Overview:
The Montague Selectboard has voted to reverse its decision adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and two other policies, following community-wide feedback. The decision was made after member Marina Goldman requested reconsideration, citing concerns that the IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. The Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts expressed disappointment at the reversal, stating that communities should be strengthening their resolve to confront hatred, not stepping back from tools that help identify it.
MONTAGUE — The Selectboard has reversed its Feb. 23 vote adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, along with two other policies related to the Apartheid-Free Community resolution, after member Marina Goldman asked the board to reconsider the vote amid widespread community feedback that has largely criticized the definition as threatening free speech.
Monday’s vote to rescind the previous decision was supported by both Goldman and Selectboard Chair Matt Lord. Vice Chair Richard Kuklewicz was not at the meeting to vote. The three policies that had previously been adopted included the alliance’s 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 policies were brought forward in the months after an October 2025 Special Town Meeting decision declared Montague to be an Apartheid-Free Community. The 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.
Per a letter sent to the Selectboard, the Massachusetts Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism 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.
Reasons for reconsideration
Goldman said she requested an agenda item to get “clarification” on the vote taken on Feb. 23 to adopt these three policies as recommended by the Springfield-based Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts. Goldman said her push for reconsideration came after researching the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism further, and having discussions with Montague residents of both Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds who recommended the vote be rescinded.
“In the past three weeks, I have had many conversations on this topic,” Goldman said, noting she’s talked to people in her own Jewish community, family members with connections to Israel, a Holocaust survivor and a rabbi. She also hosted a two-hour discussion with 24 Jewish Montague residents, the “overwhelming majority” of whom recommended the vote be rescinded.
She pointed out how the materials sent by the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts and the recommended policy adoption language do not contain the alliance’s definition of antisemitism, and the motion to adopt the definition did not include the definition itself.
The definition of antisemitism that is 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.
Goldman said that, in the alliance’s definition, seven of the 11 examples of antisemitism include mentions of Israel in some manner, which she said confused her, as “they seem to conflate criticism of Israel and its government policies with antisemitism.”
Goldman said she recognizes antisemitism as a real danger in the U.S., pointing to the Michigan synagogue attack. She also noted she doesn’t condone violence for any reason, and that if she’s critical of the U.S. and Israeli governments for “spending billions of dollars to bomb Iran and Lebanon,” that does not mean she is antisemitic.
“Antisemitism must be addressed through a lens of collective liberation, not a crackdown on those advocating for human rights in Palestine or anywhere in the world, for that matter,” Goldman said.
Goldman also said she wants to focus on the “nuts and bolts” of her elected position. She mentioned her commitment to upholding community safety, inclusiveness and protection for all residents regardless of faith or identity.
After reading her statement and making a motion to rescind the vote adopting the three policies, Lord indicated he did not have any other commentary to add. With the meeting being held on Zoom, some attendees sent “heart” reactions in a show of support for the Feb. 23 vote being rescinded.
Feedback to change of course, initial vote
In response to this change of course by the Selectboard, Adam Solender of the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts said in a statement that the federation is “deeply disappointed” by the vote to reverse the policy adoptions.
“At a time when antisemitism is raging across the United States and around the world, communities should be strengthening their resolve to confront hatred, not stepping back from tools that help identify it,” Solender said. “The IHRA definition has been embraced globally because it helps communities recognize antisemitism while protecting legitimate free expression.”
Solender added that the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts hopes Montague will continue to engage constructively with the Jewish community, and reaffirm that “antisemitism, like all forms of hatred, has no place in the town.”
Organizers with Apartheid-Free Western Massachusetts shared their criticisms of the policies’ initial adoption, including that the vote was taken hastily by the Selectboard and without hearing public comment, along with how the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition conflates criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism and creates a chilling effect on free 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 alliance’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 NPR.
Following this change in course in Montague, Apartheid-Free Western Massachusetts organizer Heather Hutchinson wrote in an email that the organization applauds the Selectboard for its vote reversal.
“AFWMA applauds the Montague Selectboard’s courageous action, and we commend Marina Goldman for her honesty and for her powerful statements in support of her community. Her efforts to engage so many Montague residents and other community members is commendable,” the statement reads. “The message was loud and clear; the IHRA definition conflates legitimate political criticism of Israel’s government with antisemitism, and censors criticism of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. We hope all municipalities take to heart the critical importance of engaging the broader community to fully understand the danger to free speech that this definition imposes.”