Uncategorized
A scholar sees a common root for antisemitism and racism: ‘Christian supremacy’
(JTA) — Magda Teter’s new book, “Christian Supremacy,” begins in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Aug. 11, 2017. Hundreds of white nationalist neo-Nazis who ostensibly gathered to protest the removal of a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee from a local park broke into a chant: “Jews will not replace us.”
Other writers and scholars would note how antisemitism shaped white nationalism. But Teter, professor of history and the Shvidler Chair of Judaic Studies at Fordham University, saw something else: how centuries of Christian thought and practice fed the twin evils of antisemitism and racism.
“The ideology espoused by white supremacists in the US and in Europe is rooted in Christian ideas of social and religious hierarchy,” she writes. “These ideas developed, gradually, first in the Mediterranean and Europe in respect to Jews and then in respect to people of color in European colonies and in the US, before returning transformed back to Europe.”
In the book, subtitled “Reckoning with the Roots of Antisemitism and Racism,” she traces this idea from the writings of the early church fathers like Paul the Apostle, though centuries of Catholic and Protestant debates over the status of Jews in Europe, to the hardening of racist attitudes with the rise of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Antisemitic laws and theology, she argues, developed within Christianity a “mental habit” of exclusion and dominance that would eventually be applied to people of color up to and including modern times.
Teter is careful to acknowledge the different forms antisemitism and racism have taken, distinguishing between the Jews’ experience of social and legal exclusion and near annihilation, and the enslavement, displacement and ongoing persecution of Black people. And yet, she writes, “that story began with Christianity’s theological relation with Jews and Judaism.”
Teter is previously the author of “Blood Libel: On The Trail of an Antisemitic Myth,” winner of the 2020 National Jewish Book Award. At Fordham, the Catholic university in the Bronx, she is helping assemble what may be the largest repository of artifacts and literature dedicated to the Jewish history of the borough.
We spoke Thursday about how groups like the Proud Boys embrace centuries-old notions of Christian superiority, how “whiteness” became a thing and how she, as a non-Jew raised in Poland, became a Jewish studies scholar.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Your book was conceived and written during the COVID lockdown. Where did the idea for the book come from?
It’s an accidental project. I’ve been teaching the history of antisemitism for years, and I live in Harlem so questions of race and racism are very stark in my daily life. And since I grew up in Poland, and American history was not something we were taught or studied, I’ve never been satisfied with the various explanations for the strength of antisemitism and history of racism. And as I mentioned in my prologue, I watched the Raoul Peck documentary, “I Am Not Your Negro,” which has a clip with James Baldwin saying that white people have to figure out why they invented the idea of the N-word and must “embrace this stranger that they have maligned so long.” You could also say that the European Christians created the idea of “the Jew” and that sort of caricature had absolutely nothing to do with flesh and blood Jews. I kept noticing these parallels, as an outsider, reading American and African-American history.
I was also thinking about this idea of servitude that was attached to Jews in Christian theology, and then in law.
You write in your book that “Over time, white European Christians branded both Jews and people of color with ‘badges of servitude’ and inferiority.” What do you mean by servitude in this context?
In Christian theology, from the earliest Christian texts, the idea of servitude and slavery is attached to the concept of Jews and Judaism. Paul does it in his Epistles. He uses this quote from the book of Genesis that “the elder shall serve the younger,” which becomes really embedded in Christian theology. It is the Jews, the elder people, who should serve the Christians, the younger people. Later on in medieval theology and canon law, Jews are in a servile position, consigned for their sin of rejecting Jesus to perpetual servitude. So even though Jews were free people and could live mostly where they wanted to live, marry whoever they wanted to marry — nobody was sold and some even had slaves — that idea of Jews as confined to perpetual servitude to Christians created a habit of thinking of Jews as having an inferior social status.
That language became secularized in modern times, and we see the development of the [antisemitic] trope of Jewish power: that they are in places where they shouldn’t be. I worked on fleshing out the parallels between the idea and then legal status of Jewish servitude and the conceptual perception of Black people in servile and inferior positions.
Magda Teter’s new book explores how “white European Christians branded both Jews and people of color with ‘badges of servitude’ and inferiority.” (Chuck Fishman)
What other kinds of parallels did you find between racism and antisemitism?
