The recent Oak Park Township meeting on the referendum drew such a large crowd that it had to be rescheduled for a larger venue. That alone tells us something important: this is a complex and deeply felt issue. It deserves more than a one-line question.
The referendum asks whether we “support the right” to boycott Israel, which makes it sound like a simple free speech issue. Of course individuals have the right to express their views and make personal economic choices. That’s not in dispute.
But that’s not what’s actually being debated.
In Springfield, the issue is a technical state law about pension investments and contracts with for-profit companies — a complicated policy question. Reasonable people disagree about that law.
This referendum strips away that complexity and replaces it with a one-sentence question that effectively asks Oak Park to endorse a political movement. That does not belong on a township agenda.
Substantively, I believe boycotting an entire country is neither fair nor effective. Many of us have real concerns about the current Israeli government, and criticism is entirely legitimate. But we would not want the world to boycott the United States because of policies we disagree with. We would want engagement, not isolation.
And it is not political leaders who are most affected by these boycotts. It is professors, students, artists, and engineers — people who are often the most open to dialogue and change. Boycotts do little to influence government policy but often isolate those working toward coexistence.
I have deep sympathy for all victims of violence, wherever they live. But broad boycotts shut down engagement and harden divisions. Oak Park should not divide itself over a complex issue it cannot meaningfully influence.