Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the International Conflict Local Response topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Anne Arundel County Council to condemn violence in Gaza, call for divestment and local protections
Summary
Dozens of residents urged the Anne Arundel County Council during public comment to adopt a resolution condemning violence in Gaza, to divest from companies supplying weapons, and to take local steps to protect Palestinian, Arab and Muslim residents from discrimination.
Several dozen residents used the council’s public-comment period on Jan. 21 to urge Anne Arundel County officials to take public positions on the conflict in Gaza, press for a local divestment or arms-embargo policy, and to address what they described as a sharp rise in anti-Arab and anti-Muslim incidents locally.
Speakers asked the council to adopt a resolution condemning the violence in Gaza and to call for an arms embargo and divestment from companies that supply military equipment. Kim Suwarty, Maryland outreach coordinator for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told the council that CAIR Maryland documented “over 600” anti‑Muslim and anti‑Arab complaints and incidents in 2024 and urged the county to “end public funding for groups that don’t embody our values.”
The appeals included calls for local protections and funding: some commenters asked the council to restore or increase humanitarian aid channels to Palestinians, to pressure federal officials to halt weapon shipments, and to investigate whether county relationships — including contracts and partnerships — should be reassessed. Robert Smith of Crofton asked the council to adopt a resolution and appeal to the Maryland congressional delegation to support a ban on weapons sales to Israel until a permanent ceasefire is achieved.
Speakers described local effects they said were connected to the national debate. Samantha Faubert, of Annapolis, recounted safety concerns while protesting and said she was threatened and had property damaged; others described incidents of harassment or vandalism they attributed to rising Islamophobia.
Council members did not act on the requests at the meeting; the remarks were part of the invitation-to-the-audience public‑comment period. Several speakers requested that the council formally discuss, or draft, a resolution addressing ceasefire, divestment, or local protections; no council motion to draft or refer such a resolution was recorded during the session.
The comments reflected a range of approaches from residents: some urged narrowly targeted county measures (such as ending county funding or contracts with specific vendors), while others urged broader symbolic actions (a county resolution condemning the violence). Several speakers explicitly said they sought both protection for local residents facing discrimination and pressure on higher levels of government.
The council’s public-comment period concluded without formal action related to the requests. Members later moved to other agenda items, including zoning bills and several administrative ordinances and resolutions.
Ending: If council members or staff choose to take up any of the policy requests mentioned in public comment, that action would appear on a future agenda for formal consideration.