In the Christian theology, Black people, like Jews, will be seen as cursed by God. Jews were [portrayed as] lazy because they didn’t work physically — they made money and exploited Christians. Black people were [portrayed as] lazy because they were trying to avoid physical labor at the expense of white men. Both people were seen as carnal, both as sexually dangerous, and so on.
I was struck by the fact that the racist turn of Christian supremacy — justifying the enslavement of Black people on theological grounds — is a fairly late development, taking hold in the early modern period when Europeans established slaveholding empires.
That’s right. In the summer of 2020, the summer of George Floyd and Black Lives Matter, we were all thinking about these issues of race and racism and America. And as I was in the middle of writing the article that became the book, I felt that there was a deeper history that needed to be told, and that slavery is not bound by color until the enslavement of Black Africans by Europeans during the colonial expansion of Europe.
After the French Revolution, when Jews were offered “emancipation” in much of Europe, there were deep debates about whether they could be citizens and be entitled to the same rights and protections as Christian citizens of France and England and other countries. How was that debate informed by Christianity?
In pre-modern Europe, there was obviously both a religious and legal framework under which Jews existed. They had their place in a social hierarchy. After the French Revolution, people are creating a new political reality. The idea of equality obviously challenged the social hierarchies that existed, including the idea that Christians were the superior religion. And that begins to play a role on two levels. One is the level of, well, “how can you be equal and be our judges and make decisions about us?” It’s fear of power — political power and political equality. That challenges the habit of thinking that sees Jews as inferior, in servitude and otherwise insolent and arrogant.
The other level comes from Enlightenment scholars who begin to place Jews in the Middle East and in the Holy Land, in Palestine. Jews are no longer seen as European. They are seen as “Oriental,” and they are compared to the non-European religions and practices that these Enlightenment scholars have been studying. Their differences are now also racialized. “They are not like us, they can’t assimilate. They can never be Frenchmen, they can never be Germans.”
And I guess it’s a short step from that to regarding people with dark skin as inferior and subordinate.
That’s right. Enlightenment scholars are also trying to to understand why it is justified to enslave Black Africans and they do it through “scientific” and other means. They classify Africans as inferior intellectually and they create this idea of race.
I began to think about these European politicians and intellectuals in terms of creating their identities, and what I ended up arguing is what we saw in Charlottesville, what we’re seeing in Europe. It’s not necessarily just about hate, but it’s about exclusion and rejection of Jews and people of color from equality, from citizenship.
And the common thread here is that whiteness and Christianity become inseparable. You write that “freedom and liberty now came to be linked not only to Christianity, but to whiteness, and servitude and enslavement to blackness.”
That’s right. White Christian “liberty” becomes embedded and embodied in law.
Did you see any pitfalls in drawing parallels between the Black and Jewish experiences? I am thinking of those in either community who might say, “How dare you compare our suffering to theirs!”
Yes, I was tempered. I think what some call “comparative victimhood” has paralyzed conversations about this subject, and I kept it in my mind all the time. What I hope comes through is that there’s incredible value in a comparative approach. Coming from Jewish studies as my primary field, the comparison with the Black experience gave me clarity on the nature of antisemitism as well as on the nature of the Jewish experience, and vice versa: The Jewish experience can also give clarity to some of the aspects of anti-Black racism.
What’s an example?
So, for instance, questions like, “Are Jews white? Are they not white? When did they become white?” That’s a whole genre of scholarship. And when you look at it through the lens of law and ideology, you begin to see that from a legal perspective, Jews were considered white in the United States because they could immigrate and they could be naturalized according to law. They did not have to go to court to become American. Their rights to vote were not challenged. There was discrimination, they couldn’t stay in hotels and in some places they couldn’t find employment, but by law, they were considered citizens. The debate about the whiteness of Jews is creating a fog of misunderstanding.
Black Americans were targeted by specific legal statutes from the very beginning in the Constitution and then in naturalization law and so on. And then there was the backlash even after the Civil War to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments [aimed at establishing political equality for Americans of all races].
