The Unitarian Minister replies to my email

Arnie et al                                                                  

The following resolution was passed by the congregation of the XXXX Unitarian Church in a full congregational meeting on October 27, 2024.

This congregation joins the growing number of Unitarian Universalist communities and individuals in the following:

• We call for ending unconditional military aid to the State of Israel. With the U.S. providing Israel the highest amount of military aid in the world, UUs in this country bear a responsibility to speak out against these policies. 

Why? Give some details. Or not. It sure is easier to cobble together self-righteous and self-important resolutions if you omit any details that can easily be refuted in the blink of an eye.

• We affirm solidarity with Palestinian safety, support, and self-determination. 

Again, why? As I said in my previous email to the Good Reverend, he makes no mention of Hamas terrorists and their brutal rule over Palestine. Follow the money, a well-documented trail that leads back to Qatar or Iraq. They're the ones paying for bombs, guns, and the vast tunnel system beneath Gaza. Why not use this money to build up Palestine, rather than create a terrorist infrastructure, one that uses hospitals, schools, mosques, and other soft targets as military strongholds. We know the answer of the Good Reverend and his congregants on that glaring omission: never deviate from the narrative of poor paradise Palestine and evil icky Israel.

• We call for an immediate permanent ceasefire, massive humanitarian aid, the release of all captives, and an end to genocide around the world. 

Ignoring the words of Hamas, who declare that they want every day to be an October 7. That's what a ceasefire would unleash. Full stop. Note the weasel wording here: "the release of all captives." No mention of Hamas terrorism and the Israeli hostages. They call for "An end to genocide around the world" but only single out Israel and Palestine--with Israel as the bad guys. Terrorist slaughter of Israelis and torture of Israeli hostages is too much reality for the Good Reverend and his congregants to include in their statement.

We affirm our commitment to the safety of Palestinian and Jewish communities. Our vision is one where both Palestinian and Jewish kin can live safely and freely. We commit to witnessing, educating, and advocating for an end to apartheid policies and human rights violations. 

Again, nice weasel wording, with a heavy use of patronizing language. Affirming commitment to the safety of Palestinian and Jewish communities without a single mention of Hamas who oppress their own people, let alone massacre Israelis, is whitewashing psychopathic slaughter by ruthless terrorists. And certainly no mention of the often-violent antisemitism sweeping the world. The "end to apartheid policies and human rights violations?" Try "an end to terrorism" instead. There's your apartheid and human rights violations.  Also note, no mention of Israel within this paragraph.

I serve as Minister of XXXX Unitarian Church. In an action that was personal, and in my view, pastoral in intention, I made inquiries of selected members of the local Jewish community before this meeting occurred. My intention was to give a “heads-up” that this was impending, and I hoped to seek your feedback as to whether and why you would perceive such an action as antisemitic. I did not provide specific text for two reasons: 1) the resolution was still being developed, and 2) I sought the response on broader issues and not on specific wording. 

In other words, he's throwing the onus on the Jews he contacted with that "heads up." 

Look at his phrasing. "I hoped to seek your feedback as to whether and why you would perceive such an action as antisemitic." (my emphasis added). That's not so much a statement as it is an accusatory line in the sand. "I hoped" reads like he didn't get what he wanted from said Jews. "(W)hether and why you would perceive such an action as antisemitic" is nice code wording for "how on earth can you people think we're being antisemitic? We're not. You're just seeing something that's not there."

You each replied. Your comments varied widely, and all three were sincere, heartfelt, and profound. 

Here he sets up himself and his congregation as victims by me and the other members of our Jewish community with a coded "I know what you people think about our resolution."  The Good Reverend drives that point home with his followup: 

It is apparent that none of you are comfortable with our church taking on such a resolution, and that each feels that the resolution I described has either antisemitic elements or is innately antisemitic. 

Read that sentence closely. "It is apparent that none of you are comfortable with our church taking on such a resolution" again throws the onus on us Jews. "How could you question me and the good people of this church? We're on the side of all that is clean and pure. It's you people who are 'uncomfortable' with our morally unreprovable position."  The Good Reverend follows this accusation with more fingerpointing   "Each feels that the resolution I described has either antisemitic elements or is innately antisemitic." Again, blame the Jews. He's weasel-wording his real message, which is "It's your problem that you misinterpret our intentions, not ours."  Kind of like the Trumpian "It was a perfect phone call" defense.

