[Danielle Balocca]: Hey listeners, this is Danielle. And Shelley. Shelley is a radical Dravidian and racial equity activist.
[Chelli Keshavan]: And Danielle is a community mobilizer and changemaker. And this is the Medford Bites podcast. Every two weeks, we chew on the issues facing Medford and deliver bites of information about the city by lifting the expertise of our guests.
[Danielle Balocca]: Join us in discussion about what you hope for the future of Medford. And as always, tell us where you like to eat. All right. Thank you for joining me today. Um, I know you've been on the podcast a couple of times, but it's great to have you back. Uh, if we could just start with an introduction. So your name pronouns and a bit about who you are.
[Micah Kesselman]: Sure. Yeah. So, uh, my name is Micah Shalom Kesselman. I usually go by Micah and my pronouns are he him. And, uh, yeah, I'm just a local Medford resident and, uh, very, very nosy and engaged and loud. Um, one at that, I think, uh, in particular relevant for this discussion, uh, I am also currently, uh, acting as local co-counsel to the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in representing a group of Medford residents who are suing to intervene in the litigation over the values-aligned local investing ordinance that is sort of going through the court system right now. And yeah, we'll probably talk about that in a little bit, I'm sure. But yeah, other than that, yeah, I'm just some local guy.
[Danielle Balocca]: And you've been on the podcast before talking about the divestment ordinance. So hopefully we'll get some updates about that. But before we do, I know you've answered this question a few times and maybe it's changed, but if you could just tell us what your favorite place to eat is in Medford and if there's anything there that you'd like to order.
[Micah Kesselman]: Yeah. Every time I'm blindsided by this question for some reason, even though I know it's coming. I mean, right now, I think my favorite place in Medford is Deep Cut Stallion. And that's actually not really so much for their food, though I do love their food quite a bit. Their chickpea sandwich is absolutely awesome. They also have whoever their booking person is does an incredible job booking folk punk musicians. And it's probably like the biggest folk punk venue in the greater Boston area, which is wild to see in Medford. So they get my vote for best restaurant just for that alone. I did just recently eat at Sarma for the first time for my wife's birthday, which I know is technically in Somerville, but it's very close. And yeah, that place is wildly good. I'm shocked at how good everything was. And their cocktails, their drinks are amazing. So man, shout out for Sarmoff, but they're not a Medford place. So mild shout out for them.
[Danielle Balocca]: We will talk about issues that pertain to Medford and Somerville. So it's OK to mention them sometimes. But also, that's quite a score for a birthday dinner. That was a good job for you. yeah deep cuts I feel like they have had some awards for their venue and their book like the music venue part of their business yeah that's a specific vibe like going to any different place in Medford and then going there it's like almost stepping into a different neighborhood it feels like it
[Micah Kesselman]: it's super cool i mean i i've seen some um live podcast shows there too uh which is really cool to see but um yeah like probably i go to at least one folk punk show there like once every couple of months and uh and like they have like you know they have within the folk punk niche, like sub sub genre, have some really big names that come in, like they had apes of the state multiple times were phenomenal. The last show I went there, they had a Local News Legend, which involves a bunch of members of Apes of the State, but whatever. And then also Sister Wife Sex Strike out of the Pacific Northwest. I think they're out of Oregon. And yeah, and it was just like, it was their first show and so far only show they'd done in the greater Boston area. And it was like just wild to see them there. It was like super great. And the energy is always great. Like everyone who goes Like the crowd is always like super hyped and it's just, it's just really cool. So it's a real gem.
[Danielle Balocca]: I can't say that I'm cool enough to know what any of those bands were, but that sounds great for you.
[Micah Kesselman]: So it's just, it's super niche punk, folk punk, like aging millennial nonsense, basically.
[Danielle Balocca]: Cool. Cool. Well, yeah, so I was hoping we could get a little bit of an update on what's going on with the divestment ordinance. I know that's something that you've talked to us about in the past. So yeah. Where are we right now?
