hard to suggest that at some level there is not an occupation of the Palestinian Territories) you can hardly damn an ethnic group for engaging in non-violent struggle to achieve the legitimate aspiration of an independent state.

I’m not even bothered by Andy Murray’s defeat.

Shmuel –

What is wrong with being a pacifist, dogmatic or otherwise? I take it you have some objection?

My second point was:

Your claim was that Quakers could afford their “dogmatic pacifism” as a result of support or other succour from the British state. I showed that this support simply had not existed for much of the history of the Society of Friends.

I then went on to show that the British state was fairly prejudiced against Nonconformists, Catholics, Jews – indeed all non-Anglicans or Presbyterians – for much of the last 350 years. Again, this undermined your comment.

I apologise if I was not clear enough.

The Quakers are very much pacifists and David T is correct to eat his words.

The problem is not really the Quakers but those that try and abuse them by getting involved in their organisations and trying to influence policy.

An example of this is the American Friends Service Commitee (AFSC) that was founded by Quakers in the middle of the World War I. In his superb book, Peace & Revolution: The Moral Crisis of American Pacifism, Guenter Lewy explains how this particular was originally properly pacifist and refused to work with Communists.

As Lewy explains, during the Vietnam War the AFSC effectively joined the New Left. Whilst the Quakers have never supported violence there was a tendency within the AFSC to be very sympathetic of the aims, if not the violent methods of N.L.F. In November 1965 Russell Johnson, who had previously been a minister of the Universalist Church in Massachusetts, wrote an article for Liberation. In this article accepted that there was injustice caused by Imperialism and wondered how to relate revolutionary violence. He answered this by condemning it but adding something quite important. He said that it was at least as important, if not more important, to condemn the “violence of the status quo.” By this, he was referring to “Degradation, poverty, exploitation, famine, death of the innocent, etc., [which] are caused by existing political, economic and social conditions.”

With this statement he had made himself clear. He still rejected violence but he supported the aim of Ho Chi Minh. By January 1966 he said so explicitly: “I identify with and approve of the objectives of the revolutionary groups” in the developing world.

What occurred was that the AFSC could keep their commitment to non-violence and in effect support the NLF. They did this not by arguing for a cease-fire in Vietnam but for the U.S. to leave. A cease-fire, properly adhered to, would have led to peace between North and South Vietnam. Asking the US to leave would lead to a NLF victory, as it ultimately had after the US did leave. Moreover,the AFSC activists also focussed on stopping any aid to South Vietnam.

When Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, the AFSC felt able to say:

Both friends and foes must recognise that this remarkable man selflessly devoted his life to the causes of national independence and social reconstruction. His integrity and commitment have won the admiration and respect of the people of the world.

The World Peace Council (WPC) was a Communist front organisation that toed the line of Soviet policy. In the summer of 1965, Stewart Meachem, as head of the AFSC’s peace education division, went to Helsinki for a WPC sponsored meeting. He took the view that Friends could “engage in meaningful exchange with them.”

It should be made clear that whilst Lewy is highly critical of the activities of the AFSC, supporting “repressive Communist regimes all over the globe from Vietnam to Nicaragua” he is not critical of the Quakers for their pacifist position. Indeed, he laments “the waning influence of Quakers in the AFSC” by the mid 1970s and highlights a board member of the AFSC who said the following:

many non-quaker staff/committee people not only don’t share or even understand basic Quaker values but are at times impatient [with] or intolerant [of] them.

“What is wrong with being a pacifist, dogmatic or otherwise? I take it you have some objection?”

I’ve already outlined my objections to dogmatic pacifism above.

“Your claim was that Quakers could afford their “dogmatic pacifism” as a result of support or other succour from the British state. I showed that this support simply had not existed for much of the history of the Society of Friends.”

You showed that Quakers were treated badly in 17th C England as were other “Nonconformists.” In what way does this argue against the idea that it is easier to be a pacifist in a liberal democracy while afforded state protection?

I have a lot more respect for these 17C Quakers because their pacifism put them at risk. You are making my points for me while ignoring the ones I’ve already made.

A clear and simply put case against pacifism was made by Ayn Rand:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.*

*Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, (New York: Signet, 1964) pp. 126-127

Ayn Rand is very controversial for the views she expresses including those views that are very anti-religion.