I deeply appreciate the work that you did, and the candor and respect you showed by reacting. I realize that you may find this whole role unfair, and might question whether it is OK for me to ask these questions of you. I believe in the importance of dialogue, and am quite willing to risk discomfort if it helps us toward understanding how other persons interpret and engage with big issues.

Patronizing, isn't he? First, if he read my email response closely, the Good Reverend would find that I did have candor but not an iota of respect for him nor his congregation. 

Next, "I realize that you may find this whole role unfair, and might question whether it is OK for me to ask these questions of you" again sets up his attempt to make us the bad guys: He's the one who believes in the "importance of dialogue," not us. 

The final clause of that sentence pulls the Jew trigger. "We want to see how others interpret and engage in big issues."  Not "My congregation and I." No, it's "We" who want to talk about big issues. It's "you" who don't want to talk and certainly don't have enlightened minds like "we" do.

My response here will only touch the surface of the issues here, and I will not try to respond to all of your rich and complex comments. 

In other words, "I ain't touching what I don't want to touch." In the most glaring example, he ignores me calling him out for his "I can't trust a Jew" remark that he claimed was a joke.

A few specifics.  

1.)   One of you directly asked if our congregation has a history of condemning other genocides. The answer is no, although there are precedents from our national association. Taking formal positions is a rather new way of communicating at our church, and probably only started with the “Black Lives Matter” and women’s reproductive rights campaigns.

Taking formal positions at your church is a new thing? The Black Lives Matter movement began in July 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer, George Zimmerman, 11 years ago. Issues on women's reproductive rights have been around for a whole lot longer than that. Why is your latest focus solely on Israel? Does the answer rhyme with the word "Youse," as in "Youse people"?

In the past six months, the Good Reverend and his congregation, along with their friends in SS4P (many of whom are congregants themselves) have held many programs with emphasis on the poor paradise Palestine and evil icky Israel narrative. I am not discounting the sufferings of Palestinians, nor am I giving a free pass to Israeli government (note that I point out the Israeli govenment and not the handy catch-all noun "Israel). Well, the Good Reverend and his congregants aren't getting a free pass either.

Here's a few of Church's recent programs, with their descriptions and my annotations.

A panel of doctors report on what they saw on the front lines of Gaza and the many wounded Palestinians receiving poor--if any--medical treatment. 

I think it's safe to assume there was no discussion of the many wounded Israeli hostages in the tunnels beneath Gaza receiving poor--if any--medical treatment. Correct me if I'm wrong.  I'll wait.

Time's up. Next:

A discussion on the war in Gaza with two leaders of the Israeli antiwar movement, one speaker is Israeli and served in the IDF,  and the other is a Palestinian. Their names are being purposely withheld for safety reasons.  Their message is particularly important as the genocide has spread to Lebanon and the West Bank.  Media outlets are ignoring Gaza and are not offering a serious critique of the US-Israel strategy for widening the war in the Middle East. 

"Their names are purposely being withheld for safety reasons." Explain what this means, please. Or not. Going for the latter rather than the former sure makes "Israel" a more nefarious monster, doesn't it. Is there a reason behind that ominous "safety reasons" warning? Perhaps there are people in the neighborhood who might have a differing and completely factual responses to these two brave and certainly handpicked souls. Hmmmm....who might want to do that? Does their name also rhyme with the word "Youse?" 

As for the "genocide" spreading in Lebanon, the Good Reverend and his congregants once again indulge themselves in a careful excising of facts. The bombs hurled at Israel from Lebanon in an unprovoked attack killed 12 Druze children guilty of the obviously genocidal action of playing soccer at their school in northern Israel. "Media outlets ignoring Gaza?" "Not offering a serious critique of the US-Israel strategy for widening the war in the Middle East?" Hmmmm....who controls those media outlets behind this cover up? Any guesses? Does this secretive monstrosity also rhyme with the word "Youse"?

Add to all this a pair of films about evil icky Israel screened at the Unitarian Church and SS4P. The first is a "documentary" produced by Al Jazeera, to again to emphasize the poor paradise Palestine / evil icky Israel narrative. Surely Al Jazeera is an outstanding and unbiased news organization, correct? Well, take a look at the many places where the "reporting" of Al Jazeera has been called out for the propaganda it is. Let's start with the most recent example of a Mideast government shutting down the Al Jazeera digital news operations in their land. It must be that evil icky Israel, right? Nope. It was the Palestinian Authority, the official government of Palestine. Oopsie! A full list of countries calling out Al Jazeera for what it is, including Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates is here.

