Update: Gilroy, MH join SJ/Santa Cruz in turning down ceasefire resolution
Image by WorldHistory.org
Despite pressure from vocal activist groups, two more California cities (Gilroy and Morgan Hill) officially declined to pass one-sided resolutions on foreign policy. Many locals are praising the Councils' decisions to stay in their own lanes, prioritizing core City obligations in lieu of extraneous initiatives. Gilroy Dispatch and the Merc summarize below.
From the Gilroy Dispatch, on Gilroy's recent City Council Meeting:
The Gilroy City Council on Feb. 26 rejected a proposed resolution calling for an Israel-Gaza ceasefire.
The council’s vote followed more than an hour of public comments presented by more than 70 people in the audience who spoke passionately about whether a local resolution on the topic was appropriate. A number of local residents who spoke on either side of the debate cited personal connections to the the war that started on Oct. 7, 2023 when Hamas breached the border and killed more than 1200 people, most of them civilians, and captured more than 200 hostages, many of whom are still being held in Gaza.
Ultimately, the council voted 5-2 to reject a ceasefire resolution proposed by Councilmember Zach Hilton. Hilton and Councilmember Rebeca Armendariz were the only members who supported the motion to approve the resolution.
Some council members who voted “no” worried that a resolution calling for a ceasefire would result in more division within Gilroy, noting the tension among audience members in the room on Feb. 26.
“It is apparent this resolution is a source of strife and does not create the kind of unity and support that (we) may have hoped,” said Council member Fred Tovar.
Tovar said he received “hundreds and hundreds” of emails on the potential Israel-Hamas ceasefire resolution since it was briefly brought up at the Feb. 5 council meeting. Mayor Marie Blankley said she had received about 3,000 emails on the agenda item.
Blankley said at the end of the Feb. 26 discussion that “just the thought we were going to have this on our agenda” had created “discomfort” within the community.
Read the whole thing here.
From the Mercury News, on Morgan Hill's recent City Council Meeting:
Amid an outpouring of residents speaking up on the Israel-Hamas war, the Morgan Hill City Council on Wednesday decided against drafting any kind of resolution on the conflict, adding to the list of cities that have wrestled with an issue that has heavily divided communities. …
Several community members focused on the atrocities committed by Hamas during and after the Oct. 7 attacks. While many argued that the issue fell outside of the council’s purview. “The council should not be taking positions that will have the effect of growing hatred and risking the security of our community,” said Peter Mandel, Morgan Hill resident and former president of Congregation Emeth. “The council has no role in foreign affairs.”
Others lamented the division they perceived in their community. “When we arrived tonight many of us warmly greeted one another, some even exchanged hugs. Then we entered the room and the divide began and tension filled the room,” said Debbie Israel, Rabbi Emeritus of Congregation Emeth. “I’m praying for peace every day, not only in the Middle East, but here in this community. Why would we risk the peace and harmony we shared here by bringing this divisive resolution into our community?”
Several council members echoed this concern.
“We are a divided community over this issue,” said Mayor Mark Turner. “I cannot see based on what I’ve witnessed here tonight, that if we signed that document — whether it’s a cease-fire or a peace agreement — that suddenly there will be happiness and hugs among all of you.”
Read the whole thing here.
Related:
Mayor Breed and local Jewish group unhappy with SF Supervisors' ceasefire resolution
Santa Cruz rejects partisan ceasefire resolution in 5–2 vote
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.