Residents decry rehiring of employee who spat at Palestinian educator, demand city divest from weapons makers

Dozens of residents used the public‑comment portion of Cincinnati City Council to condemn the recent rehiring of a city employee who, they say, spat at a Palestinian educator last August, and to demand the city divest from companies and contracts tied to weapons production.

Jonathan Nortman, a community member who addressed council with images he said show civilian suffering in Gaza, said the city’s ongoing business ties to weapons makers amount to complicity. “Children in the street forced to watch what remains of their blood and lives pouring out of them,” Nortman said. “Silence, while we continue to pay for a genocide, while we continue to invest in apartheid, tells everyone of your constituents that it is deserved.”

Michael Madanat, who identified himself as a speaker during public comment, called the spitting incident “violent” and “dehumanizing” and said the employee’s return to public‑facing work in the same building undermines community safety: “You fired that employee. Good on you. And now we’ve learned he’s been rehired, brought back into this building with keys and a badge, able to roam these halls on his own while we walk through here feeling unsafe,” Madanat said.

Lina Zarew told council members that the city’s refusal to explicitly name Palestinians when condemning anti‑Palestinian incidents is tantamount to complicity. “When Palestinian speak, we don’t need our voices balanced with those of our oppressors,” she said. “That’s not neutrality, that’s complicity.”

Speakers also pressed the council to consider economic steps, including divestment from corporations they said profit from U.S. military sales. At one point a speaker cited a $5,000,000,000 contract described in public comments as related to General Electric and F‑16 engines; speakers framed such contracts as part of the reason for calls to divest.

Council members did not take a formal vote or introduce a motion on rehiring or on divestment during the meeting. Multiple speakers urged the council to act; none of the public comments resulted in immediate council direction recorded in the minutes.

The remarks took place during the council’s public‑comment period; speakers were permitted two minutes each. The council returned to its planned agenda after public comment.