Uncategorized
American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews?
(JTA) — Among Sandra Fox’s most memorable finds during her years mining American archives for materials about Jewish summer camps was a series of letters about the hours before lights-out.
The letters were by counselors who were documenting an unusual window in the day when they stopped supervising campers, leaving the teens instead to their own devices, which sometimes included romance and sexual exploration.
“It was each division talking about how they dealt with that free time before bed in ‘age-appropriate ways,’” Fox recalled about the letters written by counselors at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin, the original iteration of the Conservative movement’s network of summer camps.
“I’ve spoken to Christian people who work at Christian camps and have researched Christian camps. There is no free time before bed,” Fox told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “That’s not a thing if you don’t want kids to hook up. So it was just amazing to find these documents of Camp Ramah leaders really having the conversation explicitly. Most of the romance and sexuality stuff is implicit in the archives.”
The letters are quoted extensively in Fox’s new book, “The Jews of Summer: Summer Camp and Jewish Culture in Postwar America.” Fox, who earned a PhD in history from New York University in 2018 and now teaches and directs the Archive of the American Jewish Left there, tells the story of American Judaism’s most immersive laboratory for constructing identity and contesting values.
Next week, Fox is launching the book with an event at Congregation Beth Elohim in Park Slope, Brooklyn. (Tickets for the Feb. 23 event are available here.) Attendees will be able to tour adult versions of some of the most durable elements of Jewish summer camps, from Israeli dance to Yiddish and Hebrew instruction to Color Wars to Tisha B’Av, the mournful holiday that always falls over the summer.
“I never considered doing a normal book party,” Fox said. “It was always really obvious to me that a book about experiential Jewish education and role play should be celebrated and launched out into the world through experiential education and role play.”
Sandra Fox’s 2023 book “The Jews of Summer,” looks at the history of American Jewish summer camps. (Courtesy of Fox)
We spoke to Fox about her party plans, how Jewish summer camps have changed over time and how they’ve stayed the same, and the cultural history of that before-bed free time.
This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. We’ll be continuing the conversation in a virtual chat through the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research Feb. 27 at 1 p.m.; register here.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Given how much Jews like to talk about camp, were you surprised that this book hadn’t already been written?
Sandra Fox: There’s been a lot of fruitful research on the history of various camps, but it’s usually been focused on one camping movement or one camp type. So there are articles about Zionist camps. There are certainly articles out there about the Ramah camps. A lot of camps have produced books — either their alumni associations or a scholar who went to let’s say, Reform movement camps have created essay collections about those camps. And there are also books about Habonim and other Zionist youth movements.
I don’t really know why this is the first stab at this kind of cross-comparison. It might be that people didn’t think there would be so much to compare. I think the overwhelming feeling I get from readers so far, people who preordered and gotten their books early, is that they’re very surprised to hear how similar these camps are. So perhaps it’s that scholars weren’t thinking about Jewish summer camps that came from such diverse standpoints as having something enough in common to write about them all at once.
Also distance from the time period really helps. You can write a book about — and people do write a book about — the ’60s and ’70s and have been for decades, but there’s a certain amount of distance from the period that has allowed me to do this, I think, and maybe it also helps that I’m generationally removed. A lot of the scholars who’ve worked on camps in the postwar period went to camps in the postwar period. It makes a lot of sense that it would be harder to write this sort of sweeping thing perhaps. The fact that I’m a millennial meant that I could write about the postwar period — and also write kind of an epilogue-style chapter that catches us up to the present.
What’s clear is that there’s something amazing about studying summer camp, a completely immersive 24/7 experience that parents send children away for. There’s no better setting for thinking about how adults project their anxieties and desires about the future onto children. There’s also no place better to think about power dynamics and age and generational tension.
I was definitely struck by the “sameyness” of Jewish camps in your accounting. What do you think we can learn from that, either about camps or about us as Jews?
I do want to say that while there’s a lot of sameyness, whenever you do a comparative study, there’s a risk of kind of collapsing all these things and making them seem too similar. What I’m trying to convey is that the camp leaders from a variety of movements took the basic structure of the summer camp as we know it — its daily schedule, its environment, its activities — and it did look similar from camp to camp, at least on that surface level.
If you look at the daily schedules in comparison, they might have a lot of the same features but they’ll be called slightly different things depending on if the camp leans more heavily towards Hebrew, or Yiddish, or English. But the content within those schedules would be rather different. It’s more that the skeletal structure of camp life has a lot of similarities across the board and then the details within each section of the day or the month had a lot of differences.
