I’m really struggling with the RR’s 4th “Whereas”: “a call for recognition of only the harm on one side without regard for the other creates an environment of existential threat to Jewish Unitarian Universalists;”
I don’t see that either Pres. Betancourt’s or the AIW’s language does what this “Whereas” suggests.
I understand that. But I don’t understand why it was felt necessary in response to the president’s report. Is it felt that the she should have spoken out against the AIW?
I’m not sure what “recognition of only the harm on one side without regard for the other” is referring to. I don’t see that in the president’s report.
Some commenters here sound like they are lifting this up as a more general response to anti-Semitism inside and outside of the faith, but an RR can’t do that as far as I understand - it’s just about what happens at GA, and if we wanted this to generally be a call against anti-Semitism (which I think many more people would support than will support this) it would have needed to have been submitted as an AIW.
Edit:
I just confirmed that this RR has to be in response to the report only, so it shouldn’t be voted on as if it’s an AIW against anti-Semitism generally (which I and hopefully all UUs condemn), but only as a critique of the president’s report.
The rules of procedure talk about RRs here in more detail: [AMENDED] UUA General Assembly 2024 Rules of Procedure
“*Responsive resolutions are brief, advisory statements that express the sentiment of the delegates. They must be in response to a substantive portion of a report by an officer or committee reporting to a regular General Assembly. Responsive resolutions are not binding and do not set policy for the Association. They may not act as a substitute for other types of business items, such as business resolutions, budget motions, study/action issues, bylaw amendments, or actions of immediate witness. *”
That sort of typo is allowed to be fixed by the CSW or Board before being published in final form.
I agree. This language is unfortunate and will cost support for this resolution. There is nothing in the AIW that “creates an environment of existential threat”. How can I vote for a resolution that says this??
I hear you and this is a tragically complex problem.
However, the RR does not mention Israel.
And anti-semitism is on the rise and can be deadly, including on college campuses.
I see you and I stand with you. I am so very sorry for your loss.
I feel this resolution, which is a response to the president’s report, will appear to be an unfair criticism of Pres. Sofia Betancourt. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution.
I agree. It feels to me like maybe the president’s report was the only method procedurally for getting the resolution onto the agenda but it doesn’t fit here, in my opinion.
I wanted to share these thoughts here that I shared with my congregtation’'s small group of delegates. I was unable to get into the queue to speak on the “pro” side for the AIW in support of Palestinians, but I was able to speak on the pro side for this resolution. I’m not sure that I was as articulate or as clear as I would have liked…
While the wording for both the resolution and the AIW are not perfect, my intent was to underscore the empathetic underpinning to support those living with ongoing trauma with this heartbreaking situation in both Palestine and Israel that I believe this resolution and the AIW in support of Palestinians seek.
I didn’t lose anyone in the horror of Oct 7 and neither did I lose multiple family members in the bombing in Gaza today (or among the 250+ who died when Israelis rescued four hostages a few weeks ago). I don’t have family who were taken hostage in Oct 2023 nor do I have family languishing in Israeli prisons without charge and with no end date. We have the benefit of pondering these decisions in the relative safety of our homes. One child dies and we break apart. The losses in this context are unimaginable to me.
I urge us to center our voting in love and empathy. For me, that means voting for the AIW in support of Palestinians and also for this Resolution, which augments our president’s report on wars occurring worldwide.
We all must vote our conscience, but since I don’t believe I was very clear or very articulate when I spoke, I thought I would post this.
kind regards, love, light and care to you dear dear people during this heartbreaking time –
Melinda
There were a number of things said tonight, both in the AIW - Solidarity with Palestinians session and later in the responsive resolution session that are inaccurate.
I say this as one of the submitters for the AIW and as a Jewish UU
(1) We do not call for the end to Israel. We name the problematic nature of Zionism.
(2) There is a lot of misunderstanding between what antizionism actually is.
Criticizing Israel’s action is not antisemitic. I offer you this resource which helped me understand more: On Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism and Dangerous Conflations - JVP.
(3) The use of the phrase “from the river to the sea” is a chant heard at every protest I’ve been to for the past 8 months. It is a statement of solidarity that the Palestinians will one day be free from oppression. I encourage you to read this article published in Jewish Currents, one of the most consistent voices in progressive Judaism. What Does “From the River to the Sea” Really Mean?.
I cannot support this Responsive Resolution. It is framed as a response to the President’s Report by the Rev. Dr. Sofia Betancourt. And the fourth and final whereas clause states that “a call for recognition of only the harm on one side without regard for the other”. I just went back and relistened to the President’s Report and at no point does she call out harm to one without regard for the other. She speaks of “multi-generational history with trauma and oppression and loss on all sides” and of “antisemitism and anti-Arab-ism and Islamophobia”. She speaks of both Hamas’ attack on October 7th and the Netanyahu’s government response. She refers to UUA statements “condemning violence against both Palestinians and Israeli citizens”. At no point in her report does she recognize the harm to one side without regard for the other.
I appreciate that you have only heard the chant at every protest you’ve been to for the past 8 months and I do appreciate the article you share because it gives some more history. I really want to process it because I trust Jewish Currents.
This isn’t the time to use language that you know is triggering for Jewish people. Whether or not the interpretation that has been handed down to Jews has been accurate, it is still triggering and challenging. Isn’t that enough to stop using it in UU spaces where we are trying to build consensus to take out to the public square?
Sure, use the chant as a chant at protests and rallies but in this context is it necessary to the discussion here? I feel like fighting for Palestinian freedom does not require it in this context. (Again, I am not talking about outside this context!)
so can Islamophobia, which is what we see more of in our area—along with peaceful proPalestinian gatherings being called antisemitic
ProIsraeli counterprotestors have tried to provoke a violent reaction at at least one rally I attended; they were unsuccessful
I cringed when the phrase was used by the individual introducing the AIW today, as I predicted how upsetting it would be to many who had not had the direct experiences of some of us. I have cited that Jewish Currents article to others in similar situations, but it would have been better to leave that out in the moment, considering who was present at the session.
Ballot Result from General Session IV
This Responsive Resolution was adopted. It received more than 2/3 vote of support.
| Option | Votes |
|---|---|
| Adopt responsive resolution | 1705 (77.0%) |
| Do not adopt responsive resolution | 508 (23.0%) |
| Total | 2545 |
|---|---|
| Abstain | 332 (13.0%) |