(1) King-Crane Public Opinion Survey
Read the below findings from the August 1919 American-led “King-Crane” public opinion survey of Palestinians, and discuss this query with your small group: Which King-Crane finding do you find most revealing, and why?
- “The people of the area declared themselves almost unanimously for United Syria [including Palestine], for its complete independence, and against any help from France, and against the Zionist program.”
- “The fact that the Arabic-speaking portion of the Turkish Empire has been the birthplace of the three great religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and that Palestine contains places sacred to all three, makes inevitably a center of interest and concern for the whole civilized world. No solution which is merely local or has only a single people in mind can avail.”
- “No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program, on the part of the non-Jewish populations of Palestine and Syria.”
- “Decisions, requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of a serious injustice. For the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a ‘right’ to Palestine, based on an occupation of 2,000 years ago, can hardly be seriously considered.”
- “if the American government decided to support the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, they are committing the American people to the use of force in that area, since only by force can a Jewish state in Palestine be established or maintained.”
For more info, see full King-Crane Report.
(2) AFSC Statement on UN Request to Serve Palestinian Refugees in Gaza
Read the below statement from November 1948 when the UN asked AFSC to provide humanitarian services to Palestinian refugees displaced to Gaza from their homes in what became Israel. Discuss this query with your small group: What do you think of AFSC’s descision, and is it in alignment with Quaker Testimonies?
“The United Nations enquiry whether the Quakers would undertake a large-scale relief program in the Palestine area bring the AFSC face to face with a challenge larger and more fraught with political implications than it has yet had to face. Acceptance will strain our resources of personnel and administrative capacity to the utmost. We take the risk of failure which will be a public failure, and even if we have some success we shall certainly not satisfy everyone. We cannot avoid censure from some quarters in a scene where ‘sweet reasonableness’ is utterly lacking. We shall be in a world limelight, and we will have to face some compromises away from our traditional ways of working. On the other hand, refusal would be a grave decision. Success in Palestine is a vital necessity for the future of the UN. The opportunity to demonstrate the power of the non-violent approach is enormous. The political people have turned to us because they believe we have something more to offer than merely a politically neutral position.”
For more info, see PYM history of AFSC statement.
(3) Law of Occupation: Fourth Geneva Convention
Read the below bullets summarizing the law of occupation in the Fourth Geneva Convention, and discuss this query with your small group: What do you think of the law of occupation in light of what has been happening in Israel/Palestine since 1967?
- Occupier does not acquire sovereignty over occupied territory.
- Occupier must ensure sufficient food & medicine to the people.
- Occupier cannot forcibly transfer the people out.
- Nor transfer its civilian population in.
- No collective punishment.
- No hostage taking.
- No confiscation of private property.
For more info, see ICRC on Fourth Geneva Convention.
(4) 1982 War on Lebanon vs. 2023-25 War on Gaza
Discuss this query with your small group: What similarities or differences do you see between the 1982 war in Lebanon and the current war on Palestinian life in Gaza in terms of the following aspects?
- Israeli war aims — in 1982 Israel claimed to be fighting PLO terrorism
- U.S. position — greenlighting the 1982 war
- Violence — 19,000 killed in Lebanon in 1982; siege imposed
- Israeli rhetoric — not refraining from hitting civilian areas in Lebanon in 1982; comparing PLO to Hitler and his henchmen
- Palestinian leadership & ceasefire — PLO leadership remained in place despite the violence, yet pressured to leave Lebanon in 1982 as condition for ending the war
- Ongoing violence after ceasefire — Sabra & Shatila Palestinian refugee camp massacres in Lebanon in 1982
- Lack of accountability for war crimes — no Israeli official punished for war crimes in Lebanon in 1982, despite Kahan Commission findings
(5) 1982 War on Lebanon vs. 2023-25 War on Gaza
Read the below excerpt from Khalidi (p. 180) on the analysis Pakistani intellectual Eqbal Ahmad did on the (f)utility of the use of violence as an anti-colonial strategy in the context of Israeli Palestine. Then discuss this query with your small group: Do you agree with Eqbal Ahmad’s analysis, and what are its implications for non-violent resistance?
… on political rather than moral or legal grounds, [Eqbal Ahmad] questioned whether armed struggle was the right course of action against the PLO’s particular adversary, Israel. He argued that given the course of Jewish history, especially in the twentieth century, the use of force only strengthened a preexisting and pervasive sense of victimhood among Israelis, while it unified Israeli society, reinforced the most militant tendencies in Zionism, and bolstered the support of external actors. This was in distinction to Algeria, where the FLN’s use of violence (including women using “baskets to carry bombs, which have taken so many innocent lives” in the accusatory words of a French interrogator in the 1966 Gillo Pontecorvo film The Battle of Algiers) ultimately succeeded in dividing French society and eroding its support for the colonial project. Ahmad’s critique was profound and devastating, and not welcomed by the PLO’s leaders, who still publicly proclaimed a devotion to armed struggle even as they were moving away from it in practice.
For more info, see Khalidi p. 180.
(6) Palestinian Liberation as a U.S. National Interest
Khalidi suggests re-framing Palestinian liberation as a U.S. national interest. Discuss this query with your small group: What national interests might the U.S. have in supporting Palestinian liberation, especially among the following categories?
- Moral — living up to our supposed American values
- Legal — avoiding domestic and international legal liability
- Economic — increasing trade; decreasing economic risk; and re-allocating budgets
- National Security — reducing the threats posed by armed groups to U.S. residents’ safety and well-being
- Domestic Political — garnering support of a large base of voters in U.S. elections
- Foreign Relations — promoting good relations with other countries; resolving conflicts
- Immigration — reducing irregular migration flows; resettling refugees safely
For more info, see Khalidi p. 228-231.
(7) Envisioning the Future
Discuss this query with your small group: How do you see the future – continued apartheid, graver mass atrocities, ultimate liberation, or all of the above? What is our role in creating a better world?