Dozens of speakers used the public comment period at Arcadia's June 18 council meeting to call on the council to adopt Gaza as a sister city and to urge municipal advocacy for CalPERS divestment — or to oppose that course. The comments reflected deeply divided community views about Israel, Gaza, humanitarian aid and municipal roles in foreign policy.

Speakers in favor described urgent humanitarian need in Gaza, public petitions, and local fundraising activities. "There are two million innocent people who need our help," said a resident who urged the council to act; another caller on Zoom who identified as a managing attorney at Legal Services of Northern California said the Rogers Garage housing project should proceed but also emphasized the city's obligations under state fair housing laws and the housing element.

Other speakers opposed a sister‑city relationship and criticized local groups collecting aid; they raised security concerns and said the movement to adopt Gaza as a sister city included antisemitic rhetoric in some instances. "I am strongly opposed to making Gaza a sister city," said one longtime resident who said the local peace group had promoted "one‑sided" messaging and that county and federal law related to NGO transfers needed scrutiny.

Several callers asked the council to request CalPERS, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, to divest investments in defense contractors and other companies tied to the conflict; some framed divestment as a moral and legal obligation, while others argued it would affect pension beneficiaries and advised a more cautious approach. Public commenters referenced international law and domestic statutes; on the subject of divestment, multiple participants urged the council to send letters to CalPERS supporting divestment from companies tied to human rights abuses.

City officials noted the limits of municipal authority: the council cannot unilaterally control CalPERS investments; however, councilmembers can send letters or resolutions expressing positions. Council members said they would consider written requests but also flagged legal and fiduciary considerations. No council action on sister‑city recognition or formal divestment directives occurred at the meeting; the public comment period closed without votes on the subject.

The strongly contested comments underscore how international conflicts can generate local civic debate and pressure municipal officials to consider advocacy options even when direct municipal authority is limited.