[Micah Kesselman]: ừ tất nhiên là vậy nên tôi sẽ không đọc lại các chi tiết cụ thể về sắc lệnh thoái vốn thực sự là gì hoặc nó thực sự được dán nhãn về mặt kỹ thuật là các giá trị ừm phù hợp với sắc lệnh đầu tư địa phương ừm ngoài việc nói rằng đó là một loại toàn cầu rộng lớn à khuôn khổ đầu tư có đạo đức đối với số tiền tương đối ít ỏi mà Medford có thể trực tiếp kiểm soát việc đầu tư. Và nói rõ hơn, điều này có nghĩa như thế này, nó quyết định như bạn biết đấy, chúng ta có thể đầu tư vào cái gì trên thị trường chứng khoán, phải không? Những gì chúng tôi có thể bạn biết đấy, khi bạn đầu tư vào một cổ phiếu, bạn sẽ nhận được vốn sở hữu trong một công ty, bạn đang nắm giữ quyền sở hữu một phần nhỏ của một công ty, phải không? Đó là cách hoạt động đầu tư. Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ điều đó thực sự quan trọng để hiểu được tại sao Điều quan trọng là chúng ta phải có chính sách và sự cân nhắc kỹ lưỡng về việc thành phố của chúng ta đang nắm giữ cổ phần sở hữu cổ phần một cách hiệu quả theo đúng nghĩa đen khi đầu tư tiền của chúng ta. Vì vậy, đó là những gì nó ở mức cao. Nhiều chi tiết hơn. Các tập trước nếu muốn nghe hãy vào nghe các tập Medford Bites thường xanh trước đó. Nhưng bây giờ nó ở đâu, vậy nên bạn và mọi thính giả có lẽ đã biết, thành phố đã bị kiện vào tháng 2 bởi một vài người dân Medford, theo đúng nghĩa đen là hai cư dân Medford. Nhưng thực sự, vụ kiện này được dàn dựng bởi Trung tâm Vận động Người Do Thái Quốc gia có trụ sở tại Atlanta, Georgia. phối hợp với Quỹ Guvera và đối tác lớn tuổi này ở Hoops Libby hay gì đó, đó là một công ty luật thành phố. chủ yếu Tuy nhiên, NJAC, Trung tâm Vận động Người Do Thái Quốc gia, đã dàn dựng vụ kiện này. Họ cũng đã kiện Northampton vì hội đồng thành phố của họ thậm chí không thông qua một sắc lệnh mà đưa ra một nghị quyết theo đúng nghĩa đen chỉ yêu cầu chính quyền xem xét các hành động thoái vốn. Thành thật mà nói, điều đó đáng lẽ phải được đáp trả bằng một đòn chống tát. Theo ý kiến của tôi, câu trả lời là, nhưng tôi không phải là một phần của trường hợp đó, nhưng có vẻ như nó có ý định ngăn chặn quyền tự do ngôn luận được bảo vệ. Tôi không biết bạn có thể thực sự đóng khung điều đó bằng cách nào khác và họ cũng đã đe dọa kiện Somerville về sắc lệnh Thoái vốn của họ hiện đang được soạn thảo vì nó đã được bỏ phiếu bằng câu hỏi bỏ phiếu với số lượng áp đảo và cũng đã đưa ra những mối đe dọa tương tự đối với các thành phố khác trên toàn tiểu bang, như Cambridge và những thành phố khác đang thực hiện các hành động tương tự, và thậm chí cả bên ngoài tiểu bang, bạn biết đấy, Rhode Island và mọi thứ. Về cơ bản, NJAC đã nói rằng đây giống như là mũi nhọn cho ý định của họ để đến tiểu bang của chúng ta, một lời nhắc nhở rằng họ đến từ Georgia, thậm chí họ thậm chí không đến từ Massachusetts và nói với các thành phố của chúng ta rằng, họ nên quản lý tài chính và đầu tư của mình như thế nào. Vì vậy, đó chính là nguyên nhân gây ra vụ kiện. Kể từ đó, nhiều