The second "documentary" is Israelism, a screed against Israel (duh!) by two "good ones"--excuse me, I got that wrong. Here's the description offered by the Unitarians, straight from the film's website: "When two young American Jews raised to unconditionally love Israel witness the brutal way Israel treats Palestinians, their lives take sharp left turns." Among other things, the filmmakers interviewed people under false pretenses, then wholly manipulated quotes to turn words into the opposite of interviewees' real meanings.  Israelism also includes shots of kids at Jewish day schools whose parents did not consent for their children to be part of the film. Oops! Our bad, say the filmmakers. Right? For a detailed response to the many distortions, manipulations, and outright lies propagated in Israelism check out the hardcore fact-checking from Roots Metal.

2.)   We can argue about what is entailed in a ‘genocide’, and when that deeply provocative word is appropriate. What I can state with confidence is that the severity and apparent indiscriminate nature of Israel’s military response in Gaza appears genocidal to most of my congregants, and reads to us as blatant disregard for Palestinian lives. 

"Appears genocidal to most of my congregants." I guess that makes it a fact, doesn't it? And how does what happened on October 7, 2023, a day with the highest rate of slaughtered Jews since the Holocaust, committed by terrorists coming out of Palestine, "appear" to most of your congregants?  Questions, questions.

Incidentally, someone with a tad more knowledge about the Mideast than your congregants who focus on how things "appear", has some interesting thoughts on who is committing genocide. He describes in graphic detail what he's seen in footage taken by the Hamas terrorists themselves during their barbarous melee. Among other things noted is a terrorist calling his parents back in Gaza, bragging about the number of Jews he's just killed. But that doesn't appear "genocidal," now does it? Stephen D. Smith, an expert on genocides, begs to differ.

3.)   Our congregants feel compelled to speak out because they feel complicit, in that our nation and our tax dollars are providing the bulk of the armaments used in the destruction of Gaza. This is a source of great shame to us as Americans.

What else do your congregants feel compelled to speak out re: how their tax dollars are being spent? Is it just evil icky Israel?  Seriously, is there anything else they feel compelled to speak out against as they feel complicit in the way our nation and tax dollars get used? What else do they feel is a source of great shame to us as Americans of which their aforementioned tax dollars are being spent? Hello...?  Hello...? Is this mic on?  Is that the sound of crickets I hear in the background?

4.)   I cannot speak for all of our members, but the broad majority support the persistence of a Jewish state in Israel, and believe that Israel is entitled to act to defend its citizens and secure their safety. We explicitly do not call for an end to all military aid, and would encourage support for defensive weaponry, especially technology that protects against missile and drone attacks.

Ummm...okay? This contradicts everything the Good Reverend has said thus far.  But wait folks, there's more!

5.)   The call for peace, self-determination of peoples, and harmony in Israel is Panglossian (nice use of high falutin' language, I must say) in nature, but the conflicts cannot resolve until it becomes a shared goal. The assaults, murders, and kidnapping by Hamas last October were a horror. (Ah!  Finally, an acknowledgement of both October 7 and Hamas. 'Bout time. Any word on numbers of people slaughtered or how many were taken hostage? No? How come?), I am concerned that the year of destruction in Gaza will have the lasting effect of creating a new generation of radicalized Palestinians, and fuel the hatred against Jews and Israel. When there is a shared denial of the possibility of peace except through submission, there will be no peace, and the land from the river to the sea will continue to be stained by human blood.

This last part boils over with a juicy combination of hypocrisy and what is either feigned or true ignorance. I'm not sure, though I lean toward "feigned." As I pointed out to the Good Reverend in my initial email, "The Hamas Charter openly calls for destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. It quotes 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' a fraudulent document created by late 19thcentury Russian officials. It claims that Jews are intent on world domination and hence must be eradicated from the earth. The Protocols served the purposes of tsars, Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, and now Hamas terrorists, who control every level of what goes on in Palestine." 

And where did that handy-dandy catch phrase "from the river to the sea" first appear? No less than the Hamas Charter. To quote: "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea." And that's the nice part of the Hamas Charter. You can read the translated document here. 