Statues at the Strasbourg Cathedral depict Ecclesia and Synagoga, representing the triumph of the church, at left, and the servitude of Judaism, which is represented by a blindfolded figure, drooping and carrying a broken lance. (Edelseider/Wikimedia Commons)
How much do modern-day white supremacists, like the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys, see themselves as Christian? Or is this a kind of white supremacy that doesn’t name itself Christian but doesn’t even realize how many of its ideas are based in theology?
I think they might not be conscious of this legacy, but neo-Nazis take from the legacy of the Nazis who themselves were not thinking of themselves as Christian necessarily. But what I argue in the book is that white Christian supremacy becomes white supremacy. It never discards the Christian sense of domination and superiority that emerges from its early relationship with Jews and Judaism.
In the United States, Black people serve as contrast figures to whiteness, in the law and in the culture. You cannot have whiteness without Blackness. For Christians, Jews serve as that contrast figure. Consciously or unconsciously, the Proud Boys are embracing that. They talk of “God-given” freedoms for white people. That is the Christian legacy.
You said that the Nazis didn’t necessarily see themselves as a Christian movement. But I must ask, even though it is not the scope of your book, was the Holocaust a culmination of white Christian supremacy? Because I think many Christian theologians would want to say that Nazism was godless, and a perversion of the true faith.
I’ll say that when exclusionary ideology is coupled with the power of the state, that’s where it can lead.
In the years since the Holocaust especially, there have been many efforts by Christian leaders to address the ideological failings of the past. You write about Nostra Aetate, the 1965 declaration by the Catholic Church absolving Jews of collective guilt in the death of Jesus and some Protestant documents of contrition. But I got the feeling you were disappointed that many denominations haven’t gone far enough in reckoning with the past.
There was a sort of a moral sense that something needs to be addressed after the Holocaust. But then it is not fully addressed. I don’t think anybody has addressed the issue of power — the roots of hate, yes, but not the dynamics of power. We’ll see where the book goes, but maybe theologians will begin to grapple with this legacy of superiority and domination, and the way hierarchical habits of thinking have been developed through theology and through religious culture.
What other impact do you hope the book may have?
White supremacy is very much in the air. We need to speak up against it, and make connections and allyships. I hope that maybe because the book deals with law and power, it may create bridges among people who care about “We the People” as a vision of people who are diverse, respectful and equal, and not the exclusionary vision offered by white and Christian supremacy.
A cross burns at a Ku Klux Klan rally on Aug. 8, 1925. (National Photo Company Collection)
I’d love to talk about your background. You’re not Jewish but you are chair of Jewish Studies at Fordham, a Catholic university. What drew you to the study of Judaism and the Jews?
I grew up in Poland with a father who from the time I was a little girl would point out to me that there had been Jews in Poland. We would drive through the countryside, and he’d say, “This used to be a Jewish town and there used to be a synagogue and there was the Jewish cemetery.” I grew up being very conscious of the past’s presence and this kind of stark absence of Jews in Poland, where in the 1970s when I grew up Jewish history was taboo.
As soon as Jewish books on Jewish subjects began to be published, including those that dealt with antisemitism, we would read it together. We would talk about it. He wouldn’t just shift the destruction and murder of Jews in Poland on to the Nazis.
There was no Jewish studies program in Poland when I was applying to universities, so I studied Hebrew in Israel, and then studied Yiddish in New York at YIVO. I came to Columbia University to get my PhD in Jewish history and my career went in the direction it did. I was a professor of history and director of the Jewish and Israel studies program at Wesleyan University. I came to Fordham eight years ago and created a program in Jewish studies.
Your previous book was about the blood libel, the historic canard that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood. This one’s about antisemitism. I don’t want to presume, but is your interest in these subjects in any way an act of contrition?
I grew up in a very secular household. I did not grow up Catholic. But I think growing up in Poland made me very, very aware of antisemitism and the history of antisemitism. I got my PhD from Columbia University in Jewish history, which did not emphasize Jewish suffering, but Jewish life, and I have studied Jewish life and teach about Jewish life — not just about Jewish suffering.