I’m afraid that’s clearly bollocks. How unfortunate that some people are so keen to seek defeat out of a victory.

The point about the use of the term ‘occupation’ was well made. I was very uncomfortable with it, too.

Whatever one’s view of the Israel-Palestine issue (and frankly, as someone who’s supportive of Israel’s security and its democracy, I find it hard to suggest that at some level there is not an occupation of the Palestinian Territories)

‘as someone this’ and ‘as someone’ that. What a tired, tiresome cliche. The fact that you are ’supportive of Israel’s security and its democracy’ (how big of you! give yourself a pat on the back, mate!), has no bearing at all on the existence or otherwise of an ‘occupation’. You threw that it merely to sound off about how great a gyt you are.

There is no ‘occupation of the Palestinian Territories’ (with or without uppercase – sorry, uppercase doesn’t make them more real) because – how shall I put it – ‘Palestinian Territories’ do not exist.

you can hardly damn an ethnic group for engaging in non-violent struggle to achieve the legitimate aspiration of an independent state.

You are assuming quite a lot with no evidence. There is no ‘ethnic group’ involved, and talking about ‘legitimate aspiration of an independent state’ as though there was no argument about this aspiration, is a neat trick if you can get away with it. You can’t.

Now for a final trick, perhaps you want to tell us where this ‘non-violent’ struggle is taking place. In Sderot, perhaps?

Some wise people such as Ghandi have taken a different view with some success.
When we use force we often get it so wrong that perhaps it is better to renounce violence altogether.
And seek different ways forward.

‘If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.*’

And yet despite the persecution outlined above, the Quaker’s have ultimately prospered and are more highly regarded than most religions. I’m no pacifist, but the Quaker’s are clearly playing the long game and playing it well.

“When we use force we often get it so wrong that perhaps it is better to renounce violence altogether.
And seek different ways forward.”

Yeah, we should have just let the Nazis wade ashore at Dover in 1940. I’m sure together we could have found a different way forward.

I have philosophical and ethical objections to pacifism and so called pacifists rarely live up to their creed in practice. Lord Soper was a gentle pacifist but when he was pursued by a mad woman who harrassed him he took out a restraining order – which clearly could be enforced with violence if necessary on the part of the Police.

However, no political creed is without its contradictions and I think we have to honour the Quakers for often adopting the ethical line when it was very unpopular. It was Quakers who first campaigned against slavery. It was Quakers who did much to help the victims of the Third Reich.

Shmuel

“You showed that Quakers were treated badly in 17th C England as were other “Nonconformists.” In what way does this argue against the idea that it is easier to be a pacifist in a liberal democracy while afforded state protection?”

Apart from the fact that I was not arguing against your general point, latterly made here: – “it is easier to be a pacifist in a liberal democracy while afforded state protection.”

I was arguing against your particular example (the Quakers) – where it was factually incorrect to claim (as you have) that the Quakers (in particular, NB) had an easy time under a putatively liberal state (late 17th Century England, liberal?!?) or that they benefited from any state protection – when the Quakers (in particular, NB) did not in fact in any way so benefit.

It is not my problem that you fail to distinguish between general and particular examples, Schmuel; nor that your knowledge of 17th – 19th Century English history is so limited.

As an example, there is no need for the scare marks around Nonconformist – it is a perfectly acceptable expression for those Christian communions beyond the pale of the Established (Anglican) Church.

Nice doing business with you – and I am so glad I managed to prove some point you were trying to make; despite the fact that it entirely escapes me still.

Cheers.

Gordon Bennett. I rather added the point in order to forestall the kind of cretinous nudge nudge wink wink stuff from ultra-right thickos like you.

You are frothing muppet, and there is no requirement for me to prove my pristine hardman tendencies to you, you twat.

Now fuck off and don’t insult my (impeccably “Decent”) intelligence.

On other matters, Shmuel is right of course that pacifism is essentially a selfish idea – a manfiestation of the “free rider” problem. If more people in the West took Quaker views, the world would be a rather worse place.

