Why Montreal’s Rejection of a Break with Israel Matters to Lebanese Voices Seeking Peace Councillor Anastasia Zorchinsky welcomed the removal of a proposal to suspend Montreal’s institutional ties with Israel, while stressing that the amended motion remained deeply flawed.
Montreal City Council adopted a heavily amended motion on August 24, 2026, after removing the original proposal’s demand that the city suspend its institutional ties with the State of Israel . The amended motion passed by a vote of 54 to 6 , while the amendments themselves faced a closer vote of 38 to 22 . [1]
Councillor Anastasia Zorchinsky took to Instagram following the vote to highlight the removal of the institutional boycott as an important victory. Her position was not an endorsement of the final motion or of every councillor who supported it. Instead, she emphasized that sustained work by independent community members helped prevent the original proposal from passing in its intended form. [2]
Of course there were still ideologically captured councillors that spoke in support of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. This is not to give credit to everyone at all.
“Do I agree with the amended motion that passed? Absolutely not. There are statements about Israel in this motion that I very strongly reject. But the original motion did not go through.This is to show that the work that independent members of the community put into this is important.
Zorchinsky’s reference to certain councillors supporting Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood represents her characterization of their statements . It should not be interpreted as an independently established affiliation with either organization.
image
A Lebanese Reason to Care
For Lebanese people, especially those from southern Lebanon , this debate carries a significance that extends far beyond Montreal City Hall. Southern Lebanese communities have repeatedly paid the price of conflict between Israel and Iran-sponsored terrorist entities and their militant arms . Families on both sides of the border have lived through displacement, destruction and the constant possibility of another war.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has publicly argued that this cycle cannot continue. In a June 2026 interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Aoun addressed the Israeli government and people directly:
“Do you really want to live in a perpetual war? Aren’t you fed up with wars since 1948? Do you want really to live in peace? Let’s sit and talk.” [3]
He continued with an unmistakable invitation:
“We are ready, we are willing, we are committed. Are you? If you are, let’s sit and talk.” [3]
Aoun clarified that the immediate objective was a non-aggression or security agreement , rather than an instant normalization treaty. Nevertheless, he said Lebanon must permanently end its state of hostility with Israel and create a path toward a just and lasting peace. [3] The interview can also be viewed in a video published by CNN. [4]
A Municipal Council Cannot Conduct Canadian Foreign Policy
This raises a basic question: if Lebanon’s president is publicly calling for negotiations with Israel, why should a municipal council in Canada move in the opposite direction by seeking an institutional rupture?
Montreal may express opinions on international events, but a municipal government does not determine Canada’s diplomatic relations. Foreign affairs fall primarily within the authority of the federal government.
Montreal Mayor Soraya Martinez Ferrada made a related point during the debate, stating that the municipal council is neither the International Criminal Court nor the International Court of Justice and should not substitute itself for the institutions responsible for making international legal determinations. [1]
The original motion would have called on Montreal to suspend institutional ties with the Israeli government, including by no longer inviting representatives of Israel to official events at City Hall. That section was removed and replaced with a request for the Quebec and Canadian governments to demonstrate greater leadership in pursuing a peaceful resolution. [1]
The amendments also removed references describing Israel through the disputed terms genocide and apartheid. The final motion recognized Hamas as a terrorist organization, acknowledged rising antisemitism and supported a negotiated two-state solution. [5]
Israel Is More Than Its Government
Calls to “cut ties with Israel” are often presented as though they affect only politicians. In practice, Israel is a diverse society made up of far more than government officials. It includes Jewish, Arab, Muslim, Christian and Druze citizens , as well as students, researchers, artists, peace activists, families and ordinary young people who did not design government policy.
An institutional boycott risks turning every Israeli into a political symbol. It can close spaces where Israelis, Lebanese people, Jewish Montrealers and other communities might otherwise meet, study, speak and build relationships.
Even a friendly Israeli student arriving in Montreal to learn, collaborate and experience the city can be made to feel that their identity alone makes them unwelcome .
Criticism of an Israeli government policy is legitimate. Collective rejection of an entire country and its people is something different.
Peace is not built by severing every possible connection. It is built through dialogue, accountability and the difficult work of recognizing the humanity of people on both sides.
An Improvement, but Not a Good Motion
The removal of the institutional boycott does not mean that the final motion deserves unconditional praise. Jewish community representatives similarly warned against confusing an improved text with a good one.
Rabbi Saul Emanuel of the Jewish Community Council of Montreal described the amended proposal as “substantially improved,” while remaining troubled that Israel had been singled out by a municipal government in the first place. [5]
This is also the distinction Zorchinsky drew. She strongly rejected statements about Israel that remained in the motion, but recognized that the original and more punitive proposal had been defeated.
Her message was ultimately about the value of civic participation: independent community members spoke, organized and demonstrated that engagement can influence what happens inside City Hall.
For southern Lebanese people who want their country to escape perpetual war, preserving avenues of contact with Israel is not a betrayal of Lebanon. It is an investment in Lebanon’s future.
If the Lebanese state is prepared to explore negotiations with Israel, voices abroad should not demand walls where the people most directly affected are trying to create a door.
Sources and Further Reading
The Link : “Montreal City Council Passes Amended Motion in Solidarity with Palestine” Anastasia Zorchinsky on Instagram CNN transcript: Christiane Amanpour’s Interview with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun Video: President Joseph Aoun’s Message to Israel JNS: “Montreal Passes Amended Motion That Does Not Cut Ties with Israel”