Driving in the area, residents may have seen black lawn signs with white lettering that read “Velis: Stop Pushing Trump’s Agenda.” They are not going away.
They were distributed earlier this summer by an activist group with the campaign message “Shame on Velis,” targeting state Sen. John Velis, D-Westfield, for his involvement co-chairing the state’s Special Commission on Combatting Antisemitism, unhappy with the commission’s yearlong project.
The group includes about 25 core members with additional support throughout the region, said Amherst resident Mattea Kramer, a Jewish organizer. Kramer says the commission’s final report, which aims to inform K-12 and higher education, public safety and law enforcement and workplaces on how to identify incidents of antisemitism and then report them, is gravely misinformed.
“We’re disappointed with the recommendations because it does not appear that the commission accounted for the majority of the public comment …,” Kramer said. “There are considerable concerns about the affect of the recommendations about free speech and the affect it will have in public schools.”
Those public comments came from hundreds of individuals throughout 16 public hearings, that contributed to the 69-page “Final Report of Findings and Recommendations.” The commission, which started its work in 2024, unanimously accepted the recommendations after its final meeting on Nov. 20.
Specifically, some of the recommendations are to institute mandatory anti-bias education, including on antisemitism, for K-12 educators; teaching about antisemitic tropes and myths, which are prevalent online, when educating about digital literacy; and creating a statewide bias reporting program that includes antisemitism.
Since the commission began its work, it has created a divide in the Massachusetts Jewish community, and the broader public — with people supporting it and others like Kramer dissenting.
For Kramer, the report represents a Zionist perspective that prioritizes Israel in its understanding of Judaism. It also raises questions over free speech by recommending the use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which has been used by President Donald Trump.
Kramer said the Jewish community “is not a monolith,” feeling that the commission did not listen to the majority of public comments from people who dissented to its work.
According to the Jewish Journal, the majority of the 85 people who testified at the commission’s public comment session on Sept. 25 were not in favor of adopting the IHRA definition.
“The IHRA definition of antisemitism effectively suppresses free speech about Israel,” Kramer said. “It creates an atmosphere in which people will be afraid of being accused of antisemitism if they talk about the state of Israel.”
The “non-legally binding” definition reads, “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” which may include the targeting of the state of Israel.
It includes 11 examples of what could be considered antisemitism including the harming of Jews in the name of a “radical ideology or an extremist view” of religion, Holocaust denial and drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
During Trump’s first term as president in 2019, he included the definition in an Executive Order on Combatting Antisemitism. Former President Joe Biden also used the definition in an initiative of his own.
Kramer began providing testimony against the use of the definition when the commission started to allow the public to comment in April. She and other members were frustrated by those on the commission, feeling that its members including Velis were not listening.
She said the group can simply use another definition of antisemitism that is more general and does not create concerns over free speech. She said everyone wants the same thing — to reduce antisemitism — but does not agree with the way the commission has addressed this.
Now, after the report, the group is going to continue efforts urging legislators, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and other organizations to not use the definition.
Velis deployment
Velis, a major in the Massachusetts National Guard, is currently deployed to the southwestern border of the U.S., though his office provided the following statement:
“The Senator is proud of the significant support that the Commission and final report has received from leaders across the political spectrum, from state constitutional officers like Governor (Maura) Healey and Attorney General (Andrea) Campbell, to federal representatives like Senator (Elizabeth) Warren and Senator (Ed) Markey.”
Those who support the report see it as a stepping stone to help Jewish people feel more comfortable and safe. Many laud the fact that this “is the first statutorily created commission on combating antisemitism in the U.S.,” the report reads.
Similar commissions have been made in other states, such as California.
Rabbi Jacob Fine at the Congregation B’nai Israel in Northampton said he has been deeply concerned about the rise in local, antisemitic incidents and especially for Jewish students.
“In this moment of heightened anxiety for Jews across the commonwealth, I appreciate the State Commission’s efforts to address antisemitism with urgency and seriousness,” Fine said in a statement to the Gazette.
As the commission’s report notes, in 2022 the IHRA definition was also endorsed by former Gov. Charlie Baker, along with the last four U.S. presidential administrations, 35 other states and 46 member states of the United Nations.
For Rep. Simon Cataldo, D-Middlesex, who co-chaired the commission alongside Velis, seeing the support from the likes of Markey, Warren and Healey shows “there’s been a lot of consensus over the strength of these recommendations.”
“That’s among state leaders that have varying views over Israel and their government actions,” Cataldo said. “But they all agree that this document,” is well informed.