Good News. Well done to those who contacted Friends House. Well done to Friends House for putting principle before income.
“You shall be known by the company you keep”

http://www.quakerweb.org.uk/qfp/qfpchapter24.html 24.21 for an example of some robust 17th century quaker thinking on pacifism. Course it’s not right to cherrypick the peace testimony but it’s still in the book.
Afraid I don’t think quakers wrestle with the contradictions of pacifism the way they should any more, it’s become a comfy, unthinking refuge.
fh should imo be able let the hall to non pacifist groups. The yes/no question about violence imo should follow searching questions about the group’s objectives.

Now that IUPFP have admitted that when they say “resistance” they mean violent resistance, there is another question: whether their meeting, wherever it takes place, will break the laws against organising a meeting to support proscribed terrorist organisations, and against glorifying terrorism.

Pacifists are parasites, albeit sweet ones.

The Quakers believe “that there is that of God in every man”. They’re theologically obliged to make excuses for maniacs.

Jo -with all due respect, if Israel had taken the Ghandi approach, there would have been no Israel as of about 15/05/1948.
There is a chasm of difference between trying to acheive a political aim, as Ghandi was doing, in a non-violent manner, and defending one’s very existance against a military onslaught. The British were not trying to kill or expel every last Indian from the sub-continent, in contrast to the aims of the Arab nations in 1948 and subsequently.
It is also worth remembering that Israeli occupation of any territory one cares to mention was ALWAYS a direct result of Arab violence. Had Jordan not joined the other Arab countries in the Six Day war, the area of Judea and Samaria would be under Jordanian occupation to this day.

The notion that there are no Palestinian Territories and therefore no occupation is a remarkable one. You’ve certainly shown your colours tonight.

I have a lot more respect for these 17C Quakers because their pacifism put them at risk.

In fact, the opposite is true. in the 17th century, there were a fair number of nonconformist groups that were pretty open in their insurectionism, and therefore could expect to be suppressed. The Peace Testimony – it has been argued – was an attempt to prove to ‘authority’ that they were not such a group.

In other words, it was not a challenge to the State’s monopoly of power: quite the opposite. It was an expression of theological quietism.

Michael Ezra’s piece was particularly interesting. What seems to have happened, is that the political organs of Quakerism have been inflitrated by those who are anything but disciples of George Fox.

I don’t think there is a contradiction between Israel’s right to exist and the fact of there being an occupation, and I don’t have any issue with the Quakers allowing for groups who wish to non-violently oppose it. Not that such are any more than misguided, considering that the occupation is a reluctant one, and such that IMHO the Israeli public in its majority would now be happy to relinquish were it possible to do so safely. But with the sea only a couple of miles at my back, and the occupied territories of he west bank in my sight, only some 10 miles eastward – I can only wish that the Quakers would infect my neighbours with some of their pacifism.

I support anybody who non violently opposes it.

Quaker; Are you a murderer?
Murderer;No.
Quaker;Come in and hold your meeting.
Quaker; Are you a murderer?
Murderer; Yes.
Quaker; Oh dear. Could you possibly hold your meeting elsewhere?
Naivete has its limits.

Israelinurse –

Generally true, but I think one could make a case for saying that the invasion of Sinai by Israel in 1956 was not directly in response to aggression. It was a pre-emptive strike.

I agree that Gandhi is morally bankrupt in the face of truly murderous violence. His notorious advice to the Jews facing Nazi persecution was that they should commit mass suicide – which shows he didn’t understand Hitler or Nazism.

David T

“Michael Ezra’s piece was particularly interesting. What seems to have happened, is that the political organs of Quakerism have been inflitrated by those who are anything but disciples of George Fox.”

Spot on.

Fuck the quakers. Parasitical free-loading scum.

Field -as I recall we withdrew from Sinai in 1956 under British pressure.

@shatterface

I quoted Ayn Rand as saying the following:

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

In response, you said:

And yet despite the persecution outlined above, the Quaker’s have ultimately prospered and are more highly regarded than most religions. I’m no pacifist, but the Quaker’s are clearly playing the long game and playing it well.

I am not sure you see the point that Rand is making. She specifically comments upon a pacifist “society.” The Quakers living, for example, in the USA or UK are not living in such a society. They are living in a society that contains non pacifist police forces who keep law and order. The Quakers benefit and are protected by this. If you took away the police forces, one wonders if the Quakers would have prospered.

@David T,

Thank you for your kind words.

Quakers and other pacifists do well in societies that have police forces that are prepared to use violence to defend them.