However, in the last few years, antisemitism has certainly been on the minds of many of us. I also am committed to the idea of shared history, and therefore all my scholarship, as much as it is about Jews, it is also about the church and Poland and the law. Jews are an integral part of that history and culture. And, as such, I’m committed to that, to teaching about the vibrancy of Jewish life as much as the dynamics of what made that life difficult over the centuries.
—
The post A scholar sees a common root for antisemitism and racism: ‘Christian supremacy’ appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
How to face life’s difficulties with total confidence
ווי אַזוי קען מען זיך באַוואָרענען פֿון ווערן פּאַראַליזירט ווען מען שטייט פֿאַר אַ סיטואַציע וואָס זעט אויס ווי אַ געפֿאַר?
דער ענטפֿער איז זייער פּשוט: מען דאַרף באַטראַכטן די סיטואַציע ווי אַ פֿאַרמעסט, אַנשטאָט ווי אַ באַדראָונג.
אָבער ווי אַזוי קען מען דערגרייכן אַזאַ ענדערונג פֿונעם קוקווינקל, אַז אַנשטאָט זיך צו פֿילן דערדריקט און אַנטמוטיקט, זאָל מען זיך פֿילן געשטאַרקט און מאָטיווירט?
צו דעם דאַרף מען צוויי זאַכן: ערשטנס, זיך פֿאָרשטעלן דעם רעזולטאַט וואָס מען וועט האָבן ווען מען וועט איבערקומען די שוועריקייט, און צווייטנס, זיך געהעריק צוגרייטן, כּדי צו קענען מצליח זײַן אין איבערקומען די אַרויספֿאָדערונגען.
אין דער פּרשה די וואָך, ויצא, לייענען מיר ווי יעקבֿ אָבינו איז אַרויס פֿון זײַן טאַטנס הויז אין באר־שבֿע, און זיך געלאָזט אין וועג קיין חרן, צום הויז פֿון זײַן זיידן פֿון דער מאַמעס צד, בתואל. ער האָט דאָס געמוזט טאָן ווײַל ער האָט געוווּסט אַז זײַן ברודער עשׂו וויל אים הרגענען. יעקבֿ, נישט עשׂו, האָט דאָך באַקומען די ברכות פֿון זייער טאַטן יצחק.
ס׳איז אָבער דאָ אַ צווייטע סיבה פֿאַר יעקבֿס נסיעה. ער האָט געדאַרפֿט זוכן אַ שידוך, ווײַל זײַנע עלטערן זענען נישט געווען צופֿרידן מיטן אויפֿפֿיר פֿון די פֿרויען און מיידלעך אין כּנען.
לאָמיר זיך אַרײַנשטעלן אין זײַן מצבֿ. דאָס לעבן אין באר־שבֿע איז פֿאַר יעקבֿן געווען רויִק און באַקוועם. ער האָט געוווינט בײַ זײַנע עלטערן; זײַענדיק אַ בחור האָט ער ניט געהאַט קיין באַזונדערע דאגות, און האָט געקענט זיך אָפּגעבן מיט לימוד התּורה און פּערזענלעכער אַנטוויקלונג. און פּלוצלינג, האָט ער געמוזט אַנטלויפֿן פֿון דעם באַקוועמען און באַשיצטן מצבֿ, און זיך אַרויסלאָזן אויף אַ וועג צו אַן אָרט וואָס איז געווען פֿול מיט שוועריקייטן און סכּנות.
חז״ל דערקלערן אַז דער נאָמען פֿון דעם שטאָט חרן, וווּהין ער איז געגאַנגען, איז פֿאַרבונדן מיטן וואָרט „חרון אף“, וואָס מיינט כּעס, ווײַל דער אויפֿפֿיר פֿון די אײַנוווינער האָט אַרויסגערופֿן דעם כּעס פֿונעם אויבערשטן.
דערצו איז זײַן פֿעטער לבֿן, וואָס האָט געוווינט מיט בתואל, געווען באַרימט מיט זײַן אומערלעכקייט.
קענען מיר זיך פֿאָרשטעלן אַ גרעסערן קאָנטראַסט צווישן דער רויִקייט פֿון זײַן היימישער סבֿיבֿה און דעם שווערן מצבֿ וואָס האָט אים דערוואַרט אין זײַן נײַעם אָרט?
