Second Statement to West Orange Town Council on its Proposed Anti-Semitism Task Force
66 Main St
West Orange, New Jersey
February 10, 2026

Last time I was here, I criticized a proposal for an anti-Semitism task force. In response, some speakers suggested that I was being insensitive to the dangers faced by Jews in West Orange. I don’t agree, so I’m going to respond.

Last time, I mentioned four alleged cases of anti-Semitism. Two I’ve already discussed, so consider the other two. One was a bomb threat sent to Temple Shalom in Livingston. The other was a terrorist scheme devised by two men in Montclair. I think it’s fair to call both things anti-Semitic, and to call both threatening. That said, both were handled by law enforcement, just as I said they should be. A task force can’t predict or prevent crime before the fact, can’t respond to it during, and can’t mitigate the damage after. So it’s not clear what additional contribution a task force would have made in either case. 

Referring to the Montclair case, Ms Lefkowitz (back in November) raised the possibility that other attacks like it could happen. Imagine (she suggested) an attack on this very council meeting. I don’t dispute that such an attack is possible. What I dispute is that a task force would stop it. And if you think about it in more practical terms, you’ll see why. 

If the worry is that someone might bring a weapon into this meeting and start shooting, the solution is to check people for weapons before they enter the meeting. It’s not to let them enter at will and hope for the best, which is SOP right now. So that’s one thing to put on a to-do list.

It was suggested last time that Jews feel fear walking the streets of West Orange. If so, one thing the Council could do is tell people explicitly that they have no obligation to divulge their street address at public comments. It makes no sense to say “I’m afraid to walk the streets of West Orange,” and then broadcast your street address on a public Zoom call archived on the Internet. But that’s the expectation. 

Finally, if the worry is that terrorists might attack synagogues or schools, I’m fully alive to that threat. I lived across the street from Temple Ner Tamid in Bloomfield, which was attacked in 2023, and worked down the street from Congregation Beth El in Rutherford which was firebombed in 2012. My family in Pakistan has been on the receiving end of two suicide bombings and multiple death threats (1, 2, 3), and my father was a medical responder at 9/11. Half of my family is Muslim and the other half Jewish, and security is an issue for both.  So if you want to deploy the police to guard sensitive locations, I’m in favor. I would just sat that what’s needed is an armed force, not a task force, and they’re not the same thing.  

Two members of the Council responded to my earlier comment by saying that we “need to get along.” We do, but the Council seems to have some fixed ideas about what that means. It seems to mean that the Council is permitted to rely on a highly contestable conception of anti-Semitism; to use that conception to discredit political protest; to equate that with “Jewish security”; and then deny that it’s doing anything controversial.

That’s what I’m disputing.  If the Council wants to enhance security, there are practical things it could do to enhance it. But if it has something else in mind, it needs to be clearer about what that is. So far, it hasn’t been.