Personal Thoughts

by

Denied Entrance: Quaker mother of two is deemed an Israeli Security Risk

Sandra Tamari has given PRC permission to share her story, sent to family and friends on May 24, 2012:

Dear Family and Friends,

My participation in the May 2012 Interfaith Peace Builders delegation was blocked by Israeli officials at the airport who deemed me “a security risk.” After an eight hour wait with several interrogations, I couldn’t help but laugh at the idea that a Quaker mother of two had the ability to be a risk to one of the most powerful countries in the world.

The questions started at passport control.  “What is your father’s name?”  “What is your grandfather’s name?”  I was immediately escorted to a dirty waiting room to await further interrogation.  I was questioned no fewer than seven times and was asked directly, “Are you a terrorist?”

All this because I am a Palestinian and I refuse to be silent.

The Israelis demanded access to my gmail account.  When I refused to provide my password, they said that I must be hiding something sinister.  They obviously knew about my activism for Palestinian rights.  They asked about my political activities at home and what organizations I worked with.

I was taken to security to claim my suitcase.  They went through my belongings thoroughly and searched me (but thankfully did not make me strip my clothes.)

When they discovered that I had taken detailed notes about my interrogations, the lead interrogator was furious.  He accused me of sound recording or photographing the questioning.  He was especially interested in my notes about my phone conversation with a staffer at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. IFPB alerted the Embassy to my detention and the staffer had called me earlier at the airport.  I told them that the Embassy advised me to keep a record of my treatment.  They seemed to be a little nervous at that point.

I was able to inform the delegation co-leader and my dear friend, Anna, that I was being deported.  She had been at my side throughout the entire ordeal prior to my search in security.  I knew she was imagining the worst during my hour-long absence.

I was taken to a prison cell where I stayed for several hours and then driven onto a runway to board a commercial flight to Europe and then onto the States.  How grateful I was to find Mike Daly of IFPB waiting for me at Dulles.  I was unable to reach my husband Steve from the airport in Frankfurt and no one was sure of my whereabouts for 12 hours.  I feel especially sick about all the worry this caused to my family and friends.  I am also so sorry to miss being on this trip with my amazing friend, Nancy Duncan.  We had been looking forward to sharing this time for months.

As I was sitting in prison waiting for my deportation, I could not help but think of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli detention with no idea of when or if they will ever be released.  I thought of the millions of Palestinians denied the right to return to their homeland by Israel.  Israel has created and maintains through violence a Jewish majority at their expense.  My experiences of detention and deportation were scary. I am disappointed to be missing the delegation trip and my cousin’s wedding in the West Bank on June 9, but my ordeal is only a small part of Israel’s systematic oppression of Palestinians.  In fact, I among the very lucky and privileged.  I am at home now unharmed with my beautiful family.

My privilege demands that I speak fearlessly against the injustices of Israel against the Palestinian people.  Count on hearing from me.

Peace to you all,
Sandra Tamari

by

Poetic Reporting from FWCC World Conference, courtesy of Friend Adrian Nelson

From Adrian’s final blog post from the recent FWCC World Conference:

It has been a tremendous week. Even looking back at what I’ve written, I’m not sure I can capture it fully. This was the question we were all asking ourselves: how are we going to bring this back? How are we changed? Do we go forth, as young Quaker Samuel Bownas was challenged, as we came, none the better for our coming? Or do we leave with a fire ignited, and ready to spread the light, burn as it may?  Click here to read the full post.

Adrian Nelson attend the April gathering as a representative of ILYM and blogged every day about her experiences.

I find myself at once overwhelmed and overjoyed to be here. This is my first true glimpse at the wide international Quaker community, and indeed the face of the majority of the world’s Quakers – Kenyans. I delight in the variety of ways the message of the first Quakers has leaped across the oceans and continents, across time and tongues, so that the question of “What canst thou say?” is answered in every other language besides its own.

On her first day in Kenya, Adrian wrote:

Tomorrow, I will be among a thousand other Quakers from all corners of the world. We will not all speak the same language, we will not practice or worship the same way, and we are all coming from different backgrounds.

