When the Burlington, Vermont City Council declined to adopt an “Apartheid-Free” pledge and instead embraced a resolution focused on community dialogue, it made a choice rooted in moral seriousness rather than moral grandstanding. That distinction matters as similar measures surface in our area.
The proposed pledge relied on language that may resonate in global advocacy circles, but its application at the local level raises understandable alarm. Labeling a complex international conflict in absolute terms does not foster understanding within a town hall or city council chamber. Instead, it risks hardening divisions among residents who must continue living, working, and worshipping alongside one another long after a vote is taken.
Burlington officials listened to concerns that such rhetoric could deepen polarization and unintentionally legitimize hostility toward Jewish residents. In response, they chose a path that emphasized responsibility over symbolism: structured dialogue that encourages listening without demanding ideological conformity.
Local governments cannot resolve the Middle East conflict. They can, however, decide whether their actions bring neighbors closer together or push them further apart. Burlington chose the harder but more constructive road. Massachusetts communities would be wise to reflect on that example before mistaking declarations for progress.
Adam M. Solender, Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts
Springfield