The recent Friends Journal news story about the eight Quaker organizations discerning that genocide is being committed in Gaza by the Israeli government has led me to express the following concerns that were unmentioned in the Journal article.
The horror of the war in Gaza cannot be overstated, and the call to do something in response has been compelling for people around the world. The urgency of this issue is magnified daily by the faces of the starving, maimed, and dead. We feel we must do something. We must say something. In response to this horrible reality, these organizations published a statement naming and condemning this particular war as genocide. What follows here outlines several concerns regarding what this does or does not accomplish and raises additional concerns with some notions proposed within the statement.
The first concern arises in the original title of the statement: “Quakers Discern Genocide is Occurring in Gaza and Urge Courageous Action.” When challenged, several of the organizations, but not all, immediately modified the title to read “Quaker Organizations Discern . . .” as reflected in the Friends Journal article. To be clear, none of these well-respected groups have or ever had the right to claim to speak for “all Quakers.” To assume that right is already a breach of integrity.
The next concern arises in the task given by the cosigning organizations for meetings around the world to endorse the statement. I know of no precedent in Friends’ tradition for a recognized Quaker organization to request an endorsement of a pre-approved and unalterable political document. The invitation essentially assumes the right to introduce an agenda item for all meetings to consider and endorse if led, but not to modify the text or raise concerns. Not surprisingly, this request has caused significant stress and divisions in many meetings. By only publishing endorsements, the process is in effect ignoring disagreement, concerns, and other discernment. This “keeping score” approach also diminishes any claim to a Spirit-led basis of the statement. If this statement is what worshipful discernment has led these eight organizations to do and say, then how do endorsements enhance that faithful discernment?
The third concern is the clear negation of the Friends peace testimony. First, by characterizing this evil war as more serious than other conflicts, the statement promotes a posture of relative evil. By also calling for the governmental sanction of an arms embargo it renders as conditional our historic peace testimony of no “outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever.” This simultaneously strains our testimony of integrity. If our testimony of peace is less than absolute, it is diminished to worthless political posturing.
Finally, now that genocide has been discerned, according to the statement, with the Israeli government accused, judged, and condemned, we should ask ourselves: what does this actually accomplish? Does it feed a single hungry child? Does it perhaps take sides in a war? Does it perhaps bring comfort to the sworn enemies of Israel? Does it possibly create enmity toward the Jewish people by those already predisposed to antisemitism? Does it make aid missions to Gaza, some sponsored by these organizations, more difficult by alienating the Israeli government? Does the statement perhaps give Friends the illusion and satisfaction of having done something? Did the statement intentionally omit mention of the United States’ role as Israel’s enabler? Does the naming of genocide lift up the power of Divine Love to enable forgiveness, healing, and reconciliation? Most importantly, does naming this war as genocide bring us any closer to peace?
The statement speaks many truths about this war and offers many good and helpful actions that people can undertake to help both Gaza and Israel. Each of these could have been shared and would have been more compelling without the overriding objective of calling this conflict genocide.
Let us trust that these eight Quaker-sponsored groups and those who have endorsed the statement all mean well. They are acting with good intentions to address the unspeakable horror of this war. That said, and in truth, there is only one path to peace and unity with God. That goal will never be realized by worldly political posturing.
I find nothing more dispiriting among us Quakers than the sort of answer I read in Don Badgely’s Viewpoint, “Concerns Regarding the Joint Statement on Genocide” (FJ Jan., Dec. 2025 online).
What is peace? For early Friends, it was a virtue of knowing Christ, to live in the spirit that takes away the occasion for war, and came in a declaration to not kill. It was not a condemnation of those acting differently. Somehow we manage—from our lofty positions perhaps—to tell other people about their testimony without asking. Peace is not peaceful when there is no justice. Peace and justice require us to grab humility and seek deeply how we can help. How does this essay help us do that? What is the testimony of the writer’s life?
The holocaust was genocide. What Palestinians have been suffering through is genocide, now most clearly so, but many Palestinians will tell you: It did not start in October 2023.
I see no recognition of our part in the domination of a people, in the lies that built that domination in that land, and I am heartsick—and remember that Jesus witnessed the domination of the Romans and what his testimony was.
It would have been more useful to hear more about why the writer objects to the idea of Gaza as “genocide,” to understand more the ground of such dismissal beyond surface grumpiness. A statement of genocide is only the first step. Can we get beyond our guilt and our worry about perfection to learn more about what we can do, and act to build better frameworks for how we will all live together? It must start with our discomfort to work together to help support those who need to craft their future of safety.
In her March 2026 Forum response to my Viewpoint article, “Concerns Regarding the Joint Statement on Genocide” (FJ 1/26), Joan Broadfield states, “It would have been more useful to hear more about why the writer objects to the idea of Gaza as ‘genocide,’ to understand more the ground of such dismissal beyond surface grumpiness.”
I recommend that Joan read it again since she ignored every major point of the article to complain about something that was not stated and not the point or goal of the piece. I never “objected to the idea of Gaza as “’genocide,’” nor did I dismiss it. I did ask, what that condemnation accomplishes. The naming of genocide is quite irrelevant to the main points raised, and to misrepresent and distort my words to serve her thesis is unfortunate, or perhaps just “grumpiness.”