(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

By Justin Klekota

On November’s ballot, Somerville voters were asked whether the city should divest from Israel. While many voters saw it as a symbolic gesture, Question 3 remains extremely problematic. Its main sponsor, 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 slogans do not help Palestinians in need, nor do they advance negotiations that could bring lasting peace. Instead, they deepen divisions at home and 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 legally unenforceable, as confirmed by the City Solicitor. Somerville has no authority to influence Middle East policy. The only tangible impact of Question 3 is division—fueling anger and resentment within Somerville.

Somerville voters are well aware of Question 3’s limitations. 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. Somerville voters understand that the city’s strength lies in solving real problems, not importing conflicts we cannot control. The results show that most residents want to move forward together and focus on local issues.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Question 3’s main sponsor, Somerville for Palestine, is less interested in helping Gaza than in stirring conflict. Somerville for Palestine has shown 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 driven largely by outside groups such as Boston Democratic Socialists of America, which has a history of divisive political meddling, including past members convicted for political violence. These organizations don’t live with the consequences of their rhetoric—they create turmoil here while remaining untouched in their own communities.

The results are already visible. Reports of hate incidents have been rising in Somerville, including in our schools. In one recent case, a student whose family fled Israel was harassed, prompting the family to move out of the city entirely. 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
Somerville