người trong thành phố chúng tôi là cư dân ở đây, đã không và tiếp tục không tin tưởng vào việc thành phố bảo vệ thỏa đáng cho vụ kiện, bảo vệ thỏa đáng trong các vụ kiện tụng, hay thành thật mà nói, thực sự là không hề. Họ đã tham gia vào cái gọi là sự can thiệp. Và đã có rất nhiều cuộc thảo luận trực tuyến về vấn đề này và chỉ uống trà tại bàn. Nói rõ hơn, can thiệp là thủ tục rất tiêu chuẩn, trên thực tế, nó cũng thường được sử dụng trong các vụ kiện tụng cấp thành phố. tham gia với tư cách là bên thứ ba trong một vụ kiện khi bên thứ ba đó tin rằng họ có lợi ích đang được đề cập trong vụ kiện, từ phía nguyên đơn hoặc phía bị đơn. Nhưng dù thế nào đi nữa, vấn đề tranh chấp thì họ cũng có lợi ích trong vấn đề tranh chấp. Đó là điều quan trọng. nhưng họ là bên thứ ba và họ không nghĩ rằng bị đơn hoặc nguyên đơn đại diện đầy đủ cho lợi ích mà họ có. Vì vậy, trong trường hợp của thành phố, điều đã xảy ra là 12 cư dân Medford, và sau đó, chúng tôi cũng đã chuyển sang đưa Anna Callahan và Matt Leming vào nhóm của họ. Với tư cách là cư dân tư nhân, bởi vì mặc dù có mặt trong hội đồng thành phố, họ cũng chỉ là những người sống ở Medford với tư cách là cư dân và người nộp thuế. đối với chúng tôi, chúng tôi đã nộp đơn để can thiệp vào vụ kiện từ phía các bị cáo uh để yêu cầu và buộc phải bảo vệ đầy đủ sắc lệnh của thành phố vì vậy việc đảm bảo rằng thành phố đang làm là đại diện cho lợi ích của bạn theo cách họ nói chính xác và bạn biết có rất nhiều lý do có rất nhiều lý do mà bạn biết chỉ Tôi sẽ cố gắng không sử dụng quá nhiều như luật pháp. Vì vậy, những người thực sự đang lắng nghe điều này có thể hiểu được điều này chứ không phải những luật sư khác. Nhưng, bạn biết đấy, có một khía cạnh đạo đức, chỉ cơ bản, giống như lẽ thường, giống như, đây là cách thành phố của chúng ta được quản lý. Và chúng tôi muốn đảm bảo rằng, bạn biết đấy, nếu quản lý theo cách mà chúng tôi muốn, thì chúng tôi muốn nó bảo vệ cách quản lý đó, phải không? Tất nhiên là có cơ sở như vậy. Nhưng có Và còn có những căn cứ khác nữa, nhưng cũng có khía cạnh này nữa, đặc biệt là ở Massachusetts, nó được gọi là vụ kiện 10 người nộp thuế hay luật 10 người nộp thuế. Và đó là lý do tại sao điều thực sự quan trọng là chúng ta có hơn chục bên tham gia can thiệp này. Và luật 10 người nộp thuế về cơ bản đại diện cho ý tưởng này rằng khi một đô thị được đang gây quỹ hoặc sắp gây quỹ hoặc ký kết các thỏa thuận hoặc sắp ký kết các thỏa thuận, điều này sẽ cấu thành việc gây quỹ bất hợp pháp. Bạn biết đấy, bằng cách nào đó, nó vi phạm luật tiểu bang hoặc luật hiến pháp hay bất cứ điều gì, thậm chí cả luật thành phố. Bạn biết đấy, nhóm 10 người đó có lý do để hành động. trước khi họ phải chịu bất kỳ tổn hại nào hoặc bất cứ điều gì. Đó là một loại biện pháp phòng ngừa. Vì vậy, đây giống như cơ sở pháp lý thực sự vững chắc và truyền thống ở Massachusetts trong việc yêu cầu các thành phố thực sự tuân thủ. Và trong trường hợp này, hãy tuân thủ luật pháp của chính họ. Bởi vì, bạn biết