On August 24, Projet Montr\u00e9al will ask City Council to turn the conflict in the Middle East into municipal policy. Its motion goes far beyond expressing solidarity with Palestinian civilians. It asks Montr\u00e9al to recognize and denounce an \u201capartheid regime\u201d and declare that a \u201cgenocide\u201d is being perpetrated, before imposing a concrete consequence: suspending ties with the Israeli government, \u201cits institutions\u201d and \u201cits municipalities.\u201d<\/p>\n
From a Boycott Campaign to an \u201cInstitutional Rupture\u201d<\/p>\n
This debate did not begin with this motion. During the last municipal election campaign, a collective asked candidates to commit to severing ties with Israel, including through municipal contracts, investments, and collaborations involving Israeli artists, researchers, and athletes. Several Projet Montr\u00e9al candidates supported that initiative.<\/p>\n
The language being used today is more careful. The motion no longer expressly calls for boycotting suppliers, universities, or artists. Instead, it calls for the suspension of \u201cinstitutional ties.\u201d<\/p>\n
But what does that mean when implemented by a city?<\/p>\n
A municipality does not act in the abstract. It acts through contracts, procurement, grants, partnerships, cultural and scientific collaborations, and relationships with other public institutions. When Council is asked to sever ties with Israeli \u201cinstitutions\u201d without defining that term, it is entirely legitimate to ask how far that policy may ultimately extend.<\/p>\n
Municipal Powers are Delegated Powers<\/p>\n
Municipal law begins with a basic principle: a city exercises the powers granted to it by the legislature. Quebec\u2019s Municipal Powers Act confers broad powers on municipalities in matters of municipal competence. Those powers are not unlimited: they are granted to enable municipalities to respond to municipal needs in the interests of their populations.<\/p>\n
The question, then, is not simply whether Council considers this motion desirable, but whether the action it proposes falls within the powers conferred on the City. Montr\u00e9al can and should address the local consequences of a foreign conflict within the scope of its municipal powers: threats to public safety and social cohesion, and pressures on municipal services. This motion, however, does something different. It proposes to use the City\u2019s institutional relationships to pressure Israel to change its policies.<\/p>\n
The selectivity of that sanction is difficult to ignore. The motion refers to several foreign states and conflicts, yet Israel alone is subjected to this particular institutional rupture.<\/p>\n
And if the \u201cwhereas\u201d clauses in this motion are later invoked to exclude a supplier, university, artist, or institutional partner because of its connection to Israel, this may amount to discrimination, including, under Quebec\u2019s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and its protections concerning religion, political convictions and ethnic or national origin.<\/p>\n
City Council does not decide international law.<\/p>\n
There is something deeply troubling about a municipal council speaking with greater certainty than the international courts themselves.<\/p>\n
Genocide is a specific legal determination. It is not simply a stronger word for a deadly war, civilian suffering, or even serious violations of international law. It requires, among other things, proof of a specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group as such.<\/p>\n
To date, the International Court of Justice has made no determination on the merits that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. The proceedings remain far from a final determination on that question. The same problem arises with \u201capartheid.\u201d In its 2024 advisory opinion, the ICJ found that certain policies of separation violated Article 3 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, but did not itself characterize that separation as apartheid.<\/p>\n
Yet Projet Montr\u00e9al asks Council to recognize and denounce an \u201capartheid regime\u201d and declare that a \u201cgenocide\u201d is being perpetrated.<\/p>\n
For what purpose? A municipal resolution cannot make either legal characterization true. And if the ICJ ultimately concludes that the legal threshold for genocide has not been met, what will Montr\u00e9al do with the official conclusion it chose to adopt?<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Montr\u00e9al is fracturing.<\/p>\n