But we are of this planet and this universe, and we will unite under the name of Friends, and will meet as strangers and depart, I pray, as f/Friends. We must be mindful of our differences and compassionate with each other, and gentle with ourselves and with others. I believe that all of us will be coming with open hearts and minds, and no matter what tongues we know or don’t, we’ll all at least speak the language of love.

What are your thoughts upon reading of her experience? Please share your reflections, along with any questions for Adrian and other ILYM delegates about the experience.

by

Kony 2012 Mirrors US Foreign Policy

David Zarembka (Coordinator for the African Great Lakes Initiative of the Friends Peace Teams) has authored a report in response to the spotlight being shone on the head of Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army, Joseph Kony, thanks to a 30 minute video by the American advocacy group Invisible Children.

The video has now received more than 30 million views, and has sparked a debate about the West’s role in Africa. [You can listen to WBEZ’s Worldview program for recent analysis by clicking here, where you can also view the original video.]

Read Dave’s full report here. 

From Dave’s report:

To be sure, there is a lot to be done in Africa. And Americans can help. But we must help by standing with Africans. Not over them. Not by imposing our will and believing we have all the answers. But by really engaging with people on the ground, listening to their stories, understanding their wants, needs and desires and helping them achieve those goals. The African Great Lakes Initiative of the Friends Peace Teams has just released an eleven-minute video, “A Story of Healing” which examines what HIV+ women in Burundi are doing to support one another in difficult times. No Americans appear in the video. It was made with the involvement of Burundians who have seen and critiqued the draft of the video. This, to me, is the way to work with and for Africa.

by

Tamms is a violation of human rights.

Few of us have visited the maximum-security prison at Tamms. On occasion, and rarely so, we read about the treatment inflicted upon our fellow human beings within those walls and are summoned to consider the incomprehensible that could not be committed without our tax money. Some of us have spoken out and worked to remedy the situation, often without success. Now hope is revived that the governor will take the initiative to close Tamms.

But because closing is framed as a budgetary measure, we may be distracted from deep issues that will persist regardless of the outcome. Tamms is a violation of human rights. But the human community is coming to embrace another human right—that is, the right to be gainfully employed.

Unfortunately the state budget crisis frames the closing in a way that pits principles against one another and thereby deflects from considering the multiple dimensions of human rights. Moreover, finances turn our attention from deep abiding concerns.  First, is the question a matter of what we can afford? Or might the question turn on the purpose of prisons. Do we create prisons to rehabilitate people so that they can realize their God-given potential, even a portion of their potential? Or by creating places like Tamms that simply seek to lock away people do we let go that belief in the light of humanity that dwells within us all? Second, what about the guards? What does it mean for our fellow citizens to work in such environments? Third, what do we do to ourselves when we perpetuate, even if by proxy, such a culture of violence?  Or what is the difference between paying taxes for violence overseas and for violence at home? Fourth, what kind of economy do we perpetuate by using our resources in ways that work such corrosive affects on prisoners and guards alike.

First, what does it mean to systematically put one of our fellow creatures into nearly absolute isolation so that they often go mad? Are these people also God’s creatures? Or do we by way of our proxies—courts and guards—read them out of the human community? Are we to abandon belief in the universal light? Once prisons were designed to restore people to society. Even the first advocates of absolute isolation believed they were leading inmates on the path to redemption. Today isolation is employed simply for the purpose of control and for what appears to be deep punitive urges.

Second, the people who work as guards are acting as our proxies by way of our tax dollars. We pay them to work in conditions that affect them as well. And thus I become concerned that we are responsible for what we pay them to do. I have taught in minimum and maximum security prisons and have found that the grimmer the environment the grimmer the guards. I have seen former students go to war overseas, return emotionally broken, and then sign on as guards. The pattern of violence against the self by way of substance abuse, family violence, and suicide that is found among military veterans is reproduced in guards.

Third, prisons are as isolated as military bases and both are built on cultures of violence. We have come to learn that our torturers overseas depend on isolation as a method to break down the individual, sometimes irretrievably. And now we learn that the same principles of isolation are applied to prisoners. As we come to see these connections and their implications, we enter the risky territory of complicity. Yes, this is complicity by proxy. Nonetheless, it remains complicity. What do we do to ourselves when we know and then abdicate responsibility? Is it just the prisoners or the guards who are harmed? Such knowing complicity carries responsibility.