đấy, một trong những điều khác nảy sinh từ vụ kiện này là các nguyên đơn đã nộp đơn xin lệnh cấm sơ bộ để ngăn chặn việc ban hành hoặc thực thi luật đã được thông qua. quy trình hợp pháp và đó là thủ tục tiêu chuẩn để trở thành luật của thành phố chúng ta. Và đó không phải là một câu hỏi bất thường. Vì vậy, lệnh cấm sơ bộ về cơ bản có nội dung: này, trong khi vụ kiện này đang chờ xử lý, hãy ngăn điều này xảy ra, đề phòng nó sẽ gây hại. Vì vậy, nó rất bình thường. Đó là một điều hình thức chuyên nghiệp. Điều bất thường là về cơ bản thành phố trong hồ sơ đã nói rằng chúng tôi chưa thực thi sắc lệnh này, chúng tôi chưa thực thi luật và chúng tôi không có kế hoạch thực hiện. Và đây là tất cả trong bản tóm tắt mà họ đã nộp. Đó là thông tin công khai tại tòa án. Vì vậy, bạn biết đấy, điều đó rất có vấn đề. Đợi đã, thị trưởng cũng phủ quyết dự luật này nhưng mặc dù nó giống như vậy, ừ, vậy nên lịch sử của việc thông qua sắc lệnh này là nó đã được thông qua Hội đồng thành phố. Phải mất khoảng sáu tháng để hoàn tất quá trình này và có rất nhiều cuộc đàm phán với các chủ thể và các bên liên quan trong thành phố cũng như các cuộc thảo luận, bạn biết đấy, giữa và với Hội đồng thành phố Và sau đó uh nó đã được thông qua và sau đó thị trưởng đã phủ quyết sắc lệnh, theo như tôi biết thì đây là lần duy nhất bà ấy phủ quyết sắc lệnh đó và sau đó siêu đa số trong hội đồng thành phố đã bác bỏ quyền phủ quyết của bà ấy và uh tuy nhiên hãy đưa nó vào luật. Vì vậy, đó là luật của thành phố chúng tôi. Không còn nghi ngờ gì nữa, đó là luật của thành phố chúng tôi về cách chúng tôi được phép đầu tư vào quỹ thành phố của mình để chúng tôi có quyền tiếp cận chúng.
[Danielle Balocca]: So it sounds like, even before this lawsuit, there was no intention of actually enforcing this law. So what happens to a mayor if they refuse to enforce something that's been...
[Micah Kesselman]: Yeah, that's a good question. It's a hard one. I mean, at the end of the day, this is actually where there is a responsibility, a positive responsibility, I think, on the electorate, on residents, to just simply not vote for that elected official the next round of elections. And I, I think that, you know, to, to a significant degree, we have seen that, right. Because keep in mind that, um, while the mayor did win her last election as the incumbent, um, she was unopposed and she won with barely 60% of the vote, uh, while unimposed, which is actually kind of crazy.
[Danielle Balocca]: So, um, wait, does that mean 60% of people voted or people voted for like write in candidates for 40%?
[Micah Kesselman]: Uh, 60% of people who voted, voted for her.
[Danielle Balocca]: So they just maybe didn't vote for her.
[Micah Kesselman]: So they might've vote. So the 40% that did not vote, and it's not exactly, it's like 30 and some change or something, but whatever the remainder who did, who did not vote for her voted for writing candidates or just left it blank.
[Danielle Balocca]: Okay.
