The second-round comment I did not get to make tonight at the listening session:
Here in New Jersey, a local synagogue did host a meeting about real-estate sales in the Occupied Territories; they were clear that there were no actual transactions taking place, but that is simply a way of following the letter of the law, not its spirit. Northern NJ JVP was part of a Palestinian-led march and rally outside that event, and this AIW would encourage the UU societies in the county to participate in such rallies.
Some of the chants were upsetting to our Jewish members, yet we realize that it was the voice of the Palestinian people that had to be heard. As one of us said in discussing our support, If Never again does not mean Never again for anyone, it is meaningless.
I will point out that it is the U.N. that has said that what the Israeli government is doing is âplausible genocideâ. One of the imams in our state has had 30 members of his family killed; I cannot even picture what that means. Years ago, Central Unitarian cohosted a couple of film screenings with JVP; more recently, just prepandemic, we cohosted an exhibit, A Childâs View from Gaza, that Central Jersey JVP was showing around the state. CUC holds an annual seder and is invited to an iftar each year with Peace Island Muslims. This AIW will encourage more such crosscultural and supportive events.
Back in 2018, Israel passed the ânation-state lawâ officially making nonJewish Israelis second-class citizens with fewer rights that Jewish citizens. The Israeli government, as a military occupier, is obligated by international law to protect the residents of occupied land; it is not.
I am in favor of this AIW. I want my Jewish friends to be safe and thrive but some of what youâre saying sounds like an All Lives matter argument. Itâs really hard to look at whatâs happening right now and not weap for the bodies of children bombed in tents. All the children are our children. There is no justification for whatâs happening and been happening. We can lift up the Palestinians as worthy of life, as we can say Black Lives Matter. I recommend checking out their faq page FAQ
In the Zoom Listening Session, attendees were urged to look at the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page of the website: https://uupalestineaction.org/faq/
Unfortunately, this does not assuage my misgivings about how unfair this presentation is. It only makes it worse.
âWHAT HAPPENED ON OCTOBER 7?â
âWe might not know the entire truth of what happened until the war is over.â
This is part of the response to the question âWhat happened on October 7â but it applies to everything in this war on October 7 and afterwards. To limit it to October 7 is unfair.
âIS HAMAS USING CIVILIANS AS HUMAN SHIELDS?â
âThe âhuman shieldsâ framing is problematic.â
Too often moral discussions devolve into a false moral equivalence. The point is that no person or group is perfect. But that does not mean that the mote in your neighborâs eye is equal to the board in yours. It does mean that you fix your faults first. In this case, the Israeli response and killings are disproportionate to the events of October 7. But to say that some Israelis have used human shields is equivalent to what Hamas has done is a false equivalence. You decry the balance when Israel is at fault and you call it âproblematicâ when Hamas is at fault. This is unfair.
âWHAT ABOUT HAMAS? HOW CAN ISRAEL BE SAFE IF HAMAS IS NOT ERADICATED?â
The answer does not address an important problem with Hamas: that of religious fundamentalism. Fundamentalism that lacks compassion, such as the fundamentalism in Hamas Covenant of 1988, presents an existential threat to Jews. It says it right in the covenant. This answer confuses âcivic infrastructureâ with ideology. Of course Israel cannot be safe until Hamas explicitly repudiates its founding Covenant. It is true that Israelâs response to Hamas only makes things worse. But a morally wrong response of the part of Israel to the threat of Hamas does not justify Hamas. Two wrongs do not make a right. To ignore the context of what Hamas believes is unfair.
âWHY ARE WE âTAKING SIDES?â ISNâT THERE ENOUGH BLAME TO GO AROUND?â
âThere is a unique power dynamicâ This answer mentions US support of Israel and fails to mention US support of Palestinians. Note that some of this support was misused by Hamas in its construction of these tunnels underneath civilian structures such as hospitals. Your lack of balance is unfair.
âWe care about collective liberationâ If you care about this, then state your solidarity with Israel and its Jews alongside solidarity with Palestinians.
You are taking sides. Itâs unfair.