There is a Christian pacifist principle that you may not kill your enemy because you should love your neighbour as yourself. It is possibly such principles that led A. J.Muste to say at a Quaker service in 1940:

If I can’t love Hitler, I can’t love at all.

Whilst this may have been said in the spirit of pure pacifism, there were those pacifist organisations that became apologists for Hitler. An example is the British pacifist organisation, the Peace Pledge Union (PPU). As David Lukowitz* makes clear, by the outbreak of WWII the PPU had close to 130,000 members. They included some very eminent people such as Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, a number of M.P.s, members of the House of Lords and various respected members of the clergy. Lukowitz comments:

In 1938 the [Peace Pledge] Union published a pamphlet …[which] stated that ’I see no reason why Germany should not have colonies and hegemony too’, and went on to say that ’we welcome the idea of a United States of Europe, even though that Europe be policed by Germans’. Another pamphlet published called upon Britain ’to win German friendship by a surrender of the African territories taken from Germany.’

Peace News was the weekly paper of the PPU and as Lukowitz comments in relation to the Czech crisis in 1938:

Peace News gave fairly strong support to Germany’s case. In August and September it ran a series of articles disparaging the Czech people and state, while the anonymous author of the weekly column on ’Public Affairs’ consistently took a strong line against the Czechs. He maintained that the German Government had a ’moral case’, that the boundaries of Czechoslovakia were unjust, and that the country had ignored its minority problem; he praised Hitler’s work for peace and asked for ’some appreciation of Germany’s contribution’.

Yet again, in 1939, the PPU were apologists for Hitler’s venture into Poland. And so it goes on. One may not be surprised by the following observation of Lukowitz:

In July [1939] the Research Department of the Economic League issued a memorandum, published in the Daily Telegraph, asserting that the PPU was being used, consciously or unconsciously, as a channel for Nazi propaganda.

On August 11, 1939, Stuart Morris, Chairman of the PPU was quoted in an interview with the News Chronicle as saying:

I am all for giving a great deal more away [to Hitler]. I don’t think that Mr. Chamberlain has really started yet on any serious appeasement.

Whilst I in no way agree with everything she said, I have some sympathy with the British Philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe who argued that pacifism was both a “false doctrine” and a “harmful doctrine.”

*David C. Lukowitz, “British Pacifists and Appeasement: The Peace Pledge Union,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol.9, No.1, 1974, pp.115-127

Sorry, I cannot commend the Quakers for finally doing the right thing when it is quite clear that they only arranged the cancellation in order not to be shown up as the hypocrites they really are.

Maybe I am being unfair and the Quakers in the UK are all blessed angels, but in the United States they are reflexively anti-Israel and usually anti-Semitic. They are perfectly happy to act as beards for violent anti-Semites, all of the time proclaiming that they themselves are pacifists. Apparently aiding in the murder of Jewish children doesn’t count as violence.

And let us drop the ridiculous claim of “naivite.” The soi-disant Friends know exactly what they are doing. They have sympathy for everyone except Jews. There is a name for such people.

There is a name for such people.

I’m partial to “wankers”

Thanks to David for his original generosity.
Perhaps the extent of his generosity has caused something of a back-lash though.
I too don’t feel there is any need for him to ” eat his words ”
As Anat says above ” the Quakers are finally doing the right thing ”
As several people have said surely this is ” good news ”
There’s surely no need to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ( like Andy Murray ? )
Or for entirely gratuitous abuse ( such as ” the Quakers are free-loading scum ” )
That doesn’t really get us very far now does it ? ( In my best Nursery Teacher voice, I get a lot of practice with the children so please forgive if you find patronising, which Nursery did you go to by the way ? )
I don’t expect applause ( Alec and I and other forum friends can cheer loud enough together) but a little quiet appreciation that the right thing has been done at the last hour is encouraging.
Thanks again to David for opening this thread with such generosity and for all the reasonable voices that can celebrate with us at some good news.
” Be the change you want to see ”
Jo

Quite so, Jo.

There is a lot that still needs to be discussed within the Quakers about why this, and previous meetings, were booked in the first place.

And there is a lot that needs to be discussed among anti-extremists about how and why their message has been failing to get through.