[Micah Kesselman]: So, yeah, I didn't know. Uh, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's kind of a astonishing thing to see. Um, the. So I mean, there's that aspect to it. The other aspect is like there are legal procedures. Sometimes certain laws have built into them mechanisms for enforcement against city officials not actually enforcing them. That is not the case with this. ordinance. There's also a procedure called the writ of mandamus. And the writ of mandamus is a legal procedure that applies to everything. And basically, it is when you take a government official or agency to court and say, you're not doing your job. And now we have to have the courts demand you do your job. And it's a pretty big deal. But that is something that's used not infrequently, especially in the last couple of decades. the gay marriage cases where, you know, you had clerks in states that had legalized it who were refusing to actually grant the marriage certificates. Like they were brought before the court via this process as a writ of mendamus. And the courts, you know, universally said like, quit your nonsense, do your job, please. Or not please, just do your job. So that's the other procedural mechanism to when the mayor or any other official would like to simply just not follow the law that they're required to follow.
[Danielle Balocca]: Interesting. OK, so it sounds like you had good reason to think that there needed to be residents involved in this intervention.
[Micah Kesselman]: Yeah, and I mean, we this is all in our filings, but And so, like I mentioned, I, you know, I'm actually co-counsel on this case. So there's only so much I really want to get into. Um, but yes, we, I mean, like there was large consensus across the city that this, that the administration, that the mayor, um, had no interest or desire to actually defend this case and by all by the looks of everything as things were proceeding. And keep in mind that we filed their intervention with less than a week before the deadline for the city to file anything, or it would default in the case. And at the time that we filed, You know, I'm on the recording in the city council chambers actually, delivering service to the city. Because when you file something with the federal courts, there is a whole backend system that automatically provides service to all the attorneys who have made an appearance, but the city had not actually had anyone make an appearance. So there was no one to automatically email. So when I noticed that after we filed, yeah, I actually had to like go to, luckily there was a city council regular meeting that same day and that evening. So I actually had to go to city council chambers and hand deliver service of our filing to the city council chambers directly to the clerk.
[Danielle Balocca]: Well, thanks for doing that.
[Micah Kesselman]: Yeah. I mean, to be fair, it was also really fun for me too, because I think it's every attorney's, uh, has a dream of one day getting their sort of, uh, uh, cinematic movement of like, blah, blah, blah. And also you've been served. So I probably will never, I've peaked. I don't know that I'll ever hit that peak again, but, um, yeah, so, but that is all the same. Like, I mean, there is, there is absolutely zero indication. and zero reason to believe that there was any sort of good faith defense being mounted. And yeah, and that's part of the basis for our lawsuit is that the city cannot default, especially on a case of this magnitude. Keep in mind that one of the outcomes of this case too, is that this is filed in federal court, So the outcome sets a precedent for the entire state of Massachusetts, for every municipality in Massachusetts. The ordinance is very broad. It is not targeting any specific nation. It is very structured. It's very specific about what kind of things would bar the city from investing in them and what kind of behaviors. and findings by internationally and nationally accredited organizations. And effectively, were the plaintiffs in this case to succeed on the arguments that they have put forward, which could very well be the case if the city defaults, no city in the state would effectively have the ability to manage their own investment. And it's not just about like divesting from contributors to genocide and international humanitarian crimes. It includes oil and natural gas companies, right? And includes weapons manufacturers. It includes private prisons, right? And it even goes beyond that because the basis of the argument is so wildly broad and nonsensical and arbitrary that effectively cities like, I think it's Lowell, maybe it's Lynn, I forget which city, but I bring it up pretty often. They have a policy of that. they prioritize investing in local companies with the money that they're able to invest in so as to facilitate growth, which is a great policy. I honestly, I wish we had the same thing, but that would ostensibly be barred under the reasoning put forward. Like it's a crazy thing to allow that sort of. that sort of rule take control of municipalities across the state.
[Danielle Balocca]: And that would happen if Medford just defaulted on this.