While City Hall ventures into foreign policy, the consequences of this conflict are already being felt here. In 2025, Jewish people were the targets of approximately 71 per cent of all police-reported hate crimes motivated by religion in Canada. Jewish schools in Montr\u00e9al have been shot at, Jewish people have been assaulted, synagogues have been attacked, and antisemitism has entered academic and professional spaces through intimidation, threats, and exclusion.<\/p>\n
This is where the issue becomes personal. I am a lawyer, a Montrealer, and a Jew. For nearly three years, I have watched a distant conflict become embedded in my city\u2019s civic life. I do not want political division or collective exclusion endorsed by City Hall.<\/p>\n
Montr\u00e9al can recognize the suffering of Palestinian civilians and Israelis and call for respect for international law. It can also acknowledge Hamas\u2019s responsibility and the realities Israel has faced since October 7. It does not need to enshrine legally contested allegations by resolution or lay the groundwork for an institutional, economic, or cultural boycott that exceeds municipal authority and threatens rights protected by our Charter.<\/p>\n
There are real consequences of this conflict for Montr\u00e9al that fall squarely within the City\u2019s responsibility. Using municipal powers to conduct foreign policy does not. On August 24, City Council should refuse to exceed the limits of its authority.<\/p>\n
[Signatories]<\/p>\n
Me Sarah Ettedgui, Barreau 2019<\/p>\n
Frank Schlesinger, Barreau 1970<\/p>\n
Theodore Goloff, Barreau 1973<\/p>\n
Dida Berku, Barreau 1977<\/p>\n
Nancy Cleman, Barreau 1983<\/p>\n
Sharon G. Druker, Barreau 1986<\/p>\n
Sandra Azancot, Barreau 1987<\/p>\n
Peter Villani, Barreau 1987<\/p>\n
Gary Rosen, Barreau 1988<\/p>\n
Gabrielle Azran, Barreau 1992<\/p>\n
Johanna Elhadad, Barreau 1993<\/p>\n
Seth Dalfen, Barreau 1993<\/p>\n
Gregory Azancot, Barreau 1995<\/p>\n
Joel Banon, Barreau 1996<\/p>\n
Judith Cohen, Barreau 1998<\/p>\n
Vanessa Fhima, Barreau 1999<\/p>\n
Jason Caron, Barreau 2000<\/p>\n
Eric De Louya, Barreau 2000<\/p>\n
David Assor, Barreau 2001<\/p>\n
Alyssa Yufe, Barreau 2003<\/p>\n
Simone Dighenakis, Barreau 2004<\/p>\n
Jennifer Sabbah, Barreau 2004<\/p>\n
Dorith Toledano, Barreau 2006<\/p>\n
Steven Kravitz, Barreau 2007<\/p>\n
Leon Benmergui, Barreau 2007<\/p>\n
Jason Hadid, Barreau 2007<\/p>\n
Saguy Barchichat, Barreau 2007<\/p>\n
Jennifer Ana Chriqui, Barreau 2008<\/p>\n
Dan Derhy, Notaire 2008<\/p>\n
Andrew Kliger, Barreau 2009<\/p>\n
Robert Steinman, Barreau 2009<\/p>\n
Virginie Illouz, Barreau 2009<\/p>\n
Raphael Amram, Barreau 2010<\/p>\n
Yaniv Saragosti, Barreau 2010<\/p>\n
Eva Derhy, Barreau 2010<\/p>\n
David Ettedgui, Barreau 2010<\/p>\n
Barry Olivenstein, Barreau 2013<\/p>\n
Michael Elfassy, Barreau 2014<\/p>\n
Ingrid Ouaknin, Barreau 2014<\/p>\n
Nir-Nissim Elkouby, Barreau 2015<\/p>\n
Laurent Gryner, Barreau 2017<\/p>\n
Matthew Meland, Barreau 2019<\/p>\n
Julia Nakache, Barreau 2019<\/p>\n
Dov Charness, Barreau 2019<\/p>\n
Magalie Dadou, Barreau 2021<\/p>\n
Stephanie Kugler, Barreau 2023<\/p>\n
Joseph-Gabriel Cohen, Barreau 2023<\/p>\n
Nathan Cohen, Barreau 2025<\/p>\n
Note: The views expressed in this text are solely those of the undersigned and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the organizations, firms, or institutions with which they are affiliated.<\/p>\n
Sarah Ettedgui<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"On August 24, Projet Montr\u00e9al will ask City Council to turn the conflict in the Middle East into…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":178534,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[56565,34403,24275,34406,56567,456,821,34404,34408,56566,29357,29661,3406,50,7866,29358,34401,34400,34411],"class_list":["post-178533","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-montreal","tag-apartheid","tag-arab-israeli-conflict","tag-genocide","tag-government-of-israel","tag-international-court-of-justice","tag-international-law","tag-israel","tag-israel-related-controversies","tag-israel-palestine-relations","tag-israeli-apartheid","tag-israeli-palestinian-conflict","tag-jews","tag-law","tag-montreal","tag-motion","tag-politics-of-israel","tag-politics-of-palestine","tag-politics-of-palestine-region","tag-projet-montral"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178533","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=178533"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178533\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/178534"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178533"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178533"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178533"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}