Guest Policy Brief: To Weigh In or Not to Weigh In — Lessons from U.S. City Council Resolutions on the Israel-Gaza Conflict

Last updated:

07/10/2026

Publication Date:

07/10/2026

Content Type:

Policy Briefs

Issues:

Global Crises, Local Impacts

The views expressed herein reflect those of the author; they do not necessarily reflect those of the Strong Cities Network or its host organisation, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, or Strong Cities staff, member cities or partners.

Global crises do not remain global. Wars, terrorist attacks and other international events can quickly affect residents thousands of miles away – heightening fear and trauma, straining relations between communities, generating protests and public pressure, and creating new demands on local government.

The Hamas-led attacks in Israel on 7 October and Israel’s subsequent military operations in Gaza demonstrated this dynamic in cities across the United States and beyond. Residents called on mayors and city councils to respond to events abroad, including by condemning violence, expressing solidarity with affected communities, calling for the release of hostages, demanding humanitarian assistance and adopting resolutions or motions. Local governments across 32 U.S. states adopted 183 resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Ceasefire resolutions were only one form of local action. Other local actions included providing humanitarian aid, adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, and pursuing divestment from entities alleged to be complicit in Israeli human rights abuses, including through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) framework.

Much of the debate surrounding these resolutions focuses on whether cities should take positions on foreign policy issues, particularly those involving conflicts thousands of miles away. However, the central lesson for cities extends well beyond whether to adopt a resolution and centres on the importance of being prepared to manage the diverse impacts that a distant conflict or other global crisis can have on their residents.

For mayors and local officials, the policy question is therefore not simply whether to adopt a resolution. It is how to protect residents, maintain social cohesion, communicate inclusively and prepare institutions to respond when events abroad become issues at City Hall. The Strong Cities Network has previously urged mayors confronting global crises to adopt a ‘do no harm’ approach and to consider whether official statements, resolutions and symbolic actions will unite or further divide their communities. It also emphasises the importance of preparedness, community relationships, inclusive communications and learning from one crisis before the next occurs.

The following guest authored policy brief builds on those recommendations, drawing on evidence from the wave of action by city councils across the United States in response to the crisis in Gaza.

What the resolutions tell us

The scale and timing of local government resolution adoption demonstrate how quickly an international crisis can become a local governance issue.

The adoption of ceasefire resolutions accelerated after 7 October 2023. Nearly two-thirds of ceasefire resolutions were adopted between January and April 2024, with adoption peaking in March 2024.

By then, more than 100 city councils across the United States had adopted resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, ranging from the City of Chicago (population 2,746,388) to the Town of Newfane, Vermont (population 1,645). City councils in 32 states ultimately adopted ceasefire resolutions, demonstrating that local engagement was not confined to a small number of major or coastal cities.

The content of the resolutions also provides insight into the concerns city councils sought to address. Humanitarian concerns featured prominently: 77% referenced humanitarian aid or assistance, 69% referenced hostages, and 68% referenced civilians. Thirty-four per cent referenced human rights. Significantly for local officials, many resolutions connected events abroad explicitly to community safety at home. Nearly half condemned antisemitism (48%) and Islamophobia (47.5%), while others condemned anti-Arab (17%), anti-Palestinian (16%) and anti-Israeli (4%) bigotry.

1. Assess resolutions through a local social cohesion lens

Local governments have no formal role in making U.S. foreign policy. Most ceasefire resolutions acknowledged this implicitly or explicitly by directing their requests upward to governors, state legislators, members of Congress and the federal government. Nearly half called for their resolution to be sent to then-President Joseph Biden. Their lack of formal authority does not make such resolutions meaningless. Symbolic actions are among the tools available to cities seeking to communicate values, represent constituents or seek to influence higher levels of government. But because their direct influence over an international conflict is limited, cities should weigh their potential external impact against their effects within the community.

With this in mind, city leaders should ask several questions before deciding whether to act, including:

What specific local objective are we trying to achieve?
Who in our community is asking for action and who else is likely to be affected by it?
Is an official resolution the best instrument for meeting residents’ needs?
Could particular language reassure one community while alienating or frightening another?
What precedent will this action create when residents ask the city to respond to the next international conflict or other global crisis?
What demands will the debate itself place on city council time, city staff, security and relationships between the city and residents and between local communities?

This is not an argument for or against adopting a resolution. Different cities will reasonably reach different conclusions. The important point is that the decision should be based on local responsibilities and likely community impacts, rather than treated solely as a referendum on the international conflict.

Strong Cities’ previous guidance similarly cautions city leaders to consider whether a symbolic action can achieve its intended objective or instead deepen local divisions, and notes that past demonstrations of support create expectations for how cities will respond to later crises.

