| Dear Neighbors:
With the start of early voting this past Wednesday, I would like to share why I voted to reject Question 7 on the Providence ballot. I apologize in advance for the length of this letter, which results from the complex and controversial nature of this issue.
Question 7 seeks voter approval for an ordinance “divesting from foreign countries conducting severe violations of human rights …” As debated in the Providence City Council two years ago, it is intended to divest City investments primarily from the State of Israel in response to its conduct of the war in Gaza.
I voted to reject this question for two reasons. First, as a practical matter, it would not effectively achieve its goal; instead, it will likely harm the City’s finances. Second, even if viewed exclusively as a statement of values, it causes more harm than good.
I oppose the Israeli government’s policies in both Gaza and the West Bank, as they undermine the two state solution, in which a sovereign Palestinian state will exist alongside the State of Israel. The most effective way for the United States to change the current Israeli government’s policies is to restrict, reduce or even eliminate American military aid unless and until Israel becomes a partner in a constructive peace process. Congress is currently considering this initiative, for which polling indicates support from a majority of American Democrats and independents, including me. This past July 15, both Rhode Island members of Congress voted in favor of the Massie amendment, which, had it passed, would have done exactly this.
Question 7 presents a different initiative, namely divesting from companies (many of which are American multinationals) who do business with prohibited countries, including Israel. Presumably the theory of Question 7’s proponents is that divestment by the City will lead these companies to pull out of Israel or alternatively influence Israel to change its conduct of the war.
Approval of Question 7 is unlikely to advance this goal. Question 7’s mandate to “divest” from “foreign countries conducting severe violations of human rights …” is directed at, among others, American companies doing business in or with Israel at a certain threshold level. One possible definition comes from the website of the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement, which a “non-exclusive list” of “companies that are complicit in Israel’s grave human rights violations.” That list includes Amazon, Google/Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft, each of which is part of the City retirement fund portfolio, and each of which has a value in the trillions of dollars. These companies will not respond to a divestment by the City’s retirement fund, which holds less than .01% of any of these four companies’ stock. The same is true for other multibillion dollar companies that are on the BDS list and are part of the City’s retirement portfolio.
On the other hand, passage of Question 7 likely will harm the City’s finances. The City maintains a $600 million-plus pension fund whose proceeds (along with additional City contributions each year) are used to pay the City’s pension obligations. The City must this year contribute $118 million to keep on track with its obligations, as codified in actuarial analyses, collective bargaining agreements and a consent judgment. As Jill Davidson explains in her October 11 ward letter (which I encourage you to read), a mandate to liquidate the City retirement fund’s holdings in companies on the BDS list would explode the City’s current investment portfolio as developed by its fund managers, taking off the table some of the best performing stocks on the market. Even losing 1% on that portfolio’s annual rate of return would cost taxpayers more than $6 million per year, at a time when there are so many other City priorities that could benefit from greater funding. As a further point, the City’s pension obligation will squeeze the budget even more over time, with a required payment that grows annually at 5%, meaning a projected $6 million increase next year with greater annual increases after that. Approving a divestment measure unlikely to achieve its policy goal at the cost of millions of Providence taxpayer funds is not a good trade for Providence. That is why I voted to reject Question 7.
Moving past the merits of Question 7, we must acknowledge its divisive nature. While Question 7 proponents correctly assert that opposition to Israel’s military policy is not in itself anti-Semitic, the BDS movement is part of a broader context we cannot ignore. My second daughter faced this directly as a post-doctoral fellow on the Columbia University campus in the fall of 2023. In the wake of the Hamas attack, Israeli and Jewish students were harassed simply because of their identity as Jews and Israelis. On her way to her laboratory, she passed a group who chanted this at her: “There is only one solution, Intifada revolution.” She knew this was a reference to the Second Intifada, during which suicide bombers killed more than 700 Israeli civilians, including more than 100 children.
Our country rests on the pillar of freedom of speech, but the fact remains that my daughter’s experience at Columbia, where students (whether they knew it or not) and outside organizers were shouting at Jews and Israelis for the violent death of Jewish Israeli civilians, presented a mirror image of the problem Question 7 proposes to address. Columbia University became the home for many other unambiguously anti-Semitic incidents directed specifically at members of the Jewish community, as described in this Atlantic Magazine article. Nor was Columbia University an outlier; there also were outbreaks at Harvard University and elsewhere.
In short, while I oppose Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza and support restrictions on American military aid to the country, I voted to reject Question 7 because (1) its ultimate goal is best achieved by our national government, (2) its approval would not change the policies of the multinational companies subject to divestment, never mind the policies of the Israeli military, (3) its approval would likely harm the City’s finances and (4) the divestment movement’s coalition of supporters includes people who advocate violence and instill fear in the Israeli and Jewish community.
We all will make our own decision about how to vote on Question 7, as well as all the other questions on this year’s ballot. Thank you for your consideration of my view. |
