Dozens of residents filled chamber podiums on Dec. 13 to press the Alexandria City Council to adopt an ethical investment policy or divestment framework that would exclude city investments in companies alleged to enable human-rights violations in the Israel-Palestine conflict and in technologies used in immigration enforcement.

Speakers from multiple organizations and constituencies urged the council to act. "When Alexandria asks for an ethical investment resolution, that means that it must name the genocide in Palestine carried out by Israel," said Melissa Elbert during public comment, criticizing a handout distributed by the Alexandria sheriff and urging the city to use UN frameworks. Cameron White urged the council to divest from companies the speaker named as profiting from the conflict and said the city currently invests "over $300,000,000" in pooled municipal reserves that include those firms.

Several Jewish speakers — including members of Jewish Voice for Peace and Jewish residents who said they oppose Israeli government policy — also testified for divestment, while other community members raised concerns about the framing and community impacts. City staff accepted written materials and asked speakers to provide documents to the clerk.

Council response and outcome: Councilmembers acknowledged the public testimony and discussed wording and scope for related legislative language and city communications, including a related amendment to the city's legislative package. The council did not adopt a divestment ordinance or resolution during this meeting; public comment was closed after the scheduled speakers and council moved on to other docket items.

Why it matters: Speakers framed the issue as a moral and financial decision that ties municipal investment strategy to human-rights concerns; others cautioned about community divisions and asked for precise, implementable language. The topic could return to council or to the city's investment oversight bodies in future sessions.

What happens next: Councilmembers indicated staff will continue to receive comment and can bring back draft language or options for future deliberation; no binding action was taken on divestment at this meeting.