Education and antisemitism
Jewish member of the activist group, Mara Dodge, who is a history and philosophy professor at Westfield State University, is concerned by what constitutes antisemitism under the IHRA definition.
Her main concern is that it would consider any criticism of Israel antisemitic, when that is not the case. In the context of the conflict in Gaza, Dodge said this is a “slippery slope.”
“Those examples (used in the report) include criticism of the state of Israel. Criticisms that deeply and significantly infringe on free speech,” Dodge said. “Somebody could be considered antisemitic for comparing any actions of the state of Israel with what the Nazis perpetuated. You can be considered antisemitic for referring to Israel as a racist or apartheid state.”
One of the guiding principles in the report is that there must be a distinction between “good faith criticism” of Israel and antisemitic speech. While Dodge and Kramer feel the IHRA definition contradicts the two, Velis said during public hearings that the commission’s work will allow for good faith criticism of Israel that is not antisemitic.
Dodge said for colleges and universities, the report blurs the line of what can be taught when discussing the conflict in Gaza. For example, if she assigned readings containing multiple perspectives of the conflict — one criticizing Israel — she wonders if that would be considered antisemitic.
Furthermore, Kramer said this is problematic, given that the United Nations commission of inquiry declared Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, along with other human rights organizations.
For instance, she said if someone was to compare the “genocide” to another in history, such as Nazi Germany, that would be considered antisemitic under the IHRA definition.
The U.N. also declared Hamas and Israeli authorities both committed war crimes and crimes against humanity on Oct. 7, 2023.
Cataldo made it clear that these are just recommendations and do not have to be accepted by the K-12 schools, higher education institutions and public safety organizations. And, the report attempts to find common ground and understanding.
Commissioner Pedro Martinez of the state Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education (DESE) endorsed the commission’s preliminary K-12 recommendations, that provide ways antisemitic incidents can be prevented, with ways schools can respond when these incidents occur.
University of Massachusetts President Marty Meehan and UMass Amherst Chancellor Javier Reyes have supported the recommendations as well.
For Rabbi Shmuel Kravitsky of Chabbat Northampton, he says his role as a rabbi is to hear the voices of not just all Jewish people, but everyone on Earth. He is happy to see the state take action against antisemitism, but would like to see more “moral education” in schools, to help reduce hate as a whole.
For him, moral education is teaching acceptance to everyone regardless of race or religion. Part of his moral education is connecting with people daily whether it is on a school campus or out on the street, with the belief that one small act can make a difference.
He hopes this would create more unity, in a time when people are trying to sort many differing perspectives.
“People are trying to balance between supporting the government, whether they feel what they are doing is right or wrong, and then balance that with their identify as a Jew,” he said.
Support for the commission
Adam Solender, the interim executive director of the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts, does not feel the recommendations will limit free speech. He said the report “is not a law, it’s a tool,” praising the commission’s work.
Solender has seen a Jewish family move away from the region out of fear and referenced a study that found nearly 70% of religiously based hate crimes were against Jewish people in 2024.
“We need to acknowledge that there is a real issue and there is a safety crisis,” Solender said about Jewish residents, specifically students. “The question becomes, how are those recommendations going to be implemented in a way that protects them.”
Kramer said in the midst of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, she understands why people feel intimidated to talk about this topic, but thinks the report would actually increase that fear and potentially create resentment towards Jewish people.
“It is not antisemitic to criticize Israel, period,” Kramer said. “The state of Israel and the Jewish people are not the same. They are not synonymous. One is a government, a nation.”
Solender said he has heard from many in the Jewish community and it feels as though there is an overall excitement about the report and the opportunities it provides.
“Once you have a common understanding … I think people will feel empowered to go to their school and have something to refer to,” he said.
Solender said the conflict in Gaza began long before Oct. 7, 2023 and feels the report is becoming a political tool. These recommendations are not by any means going to solve the issue of antisemitism, but he sees them as a step in the right direction.
“We’ve got lots of challenges in our world, in our state, in our towns,” he said. “I’m not minimizing this (report), this affects individuals and families directly and personally but we’ve got to keep our eye on the ball of being kind to each other … There’s nothing that we can’t fix if we work together.”
There is no projected return date for Velis, though Cataldo hopes they can continue their work and help implement the recommendations when he returns.
“He and I have known that this was going to be a yearlong project for both of us and I fully intend and expect that he and I will be working together to advance the recommendations when he returns from his deployment,” Cataldo said.