In Somerville, Massachusetts, city officials have chosen to postpone their decision regarding an Israeli divestment proposal. This delay aims to facilitate further exploration into which companies may be affected and how the proposed financial measure might impact the city at large.
Legislative Debate and Voter Support
On a recent evening, the Legislative Matters Committee engaged in a meaningful discussion surrounding this contentious issue. In November 2025, the City Council had supported a motion to adhere to voter-approved ballot Question 3, which called for the city to divest from certain Israeli-linked businesses, achieving a majority approval of 55.7%. The committee’s debate comes as part of the process to implement this decision within the designated year.
Councilor Lance Davis raised key inquiries during the meeting, specifically targeting Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen—a Jewish member of the council—about his criteria for identifying which companies might be subject to divestment. Ewen-Campen outlined that the criteria were outlined in a draft ordinance focusing solely on companies directly engaged in municipal contracts or investment opportunities. Notably excluded were subcontractors and sole proprietors operating without forming a formal business entity.
Criteria for Potential Divestment
Ewen-Campen emphasized that the ordinance intends to target enterprises demonstrating “direct, ongoing, and knowing activity” in what he described as international humanitarian violations. This includes situations involving apartheid and genocide, particularly concerning the ongoing conflicts in Israel and Palestine. The ordinance seeks to align its criteria with standards established by reputable international bodies, such as the International Court of Justice and the United Nations.
As the discussion continued, concerns were voiced by Councilor Kristen Strezo regarding specific companies—like Ahava and Airbnb—that provide non-military products and services. Strezo questioned whether barring the city from doing business with these entities would lead to unintended financial consequences, potentially jeopardizing contracts that have no ties to military action.
Legal and Financial Ramifications
The committee also contemplated the potential legal ramifications if the ordinance passes, as questions emerged about the legality of the identified companies and whether the ordinance could face challenges. City Solicitor Cindy Amara expressed concerns regarding how the committee aims to finalize the criteria for divestment.
Despite recognizing the challenges and risks the ordinance may introduce, Ewen-Campen maintained that the moral implications outweigh the financial costs. He stated, “I believe we should not be contracting with companies that facilitate illegal military occupations.” Meanwhile, Strezo highlighted sentiments in the community, vocalizing that the ordinance might alienate certain groups and ultimately contradict the city’s values of inclusivity and safety.
Next Steps for the Ordinance
For the proposed ordinance to be formally enacted, it must gain majority support from the entire City Council and receive approval from the mayor. If the mayor opts to veto the proposal, the ordinance can still become law if eight members of the council vote in favor of overriding the veto.
Mayor Jake Wilson had not endorsed the ballot measure that led to the ordinance discussion. While unavailable for direct comment, his Deputy Director of Communications indicated that Wilson would closely monitor the situation and would engage in a thorough review of the ordinance, should it progress further. As the Legislative Matters Committee plans to revisit the proposal on October 27, the outcome remains uncertain but critical for the city moving forward.