Why I am Voting ‘NO’ on Question 7 for Providence – Steven Baker, Jewish Alliance of Greater RI

by Steven Baker, submitted commentary

Why I am Voting no on Question 7

I have visited Israel four times since October 7, 2023. Each trip left images I cannot escape: the clock in Hostage Square counting every second of captivity, the thousands of memorials at the Nova Festival grounds, the shelter where young adults tried to survive grenade after grenade, and the charred cars of families who never made it home.

I have sat with Israelis whose parents, spouses, children and friends were murdered or kidnapped. I have seen shattered families and survivors finding the courage to smile again.

These memories do not excuse every decision Israel’s government has made. They remind me that the debate about who is suffering cannot be reduced to slogans.

That is the perspective I bring to Providence’s question 7, a ballot measure concerning the city’s investments. Its supporters present it as an ethical investment policy, but they have made clear that Israel is its intended target.

When voting between now and November 3, Providence residents should consider both its practical consequences and the message it sends to their neighbors.

For many Jews, Israel is part of their identity, family history and connection to an ancestral homeland. Supporting its existence does not mean endorsing every decision of its government. Many Jews who oppose question 7 also have deep concerns about Israel’s current leadership.

What does Providence accomplish by adopting a measure that many Jewish residents experience as public condemnation of an important part of their identity? That concern is especially painful in a climate of antisemitic harassment and vandalism. I moved here only months ago and have generally felt warmly welcomed. But seeing Mayor Smiley’s campaign signs defaced with antisemitic and Nazi imagery shook me.

A ballot measure does not exist apart from that climate. Words and campaigns influence whether neighbors feel safe, respected and welcome.

An ethical investment policy should also apply consistent standards. The world’s grave abuses do not begin and end with Israel. Singling out one country raises legitimate questions about whether this proposal offers a coherent investment framework or just divides us.

At the Jewish Alliance, we prefer to devote our resources to education, care and building bridges across Rhode Island. We want to help people understand one another, including those whose experiences and views differ sharply from our own.

Voting yes on question 7 will do nothing to help the people who are suffering, but there are certainly things that would: supporting humanitarian assistance, strengthening education about antisemitism and Islamophobia, and creating opportunities for honest conversation. These efforts can expand compassion without asking neighbors to defend their identities.

I oppose question 7 because I believe it will deepen division while doing little to help Palestinians. That position does not diminish Palestinian suffering or place Israel beyond criticism. It asks whether this particular proposal is a constructive response.

Our city should make room for grief, disagreement and belonging. Jewish residents should not have to shrink their identity to feel accepted in the place they call home.

Steven Baker is president and CEO of the Jewish Alliance of Greater Rhode Island