On November’s ballot, Somerville voters were asked whether the city should divest from companies doing business with Israel. While many voters saw it as a symbolic gesture, Question 3 remains extremely problematic. The measure’s main organizer, Somerville for Palestine, claims to stand for justice, but their rhetoric and continued agitation threaten Somerville’s unity.
Question 3 uses inflammatory rhetoric that mirrors language long used by Hamas and other extremist movements — accusations of “genocide,” “apartheid” and “illegal occupation” that have served as propaganda tools for decades. These terms do not help Palestinians in need, neither at home or abroad.
Right now, Israel and Hamas are engaged in an ongoing peace process focused on freeing hostages and ending the fighting. Question 3 takes the opposite stance, rejecting reconciliation in favor of blame. Worse, the measure is non-binding and likely legally invalid, as confirmed by the Deputy City Solicitor. Somerville has no legal authority to influence Middle Eastern policy. The only tangible impact of Question 3 will be division — fueling anger and resentment within Somerville.
Question 3’s limitations have been widely communicated. On the same ballot where Question 3 passed, Somerville voters chose a new mayor. Voters elected Jake Wilson knowing his opposition to enforcing Question 3, recognizing City Hall’s job to address local issues instead.
That contrast is telling. While Somerville for Palestine celebrates Question 3’s passage, the broader electorate endorsed a mayor who is focused on local governance. The city’s strength lies in solving real problems, not importing conflicts we cannot control. Wilson won convincingly, inviting residents to move forward together and focus on local issues.
It is becoming increasingly clear that Question 3’s main organizer, Somerville for Palestine, seems to be less interested in helping Gaza than in stirring conflict. Somerville for Palestine seems to have little interest in the peace process, the Palestinian opposition to Hamas or the Arab nations calling for Hamas to step down: Their rhetoric and aspirations appear sympathetic to Hamas. Their campaign was supported by outside groups, such as Boston Democratic Socialists of America, which has a history of divisive political activity, including past members who were incarcerated for political violence. These outside organizations create turmoil in our elections rather than organizing in their own communities.
Reports of hate incidents have been rising statewide, including in Somerville schools. In one recent case, an Israeli student’s possessions were cleared from his locker and replaced with a Palestinian flag, prompting one family to fear for their safety. Question 3’s message of hostility has real-world consequences, creating an environment of fear and alienation for residents on both sides.
Somerville’s role is not to adjudicate international conflicts but to foster local unity. Question 3 undermines that mission. Its backers may claim moral purpose, but their campaign has caused division, not peace. Mayor Wilson’s election offers a path forward — one rooted in community focus and civility.
Somerville stands for unity, safety and real compassion — not imported extremism. It’s time for Somerville for Palestine to accept their symbolic victory, respect voters’ endorsement of our next mayor’s community focus and give peace a chance.
Respectfully Submitted,
Justin Klekota
Conwell Avenue, Somerville