[Micah Kesselman]: Yeah, if the city had defaulted. So anytime a default happens, it isn't like a close and shut or open and shut case. But what it does mean is that the defaulting party is no longer party to the case actively. They're sort of their ex parte. They are bound by the findings and everything, but they don't have a right to make arguments. They don't have a right to dispute facts. They don't have a right to really do anything. They can still, I mean, talk about it and file amicus briefs with the court, but effectively they're no longer a direct party to the litigation. So, you know, a case like this, it would still go through the discussion between the plaintiffs and the court, but there would be no one to say, hey, they're lying or misleading you on certain factual components of the case or whatever. And keep in mind, again, the complaint, one of the things it said, it talked about was there's no rules or guidance on how to actually identify who you should not be investing in. That is patently a not true, right? There's an entire section that goes into the MSCI controversial events or something The MSEI controversies ESG investing index. MSEI is Morgan Stanley. It was spun off from Morgan Stanley. It's now no longer directly under a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley, but this is like not some random blog, right? This is a well-recognized financial institution that gives very clear rubric and rules for how to like do this sort of investing. And they effectively, uh pretended that doesn't exist and didn't even reference it when they said that there's no rules for how this is supposed to even work and you know if the city defaulted the city like no one would be there to say that's not true right and that's a big deal yeah wow
[Danielle Balocca]: okay well so it sounds like i think we're kind of leading to this point of the importance of our elected officials and maybe a nice segue to a letter that you recently wrote to god i know medford and you want to tell us a little bit about what brought that up for you yeah so so there was an initial letter sent to god i know medford which was um responsive to
[Micah Kesselman]: one of the statements that Christine Barber made at the Mystic Valley Voters Forum, second district, Senate primary race. It's a huge mouthful, so my mouth's a little dry. Give me a second. And at that forum, Barber was asked, along with all the other candidates, about her opinion on, one, whether she would label what's going on in Israel and Palestine as a genocide against Palestinians, against Gazans, and to whether she supports the divestment ordinances both in Medford, which is broad and global and very rules-based, and also in Somerville, which is more targeted and is still in drafting, in fact. And her response was basically to immediately bring up the question of dealing with antisemitism, which is super problematic for many reasons. But I think for Jewish people, it's exceptionally problematic because it implicitly equates criticism of Israel and political Zionism with anti-semitism. Even if that's not what her intent was, there is an implicit, intrinsic equivalence there that's being advocated and espoused.
[Danielle Balocca]: And it gets said a lot in this argument. And I think, yeah, we've talked about this, I think, on previous podcasts, just how that argument comes up a lot and what the merit to it is.
[Micah Kesselman]: Right. And it's really problematic. I would, you know, as And this may surprise people after they hear my name, but I am, I am a Jewish resident of Medford. Uh, and you know, this is, yeah, um, and it's, it's very, you know, this is very problematic. I think for, you know, aside from the, it just being gross in general and counterproductive, it actually is. Uh, dangerous to Jewish safety and security as well, I think. And I think that many Jewish residents would agree with this. And a lot of Jewish residents were very actually angry about this, the manner in which she responded. Anyway, fast forward a little bit, and a couple of Medford for Palestine organizers, Joshua Eckert-Lee and Charlie Solomon, wrote a letter to God I Know Medford talking about this. And it's taking issue with this equivocation and equivalizing between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, or even just criticality of Zionism. Criticism, sorry, of Zionism. It was a well-written article. I recommend everyone go give it a read. It's on God in Old Medford. It's great. Following that, in response to that argument, a resident of Medford wrote in a quote-unquote responsive letter to this original letter that references this group of rabbis in Maine who basically said, you know, it's not a genocide and you shouldn't call it a genocide and engage in a whole bunch of apologia for what is over a century of anti-Arab discrimination and genocidal rhetoric and policy that has happened in Israel since before its founding. Me being the loud, angry Jewish Medford guy that I am, I wrote a sur-response to that letter, and it's received quite a bit of pleasant feedback and appreciation from other residents of the city. So I'm grateful for that. But my point in that letter was really that we need to stop tying anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Zionism itself is a historical novelty. It really wasn't even mainstream in global Jewish culture until not even the founding of Israel, but until the 60s, until the Six-Day War. But anyway, it wasn't mainstream until after the founding of Israel. And before that, Especially once you enter the interwar period before World War II, anti-Zionism actually was kind of the cultural standard because the understanding among Jews across the diaspora, and I don't like to use the word diaspora because it implies that that it's an opposition to like being centrally located. It is among Jewish culture globally. The understanding was that, you know, we are where we live and we are members of these communities and we are people that are, that have every right to be a part of these communities as anyone else in these communities. And, you know, as a member of the crop of new neo-Bundists that are, you know, coming to the forefront, that is literally was the slogan of the International Jewish Labor Bund in the, you know, at the turn of the century and up through the 20s and 30s, was that, you know, here where we are or here where we live, this is our country. And it was very, it was deeply opposed to this idea of Zionism, this, which fundamentally was this, ethno-state endeavor of saying all the Jews can't fit into society and we need to go to our own country and basically go to a global ghetto is effectively what it is. And they got a bunch of support from, you know, Christian Zionists, of course, who, you know, are really excited to see it happen because they want that global ghetto to get blown up so that the rapture can happen or whatever, right?
