Montague adopts new policies around antisemitism, sparking debate

MONTAGUE — Following recommendations from the Springfield-based Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts, the Selectboard has adopted three policies related to the Apartheid-Free Community resolution that was approved last fall, though some community members feel the vote was taken hastily without garnering public feedback.

These policies include the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism; rejecting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and divestment resolutions; and including the Jewish experience and the “unique nature of contemporary antisemitism” in the town’s equity and inclusion framework. The three policies were approved by majority, with Selectboard Vice Chair Richard Kuklewicz and Selectboard member Marina Goldman voting in favor, and Selectboard Chair Matt Lord voting in opposition.

Breaking down the policies

The specific language adopted states that the town will “use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism to identify when anti-Israel rhetoric crosses into harassment,” “oppose any measures that seek to boycott or divest from the only Jewish state, recognizing these actions isolate your Jewish constituents,” and “ensure that town ‘equity and inclusion’ frameworks specifically include the Jewish experience and the unique nature of contemporary antisemitism.”

While these policies were adopted, there was no vote to amend or nullify the October 2025 Special Town Meeting decision that declared Montague to be an “Apartheid-Free Community.” The language put forward in that citizen’s petition follows a pledge by the Apartheid-Free Communities network. The local chapter of the network, Apartheid-Free Western Massachusetts, helped garner support for the measure.

Lord explained that the Selectboard received materials from the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts. The materials included a letter detailing findings by the Massachusetts Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism. Federation CEO Adam Solender confirmed Tuesday that these materials on the commission’s findings were sent to elected officials and schools in Franklin, Hampshire and Hampden counties for educational purposes.

According to the letter, the commission identified BDS municipal policies as a “primary driver of a hostile climate for Massachusetts Jews,” and the Apartheid-Free Communities pledge is a BDS movement tactic to “create Zionist-free zones in local neighborhoods.” BDS, a global campaign launched in 2005, aims to put economic, cultural and political pressure on Israel with a goal of ending the occupation of Palestinian territories.

In the materials, under the “Why This Matters in Your District” section of a Differentiating Criticism vs. Antisemitism guide for municipal and education leaders, it states that adopting a BDS resolution or an Apartheid-Free pledge is tied with a double standard of singling out Israel for a municipal boycott while maintaining connections to other countries with documented human rights abuses, and “creates a discriminatory environment.”

The definition of antisemitism outlined on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s website is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The definition is accompanied by a list of examples of antisemitism as it is often seen in public life, the news media, schools, the workplace and in the religious sphere.

Montague’s Apartheid-Free resolution

The Apartheid-Free Community resolution, which was approved by a majority vote, declares that Montague recognizes the equal rights of all people and stands in solidarity with the people of Palestine who are facing “discriminatory legal regimes, forced displacement, movement restrictions and systematic human rights abuses” by the government of Israel. This constitutes an apartheid, per assessment by legal scholars.

The resolution’s passage led residents to submit opinion columns in local newspapers, sharing their support for or opposition to the concept and expressing various perspectives on human rights, democracy and the role of municipalities in international affairs.

Kuklewicz said he had read the materials submitted by the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts and that he felt the requests were reasonable. He said he would like to see Montague be a caring community that is dedicated to inclusion for everyone, with the town focused on “nuts and bolts” issues. He also shared that he was “not pleased” with the Apartheid-Free resolution, sharing that he felt it created more division in town.

Goldman shared her belief that the town should “do the work of inclusion” and “keeping the conversation open and being transparent” by having public forums.

Lord said the information from the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts helped him reflect, noting that he doesn’t want the town sponsoring any antisemitic activities or fostering an environment for antisemitism. He referenced the table on Differentiating Criticism vs. Antisemitism that included comparisons of what constitutes legitimate political criticism versus what is considered antisemitic BDS or Apartheid-Free rhetoric, citing opinion columns that contain criticism of Israel’s policies.

“I’m really glad that they sent this letter and it brought me to this reflection,” Lord said, “because all that I could do was feel really proud and commend the people who are part of the Apartheid-Free movement and how they have engaged in legitimate political criticism.”

Support for the Selectboard’s vote

Solender said Tuesday morning that the board’s passage of the three recommendations that the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts put forward was “thrilling” to him. He noted that he feels Montague serves as a point of division among people.

“For many people, there’s no upside,” he said regarding the Apartheid-Free resolution.

A statement on the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts’ Facebook page regarding the Selectboard’s vote extends gratitude for passing the three measures.

“We are very grateful to the Montague Board of Selectman for choosing dialogue over polarization, responsibility over symbolism and standing committed to inclusion of all,” the statement reads.

Solender has published opinion columns sharing concern over the Apartheid-Free Community pledges, including in the Greenfield Recorder on Jan. 11. He shared the concern that the Apartheid-Free resolutions “pull a deeply polarizing international conflict into the civic identity of local towns,” and that, “for many Jewish residents, this climate can feel not only uncomfortable but unsafe. We have already seen how rhetoric about Israel and ‘apartheid’ can spill over into hostility toward Jews themselves.”

When asked about his thoughts on both Jewish and non-Jewish support of the resolution expressed in previously published op-eds, Solender said the ability to express differing opinions “comes under the category of democracy.”

Community pushback

In response to the Selectboard’s adoption of these policy recommendations, Apartheid-Free Western Massachusetts organizer Heather Hutchinson expressed concern for the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism without public comment. During the Selectboard meeting, nobody made public comments during discussion of the agenda item focusing on the policy requests, nor did anyone comment during the public comment period offered at the start of the meeting.

Fellow Apartheid-Free Western Massachusetts organizer and Town Meeting member Maddox Sprengel voiced a similar concern as Hutchinson and said that while the antisemitism definition seems straightforward, “it sadly can be weaponized in its application to conflate criticism of the state of Israel with criticism of Jewish identity.”

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has been criticized previously over the chilling effect that the definition could have on speech. A 2023 letter to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and Under Secretary-General Miguel Ángel Moratinos from the Human Rights Watch, with 104 signatories, urged the UN not to adopt the IHRA’s working definition based on the fact that it “has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism.” Lead author of the alliance’s definition, Kenneth Stern, has said that he feels the definition has been “distorted and used to silence anti-Israel critics,” according to an NPR story about the Trump administration’s approach to combating antisemitism on college campuses.

After watching Monday’s meeting, Jewish Voice for Peace member and Greenfield resident Molly Merrett said she believes the Selectboard’s adoption of the alliance’s antisemitism definition was a “really big oversight” and that the Selectboard did not do its due diligence on an issue residents care about.

“It’s unfortunate that this decision was made so hastily, without any real input from the community,” she said.

Merrett also said she feels that the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts does not speak for all Jewish people in the region, and she feels the voices of anti-Zionist Jewish people are often “pushed aside” in the conversation.