2. Make the process as inclusive as the language

Many resolutions appear to have sought to acknowledge concerns across different communities. The near-equal prevalence of condemnations of antisemitism and Islamophobia suggests that many councils sought to acknowledge threats facing both Jewish and Muslim residents. But inclusive language alone does not guarantee an inclusive outcome. Some public hearings became prolonged and contentious. Richmond (California) was the first U.S. city to adopt a ceasefire resolution. The resolution condemned Israel’s military actions in Gaza and described them as ‘ethnic cleansing’. It was was adopted following nearly six hours of public debate involving more than 300 residents. According to local press reporting, some Jewish residents said they felt less safe following its adoption, and later reporting documented harassment and threats directed at Richmond council members and staff. These examples do not support a simple conclusion that ceasefire resolutions either united or divided communities. They do, however, show how local resolutions can become focal points for existing disagreements, fears and grievances. For cities, this means the process surrounding a resolution may be as consequential as the final wording.

Before bringing a potentially contentious resolution on an international conflict to a vote, city leaders should consider:

Consulting with representatives of affected communities
Testing draft language with multiple groups rather than a single set of advocates
Anticipating security and other meeting-management needs
Establishing and communicating rules for respectful public participation
Considering whether a mayoral and/or council statement, joint community declaration, facilitated dialogue, or locally focused anti-hate campaign could meet the same objective with less risk to social cohesion

The goal should not necessarily be consensus, which may be impossible. It should be to ensure that disagreement does not become exclusion of diverse groups and viewpoints.

3. Protect and reassure residents regardless of the city’s position

One of the clearest lessons of the crisis in Gaza for city councils in the United States is that choosing not to take a formal position on an international conflict does not insulate a city or its residents from its local consequences. Strong Cities documented heightened fear among Jewish, Muslim and other affected communities in cities around the world, as well as protests, hateful graffiti, hate speech and pressure on city councils to respond. This spillover occurred both in person and online. Social media has been a significant space for the spread of hate speech, with antisemitic and Islamophobic online narratives about the crisis surging after 7 October. Strong Cities’ guidance encourages local governments and their elected leaders to engage with and provide visible reassurance to affected residents, condemn all forms of hate, and leverage trusted relationships with community organisations. Strong Cities recommends that cities invest in building these relationships proactively, rather than during the crisis.

American local government resolutions point in the same direction. Their repeated references to antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian and anti-Israeli bigotry demonstrate that councils understood violence abroad as connected to a rise in hate incidents at home and thus residents’ sense of safety. Cities should therefore distinguish between taking a formal position on an international conflict and responding to its local consequences.

A city may decide that adopting a resolution on an international conflict or other foreign policy issue falls outside its jurisdiction. That decision does not remove a city’s responsibility to reassure residents who fear hate or violence, protect houses of worship, schools and community institutions when risks increase, and facilitate the reporting of hate incidents. Cities should also prepare for demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, communicate accurately during periods of misinformation and heightened emotion, support dialogue among affected communities and ensure that services remain accessible to residents experiencing trauma or intimidation.

This distinction can help cities avoid a false binary. A council does not have to take a position on an international conflict to respond decisively to antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Arab hate, anti-Palestinian or anti-Israeli hate, or other threats to public safety.

4. Prepare before a global crisis reaches City Hall

The post-October 7 experience should be treated as a case study for preparedness. The post-7 October experience should be treated as a case study in preparedness. Cities should expect residents to continue calling on local governments to respond to international conflicts and crises that resonate strongly within their communities. Recent examples include Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and conflicts and geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere.

Local officials are likely to face these pressures with little warning. As Strong Cities’ work with cities around the world has shown, and as reflected in its crisis response toolkit, cities should have a plan in place before a crisis emerges. Cities should not have to determine how to handle calls for foreign policy resolutions, public demonstrations, hate incidents, and competing demands for symbolic recognition after a crisis has already polarised the community.

Cities should consider establishing a local response protocol for global crises in advance. Such a protocol could include:

A community and risk map. Cities should know which communities are likely to be directly affected by major international developments; which houses of worship, cultural institutions, schools and community organisations may face heightened risks; and which trusted local interlocutors can provide timely information.

A rapid consultation mechanism. Existing relationships with community, faith, civil society, university and public safety partners should be documented in one place so they can be activated quickly. Strong Cities similarly recommends crisis management structures that allow leaders to understand how international events are affecting their communities and to stress-test city responses.

A communications protocol. Cities should decide in advance who speaks, how affected groups will be consulted, how messages will be reviewed for unintended consequences and how the city will distinguish between empathy for residents and taking a position on a conflict.

A framework for symbolic actions and resolutions. Councils should clarify how requests involving foreign affairs will be evaluated. Consistent criteria can reduce perceptions that some international crises or communities receive recognition while others do not.

A plan for managing public meetings and demonstrations. Cities should be prepared for large attendance, highly emotive or contentious testimony, potential threats against officials and residents, and demonstrations outside government buildings, while protecting rights to peaceful expression.