[Danielle Balocca]: Except you're coming of Christ, right? Yeah.
[Micah Kesselman]: Yeah. And you know, there's more Christian Zionists than there are Jews in the world. So, so anyway, like my response to that, the reason I wrote my responsive letter was just to point out that like, look, this, this is not a part of our culture. And if you look at current polling to right now, I, the majority of American Jews are explicitly not Zionist. And I would be willing to bet, and we don't have good numbers on this that I've seen, but I'd be willing to bet that a significant proportion of that majority are actually anti-Zionist. They are against the founding of a Jewish ethnostate that places primacy on Jewishness before any other resident or citizen of the state. So it is really imperative that we decouple this. Because at the end of the day, this coupling of Zionism and Jewish identity, it is feeding into and literally arises out of historically anti-Semitic tropes that there is dual loyalty tropes. That Jews are loyal to Jews and loyal to Israel before they are loyal to their local communities, before they are loyal to their whatever hosting country is. It's literally an antisemitic trope. And it's crazy. It's crazy for people to be platforming and advancing this, especially within the Jewish community. So that's why I really felt compelled to write my responsive letter. And I will say, and we talked about this a little bit before our discussion here, but you know, one of the things I also provided in my letter to Got to Know Medford was a whole bunch of links. There's like half a dozen links and references. that support the many claims I make in there. And I was expecting them to be included with the letter. They were not. But yeah, I mean, in our area, in the greater Boston area, the proportion of anti-Zionist Jews is immense. There's entire shuls, which are premised on anti-Zionism and the idea that We are Jews here, we are not loyal to Israel, and certainly not loyal to an Israel that is an ethno-nationalist project. The Hafta Shul is a great example of that in Cambridge, if not now. Jewish Voices for Peace, both have immense cohorts here in the greater Boston area and in Massachusetts. The Boston Workers' Circle is over a hundred years old. It's an incredibly old institution. And despite its name, it's actually a Jewish institution. It's a Jewish, Yiddishist, Bundist-adjacent institution, a labor-focused institution generally. They were kicked out of the Jewish council in Boston because they criticize Israel. And they are willing to say that what Israel is doing is apartheid and genocide. So like, this is not like some novel thing, or it's not even like some historical artifact that I'm like trying to revive. No, this is mainstream and has always been mainstream Judaism.
[Danielle Balocca]: Yeah, so so in our show notes, we will put your letter and we'll put those links for people to read and to, you know, to be able to explore there. And quickly, before we wrap up for today, I'm wondering if so. I know you're also part of Medford for Palestine. It sounds like your letter was somehow related to the our upcoming primary election. I wonder if you could share if there are if there are and who they are for candidates that Medford for Palestine is supporting in the next election.