âWHAT IS THE BOYCOTT, DIVEST, SANCTION (BDS) MOVEMENT? IS IT ANTISEMITIC?â
You call for boycott, divestment and sanctions only against Israel and only against âcorporate enablersâ. You should call for the same thing against Palestinian groups such as Hamas. And singling out âcorporate enablersâ ignores all the other enablers: ethnic, religious, governmental and other social groups. This is unfair.
âWHY DOES THE AIW TALK ABOUT SETTLER COLONIZATION? DONâT JEWISH PEOPLE HAVE ROOTS IN HISTORIC PALESTINE?â
The whole issue of anti-colonial thought requires a completely different and multilayered discussion all by itself. The way that it has been applied to the situation in the Mideast has brought to the forefront all of the logical, historical and moral contradictions that make the whole intellectual structure of anti-colonialism untenable. I would strongly suggest that this whole section and every reference to âsettler colonialismâ on your website and in the AIW be removed. Leave this debate for another time.
I wish you could rewrite these FAQâs to be more fair and just.
Iâm going to quote section of the AIW as proposed in reply. "âŚOur faith community has long recognized the horrors of violent antisemitism against generations of Jewish people and we reaffirm our commitment to their safety. Our support for Jewish well-being was never meant to undermine the rights and lands of Palestinian people. We seek a world where our Palestinian and Jewish kin are safe. We believe until Palestinians are free, none of us is free.
We decry the violence of October 7 and the State of Israelâs brutal response to those actions."
Note that the resources page is replete with criticisms of Israel and its actions. But I cannot find a single resource on this page that criticizes the actions of the Palestinians. What about their actions against the Jews? What about their support of the attempts to eradicate Israel in 1948 and 1967? What about the religious fundamentalism that is supported by Iran? What about the failure of the Palestinians to create a working democracy? What about the resources that Hamas put into building tunnels and firing rockets that should have gone into building a vibrant economy in the Palestinian lands?
This resource page is, unfortunately, incomplete.
âWe covenant to learn from one another in our free and responsible search for truth and meaning.â
We cannot learn if only one side is presented. This resource page is biased. This is not responsible.
Literally what your argument sounds like to me is that thereâs good cops. What I mean is when my Black friends are talking actually dying and the risks theyâre facing and some white folks start saying but what about the good cops. Decentering whiteness, decentering colonial narratives is hard work as it is the water weâre in - here is a place to start that learning Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture - UU Allies for Racial Equity
Iâm going to quote the AIW again, when they say âCall for freeing hostages and all political prisoners. and Hold teach-ins about Palestine and Israel that include sacred spaces for spiritual processing.â
I listened intently to all the comments last night, and what struck me is that the one thing most people seemed to agree on was the dreadful plight of the Palestinians. So I found myself asking what would be the fastest and best way to relieve their appalling suffering. And I kept coming back to the same answer: the need for an immediate permanent ceasefireâan end to the killing so that all necessary humanitarian assistance can be brought in and all the hostages can be released. Until that is achieved I donât see any hope that things will get better. In all likelihood they will only worsen and the conflict will spread to other parts of the region with catastrophic results.
Some speakers last night said they thought the AIW was too one-sided. While I agree that the level of violence and oppression disproportionately impacts Palestinians far more than Israelis, I donât think taking sides ultimately helps anyone. Instead I believe as UUs we should be standing on the side of peace, showing love and compassion to all whose lives are in turmoil and doing everything possible to stop the fighting, bring in humanitarian assistance, start the rebuilding process, and continue the long, painful process of establishing a lasting peace in the region.
Having known many good cops, I am bemused by your first sentence here. I donât quite understand the implications of your statement in this context. Perhaps you can take this offline and instruct me privately.
Many excellent and thoughtful comments here. My conclusion is that in its present form, I cannot support this AIW. Despite protestations to the contrary, it is one sided. I object to use of charged words like âgenocide,â âapartheid,â and âsettler colonialism.â The AIW also does not address what I see as the real issue. Jewish and Palestinian people both live in the same land. How can they live together peacefully? How can we best advance this necessary goal? We must look beyond both Hamas and the Netanyahu government (neither of which desire a peaceful conclusion to the current conflict) and call for a unity of peoples based on democracy and peaceful co-existence.