אָן קיין ספֿק האָט ער מסתּמא געפֿילט אַנגסטן, אומזיכערקייט און הילפֿלאָזיקייט.
די תּורה באַשרײַבט ווי יעקבֿ האָט אויפֿן וועג זיך אָפּגעשטעלט דאַווענען, און ווי ער האָט גענומען שטיינער כּדי זיך צו באַשיצן פֿון ווילדע חיות בשעת ער האָט זיך געלייגט שלאָפֿן אויפֿן וועג.
אין זײַן חלום האָט יעקבֿ געזען אַ לייטער וואָס איז געשטאַנען אויף דער ערד, און זײַן שפּיץ האָט דערגרייכט ביזן הימל. ער האָט געזען מלאכים אַרויפֿגיין און אַראָפּגיין אויפֿן לייטער.
דער אייבערשטער האָט צו אים גערעדט און צוגעזאָגט אים צו באַשיצן. ער האָט איבערגעחזרט זײַן הבֿטחה צו געבן זײַנע קינדער דאָס לאַנד אויף וועלכן ער איז געלעגן. דערצו האָט ער אים געבענטשט מיט אַ גרויסער און חשובֿער נאָכקומערשאַפֿט, סײַ אין כּמות און סײַ אין איכות.
ווען יעקבֿ האָט זיך אויפֿגעוועקט פֿון זײַן חלום, האָט ער געמאַכט אַ נדר: אויב דער אויבערשטער וועט אים באַגלייטן, אים געבן ברויט צו עסן און קליידער אָנצוטאָן, און ער וועט קענען צוריקקומען צום הויז פֿון זײַן טאַטן מיט זײַן רוחניותדיקער און מאָראַלישער שלימות, וועט ער אויפֿשטעלן אַ הייליקן אָרט לכּבֿוד דעם אויבערשטן און אָפּגעבן מעשר פֿון אַלץ וואָס ער פֿאַרמאָגט. אָפּגעבן מעשׂר — אַוועקגעבן אַ צענטל פֿון דײַן פֿאַרמעגן אויף צדקה — איז אַ גרויסע מיצווה.
גלײַך דערנאָך דערציילט אונדז די תּורה: וַיִּשָּׂא יַעֲקֹב רַגְלָיו וַיֵּלֶךְ אַרְצָה בְנֵי קֶדֶם. „יעקבֿ האָט אויפֿגעהויבן זײַנע פֿיס און איז געגאַנגען צום לאַנד פֿון די מענטשן אין מזרח.“
רש״י דערקלערט אַז דער אויסערגעוויינטלעכער אויסדרוק, „וישא יעקב רגליו“, ווײַזט אָן אַז יעקבֿס פֿיס זענען געוואָרן אַ סך לײַכטער, ווײַל זײַן האַרץ איז געוואָרן פֿריילעך נאָך דער הבֿטחה פֿון דער געטלעכער שמירה. יעקבֿ האָט נישט געמיינט אַז דאָס וואָס דערוואַרט אים וועט זײַן גרינג. ער האָט אָבער געהאַט בטחון אַז ער וועט מצליח זײַן. מיט אָט דער זיכערקייט האָט ער געפֿילט אַז ער האָט די כּוחות צו קענען בײַשטיין און איבערקומען יעדע שוועריקייט וואָס האָט אים דערוואַרט.
די הבֿטחה פֿונעם אויבערשטן אַליין איז אָבער נישט געווען גענוג. ער האָט זיך אויך געדאַרפֿט געהעריק צוגרייטן צו דעם וואָס האָט אים דערוואַרט.
דרײַ יסודות פֿון אָט דער צוגרייטונג ווערן אָנגעדײַט אין די דרײַ באַדינגונגען וואָס יעקבֿ האָט דערמאָנט אין זײַן נדר: עסן; קליידער, און צוריקקומען צום טאַטנס הויז אין דעם זעלבן רוחניותדיקן און מאָראַלישן מצבֿ.
