Barely a few hours after arriving in Montreal from Eretz Israel , the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, Councillor Zorchinsky went directly to Montreal City Hall.
Councillor Zorchinsky
Councillor Zorchinsky at Montreal City Hall
There was no ceremonial welcome, no quiet evening after the long journey and no time set aside to recover. An urgent political confrontation was already waiting for her.
Projet Montréal had brought forward a motion calling on the city to accuse Israel of perpetrating genocide, denounce what it described as an apartheid regime and suspend institutional relations with the Israeli government, its institutions and municipalities.
Councillor Zorchinsky immediately moved to oppose it.
A political gift to Hamas
Hamas did not formally introduce the motion. It was presented by elected members of Projet Montréal. Nevertheless, Zorchinsky argued that its language rewarded the terrorist organization politically by repeating its preferred narrative while minimizing the context that followed the October 7 massacre.
The proposal condemned Israel in the strongest possible terms, yet failed to place comparable emphasis on the Israeli civilians murdered on October 7, the women who were sexually assaulted, the communities that were destroyed and the hostages taken into Gaza.
It asked Montreal to isolate Israel without adequately addressing how Hamas started the war, embedded its military infrastructure within civilian areas and continued to use Palestinian suffering as part of its political and military strategy.
For Zorchinsky, that imbalance was not accidental. It represented a familiar attempt to remove Hamas from the story and place the entirety of the conflict at Israel’s feet.
A municipal motion could not defeat Israel militarily. It could, however, contribute to an international campaign seeking to isolate Israel diplomatically, economically and culturally. That made the initiative politically valuable to Hamas, even if the organization had no direct involvement in drafting it.
From the ancestral homeland to the council chamber
The timing of Zorchinsky’s intervention carried particular significance.
Only hours earlier, she had been in Israel, walking through a country whose people had endured war, terrorism, international pressure and the continuing trauma of October 7. She returned to Montreal carrying the voices of Israelis who felt increasingly abandoned by governments and institutions abroad.
She did not come back with an abstract understanding of the conflict. She had seen a society continuing to live while surrounded by threats. She had spoken with families affected by terrorism and with people whose loved ones had been killed, injured or taken hostage.
She therefore entered City Hall with the urgency of someone who understood what was being omitted from the proposed motion.
To its supporters, the initiative represented an act of solidarity with Palestinians. To Zorchinsky, it was a one-sided political declaration that demonized Israel, weakened Montreal’s social cohesion and offered no realistic contribution toward peace.
A municipal government attempting to conduct foreign policy
Zorchinsky also questioned why Montreal City Council was attempting to position itself as a diplomatic authority.
Montrealers elect councillors to address housing, homelessness, infrastructure, public transportation, public safety and essential municipal services. They do not elect them to determine the borders of foreign states or issue legal judgments concerning wars thousands of kilometres away.
The motion could not change Israeli military policy. It could not free a single hostage, remove Hamas from power or deliver humanitarian relief to Palestinian civilians.
Its most immediate consequences would instead be felt inside Montreal.
It risked dividing neighbours, intensifying hostility toward Jewish residents and transforming City Hall into another arena for a conflict it had neither the jurisdiction nor the capacity to resolve.
Zorchinsky insisted that this was not an argument for silence. Municipal leaders could condemn hatred, protect vulnerable residents and express sympathy for every innocent civilian affected by the war.
What they should not do, she argued, was adopt disputed accusations as settled facts and direct institutional punishment exclusively toward Israel.
The genocide accusation
At the heart of the proposed initiative was the accusation that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
Zorchinsky argued that such a grave legal term could not be reduced to a municipal political slogan. Genocide requires a specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. It is not simply another word for civilian deaths, destruction or alleged violations of international humanitarian law.
The suffering in Gaza was real, she maintained, but acknowledging that suffering did not require accepting every accusation directed at Israel.
Presenting a contested legal claim as an established municipal conclusion would not produce justice. It would politicize international law and reinforce the belief among Jewish Montrealers that Israel was being judged according to standards rarely applied to other countries facing terrorism and war.
Zorchinsky also challenged the use of the apartheid label. Whatever criticisms might be directed at Israeli policies, reducing Israel’s complicated security, territorial and political reality to a single inflammatory word was designed to stigmatize the entire country rather than encourage a serious discussion.
Montreal’s Jewish community was listening
This debate did not take place in a vacuum.
Montreal’s Jewish community had already experienced an alarming atmosphere of intimidation. Synagogues and community institutions had been targeted. Jewish schools required heightened security. Families worried about children openly displaying Jewish symbols, while public demonstrations regularly included rhetoric crossing the line from criticism of Israel into hostility toward Jewish collective identity.
Against that background, the motion carried consequences far beyond symbolism.
If Montreal officially branded Israel as uniquely criminal and severed relations with it, extremists could interpret the decision as institutional validation of their hostility. Jewish and Israeli Montrealers could reasonably wonder whether their history, identity and connection to Israel were still respected by their own city.
Zorchinsky refused to allow those concerns to be dismissed as an attempt to silence criticism.
Opposing antisemitism did not mean shielding Israel from scrutiny. It meant recognizing when criticism abandoned consistency, erased Jewish history and treated Jewish national self-determination as inherently illegitimate.
Her Excellency takes her stand
Councillor Zorchinsky entered the chamber composed, prepared and unwilling to be intimidated by the protesters outside or the political pressure inside.
She did not ask councillors to ignore Palestinian suffering. She asked them to reject a motion that exploited that suffering to isolate Israel while offering no path toward coexistence.
She reminded the chamber that genuine solidarity must be consistent. It must recognize Palestinian civilians without erasing Israeli victims. It must condemn suffering without rehabilitating Hamas. It must defend human rights without weaponizing international law against one country.
Above all, she argued that Montreal should protect its residents instead of importing the most destructive political divisions of the Middle East into municipal government.
Her position was clear
Montreal must oppose antisemitism without hesitation. It must defend social cohesion. It must reject terrorism and demand the release of every hostage. It must recognize the dignity of innocent Palestinians while refusing to reward Hamas’s strategy.
Only hours after leaving Eretz Israel , Councillor Zorchinsky stood inside Montreal City Hall and confronted an initiative intended to position the city against the Jewish state.
She returned from the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people and went directly into political battle.
Councillor Zorchinsky confronting Pro Hamas supporters
No rest. No hesitation. No surrender to the narrative Hamas wanted Montreal to adopt.
“You really thought Zorchinsky being in Israel would let this motion slip?”