I too know good cops thatâs why I used the analogy because in a discussion about Black Lives Matter, I would never say that as part of the discussion because itâs important to honor the lives of Black people and not derail. It is ok to center the people at most risk, to center the people being oppressed and killed.
And in this discussion it is ok to center Palestinian people because theyâre being killed by the thousands, killed where theyâre told to take refuge, and much more.
Thatâs great that you want to learn more! If this kind of thinking centering the marginalized peopleâs and their voices, is difficult to not make all lives matter kinds of arguments: hereâs a great place to start learning (as I do not offer instruction or education), Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture - UU Allies for Racial Equity
I have chosen my words thoughtfully when I made my endorsement of this AIW, and I also put a lot of care in the words I use to describe my feelings and thoughts about whatâs happening in the Middle East. I am not one of the groups of people most affected by oppression and killing happening right now. I have been reading, listening at the Vigils, learning from the resources in the AIW and from the people whose lives, families and friends are most affected and I believe them and I am in favor of this AIW.
I agree with you Ronnie, in part - no one is forgetting who is bearing the brunt of this - Palestinian women and children - and other noncombatants. But the language of this AIW only criticizes Israel and does nothing to balance that awful history with the fact that the main patron of Hamas is Iran, a rogue state oppressing its people with Stone Age restrictions on freedoms, especially for women and LGBTQIA+ people. The Palestinian people have been used as pawns once again, promised a victory by Iran which it can never deliver.
This resolution needs to either balance or cut much of its rationale language for it to get enough votes to pass with a large and eager majority. Of course we are furious with the IDF and the Right Wing Israeli government - but that shouldnât make us be guilty of ahistorical reasoning and one-sided rationale - which this resolution, in its resources, shows it is based upon. This AIW also never reminds folks that it has been Hamas who broke the ceasefires that have been attempted so far.
This needs balance, or it will not receive enough votes to be embraced by a large enough percentage of our faithful.
RSSM
We do have a moral duty to demand a ceasefire, the end of disproportionate warfare, an urgent plan of humanitarian aid and reconstruction, accountability for all war crimes, and the creation of a Free Palestinian State within a few years as was demanded in the 1948 Charter that founded Israel itself (it called for 2 states) - and again at Oslo in 1993.
An AIW focused on those and other liberatory goals with less of the rhetoric would get broad support. Itâs not there yet.
That being said, the 4 goals at the end of the AIW we should all support.
Could you share where you got this impression? This is the opposite of my understanding of Patrick Wolfeâs academic work. He wrote âZionist policy in Palestine constituted an intensification of, rather than a departure from, settler colonialismâ in his paper https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648830
Sorry - I misspoke. here is my correction which I edited above -
Israel is not âSettler Colonialism,â despite what Patrick Wolfe wrote. Unlike Brits in America and Australia, Jews had an ancient connection to the land, and many had never left; 15% of those in Palestine in 1920 were Jewish.
I want to underline and enthusiastically support RevDebraâs comment re: Palestinian Solidarity AIW.
As written, the document is egregiously unbalanced between Israel and Hamas. It is admittedly difficult to support the current Israeli government which seems to want to destroy Palestinian aspirations for a secure, independent homeland. Additionally, Hamas seems to enjoy exploiting legitimate Palestinian desires for a homeland. Nevertheless, a two state solution viv a vis Palestine/Israel still seems a legitimate goal for diplomacy. Right now, sadly, fanatical, right wing Iraelis and death dealing Hamas terrorists seem both determined to destroy each other.
In summary, recognizing the legitimate aspirations of both Palestians and Israelis remains the surest path to peace and justice for the Middle East. Our U.S. government can both support the Israeli military actions against the Hamas butchers while still providing support for innocent Palestinian civilians. The only moral âsideâ for American UUâs to take is for advocating and pressuring our government to pursue whatever diplomatic, military, political, humanitarian policies that will bring both Palestinian and Israeli representatives to the negotiating table. Ideological posturing might make us feel good, but it willnot work. Rewrite this AIW from scratch.
You all have me thinking about history and how it repeats with the displaced Palestinians and about anti-Palestinian racism https://www.antipalestinianracism.com/
I am in favor of this AIW, an endorser and a delegate.