אין צוגאָב צו דעם פּשוטן זין, ליגט אין די ווערטער אויך אַ גײַסטישן באַדײַט:
עסן גיט דעם מענטש חיות און גיט אים אַרײַן כּוח. אויף אַ רוחניותדיקן אופֿן ווערט די תּורה פֿאַרגליכן צו עסן, ווײַל דורך לימוד התּורה דערנערט מען זיך אינטעלעקטועל און רוחניותדיק צום אייבערשטן. פּונקט ווי דאָס גשמיותדיקע עסן ווערט פֿאַרדייט און ווערט אַ טייל פֿון דעם מענטש אַליין, און גיט אים חיות און כּוח, אַזוי אויך ווערט די תּורה וואָס מען לערנט אַ טייל פֿון אונדזער אינערלעכן לעבן און גיט אונדז רוחניותדיקע חיות.
קליידער נעמען אַרום דעם מענטש און באַשיצן אים פֿון דרויסנדיקע השפּעות. אַזוי אויך ווען אַ ייִד איז מקיים די מיצוות שאַפֿן זיי, די מיצוות, אַ רוחניותדיקע באַשיצונג פֿונעם מענטשן.
דער לערנונג איז גילטיק אויך פֿאַר אונדז הײַנט.
כּדי צו קענען זיך שטעלן אַנטקעגן די שוועריקייטן פֿון לעבן מיט בטחון און שׂימחה, דאַרף מען זיך צוגרייטן דורך דרײַ זאַכן: ערשטנס, לימוד התּורה — דאָס שטאַרקט אונדז פֿון אינעווייניק און גיט אונדז רוחניותדיקע חיות און כּוחות. צווייטנס, מקיים זײַן די מצוות: דאָס באַשיצט אונדז פֿון דרויסן און גיט אונדז די נויטיקע רוחניותדיקע שמירה, און דריטנס, נישט פֿאַרלירן פֿון די אויגן דעם ענדגילטיקן ציל: דורך אונדזער באַגעגעניש מיט דער גשמיותדיקער וועלט פֿאַרוואַנדלען מיר די וועלט אין אַ „וווינאָרט“ פֿאַרן אויבערשטן, אַ „דירה בתּחתונים“.
דאָס איז דער טיפֿערער באַדײַט פֿון „צוריק קומען צום טאַטנס הויז“: צו ברענגען די גאַנצע וועלט צו אַ מצבֿ וווּ עס ווערט דערקענט אַז זי איז דעם טאַטנס – דעם אויבערשטנס — וווינאָרט. אַז יעדער באַגעגעניש און יעדע פֿאַרבינדונג מיט דער וועלט זאָל אויסדריקן דעם געטלעכן מקור, דעם געטלעכן בײַזײַן און דעם געטלעכן ציל פֿון זיין וועזן.
אַז מען פֿאַרשטייט קלאָר וואָס דער ציל איז, און מען גרייט זיך צו ווי געהעריק, איז מען אין אַ בעסערן צושטאַנד צו קענען אַנטקעגנגיין יעדע שוועריקייט מיט מוט און זיכערקייט.
ווי דער באַרימטער פּסיכיאַטער וויקטאָר פֿראַנקל האָט עס אַזוי שיין און טיפֿזיניק אויסגעדריקט:
„ווער עס האָט אַ ׳פֿאַרוואָס׳ אינעם לעבן, קען איבערקומען כּמעט יעדן ׳ווי אַזוי׳.“
The post How to face life’s difficulties with total confidence appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Boston suburb votes to divest from Israel
(JTA) — SOMERVILLE, Mass. — The City Council in this city north of Boston voted 10-1 Thursday night to ban the municipality from doing business with companies complicit in humanitarian violations, specifically naming those operating in “Israel and Palestine.”
Councilor Kristen Strezo cast the only opposing vote on the 11-member board.
Opponents of the ordinance fear that in execution it would be akin to a boycott of Israel, and as such would create a negative environment for the city’s Jewish and Israeli residents. The ban only involves companies that work with the municipality and does not impact companies that operate privately in Somerville. It also excludes sole proprietors (individuals operating as companies).
Somerville Mayor Jake Wilson’s office said given that the ordinance passed with a veto-proof majority, the measure is now considered final.