Fourth, what kind of economy are we creating? As part of the human community, we are coming to recognize the right to gainful employment. But when employment includes jobs that violate another’s human rights, have we made a mockery of that ideal? What path do we find ourselves travelling when we compare employment by way of public works such as the Civilian Conservation Corps with employment by locking another person out of the human community? Is it possible that instead of pitting the interests of prisoners against the interests of the guards, we can realize that when we speak of the rights to jobs we mean the quality of work performed? As one economists asked, can we make an economy “as if people mattered”—for guards, for prisoners, and for all of us God’s creatures?

Whatever the outcome of this discussion over Tamms, this moment may teach us to look beyond the immediate budget sheets and toward a long-term process of reflection and creative thought. Can we allow our prisons to slip from sight without damage to ourselves? This path promises to be longer that the road to the governor’s office. Can we do otherwise than take a first step?

And so I support the closing of Tamms. And I realize that closing may not be enough.

by

A Letter To Other Occupiers by Staughton Lynd

On Tuesday, February 28, 2012 author Staughton Lynd published a letter to explore the role of consensus decision-making and nonviolence in building a community of trust. Upon reading it, Friend David Finke asked that Peace Resources Committee publish a link here, writing: “Staughton is prophetic, and we must help get this message out, I believe.”

Click here to read the letter in full, which addresses:

I – Every local Occupy movement of which I am aware has begun to explore the terrain beyond the downtown public square, asking, what is to be done next?

II – Here, in brief, is the history that I pray we will not repeat.

III – Although I am concerned that small groups in the Occupy Movement may contribute to unnecessary violence in Chicago, it is not violence as such that most worries me.

IV – So what do I recommend? I am eighty-two and no longer able to practice some of what I preach, but for what they may be worth, here are some responses to that question.

***
What are your thoughts about the Occupy Movement’s next steps? Are you an active supporter? What do you think this movement has to gain from consensus decision-making and nonviolence in building a community of trust?

by

The Unsung Sung Jung

Many lovers of Western Philosophy look down their Greco-Roman noses at Chinese Philosophy without realizing its impact on the West. Many of the English and German philosophers of the Age of Reason, as well as the French Philosophies, read Chinese Philosophy. Indeed, there is a story of Goethe, who witnessed the first battle of twenty-three years struggle known as the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. At the battle was Valmy (1792) that Goethe remarked, “From this place, and from this day forth begins a new era in the history of the world, and you can all say that you were present at its birth.” However, he was also at the Battle of Leipzig (1813) when the largest battle of conflict took place, but he did not witness it. He did not even step outside because he was too busy reading Chinese Philosophy.

Many of the Chinese Philosophers of the One Hundred Schools of Thought (770-221BC) are well known to the West: Confucius (K’ung-Tzu 551-479BC), Mencius (Meng-Tzu 372-289BC), and Lao-Tzu (Loazi 6th Century BC), as well as the war philosophers Sun-Tzu (Sun Wu ?-?BC ) and his distant relation Sun Pin (Sun Bin ?-316BC).

Lesser known were the pacifist philosophers Mo-Tzu and Sung Jung. Before turning to Mo and Sung, it should be noted that Confucius, Mencius, and Lao-Tzu were all against violence, but were not pacifists. Confucius was against war because it would bring social disorder and disharmony. Mencius discouraged war and promoted agriculture and encouraged humane rule. Lao-Tzu thought war was a “regrettable necessity” and one should “enter battle gravely, with sorrow and great compassion, as though attend a funeral.”

Even Sun-Tzu was against the wastefulness of war. Although the Spring and Autumn Period, in which Sun-Tzu was alleged to have lived was a extremely sanguine time, he would have been disagreed with the Clausewitzian idea that every effort must be made to bring the war to a conclusion by one decisive battle, and would have been appalled by the battles in World War One where “casualties measured in hundred of thousands and victory in yards gained.”

