By Kolby LaMarche

The Burlington City Council meeting last night unfolded as one of the most charged sessions in recent memory, stretching late into the night amid passionate public testimony and sharp divisions over two resolutions connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war in Gaza.

Held at City Hall, the gathering drew a large crowd—many waving Palestinian flags and holding signs. Multiple sides were represented at the meeting—rabbis, activists, educators, and students.

The centerpiece was a non-binding advisory ballot question, sponsored primarily by Progressive Councilor Gene Bergman (Ward 2) and supported by community petitioners from groups like the Vermont Coalition for Palestinian Liberation.

Hours before the meeting, Democratic President Ben Traverse (Ward 5) had attempted to keep the ballot question off the agenda, citing the numerous other times this has come up with the same political makeup on the council.

After consulting with the City Attorney’s Office, which rejected Traverse’s claimed authority, he left it on but voiced his disagreement with the city attorney and did not rule out that power in future use.

For the third consecutive year, advocates had gathered sufficient signatures (meeting the 5% voter threshold) to push for placement on the March 3 Town Meeting Day ballot.

The proposed pledge declared Burlington an “apartheid-free community.” Its text affirmed a commitment to “freedom, justice, and equality for the Palestinian people and all people,” opposed all racism, bigotry, discrimination, and oppression, and included a key pledge: to join efforts to end all support for what it termed “Israel’s apartheid regime, settler colonialism, and military occupation.”

Supporters framed the measure as a moral imperative amid reports of severe humanitarian suffering in Gaza, where ongoing military operations have resulted in extensive casualties, displacement, and infrastructure devastation. They argued that local governments, including Burlington’s, have a role in signaling opposition to policies backed by U.S. aid.

Opposition was equally fervent. Critics, including members of the Jewish community and organizations like the Shalom Alliance, again labeled the language inflammatory and divisive.

They contended that equating Israeli policies with apartheid risked fueling antisemitism and alienating residents. Rachel Feldman, speaking for the Shalom Alliance, noted that similar wording had appeared for three years, creating a threatening environment for Jewish Vermonters.

Others stressed municipal priorities: housing affordability, public safety, taxes, and potholes should take precedence over foreign policy debates a small city cannot meaningfully influence.

Numerous interruptions halted proceedings last night, ranging from speakers who violated guidelines, such as personal attacks or exceeding time limits, to technical challenges as microphones were randomly cut off, as well as lights and other speakers.

Throughout the council’s debate, multiple points of order were raised, with many concerning the impugning of other councilors’ character.

One included Democratic Councilor Evan Litwin who, while speaking about the resolution, commented on the mayor’s perceived lack of effort at engaging residents in community dialogues, implying her office dropped the ball. Progressive Councilor Melo Grant, catching this, quickly called out the comments as not following the council rules.

Grant’s point of order was overruled, but not before an exchange between Litwin and herself. “He is impugning the mayor by bringing up these things,” Grant said. At that same time, Litwin shook his head, likely signaling to Grant that it was indeed his intention. “He is actually shaking his head!” Grant said, laughing. “This is ridiculous behavior,” she added.

Litwin’s comments stood, albeit with brief response and rejection by the mayor. President Traverse, ending the situation, told Grant, “We are allowed to be critical of one another’s positions… the way to address that would be through debate.”

After extended debate and testimony, the Democratic majority on the council—often seven strong in such votes—rejected the measure, voting it down.

As a direct counter-response, a group of Democratic councilors introduced an alternative resolution focused on healing local divisions rather than issuing a policy declaration.

This measure directed $12,000 from councilor-allocated project funds to the Community Justice Center. The money would support screening a documentary titled “The Other” (intended to explore perspectives on the conflict) and facilitate structured, compassionate community dialogue sessions, they said.

The goal: to foster understanding among Burlington residents holding varied views on the Middle East, emphasizing that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve safety, dignity, freedom, equality, self-determination, and the chance to thrive.

The resolution condemned violence globally and locally while affirming the council’s unity against polarization’s harms.

Proponents presented this as a constructive path forward—promoting education and civil exchange instead of symbolic confrontation. That resolution passed.

Throughout the night, there was one point of agreement among Progressives and Democrats: both Progressive Councilor Gene Bergman and Democratic Councilor Sarah Carpenter concurred during debate that “the world is going to hell.”