Members To Decide Upon Mayor’s Draft Letter In Open Session On Jan 2
The Alameda City Council, in its January 2nd meeting, will look beyond the borders of The City and potentially take an on the record stand about an issue of grave national and international importance: whether or not to call for an “immediate ceasefire” in war ravaged Gaza.
Israel’s retaliation for the Oct 7 Hamas attack and kidnapping of Israelis and others near the Gaza border draws daily headlines, as news photos and TV screens show massive decimation of residential and other structures cratered and reduced to rubble, and the plight of civilians -dead, wounded or still alive– in Gazan cities.
As with so many communities across the land, Alameda shares some segment of attention and reaction to the ongoing catastrophe, and a variety of voices have spoken out about the conflict, as well as who should be involved and what should or should not be done.
The savage Hamas attack took the lives of over 1,200 Israelis and an estimated more than 20,000 Gazans who have perished as a result of Israeli Defense Force airstrikes and ground invasion.
Addressed to an as yet unnamed U.S. Senator, (or group of them), The Mayor’s draft letter “unequivocally” condemns Hamas for its “barbaric attack” and “recognize(s) “Israel’s desire to insure the safety of its citizens. “
Following that concession, the letter characterizes the Israeli government’s military response in Gaza as “seemingly unrestrained violence” that has created an “escalating humanitarian crisis” which fails to help protect the “safety of (Israel’s) citizens,” or protect anyone else’s “interests.”
Among those are “the remaining hostages…who must be released immediately,”and the “thousands of innocent Palestinians who fear every moment could be their last.”
It also claims that Israel’s retaliation in Gaza does not serve “U.S national security ” interests.
That last assertion is at odds with President Biden’s numerous statements and policy actions premised on the link between U.S. national security interests and those of Israel when it comes to eliminating or crippling the threat of Hamas.
Biden declared, on Oct 20 for example, that helping Israel eliminate Hamas is “vital for America’s national security.”
In that linkage, Biden claimed that , “History has taught us that when terrorists don’t pay a price for their terror…they cause more chaos and death and more destruction. They keep going, and the cost and the threats to America and to the world keep rising. …We cannot and will not let terrorists like Hamas win.”
The Mayor’s draft letter acknowledges that “some have argued” that it is not the province of City Councils to engage in matters beyond their urban governance function, and replies that “we cannot in good conscience remain silent in the face of this intense suffering.”
That statement may have been, in part, a reference to several letters the Mayor received opposing –at least in qualified ways—the approval of such a resolution. (the letters are public record and published on the City’s website, but names have been withheld here as the writers may not have realized that their writings are in public domain and fair game for the press to quote)
“This is really an issue that is far too big, and too complex, for you to weigh in on. The best action would be no action,” claimed one local’s letter.
Another alleged that, “I do not want our local city council focusing its effort on international conflicts. I wish for our city council to focus on local issues, as is their mandate.”
One opponent’s letter was as concise as can be: “Middle East politics are not the purview of our City Council,” it said.
Another letter opposing approval went substantially farther, conjecturing that “we risk oversimplifying a nuanced matter, perpetuating divisive narratives of right versus wrong, and exacerbating xenophobia.”
Of the eleven letters accessible on the Jan 2 Council agenda page, eight opposed approval and three urged passage.
Despite the disparity in the stances in public correspondence, the draft letter indicates that various local vigils and public comments during Council meetings weighed on the decision to bring the letter up for Council consideration, revision, passage or other outcomes.
“We seek to amplify the voices of our constituents from across the city,” says the letter.
(for more see: https://alamedaneighborhoodsnews.org/cease-fire-vigil-for-gaza-held-at-city-hall-plaza/
As it stands now, the Alameda draft letter is markedly different in tone, scope and substance from an Oakland City Council Resolution unanimously passed near the end of November.
With respect to desired outcomes, The Oakland letter went past the call for an immediate ceasefire, and stressed the need for “the unrestricted entry of humanitarian assistance into Gaza; the restoration of food, water, electricity, and medical supplies to Gaza; and the respect for international law.”
While the Alameda letter calls upon an unnamed member or members of the U.S. Senate, The Oakland resolution expressed support for House Resolution 796, framed its purpose in broader terms of supporting multiple types of racial and religious equality, and expressed condemnation for “the recent rise of Antisemitic, Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic attacks in our city and across the nation.”
More notably, in stark contrast to the Alameda draft statement, the Oakland resolution did not even mention Hamas, nor Israel’s right of self-defense. It merely alluded to the deaths of “over one thousand people in Israel.”
The Richmond City Council also issued a Gaza Resolution in November with an even more strident, agenda-narrow tack.
It accused Israel’s punishing and devastating military response as “ethnic cleansing” and “collective punishment,” and echoed a polarized refrain from those on the far left who consider Gaza and The West Bank to be “occupied territories,” who deny Israeli sovereignty, and shun the elusive, long term compromise of what is loosely termed the “two state solution.”
The Richmond letter loaded itself with a call to “end Israeli apartheid,” and the “occupation and blockade of Palestinian land,” both considered ‘hot button’ terms that have entered into the polarized Palestinian/Israeli debate for more than a half century.
For its part, the Alameda draft letter steers clear of firebrand phrasing, preferring instead to go a more moderate course, saying that “we are mindful of the increasing polarization around this debate in communities across America and do not intend to take a position that makes any member of our community feel unsafe,” a strategy based on a broader notion of “inclusiveness” than that of Richmond.
That language also appears to try and assuage some of the objections raised in letters opposing approval of the Mayor’s draft.
The draft letter, signed only by Mayor Ashcraft at this time, closes by saying, “We believe we have no choice but to strongly encourage the U.S. government to reconsider its current policy and support an immediate ceasefire.”
Mayor Ashcraft’s draft letter is the only one up for Council consideration.
Vice Mayor Tony Daysog offered no preview into his leanings on the matter saying only this in a “Media Alert” e-mail: “Going into the last weekend of 2023, I will make sure to carefully review the Mayor’s request to send a ceasefire letter.”
OTHER KEY ITEMS ON COUNCIL’S JAN 2 AGENDA
In other matters, The City will consider final passage of a ban on leasing of city properties to companies that engage in live animal testing, decide on lease negotiations for Building 11 at the former Naval Air Station (NAS) with Wisk Aero, consider updates and conformity for APD’s Police Policy manual regarding “best practices, ” consider final approval for an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for a new Performing Arts Center at the former NAS (for more see: https://alamedaneighborhoodsnews.org/dream-of-first-rate-performing-arts-center-at-alameda-point-gets-big-boost/ )
With respect to traffic safety matters, the Council will look to authorize City Manager Jennifer Ott to pen an agreement with The California Department of Transportation to Construct the Highway Safety Improvement Program Pedestrian Safety Project for $249,076 in State Grant Funds. (for more see: https://alamedaneighborhoodsnews.org/fernside-area-meeting-unveils-swath-of-data-for-next-steps-in-traffic-control-remedies/ )