“Jewish Voices Critique the Antisemitism Commission”.

That was the title of the meeting at the Watertown Library on May 21. It tells you things could have gotten ugly. Thanks to careful planning and skilled moderation, even though the event was tense, it mostly remained civil.

The topic was urgent and divisive. In December, 2025, the Massachusetts Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism released its policy recommendations. Many are sensible, but others threaten to stifle free speech, and perhaps even create more antisemitism, if put into practice.

Seven community groups co-sponsored the event, led by the Palestine Committee of Watertown Citizens for Peace, Justice, and the Environment. Around 75 people attended, filling the room. Some progressives wore kaffiyehs, the black and white scarf that signals pro-Palestinian viewpoints, or watermelon yarmulkas. Large Stars of David and one MAGA tee shirt probably represented pro-Israel, or Zionist, points of view. Most attendees and all the panelists were Jewish.

The main point of contention was that the state Commission adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism. In other words, criticism of Israel is equated with hatred of Jews. Since many American Jews like myself are highly critical of Israel’s war on Gaza – and elsewhere, including Lebanon – this defines all of us as being anti-Jewish.

The Commission report proposed that people could anonymously report to the state any criticism of Israel in public or in schools. If the state turned over such unproven allegations to the federal government, any critic of Israel or of US policies in the region might be in danger of prison or deportation. The Trump administration considers people who protest its policies to be terrorists, and is not shy about acting on this belief.

Even if the Commission’s report is not enacted into public policy, it has a chilling effect. People become afraid of discussing Israel/Palestine. Teachers won’t include it in the curriculum; students will avoid raising the issue, no matter how much they care about it. This is not how people learn, and it’s certainly not how the public comes to understand a complicated and important subject.

The Watertown meeting demonstrated the right way to approach a difficult subject. The moderator explained how civil discourse works. You don’t interrupt speakers or call out. You can ask your questions after the panel has spoken. You don’t get personal. You don’t get physical. You just listen, and speak politely when you get your chance.

A few of the Zionists did call out and interrupt the panelists. One woman in front of me laughed loudly whenever a speaker said something she disagreed with. The moderator patiently reminded the audience that we had all agreed to confine ourselves to civil discourse.

Passions ran high. Zionists believe that a militarized and aggressive State of Israel is the only hope for Jewish survival in a world that hates us. Anti-Zionists believe that the way Israel has segregated Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank is akin to apartheid, and that its brutal revenge on Gaza for the horrible October 7, 2023, Hamas attack is a form of genocide. Zionists think that even using such words in discussion is antisemitic.

There was only one overtly hostile act at this event. A woman handed a leaflet to the greeter at the door. The greeter told her it was inappropriate, whereupon the woman slapped the paper out of the greeter’s hands. Immediately, the two were surrounded by orange-vested citizen peacekeepers, who are trained to de-escalate tense situations, as well as library staff and two city policemen.

I couldn’t hear who said what. But the woman with the leaflet was allowed to stay in the audience. Whether she learned anything from the deeply-researched and well-reasoned presentations is doubtful, though most of the rest of us did. Maybe few minds were changed. But we aired our differences, and most of us managed to show some respect for those with whom we disagreed.

I left the meeting feeling energized and hopeful. This could have been a disaster. Instead, in its small way, this event maintained the founding principles of our country. What we all experienced was democracy in action.

This is the America I love.