Lawmakers in Somerville, Massachusetts, have delayed action on an Israeli divestment proposal to allow for more research into the question of what businesses would be banned and what the financial impact would be on the city.
Somerville’s Legislative Matters Committee debated the issue Tuesday night after its City Council voted in November 2025 to find a way to implement ballot Question 3 on Israel divestment within a year, which voters approved earlier that month by 55.7%.
Councilor Lance Davis spent much of the meeting questioning Councilor Ben Ewen-Campen, who is Jewish, on the criteria he is developing by which to evaluate the companies that would be included in the procurement and investment ban.
Those criteria are listed in a draft ordinance that deals only with companies the municipality directly invests in or does business with. It does not include subcontractors nor sole proprietors, defined as a “natural person conducting business in their own name or under a trade name,” without forming a legal entity (like a corporation) for the purpose of their business.
Ewen-Campen told the legislative committee his intention for the restricted entities would be those that demonstrated “direct, ongoing and knowing activity” in international humanitarian crimes, including in Israel and Palestine. “The intent is companies that play a role in the ongoing violations of international humanitarian law, apartheid, genocide, et cetera,” Ewen-Campen explained.
Ordinance criteria based on ICJ, ICC, UN criteria
At present, the ordinance bases the criteria for implicated entities on those set out by the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry and its database of Israeli businesses, as well as the UNHRC’s database maintained by the Quaker organization the American Friends Service Committee’s Investigate Project.
Ewen-Campen explained that the criteria would encompass companies that make weaponry, components of weaponry, components of militarized demolition equipment and “components of the surveillance state in illegal occupied territory.”
Councilor Kristen Strezo, who is also Jewish, pointed out that some of the companies offered products to civilians and were not connected to any military use, such as the skincare brand Ahava and Airbnb, which is a global rental service. Strezo expressed concern about the financial impact on the city if it is barred from contracting with similar companies.
City Solicitor Cindy Amara also expressed hesitation over the legal implications of the lists, wondering how the committee planned to finalize the criteria.
The committee also discussed the potential financial impact if the ordinance passes, including potential legal action against the city if the measure is found illegal.
Ewen-Campen said that he was willing to accept the potential harm of the ordinance given the moral weight it held. “My personal convictions around illegal military occupations are that we should not be contracting with companies that facilitate them, support them, give them legitimacy in the eyes of the world,” he said. “I’m not saying there will be no cost to the city in any way, shape or form. I’m saying I personally believe it’s worth it.”
Strezo stressed several times that she believed the ordinance was irresponsible and discriminatory. “I wish to remind our colleagues and everyone here that many Jews in this community feel that they do not feel safe,” she said, arguing that the ordinance “does not align with the values of everyone feeling welcome here.”
Ewen-Campen, who, with Councilor Ben Wheeler, originally drafted the language for the ordinance, agreed to make further amendments to the ordinance before it returns to the committee on Oct. 27, when it will likely come to a vote.
Ordinance must first pass City Council, receive mayoral approval
For an ordinance to be adopted, it must pass in the full City Council and be approved by the mayor, who also has the option to veto and return the ordinance to council. The veto can be overridden if 8 members of the council vote on the action.
During his campaign, Mayor Jake Wilson did not endorse Question 3, the ballot measure which prompted the writing of the ordinance. He could not be reached for comment, but Deputy Director of Communications Grace Munns wrote in an email that the mayor “is closely following the City Council process, and as with any proposed ordinance, would do a thorough review with staff of the legislation.”