But I think what it says is that in the postwar period, the anxieties that Jewish leaders had about the future of Judaism are really, really similar and the solution that they found within the summer camp, they were pretty unanimous about. They just then took the model and inserted within it their particular nationalistic, linguistic or religious perspectives. So I think more so than saying anything about American Jewry, it shows kind of how flexible camping is. And that’s not just the Jewish story. Lots of different Americans have embraced summer camping in different ways.
So many people who have gone to camp have a fixed memory of what camp is like, where it’s caught in time, but you argue that camps have actually undergone lots of change. What are the most striking changes you documented, perhaps ones that might have been hard for even insiders to discern as they happened?
First of all, the Israel-centeredness of American Jewish education as we know it today didn’t happen overnight in 1948, for instance. It was a slower process, beyond the Zionist movements where that was already going on, for decades before 1948. Ramah and the Reform camps for instance took their time towards getting to the heavily Zionist-imbued curricula that we know.
There was considerable confusion and ambivalence at first about what to do with Israel: whether to raise an Israeli flag, not because they were anti-Zionist, but because American Jews had been thinking about proving their loyalty to America for many generations. There were some sources that would talk about — what kind of right do American Jews have to raise the Israeli flag when they’re not Israeli? So that kind of Israel-centeredness that is really a feature of camp life today was a slower process than we might think.
It fit camp life really well because broader American camps used Native American symbols, in some ways that are problematic today, to create what we know of as an iconography of camp life. So for Jews, Israel and its iconography, or Palestine and iconography before ’48, provided an alternative set of options that were read as Jewish, but it still took some time to get to where we are now in terms of the Israel focus.
One of the reasons I place emphasis on the Yiddish summer camps is to show that in the early 20th century and the mid-20th century there was more ideological diversity in the Jewish camping sphere, including various forms of Yiddishist groups and socialist groups and communist groups that operated summer camps. Most of them have closed, and their decline is obviously a change that tells a story of how American Jewry changed over the course of the postwar period. Their legacy is important, too: I have made the argument that these camps in a lot of ways modeled the idea of Yiddish as having a future in America.
What about hookup culture? Contemporary discourse about Jewish camps have focused on sex and sexuality there. What did you observe about this in the archives?
I think people think of the hookup culture of Jewish camps today and certainly in my time in the ’90s and 2000s as a permanent feature, and in some ways I found through my research and oral history interviews that that was the case, but it was really interesting to zoom out a little bit and think about how Jewish summer camps changed in terms of sexual romantic culture, in relationship to how America changed with the sexual revolution and the youth culture.
It’s not it’s not useful to think about Jewish hookup culture in a vacuum. It’s happening within America more broadly. And so of course, it’s changed dramatically over time. And one of the things I learned that was so fascinating is that Jewish summer camps were actually their leaders were less concerned in a lot of ways about sexuality at camp in the ’40s and ’50s, than they were in the late ’60s and ’70s. Because earlier premarital sex was pretty rare, at least in the teenage years, so they were not that concerned about what happened after lights out because they kind of assumed whatever was going on was fairly innocent.
In the late 1960s and 1970s, that’s when camps have to actually think about how to balance allowance and control. They want to allow campers to have these relationships, to have their first sexual experiences, and part of that is related to rising rates of intermarriage and wanting to encourage love between Jews, but they also want to control it because there’s a broader societal moment in which the sexuality of teenagers is problematized and their and their sexual culture is more public.
There’s been a real wave of sustained criticism by former campers about the cultures that they experienced, arguing that the camps created an inappropriately sexualized and unsafe space. There’s been a lot of reaction to that and the broader #MeToo moment. I’m curious about what you can speculate about a future where that space is cleaned up, based on your historical research — what is gained and what, potentially, could be lost?
Without being involved in camping today — and I want to really make that disclaimer because I know a lot of change is happening and lot of organizations are involved to talk about this issue better, to train camps and camp leaders and their counselors to not create a pressured environment for camper — I think what the history shows is that this hookup culture did not come about out of nowhere. It was partly related to the broader changes in America and the sexual revolution.
But it was also partly created because camps really needed to have campers’ buy-in, in order to be “successful.” A huge argument of my book is that we think about the power of camps as if camp directors have campers as, like, puppets on strings, and that what they do is what happens in camp life. But actually, campers have changed the everyday texture of life at camp over the course of the decades in so many different ways by resisting various ideas or just not being interested.
