At a time when Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others define Israel’s longstanding policies towards Palestinians as the crime of apartheid comes a lawsuit from the National Jewish Advocacy Center (NJAC), signed onto by 10 local residents, claiming that Northampton cannot choose where to invest city funds based on ethical concerns.
Let’s review: This past fall, with the support of both Jewish and non-Jewish residents, the Northampton City Council voted unanimously to divest funds from “entities complicit in human rights violations in Israel and Palestine.” The vote was not unlike previous city decisions to divest from fossil-fuel- or nuclear-weapons-related corporations. Now the NJAC — the same organization that sued lawfully-protesting Columbia students for being alleged Hamas recruiters — is seeking to mess with Northampton’s institutional speech with its nuisance suit. Along with shaky legal reasoning, the lawsuit claims that Northampton’s resolution “threaten(s) national interests” and “conflicts with Northampton’s stated commitment to fostering an inclusive civic environment.”
You have to admit, it’s a bad look, an organization purporting to speak for American Jews seeking to shutter local democracy when residents dare to criticize Israel.
The council’s resolution is grounded in the consensus of many scholars that, as Israeli human-rights organization B’Tselem puts it, “the Israeli regime implements laws, practices and state violence designed to cement the supremacy of one group — Jews — over another — Palestinians;” the definition of apartheid. Another factor is that the International Court of Justice has declared Israel’s decades-long occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem illegal under international law.
And it is hard to miss recent Israeli actions that increasingly meet the internationally-recognized standards of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. There are the 75,000-plus direct deaths in Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023, half of which are women, children, and the elderly; the well-documented, deliberate targeting of journalists, health care workers and facilities, civilians, schools, UN shelters, homes, you-name-it; indiscriminate bombing that has left 92 percent of homes in Gaza damaged or destroyed; daily Israeli violations of the October 2025 so-called “ceasefire” that have led to the additional deaths of over 700 Gazans; regular torture of Palestinian prisoners, many of which are held without charge, 450 of which are children and close to 100 of which are medical workers; the recently-instituted death penalty that applies only to Palestinians.
In addition to the expanding and internationally illegal but government-sanctioned Jewish settlements in the West Bank, more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed and land seized in the last 2.5 years in settler pogroms, aided and abetted by the Israeli military.
I could go on.
And subsequent to the atrocities apparent when the City Council vote was taken, Israel is on a murder-destruction-occupation rampage in Iran and Lebanon, assisted by U.S. tax dollars and military, that has killed thousands, displaced more than a million people in Lebanon, and threatened world economic stability.
Maybe it is time for more municipalities to take a stand via divestment.
Among the far-fetched claims in the lawsuit is that the city is sacrificing rocketing profits in its retirement benefit accounts by divesting from funds and businesses with ties to Israel. Yet, one of my investment principles as a former municipal treasurer-collector was to avoid any entity that appeared regularly in the headlines. Aside from not wanting to reward bad behavior, one capital-management company explains the obvious rationale, “companies with widespread controversies… face long-term risk.” Returns must be balanced with safety. There are many other reasonable investment choices that are more likely, and less blood-stained, to ensure both, and municipalities have both the responsibility and the latitude to make these choices. Even apart from the ethical considerations, Northampton is right to exercise discernment here.
Perhaps the plaintiffs do not follow the news, are not students of history. Perhaps they question all authoritative reports that challenge the worldview that Israelis, descendants and survivors of pogroms and genocide, would never ever become perpetrators of unspeakable violence, despite all evidence to the contrary. Perhaps they believe Israel is so fragile that it must be defended against all criticism, no matter what.
More likely, however, the plaintiffs simply aim to scare public entities away from taking any moral stand that involves Israel: anti-democracy at its finest. They might consider, instead, using their time, energy, voices, deep pockets, and platform to demand that Israel stop behaving like a rogue state.
It is crucial that Northampton muster the backbone to defend its right to speak out, and invest, as its residents and representatives see fit.
Nancy E. Grossman, whose grandparents fled pogroms in Eastern Europe, is a former municipal treasurer-collector and vice-chair of the Leverett Finance Committee.