The ordinance was originally introduced in June by Councilors Ben Ewen-Campen and Ben Wheeler, after the City Council voted in November 2025 to implement ballot Question 3 on Israel divestment, which had been approved by 55.7% of voters earlier that month. Question 3 spoke of banning businesses that sustain “Israel’s apartheid, genocide, and illegal occupation of Palestine.”
During his campaign in 2025, Wilson did not endorse Question 3.
Nine councilors on Thursday night offered comments in advance of the vote.
Ewen-Campen, who wrote and revised the ordinance along with Wheeler, spoke about the importance of a Massachusetts city passing an ordinance about a country across the world, especially at a time when the federal government has clamped down on pro-Palestinian student protesters, noting two incidents of protesters being detained by ICE allegedly for speaking against Israel.
“I think the reason that people want us to be quiet about it is because when you do talk about it, there is just no way to justify it,” Ewen-Campen said.
“I am not under any illusion that Somerville is going to have some enormous impact on the world [by passing this ordinance], but I do think that all of us collectively deciding to be silent about this does have an impact on the world,” he said. “That is why I think it is worth it to have taken this action, and that is why I have asked for all of your support tonight.”
Strezo invoked the Holocaust to explain why she considered the ban antisemitic, referring to Kristallnacht, the Nov. 9-10, 1938, pogrom against Jews in Germany and Austria.
“A few years before Kristallnacht, the Nazis worked to deter the public from shopping at Jewish businesses,” she said. “Their efforts started in moments like tonight.” On behalf of her Jewish community, Strezo emphasized that the ordinance “makes us feel targeted. It makes us feel unsafe. It makes us feel unwelcome.”
As she spoke, members of the group Somerville for Palestine (S4P), who had gathered outside City Hall for a rally in advance of and throughout the meeting, could be heard through the window, the chanting getting increasingly louder until the words were clearly audible over Strezo’s speech: “Disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest.”
“This ordinance will do nothing to solve the real conflict in the Middle East,” Strezo said. “What it will do and has been doing is make Jewish people and Israelis feel less welcome in our city spaces.”
One councilor pointed out that the ordinance, while worth passing, was not what she’d hoped. Councilor Emily Hardt said, “Supporting Palestinian human rights and standing firmly against antisemitism are not contradictory positions. I believe that both are essential to our commitment to human dignity.” She went on to say that she would have preferred an ordinance that was focused on the actions of the U.S. government, “our government,” but given that this was the ordinance up for the vote, she would support it. “I appreciate the attempts to align use of our resources with our commitments to the rights and dignity of all people, in Israel and Palestine and around the world,” she said.
When the vote was finalized, members of the group Somerville for Palestine and other supporters of the ordinance, many wearing keffiyehs, stood up and cheered as they left the chamber. Shalom Somerville members and others opposing the ordinance, many of whom wore white shirts with blue square pins and had stickers with “I’m not welcome here” on their chests, stood silently as most of the room emptied.
“It’s disappointing seeing councilors knowingly abdicating their responsibility,” said Sam Gechter, president of Shalom Somerville, the local community group that has been active in opposing both the 2025 ballot question and the ordinance. “[Mayor Wilson] made several promises that he would veto it during the campaign. He said he would veto anything that named a country, so we would love to see him do that.”
“It feels so clear that this is what the majority want given that ten of our councilors voted yes,” said Mo Katz-Christy, a member of S4P’s leadership and Jewish Caucus. S4P was a major advocate for the original ballot Question 3 and worked with Councilor Ewen-Campen on the ordinance.
“They passed a strong ordinance that named Israel and Palestine, that named the genocide,” Katz-Christy said, as the S4P group played music in celebration behind them. “It’s targeting companies that are really bad actors.”
Under the ordinance, any vendor who is submitting a bid for the city’s business would have to certify it meets the criteria outlined in the ordinance. If their certification is contested, the city will consult the findings of a number of international organizations and lists, including the database of business enterprises maintained by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the divestment short-list database maintained by the American Friends Service Committee’s Investigate Project. The ordinance specifies that a company could be excluded from this prohibition should the director of finance deem that their services “are essential to the operation of the city, including by avoiding a significant financial burden.”
