Dozens of residents used the June 4, 2025 Arcata City Council public‑comment periods to press elected officials to support a sister‑city relationship with Gaza City and to ask the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) to divest from companies they say are tied to the conflict in Israel and Gaza.

Supporters said the move would build humanitarian ties and provide direct relief to civilians. ‘‘We in the past week, we raised about $55,000 to feed children in Gaza ... for Eid al‑Adha,’’ speaker Sean told the council, describing recent fundraising tied to the sister‑city effort. Other supporters urged the council to send a divestment letter to CalPERS; several speakers said Council Member Sarah Schafer had indicated support for sending a letter.

Speakers pressed multiple forms of civic action: establishing a formal sister‑city link, sending a divestment letter to CalPERS, and using municipal voice to call for humanitarian access. Dan Shaheen, who addressed the council from Zoom, urged the body to write CalPERS asking for divestment and cited the Leahy laws as a legal framework he said should guide public investment decisions.

Opponents and other residents warned of local tensions and safety risks tied to taking a position. Several speakers described rising antisemitism and said the council should avoid using city resources to take sides on a violent, international conflict. One speaker who identified herself as a Holocaust survivor said she strongly opposed the sister‑city proposal and urged the council not to “reward a terrorist city.” Others warned the council to prioritize local needs such as housing and services.

The council did not take action on either the sister‑city request or the divestment campaign during the June 4 meeting. Multiple speakers asked the council to confirm receipt and transmission of letters to CalPERS; council members did not vote or announce a timeline for a formal response during the meeting.

Speakers on both sides frequently referenced international reporting and social media videos; the council repeatedly reminded the public that it could not act on items not listed on the agenda during the early comment period but could accept written requests for future agenda items.

The debate occupied both the early public‑comment block and the later three‑minute comment period and featured sustained turnout and repeated requests for the council to act.