EAPPI – Unbiased?
This is a post by Jeremy Newmark, CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council
The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) claims that “We want to serve all parties in this conflict in a fair and unbiased manner in word and action” a noble and just cause that no reasonable person could object to. With only two hours out of the two weeks training given prior to the trip putting forward the Israeli perspective, and just one day spent over the Green Line during a four month trip, it’s clear (unless you’re a certain Ben White) that there is an underlying agenda.
What about when the Ecumenical Accompaniers (EAs) return? Do they “serve all parties in this conflict”? There are far too many voices that suggest otherwise. Reports of talks given and organised by EAs have shown just how partisan they are, with the EAs sometimes articulating incorrect and extreme positions on the conflict. One example was a meeting held in The Friends’ Meeting House in Chelmsford. In other arenas EAs adopt elements of the Boycott Israel (BDS) agenda. Concerns about EAPPI extend far beyond the Jewish community, as shown by the recent statement by Rev Canon Andrew White, a senior CoE cleric based in the Middle East.
EAPPI clearly has some questions to answer on the content of its programmes, and the activities of some of its alumni.
Equally worrying, are the positions and people that EAPPI appears happy to associate with. A quick visit to the EA facebook page further proves what the programme is really about – demonising Israel under the guise of pushing for peace with clear support for Boycott, Divestments, Sanctions and the notoriously anti-Israel PSC.
An arm’s length facebook group created by supporters of EAPPI to express their personal views counts among its members Rev Sizer, the Surrey Pastor with a penchant for citing hate websites on an increasingly regular basis.
So, is EAPPI really an unbiased organisation acting with ‘principled impartiality’? The evidence clearly throws up some questions. That is why we have called for an independent investigation into its activities before the General Synod of the Church of England discusses a motion to extend its relationship with EAPPI. If it really has nothing to hide why are EAPPI supporters such as veteran Anti-Zionist Ben White working so hard to fight this?
Action alerts
As a current EA, I would quite like to point one or two inaccuracies (ignoring the wider argument for now)and make a few points:
1) “With…just one day spent over the Green Line during a four month trip, it’s clear (unless you’re a certain Ben White) that there is an underlying agenda”
>> EAs typically serve for a period of three months (not four) during which time they spend the majority of which based in their ‘placement’ in the West Bank (responding to a call by the Christian church leaders in Jerusalem). They also however take part in a week long training which is jointly based in Jerusalem and Haifa (two-three days in the latter) where EAs would meet with predominantly Israeli organisations working non-violently to end the occupation. They also have one session in Sderot. Equally, EAs are encouraged to take their days off outside of their placements. Speaking personally, this means that I have spent over two weeks in Israel in Tel Aviv, Ein Gedi, Eilat etc (and thoroughly enjoyed it as well I might add).
2) “With only two hours out of the two weeks training given prior to the trip putting forward the Israeli perspective”
>> The training each EA receives depends on their sending organisation – it varies depending on where you are from in length and content.
As you refer to the two weeks, I assume you are referring to the training in the UK (and Ireland) which is organised by QPSW (The Quakers). Your two hours reference refers to a two hours session given to try and show EAs the view point of certain Zionists (not ‘one side of the conflict, but one view point of many). It is worth noting that those who would call for a Palestinian State on the land of Israel are not given a platform.
Throughout the training however, the principle of impartiality is discussed, debated and reiterated. I find it hard to see what more The Quakers could have done to push the principle of impartiality in the training.
3) “Equally worrying, are the positions and people that EAPPI appears happy to associate with. A quick visit to the EA facebook page further proves what the programme is really about – demonising Israel under the guise of pushing for peace” –
>> Why is Coldplay in that list? – are you sure that a Facebook pagelift represents the ‘true nature of the programme’ more than say its stated positions on its website?
4) “The evidence clearly throws up some questions, questions”
>> What evidence? You have quoted some blogs(which represent the view of the author) Evidence is normally understood as data, or academic research, or published articles in mainstream media (at a push). Are you really saying that a few blogs and a write up of a meeting held in Chelmsford meeting house is the best ‘evidence’ you have? If it is, I can’t help but to think that you are pushing a delaying tactic by calling for a full investigation?
I am sorry if this seams unfair, but your ‘evidence’ does seem a smidgen weak.
If you have serious evidence, please do publish, as I am walking around with these guys name on my back and I do not want to be associated with any organisation that has any whiff of anti-Semitism. I would be the first to join you in a call for an independent enquiry if you have any real evidence to support your positions.
Steve,
I am delighted that you have decided to spend time over the Green Line in Israel, but the core problem remains that EAPPI doesn’t organise enough time outside of the West Bank for EAs to meet and mingle with everyday Israeli citizens. EAPPI’s critics that this betrays an underlying agenda. I understand that the and Jerusalem and Haifa is spent in seminars, ie. before the EAs embark on their time in the West Bank. The classroom is no substitute for engaging with ordinary people.
You ask what the Quakers could have done to push the principle of impartiality, quite simply, they could have started by accepting the offer from the Board of Deputies to help make their training more balanced, or at least to show more views on the conflict. They might usefully have retained the Chair of Peace Now UK as one of the trainers.
Finally, it’s clear that a facebook profile established by an organisation ‘likes’ BDS Movement, Leeds Palestine Solidarity Campaign, bdsmovement.net and other similar interests, they are endorsing a biased and corrosive position on the conflict.
Jeremy
Jeremy,
Thanks for your response.
To clarify, in addition to the two weeks training in the UK, EAs receive one week training in Jerusalem (where many Israelis live and work) at the start of their time in country and then there is an additional weeks ‘tour’ mid way through the placement. It is during the latter that EAs would visit Haifa etc. During this time EAs are also given ‘time off’ and encouraged to go and eat/drink in bar/restaurants. As you rightly speculate, some of my most rewarding (and at times challenging) conversations came whilst having ‘ordinary’ conversations with Israelis – the diversity of opinion never ceased to amaze me. In this sense I personally felt like I was encouraged to go out and meet people (both Israeli and Palestinian). I would be interested to hear from other EAs to see if they feel the same.
I cannot comment on the Quakers training as I don’t know the ins and outs of who they invite/invited. I do know however that they keep a constant review system going to ensure it best serves the EAs needs. I am sure they would be delighted if you contacted them with any suggestions.
Equally, I can assure you during my time as an EA I maintained a close working relationship with Peace Now (they were out main point of contact in terms of reporting outpost expansion) – along with a host of other Israeli organisations working for peace (Yesh Din, B’tselem, Machsom Watch etc)
Once again I bring you back to the point that the only real ‘evidence’ you seem to have is a list of likes on facebook – this, to the neutral, comes across as a pretty weak basis on which to launch the sort of campaign that you have against EAPPI.
Might I suggest that you could put your energies more preductivley into working with EAPPI and to offer to meet, interact and engage with returning EAs?
Best,
Steve