An after-action review. After responding to an international crisis, officials should document what worked, what escalated tension, which communities felt excluded, which communication channels were effective, and what institutional changes are needed before the next event.

Preparedness also means thinking beyond the immediate political debate. Long after the headlines fade, global crises can create longer-term responsibilities for cities involving refugee reception, community services and integration. For example, Lancaster‘s (Pennsylvania) ceasefire resolution explicitly recognised that Palestinian, Israeli, Muslim, and Jewish residents were already affected by the crisis and that future refugees from Gaza might eventually settle in the city.

5. Today’s response becomes tomorrow’s precedent

Local governments rarely approach a new global crisis with a blank slate. U.S. cities have previously adopted resolutions on nuclear proliferation, apartheid, the Iraq War, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and other international issues. These choices create institutional precedents and public expectations. Residents notice when a city flies one country’s flag but not another’s, adopts a resolution on one conflict but rejects discussion of another, or speaks forcefully about one form of human suffering while characterising another as outside municipal jurisdiction. Cities need not respond identically to every crisis, as circumstances differ, but officials should be able to explain why the city is acting and what principles guide its decisions.

Some city officials emerged from the Gaza resolution debates reconsidering how their councils should handle international affairs at all. In Doral, Florida, Mayor Christi Fraga reversed course a week after the city unanimously approved a resolution calling for a ceasefire. She later described the original resolution as “well-intended” but “naive” and “fundamentally flawed,” and apologised for the turmoil and hurt it had caused. Three council members also withdrew their support. In Minneapolis (Minnesota), Mayor Jacob Frey supported a ceasefire in principle but vetoed the council’s resolution because he believed its wording was one-sided and risked worsening local division. The council subsequently overrode his veto. His stated objection focused on the local impact: a City Hall statement, he argued, should bring residents together rather than intensify division.

Other officials responded by questioning whether councils should return to foreign policy debates in the future. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, a council member who supported the city’s eventual ceasefire resolution said afterwards that he would vote “present” on future foreign policy resolutions because he believed councils should concentrate on issues they can directly change. Palo Alto subsequently adopted a policy explicitly limiting the council from taking positions relating to foreign policy.

These cases point to an important institutional lesson: cities should develop their rules before the next crisis, not improvise them in the middle of one. A standing policy need not prohibit resolutions that address international conflicts or other global crises. It could instead establish transparent criteria: a demonstrated local impact; relevance to city responsibilities or residents; consultation with affected communities; assessment of social cohesion consequences; consistency with past practice; and clarity about what the proposed action can realistically accomplish.

What information will cities need next time? Looking across these cases, mayors and city councils will need local insight into how an international crisis is affecting their communities, not simply more information about the conflict itself.

City leaders need to know:

How is the crisis affecting different groups of residents?
Are particular communities or institutions experiencing threats, harassment or heightened fear?
What are trusted community leaders hearing that City Hall is not?
Are demonstrations or council meetings likely to become flashpoints?
What outcome do advocates believe an official city action will achieve?
How might different formulations of that action be received across communities?
What did the city do during comparable previous crises and what expectations did those decisions create?
What alternative actions – public reassurance, anti-hate measures, dialogue, humanitarian assistance, intergovernmental advocacy or community support – could address residents’ concerns?

Strong Cities and other city networks can play an important role in helping municipalities answer the final question by allowing officials to compare experiences and learn from approaches taken elsewhere. For example, Strong Cities’ consultations with mayors have similarly emphasised peer learning, partnerships and pre-existing community relationships as critical elements of crisis preparedness.

Global crises require local preparedness

The debate over Gaza ceasefire resolutions in U.S. city councils often centred on whether local governments should involve themselves in foreign affairs. That question matters, but it is not the only question. Local governments may lack the authority to negotiate ceasefires, end wars, or determine national foreign policy. They do, however, have responsibility for the people, institutions and public spaces affected when those conflicts reverberate through their communities. The experience of U.S. cities during the crisis in Gaza illustrates both dimensions of this challenge. Cities used resolutions to express humanitarian concerns, represent constituents, condemn discrimination and pressure higher levels of government. At the same time, resolution debates sometimes became sources of controversy, division and institutional reconsideration.

A key lesson for the next global crisis is therefore not that every city should adopt a resolution or that none should, but that every city should be prepared.

Mayors and councils should know how they will consult affected communities, protect vulnerable residents, manage public debate, communicate inclusively, evaluate requests for symbolic action, and learn from the consequences of their decisions. Whether or not a city takes a formal position, the local consequences of a global crisis may already be affecting its residents and institutions. The task for local government is to respond in ways that protect residents, maintain trust and strengthen social cohesion.

Guest Author: Brett Manzer

Brett Manzer is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Political Science at the University of Montreal. Her research is supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (FRQSC) #344385. She has also worked as an Intergovernmental Relations Advisor at Global Affairs Canada.

Related Resources