Fight hate; vote ‘NO’ on Article 8

14Nov24

Much of the attention at Saturday morning’s Town Meeting will be focused on Article 4, the town’s latest plan to comply with the state’s so-called MBTA Communities Act, mandating by-right multifamily zoning in all Massachusetts communities served by the MBTA.

Also sure to spark some discussion is a plan to put solar panels on the roof of the Galvin Middle School as described in Article 3.

But most residents probably don’t realize that for the second consecutive Town Meeting, a group of local citizens has signed a petition to place an anti-Israel article on the warrant.

Calling Article 8 “anti-Israel” is understating the insidiousness of this article. It is a thinly disguised anti-Semitic measure.

Setting aside the absurdity of a Town Meeting article addressing international geopolitics, this article wants the town to “Pledge to Not Use Town Resources to Enable Violations of Human Rights and International Law by Israel.”

The sponsors of Article 8 want the town to “refrain from purchasing goods and services from, or investing or depositing funds directly in, any company or financial institution that facilitates and enables Israel’s violations of international law and human rights as part of the Israeli occupation of Syrian and Palestinian lands, or as part of Israeli apartheid.”

In addition, Article 8 states that “No officer of the Wakefield Police Department shall be permitted to receive police training from Israeli police departments, Israeli military units, or trainers who provide training to Israeli police departments or military units.”

None of this is original on the part of the local Article 8 sponsors. It is boilerplate “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” talking points, copied and pasted directly from the Palestinian-led BDS movement.

Critics of the BDS movement call it anti-Semitic because it singles out the Jewish state while remaining silent on real human rights violations and breaches of international law occurring in other parts of the world.

Many countries around the world and 38 U.S. states have recognized “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” as the anti-Semitic movement that it is and have passed anti-BDS laws. Disgracefully, Massachusetts is not one of those states.

Speaking of disgraceful, the Wakefield Human Rights Commission has never condemned the unprovoked October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre of more than 1,200 Israelis that forced Israel to go to war in the first place.

Article 8 will be considered at a Saturday morning Town Meeting, during the Jewish sabbath, when many Jews will be worshiping and unable to attend. The sponsors of Article 8 will have a hard time convincing me that that the timing is a coincidence.

Israel is the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East and America’s staunch ally. Article 8 first and foremost targets Israel. But it is by extension an anti-American, anti-Western measure. The BDS movement regards the United States and all of Western civilization as oppressive and illegitimate.

If you really want to fight hate, attend Town Meeting on Saturday and vote “NO” on Article 8.

[This column originally appeared in the November 14, 2024 Wakefield Daily Item.]



One Response to “Fight hate; vote ‘NO’ on Article 8”

  1. 1 edcutting

    You know that uber-expensive new school being built down on Farm Street? The 1964 Civil Rights Act is quite explicit — you discriminate on the basis of race and you lose ALL FEDERAL FUNDING…  That includes all the MSBA money, and the school’s Title I money, and the schools’ SPED money, and all kinds of other monies that will evaporate. Then there’s the concept of “violation of civil rights under color of law”, something that this town has been doing for a long time with total impunity — so far — except that the town is not going to get away with this one, not in 2025.  People involved can be looking at some serious Federal time — the only thing I have never gotten a clear answer to is who gets incarcerated if a Town Meeting votes to civil rights under color of law.  In theory, it could be everyone who attended the meeting — or at least everyone who isn’t on the record as having voted no. As Roberts Rules does not support a roll call vote, I’d be very worried about being present at Saturday’s meeting if this passes…. I wouldn’t put it past Trump to prosecute this stuff…


Leave a reply to edcutting Cancel reply