[Micah Kesselman]: Sure, yeah, I'm happy to. So for the State Senate Second District, Pat Jalen's old seat that she's vacating, we have endorsed or Medford for Palestine has endorsed Erika Eiderhoven for her, and not just because of her position on Palestinian solidarity and solidarity overall, but also because she's been very proactive on reasonable and intelligent understanding of digital rights issues, including like this child social media ban. She was one of the few people that did not vote for it, even though it was criticized by organizations like the ACLU and any digital rights organization was like, this is a really terrible law. The House should not be voting for this. She actually did not vote for it with that understanding, which is great to see. I mean, she's actually like digesting and processing what she's reading. She's also been a strong advocate for carceral prison reform and moving to like more habilitative justice action and also like housing issues and a whole bunch of other stuff. We also have endorsed Paul Russo. for Christine Barber's old seat that she's vacating to run for Pat Jalen's old seat, being a little bit of a Massachusetts shuffle here this cycle. He has been an ally to Medford for Palestine from the very beginning and has been in solidarity with us on all of our actions. And from a personal perspective, you know, I have been very, wary and concerned about the ADL having instructional material get put into our schools. Because I have a child who's in the Medford school system, and I don't want him being exposed to the anti-Palestinian ADL garbage in his education curriculum. And he's been super responsive to my concerns about that personally. So Medford for Palestine endorses him, and I also staunchly endorse him just for that alone. He's been great. And last but not least, we also have endorsed Jonathan Paz for Federal House of Representatives, who is primarying Catherine Clark along with Tariq Salman. And yeah, Medford for Palestine has been doing a lot of work with Paz and campaigning for him as well as part of our endorsement.
[Danielle Balocca]: Thank you. Thanks for sharing. That's helpful because this episode will come out pretty close to the primary. So that'll be really coming up soon.
[Micah Kesselman]: Yeah.
[Danielle Balocca]: Thanks. Well, thank you, Micah. Is there anything else that you want to make sure that you mentioned before we wrap up for today?
[Micah Kesselman]: I mean, the one thing I will say is that, you know, despite all of this. Well, in addition to all of this, People should be aware of what Luce is doing and get involved with Luce and protecting immigrants' rights and documenting the horrors that ICE is visiting upon us in Massachusetts, in Medford, right now. I think it's important that people are aware that the district courthouse down on Mystic Ave, across from the reservation, It has seen an immense, unprecedented uptick in arrests. This is despite the PROTECT Act being in law right now, by the way. And, you know, it was just a week ago where ICE literally chased a guy across Mystic Ave and tackled him in the park there. And detained him. Like, it is... Like this is we are not done dealing with ice. We are not done dealing with fascists and their new, you know, Gestapo and slave catchers. So I think that like we really. Everyone should be aware of that and should be vocal in demanding that everyone from our local city administration to our local city cops to the state and beyond do something about this. Do something real, more than just words. Actually take action to protect our residents because no matter what your paperwork status is, you should not... be tackled in front of a courthouse when you are literally complying with the laws of the land by going to a court date, right? Like, that's crazy. And then you should be disappeared into a system where multiple people have died already. And that's totally unaccountable. And that the FBI has literally said that they will not investigate crimes, the crimes of. It's wild. So that's my, I guess, parting message is like, everything I just said is important. But also that is really important and people should be aware of and if you want to get involved you can always reach out to the Medford Hub of Luce and get trained and start helping with doing verification and mutual aid work with them.
[Danielle Balocca]: Thank you for that plug. I'll be sure to put that in the notes for today as well. Well, thank you, Micah. Thanks for always being available to talk about this stuff on the podcast and good luck with the lawsuit and the intervention.
[Micah Kesselman]: Awesome, thanks, I appreciate it. And thanks for having me on. It's great to get a chance to talk about this. Thank you.
[Danielle Balocca]: Thanks so much for listening to today's episode. The Medford Bites podcast is produced and moderated by Danielle Balacca and Shelly Keshaman. Music is made by Hendrik Idonis. We'd love to hear what you think about the podcast. You can reach out to us by email at medfordpod at gmail.com, or you can rate and review the podcast on Apple Podcasts. Thanks so much for listening. Guys, what's the name of the podcast? Medford Bites. Medford Bites. Good job.