Lao-Tzu influenced much of Sun-Tzu’s thinking by his statement “With the orthodox govern the state; with the unorthodox employ the army” and by the Tao idea of yin and yang. Here are some samples of Sun-Tzu’s frequently used quotes:

“To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”

“In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an army entire than to destroy it.”

“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”

Mo-Tzu (470-391BC) felt Confucius and Lao-Tzu had not gone far enough in condemning war. He argued:

“If a man kills an innocent man, steals his clothing and spear and sword, his offence is graver than breaking in a stable and stealing an ox or a horse. The injury is greater, the offence is greater, and the crime of a higher degree. Any man of sense knows that is wrong, knows that is unrighteous. But when murder is committed in attacking a country it is not considered wrong; it is applauded and called righteous. Can this be considered as knowing what is righteous and what is unrighteous? When one man kills another man it is considered unrighteous and he is punished by death. Then by the same sign when a man kills ten others, his crime will be ten times greater, and should be punished by death ten times. Similarly one who kills a hundred men should be punished hundred times more heavily…If a man calls black black on a small scale, but calls black white when see it is seen on a large scale, then he is one who cannot tell black from white…Similarly is a small crime is considered crime, but a big crime such attacking another country is applauded as a righteous act, can this be said knowing the difference between righteous and unrighteous?”

Mo-Tzu, while considered a pacifist, did not condemn self-defense or fighting a defensive war. Indeed, his followers, the Mohists, would rush to the defense of any country being invaded. The fought along side the defenders and even invented new war machines to help in the defense. They did not realize their “defensive weapons” could be turned round and used as offensive weapons.

Lest we smirk at their naiveté, consider how many twentieth-century, pacifist scientists worked on the atomic bomb to stop Hitler without considering their defensive weapon would be used on Japan and later bring the world to the brink of Nuclear Armageddon.

Sung Jung (Sung K’eng) and his colleague Yin Wen were of the Mohists school, but did not believe Mo-Tzu had gone far enough in renouncing war. Unfortunately, none of Sung Jung and Yin Wen writings have survived. We only know of them through their detractors.

Sung Jung, also called, Sung Yung, Sung, Hsing, Sung K’eng, and Sung Chein; had six principle rules. His rules are remarkably not unlike ideas set forth by early as well as early and modern Friends:

1) “In intercourse with all things, to begin with knowing the prejudices.”
2) “In talking about tolerance of the mind, to call it the action of the mind.”
3) “Men’s passions desire but little.”
4) “To endure insult without feeling it a disgrace, so as to save the people from fighting.”
5) “To check aggression and propose disarmament in order to save the generation from war.”
6) “To desire the peace of the world in order to preserve the life of the people, to seek no more than is sufficient for nourishing oneself and others.”

When the states of Ch’in and Ch’u went to war, Sung Jung was about to go to Ch’u, but Mencius stopped him and asked why he was going.

He replied, “I have heard that Ch’in and Ch’u are fighting each other, and I am going to see the King of Ch’u and persuade him to cease. If he be not pleased with this, I shall go to see the King of Ch’in, and persuade him in the same way. Of the two kings, I shall succeed to speak to one of them.”

Two thousand years before the Naturalists (the “Killer Apes” or Hobbesian “violence is part of us”) camp and the Materialists (“Noble Peaceful Savages” or Roussoeian “humans are peaceful by nature”) camp squared off on their views of war, Sung Jung was already calling for people to reduce their needs for natural resources in order to prevent war. Before Gandhi called on us to humble ourselves before our foe, Sung Jung was suggesting enduring insults. Long before Kissenger’s famous shuttle-diplomacy, Sung Jung was practicing the self-same thing. Long before there was a disarmament movement, a lone Chinese philosopher was crying out for laying down weapons.

He was truly a head of his times… way ahead.

by

First Day 2012

I’ve begun this New Year with a committment to five specific manifeststions of my Quaker Testimonies for 2012:

S. Simplicity.
I have taken a stand against unsolicited credit cards and offers of insurance by completing the opt-out process I discovered.  Learn more & consider joining me by reading about it here.

P. Peace.
I am enthusiastically continuing my service as clerk of ILYM Peace Resources Committee. Working on the projects and ideas manifest by this group of Friends is a strong commitment to my Peace Testimony.