6.)   I cannot know antisemitism in the same way I cannot know racism – I am not one of you. (or is that "youse"?) Yet we do not deny that it is real and that it persists in many forms, locally and worldwide. (Well phrased, that clause. Great use of high-minded language in classic "we better cover our collective tushies'" ethos.) I am deeply saddened by the continued resurgence of antisemitic behaviors and tropes, and I fear the growth of pressures that will push all forms of exclusion and hate-based rhetoric in our culture. (This from a guy who makes "jokes" like "I can't trust a Jew.") I am also concerned that pro-Palestinian voices are likely to move towards anti-Jewish postures if we cannot find ways to moderate the political stances. (That's a nice way to ignore that "pro-Palestinian voices" moved towards anti-Jewish postures with unmitigated zeal on October 7, and well before the blood was even dry in the Israeli desert. Once again, he feigns ignorance that the barn door was flung open a long time ago and the horses are most assuredly on the run.)

That is a start. I understand that the resolution passed by our congregation will not meet your approval, and I am fine with that for now. (I'm sure he is fine with it both now and for the foreseeable future.) It is an expression by a group of loving and caring people to name what we see as a major transgression against humanity, one that we hold some direct responsibility for supporting. (Again, no mention by these loving and caring people of the major transgression against humanity on October 7, 2023. I'll grant them more of that direct responsibility that they so dearly want to own: as I've demonstrated, the UU church in my neighborhood has a long-standing record of providing lots of forums to pro-Hamas cultists. In fact, they are part of the cult.) I hope you can see it as such. (Nope. But I see what you and those loving and caring people are, as such.) Most of them work very hard to be fair-minded, which is such a difficult place to land in this time of biased info sources. (Spoiler alert: when you continue holding one-sided forums--dare I say "biased info sources"--you're not working very hard to be fair-minded. And we know exactly where you land.)

I would welcome an opportunity to learn more, to find better discernment for coming to terms with these issues. XXXXX suggested Rabbinical input, and I would encourage those voices.(Again, nice weasel wording. Lots of "woulds" but no "let's make this happen. How can we do it?") I have the greatest respect for each of you, and am grateful that you decided to respond to my request. (Really? Then why do you refuse to acknowledge your "I can't trust a Jew" joke and offer an apology? That might be a better way to show greatest respect in deed rather than nonexistent empathy and self-serving platitudes.) While we do not agree about many of the pieces that make up the tragic puzzle of the Mid-East, I believe we do agree on most of the underlying values that we would like to see take hold. (More word salads.) In particular, I hold the sanctity of life, all life, as an imperative. (And yet, you can't trust a Jew. Wait, you told us that this remark was a "joke.")

One last comment. So far, this discussion has been with me alone. I will not share anything you wrote at all widely without your permission. I will take the liberty of sharing with a few of my more trusted associates at the church so they can know how I have engaged on their behalf, but I have no intention of opening this discussion to others, and particularly not SS4P.  You should feel free to share my words with others in your circles as well, although I have been casual enough in form and thought that I would prefer not to be published from this. 

This tells me one thing: he must have discovered one way or other that I shared his initial email and my response via this website. I also provided it to people with much larger platforms than me. From what I was told, his tone-deaf antisemitism was seen worldwide and by thousands. Good. I have no problem sharing his follow-up. If you don't want to be called out as antisemitic, then don't send me any patronizing weasel-worded statements that you don't want shared worldwide. Good Reverend, I see you for what you are. When it comes to Jews, I'm not a "good one" who listens and obeys. In fact, I'm one of those Jews you can't trust.

So I thank you, and I apologize for some of the pain I know I have brought to you. (He apologizes for some of the pain he "knows he brought." Not all the pain, just some of the pain. Nice mea culpa there.) I am working on refuah shleima. (You need to work a little harder. I'm not buying your remorse, no matter how many Hebrew phrases you find on Google.)

In Peace, In Love. 

(And hypocrisy. And disingenuousness. And so much more, none of it decent or good and certainly not in peace, in love.)

Rev. XXX XXXXX

XXXX Unitarian Church

And now, the punchline: 

For the record, I did respond to him.  Here's what I wrote:

Hello Reverend XXXXX,

I read the statement of your congregation and your accompanying note. Please refer to my previous email for my response.

Thank you,

Arnie Bernstein

To no surprise, I have yet to hear back from the Good Reverend.