In the final Legislative Matters Committee meeting discussing the ordinance on Oct. 27, chief procurement officer Angela Allen, echoing the earlier sentiments of City Solicitor Cindy Amara, expressed concerns that the ordinance “would likely not sustain a legal challenge.” She noted that the city does not have the legal authority to debar bidders (prospective vendors) and that she was unsure who would be responsible for making the final call on whether or not a company met the criteria in the ordinance.
“This adds another layer of complexity that I am concerned, from a practical standpoint, could cause confusion and delay that would not be in the best interest of the city,” she said.
The vote came after several rounds of negotiations in the city’s Legislative Matters Committee, during which councilors debated the ethical and financial merits of the ordinance. The final ordinance that was voted on included updates in language that specified the companies that would be included in the ban must be “directly, knowingly and consistently” enabling or facilitating violations of humanitarian law, including in “Israel and Palestine.”
Longtime Somerville resident and Shalom Somerville member Kate Auspitz, who was present at the meeting, said, “I will never vote for any of them [city councilors] again except for Kristen Strezo… I do think it’s antisemitic, whatever they say. I think it’s denying Jews self-determination.”
Outside, in line to enter the City Council chambers, Willie Burnley Jr., a member of Boston Democratic Socialists of America who ran for mayor against Wilson last year and supported ballot Question 3, said: “I’m here to support my neighbors who are fighting for a better world, who are trying to get their city councilors to fight for the will of the people.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Boston suburb votes to divest from Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries calls for ‘dramatic change’ in Israel policy
(JTA) — U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat poised to become the chamber’s speaker in January, called for a significant shift in the U.S.-Israel relationship but stopped short of opposing defense partnerships.
“The status quo is unacceptable, and we need dramatic change,” Jeffries told reporters at a Thursday press conference.
Jeffries expressed a need for such change with respect to the West Bank, to Gaza and to a memorandum of understanding with Israel over military aid set to expire in 2028. That agreement, signed by the Obama administration in 2016, pledged $38 billion in military aid for Israel from fiscal years 2019 through 2028.
President Donald Trump has said he will wind the aid down before it is set to lapse, citing Israel’s unpopularity, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also backs ending military aid and replacing it by strengthening U.S.-Israel military cooperation.
But when asked about recent demands from Sen. Chris Van Hollen to remove provisions on defense collaborations with Israel from the National Defense Authorization Act – the model of what Netanyahu hopes to sustain – Jeffries responded that he hadn’t spoken with the senator. Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, plans to challenge Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer leadership of the Senate Democratic caucus when Democrats take over the chamber in January.
Instead, Jeffries said that “things have to dramatically change over in the Middle East,” without elaborating on the details of such changes. He stressed the importance of ensuring “a safe and secure Israel living side by side as a Jewish and democratic state with an independent Palestinian state that provides dignity and self-determination for the Palestinian people.” Netanyahu and much of the Israeli public oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state.
While Jeffries noted that he wasn’t saying anything he hasn’t “previously said publicly,” his decision to reiterate this need for change following the election as Democrats are set to seize control of Congress demonstrates how the party is adopting a more critical posture on Israel.
This past summer, Jeffries wrote to colleagues urging them to reject an amendment proposed by Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, that would have cut military aid to Israel. While a slight majority of Democrats voted in favor of the measure, it was defeated after getting no Republican support aside from its sponsor.
Jeffries had argued at the time that “there are more decisive ways to achieve the urgent change necessary when it comes to the far-right Netanyahu government,” warning that Massie’s amendment would have restricted Israel’s ability to confront Hamas, Hezbollah and other terror groups.
Nonetheless, Jeffries also noted in the letter that the Obama-era memorandum of understanding “expires imminently,” and that “a meaningful change in direction is needed.” Writing that Israel has a robust economy and is capable of paying for its own weapons, he said that future security arrangements “should be structured consistently with defense agreements that exist with our other Western allies.”
Since writing that letter in July in the lead-up to the midterm elections, Jeffries focused primarily on domestic issues and didn’t often address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Thursday, however, the topic was back on the table.
“We’ll work as a caucus to make sure that we can bring about the just and lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians deserve,” Jeffries said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries calls for ‘dramatic change’ in Israel policy appeared first on The Forward.
