Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

David__77

(24,500 posts)
Wed Nov 5, 2025, 09:45 AM Nov 5

In first, voters in Boston suburb back municipal proposal to divest from Israel

JTA — A municipal ballot proposal to divest from Israel went before a popular vote for the first time on Tuesday — and pulled off a decisive victory.

Question 3 won more than 55 percent of the vote in unofficial election results in the Boston suburb of Somerville, Massachusetts, as the Israel-divestment movement saw the elevation of its most well-known proponent in politics — Zohran Mamdani — to mayor of New York City.

Local pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel activists claimed victory, with Somerville for Palestine — the group that gathered the signatures required to put the non-binding resolution on the ballot — posting a celebratory Instagram video alongside the Boston chapter of anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace.



Home to Tufts University and several Jewish congregations, the four-square-mile Somerville has a population of around 82,000. Residents voted on whether its mayor should “engage in business that sustains Israel’s apartheid, genocide and illegal occupation of Palestine.” The local teachers union endorsed the measure.



https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-voters-in-boston-suburb-back-municipal-proposal-to-divest-from-israel/

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In first, voters in Boston suburb back municipal proposal to divest from Israel (Original Post) David__77 Nov 5 OP
Good. This needs to spread. Lonestarblue Nov 5 #1
You made me look. usonian Nov 5 #2
Under the guise of fighting hate speech, the ADL has a long history of attacking Arab, Black, and queer people. Celerity Nov 5 #4
Thank you! mountain grammy Nov 5 #5
DURec leftstreet Nov 5 #3

Lonestarblue

(13,115 posts)
1. Good. This needs to spread.
Wed Nov 5, 2025, 09:54 AM
Nov 5

I’m tired of my tax dollars and the US government serving Bibi and his hateful regime.

usonian

(22,371 posts)
2. You made me look.
Wed Nov 5, 2025, 10:24 AM
Nov 5

Tufts University is in Medford and Somerville.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tufts_University
In 2024, the Anti-Defamation League gave Tufts a grade of “F” for failing to address campus antisemitism.[154]

https://www.adl.org/campus-antisemitism-report-card/tufts-university

Summary:


Kind of a mixed bag.
Note: I haven't been in the area for some 50 years, so this is just passing along info I found.

Celerity

(53,014 posts)
4. Under the guise of fighting hate speech, the ADL has a long history of attacking Arab, Black, and queer people.
Wed Nov 5, 2025, 11:12 AM
Nov 5


The Anti-Defamation League Is Not What It Seems

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/emmaia-gelman-anti-defamation-league/

May 23, 2019

snip

The ADL’s persistent power in U.S. politics has been strangely unaffected by its history, probably because that history is so little known. The Ilhan Omar debate should be shaped by at least two aspects of it. The first is that the ADL has consistently sought to undermine the left, leveling a charge akin to dual loyalty: that the American left’s calls for redistribution of power, its solidarity with global movements, and its prioritization of people over states threaten the very concept of the state. Indeed the ADL, in addition to its stated mission of shoring up U.S. support for Israel, is deeply loyal to the U.S. state. The second is that the ADL has waged a long, vigorous, and successful campaign, alongside AIPAC, specifically to characterize Arab American political organizing as dual loyalty.

This history is particularly important because despite losing this particular battle with Omar and identifying more openly with the right (consider, for instance, the ADL’s celebration of Trump’s Jerusalem embassy move), the ADL is experiencing a renaissance in its visibility, influence, and fundraising power among well-meaning liberals. It is fueled by the new national interest in white supremacy, which the ADL has long surveilled and researched, and which the FBI and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been charged to ignore in favor of targeting Muslim communities. (The ADL advocated surveilling both.) The ADL’s ubiquity in U.S. discussions of white supremacy is exceeded only by the Klan’s: more than two-thirds of the 46,000 articles on white supremacists or white nationalists posted in the past year have referenced the ADL. That coverage has spiked by 1500 percent in 2019 alone, based on Factiva database searches for terms “white nationalist” and “white supremacist.”



At a time when it should be easier to see the ADL as a conservative knowledge production agency, a resurgence of concern with “hate” has only consolidated its power. The ADL’s power to mobilize against black leadership does not rest on leveraging anxieties about anti-Semitism. It draws instead on the ADL’s much broader authority it has won over anti-black, anti-immigrant, and anti-queer “hate.” It is a quasi-state role that the ADL developed in just a decade, throughout the 1980s: the period of collective U.S. desperation about white supremacist violence preceding the one we are in.

Like other major Jewish organizations (and unlike the many Jewish leftist organizations that have existed in opposition to it), the ADL has evinced a strong allegiance with the U.S. state. It was committed to its civilizing mission of settlement, and to capitalist individualism as the framework for rights. In addition to keeping watch over threats to the state—Nazism, Communism, or demands for equality that went too far—the ADL sought out or welcomed ways to participate in the administration of the state. It collaborated with the House Un-American Activities Committee in the late 1940s and 1950s; it also tried and largely failed for several decades to interest the FBI in considering it a partner in monitoring threats. (FBI files made public under Freedom of Information Act requests document some of these efforts.) It found an opening in civil rights work where, ten years after the Voting Rights Act, ongoing racial conflict and white supremacist violence produced a new wave of demands for state action.

snip
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In first, voters in Bosto...