I hope bridges can be built, as nonconformists like the Quakers are precisely the element within the peace movement that, being led by conscience and questioning, do NOT toe the left-liberal party line and are open to the broader message of anti-extremism, if you dont’ choose to see them as your enemy.

Anyone up for sending mocking e-mails to IUPFP?

http://www.iupfp.com/news_detail.php?id=316

Jo, meet Moggie. He’s 34 and a Satanist.

For all those throwing wild accusations at Friends House with comments such as “They have sympathy for everyone except Jews,” they should be aware of the following. The major Jewish holidays are the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur.) On these days, Friends House in London has been hired out to a synagogue in London to use as an an overflow service. To my knowledge, this has been the case for many years.

Jo, surely time will tell as to whether this decision will set a precedent that has all Friends’ Meeting Houses refusing to allow their premises to be used to spread hatred, or even to allow their courtyards to be used as collection points (as did the Friends in Manchester) for “We are all Hezbollah Now” banner carrying idiots from the Stop the War Coalition after the Lebanon war.

And to your “Be the change you want to see” I would add my own suggestion – that the Quakers themselves continue by following your advice.

Exactly true, Michael.

The lesson we all need to learn from this story is that Stop the War’s credentials are displayed clearly: it is not a peace group but is strongly tied into groups that advocate and put their faith in the use of violence as a (perhaps the primary) means of change. Stop the War’s contradiction is that it opposes violence by non-Islamic actors but sees a right in Hamas and Hezbollah et al to use it. Any member of the public that comes into contact with this organization will soon discover this hypocrisy; and as result, I believe, its support base will wither, as it seems to be, and only the extremists will remain. The same goes for groups like Respect.

Gordon Bennett. I rather added the point in order to forestall the kind of cretinous nudge nudge wink wink stuff from ultra-right thickos like you.
You are frothing muppet, and there is no requirement for me to prove my pristine hardman tendencies to you, you twat.
Now fuck off and don’t insult my (impeccably “Decent”) intelligence.

Anyone who told you, on the basis of such sub-moronic nonsense as the above (for example, I am not ultra-right: I am well left of centre) that you are ‘intelligent’, was having a laugh at your expense.

The notion that there are no Palestinian Territories and therefore no occupation is a remarkable one.

There was no legal entity called ‘Palestinian Territories’ in 1967 (or at any time before or since) to be ‘occupied’ within any meaningful construction of the term ‘occupied’ as used in the field of international events. I am sorry that your grasp of history and geography, and of the consequences of the LoN’s mandate terms, is so slim that this to be pointed out to you.

I think one could make a case for saying that the invasion of Sinai by Israel in 1956 was not directly in response to aggression.

One could, but one would be entirely ignorant. For example, one would never have heard of the constant aggression against Israel from that direction throughout the early and mid-1950s. Or perhaps one wouldn’t worry too much about peaceful Israeli citizens being murdered in their beds by such aggression.

Re. STW’s ties with Hizbullah, Hamas etc, I think it fair to call PSC a “wipe Israel off the map” organization:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371116381&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

In defence of the Israel tourism map, it did at least show a 1967 border. Nothing doing on the PSC logo.

About a particular venue in London being “hired out” to Yontiff crowds: so they are willing to take Jewish money, BFD. Do they charge the synagogues more than they were about to charge this latest group? Anyway, it changes nothing, business is business, after all.

When I was a girl the Anglican church next to our temple always lent us their sanctuary for no charge for our High Holidays, none of which changes the way the Episcopal Church in the United States is disgustingly anti-Israel and more and more lately, anti-Semitic.

One swallow does not a summer make.

Morgoth

Quakers, properly speaking are not theists. Cut em some slack. I have met pedantic Quakers even ones who are capable of something close to cruelty in a rather detached and non involved way.

I have never met a knowingly cruel, sadistic or evil Quaker.

Indeed these personal qualities of Quakers, led juries even when arrested and imprisoned to refuse to convict Quakers of heresy in 17th C and 18th C England

mettaculture: Well I am confused, as the discourse on the Quaker forum and the Quakers I have been in personal dialogue with recently seems pretty theist to me.

Anyway, just to place on record that I have just picked up the message sent to me on Friday via my Jewish Women’s org address in the same wording as in the main post here. Will be expressing our appreciation to Friends House shortly.