So hookup culture is also part of making campers feel like they have freedom at camp and that’s essential. That’s not a side project — that is essential to their ability to get campers to come back. It’s a financial need, and it’s an ideological need. If you make campers feel like they have freedom, then they will feel like they freely took on the ideologies your camp is promoting in a really natural way.
The last part of it is rising rates of intermarriage. As rates of intermarriage rose in the second half of the 20th century, there’s no doubt in my mind from doing the research that the preexisting culture around sexuality at camp and romance at camp got turbo-boosted [to facilitate relationships that could potentially lead to marriage between two Jews]. At that point, the allowance and control that camp leaders were trying to create for many decades leans maybe more heavily towards allowance.
There are positives to camp environments being a place where campers can explore their sexualities. There’s definitely a lot of conversation about the negative effects and those are all very, very real. I know people who went through horrible things at a camp and I also know people who experienced it as a very sex-positive atmosphere. I know people in my age range who were able to discover that they were gay or lesbian at camp in safety in comparison to home, so it’s not black and white at all. I hope that my chapter on romance and sexuality can maybe add some historical nuance to the conversation and give people a sense of how this actually happened. Because it happened for a whole bunch of reasons.
I think there’s a consensus view that camp is one of the most “successful” things the Jews do. But it’s hard to see where lessons from camp or camp culture are being imported to the rest of Jewish life. I’m curious what you see as kind of the lessons that Jewish institutions or Jewish communities have taken from camp — or have they not done that?
Every single public engagement I do about my work has boiled down to the question of, well, does it work? Does camp work? Is it successful? And that’s been a question that a lot of social scientists have been interested in. I don’t want to oversimplify that research, but a lot of the ways that they’ve measured success have been things that are not necessarily a given to all Jews as obviously the right way to be a Jew. So, for instance, in the ’90s and early 2000s, at the very least, a lot of research was about how, you know, “XYZ” camp and youth movement were successfully curbing intermarriage. A lot of them also asked campers and former campers how they feel about Israel, and it’s always if they are supportive of Israel in very normative ways, right, giving money visiting, supporting Israel or lobbying for its behalf — then camps have been successful.
I’m not interested in whether camps were successful by those metrics. I’m interested in how we got to the idea that camp should be successful in those ways in the first place. How did we get to those kinds of normative assumptions of like, this is a good Jew; a good Jew marries a Jew; a good Jew supports Israel, no matter what. So what I wanted to do is zoom out from that question of success and show how camp actually functions.
And then the question of “does it work” is really up to the reader. To people who believe that curbing intermarriage is the most important thing, then camps have been somewhat successful in the sense that people who go to these heavily educational camps are less likely to marry out of the faith.
But I am more interested in what actually happened at camp. And in terms of their legacies, I wanted to show how they changed various aspects of American Jewish life, and religion and politics. So I was really able to find how camping was essential in making kind of an Israel-centered Jewish education the norm. I was also able to draw a line between these Yiddish camps over the ’60s and ’70s that closed in the ’80s and contemporary Yiddish. The question of success is a real tricky and political one in a way that a lot of people have not talked about.
And is camp also fun? Because you’re creating a camp experience for your book launch next week.
Camp is fun — for a lot of people. Camp was not fun for everyone. And so I do want to play with that ambivalence at the party, and acknowledge that and also acknowledge that some people loved camp when they were younger and have mixed feelings about it now.
The party is not really a celebration of Jewish summer camp. People will be drinking and having fun and dancing — but I want them to be thinking while also about what is going on and why. How is Tisha B’Av [the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the ancient Jewish temple in Jerusalem that falls at the height of summer] commemorated at camp, for example?
Or what songs are we singing and what do they mean? I think a lot of people when they’re little kids, they learn songs in these Jewish summer camps that they can’t understand and later they maybe learn Hebrew and go, whoa, we were singing what?! My example from Zionist summer camp is singing “Ein Li Eretz Acheret,” or “I Have No Other Country.” We were in America and we obviously have another country! I don’t think anyone in my youth movement actually believes the words “Ein Li Eretz Acheret” because we live in America and people tend to kind of like living in America and most of them do not move to Israel.
So at the party we’ll be working through the fun of it, and at the same time the confusion of it and the ambivalence of it. I want it to be fun, and I also want it to be something that causes people to think.
—
The post American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews? 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.