I. Integrity.
I will work hard to stay in the moment and be true to my word.

C. Community.
I am committing to at least one shared meal a month, participating as fully as possible by providing a dish to share and being in sincere fellowship with f/Friends, tending to others both big & little, and helping to prepare and clean up the space.

E. Equality.
Inspired by my father’s loyal commitment, I am going to prioritize buying only fair trade/direct trade coffee for my home. I am also to financially contribute each month to 57th Street Meeting’s Coffee Fund which goes through the AFSC Coffee Project with Equal Exchange to acquire coffee for the Meeting.

What might your aspirations for 2012 include?

by

Taking a gentle step: cutting down on paper waste

Today I decided to take a simple step towards my vision of a more peaceful earth by formally completing an “opt-out” form to (hopefully) reduce the quantity of unsolicited mail I receive. After “Googling” for ‘remove name credit card solicitations” I found www.optoutprescreen.com on the Federal Trade Commission website (or it says you can call toll-free 1-888-5-OPT-OUT or 1-888-567-8688); the phone number and website are operated by the major consumer reporting companies.

I clicked the link. I choose “Electronic Opt-Out for Five Years: Your name will not be eligible for inclusion on lists used for Firm Offers of credit or insurance for five years” because the permanent option requires printing something out to mail in & I want to accomplish this task now. I completed the form and submitted it. The entire process took less than 3 minutes. And so after clicking “End Session” I repeated the process with my maidan name and then did it for my husband as well.

I ‘Confirm’ my request to exclude my name on lists used for firm offers of credit or insurance. I hereby affirm that all information entered is my own and true, to the best of my knowledge.

And with that my first New Years Resolution is complete: an attempt to reduce unsolicited mail both to reduce the paper waste generated and politely say NO to the offers of credit and insurance I don’t need. A means towards walking a bit more gently over the earth.

by

A quest for healing: Striving for a Win-Win between Muslims and Lowes

I have always admired Anya Cordell for her spirit, courage, and dedication to making our world a better place. When I received this link to her brilliant ideas as to how a new approach might be taken towards peace and understanding in the wake of Lowes Home Improvement pulling their advertising support from TLC’s “All American Muslims” – I just had to share. What do you think?

Read her post “Anya Cordell: How to Make This Situation a Win/Win for Muslims and Lowes”, read Comments shared, and learn more about this issue and how you might respond.

by

Occupy Movement – share your thoughts?

Author: Breeze Richardson

As I follow the news of “Occupy” Movements across the country I am curious to learn what Friends are hearing & thinking about, and being led to say and do.

Protesting economic inequality is honorable, and I wonder what personal actions the individuals gathered from Oakland, to Chicago, to Naperville, to Washington DC, to New York City are being led to think about in their own lives as contributors to that very economic inequality they are fighting against.

Or is their fundamental point – “we are the 99%” – bear witness to the mere fact that such a question is irrelevant: there is a super class of Americans, who are 1% of the population, who have a responsibility to contribute in a way that redistribution can take place.

And then my thoughts turn to the bigger question… is standing on the corner enough? What is the outcome of these people bearing witness to their beliefs? Are they asking individuals to change? Corporations? Asking the government to take a different attitude? Enforce their beliefs? And will the winter weather stand in their way or alert the nation to the conviction with which they are standing there?

Are there academics, intellectuals in the creative class, politicians, or others in positions of power, are those in the 1% working to figure out how they can help envision the way forward? Will their ideas have a brief moment in time where the nation will be looking? A better way could be proposed?

Last week Naomi Wolf was in Chicago to give a talk entitled: “Citizen Empowerment 101”  where she shared her personal experience getting arrested in New York while trying to intervene on behalf of protesters (who she believed “the details of the permit gave the protestors the right to be on the sidewalk as long as they did not obstruct foot traffic”) and was “subsequently arrested for resisting a lawful order after police told her to ‘leave,’ and she did not.”  She told her story during the talk, which has been edited for you to hear.

What has been your experience? What are your thoughts? What role should we be taking as Friends, as individuals?