Yesterday, Montréal adopted a motion of solidarity with Palestine. It was neither the original motion presented by Projet Montréal nor the text that many of us who have taken part in the mobilization for Palestine over recent months would have wanted to see adopted. The initial proposal at least showed a willingness to translate words into concrete political consequences: it proposed measures aimed at reviewing and severing ties with Israel in response to the destruction of Gaza and the extremely serious violations of international law. In the motion that was ultimately adopted, that dimension was almost entirely dismantled. The formulations identifying responsibility were removed or weakened, producing a text in which Palestine appears as the victim while Israel almost completely disappears as the actor responsible for the hunger, death, displacement and devastation of an entire people.

This hollowing out is not accidental. It is part of a familiar political logic: Palestinian suffering can be acknowledged as long as no one clearly identifies who is causing it; compassion can be expressed as long as that compassion carries no consequences; peace can be invoked as long as there is no discussion of occupation, apartheid, colonization or impunity. In this way, Palestine can be mentioned while avoiding any challenge to the political, economic and institutional structures that allow the violence to continue. Solidarity is then reduced to a moral declaration without consequences, convenient for those who want to appear sensitive to the tragedy but are unwilling to confront the power relations that make it possible.

The motion adopted is, in that sense, profoundly inadequate. Yet it would also be a political mistake to dismiss what has happened. The fact that Montréal City Council was forced to debate Palestine and publicly adopt a position is the result of social pressure that would have been much harder to imagine only a few years ago. In a city where organizations and networks linked to Zionism have exercised considerable influence for decades in political, economic and institutional spaces, bringing this debate into the very heart of City Hall represents an advance that cannot be separated from the work carried out in the streets.

None of this happened spontaneously. It was not in vain that hundreds of people went through Montréal’s neighbourhoods, attended borough council meetings, intervened in municipal sessions, sent letters, organized events, spoke with elected officials and repeatedly brought the Palestinian question into spaces where many would have preferred to keep it out. Nor was it in vain that people from very different communities, generations and political experiences began coming together around the Montréal Free of Apartheid campaign, building a space for mobilization that goes beyond traditional organizations and broadens the social base of solidarity with Palestine.

That process is politically far more important than any single motion. A campaign is not measured only by the text it manages to get adopted by an institution, but by the strength it builds while fighting for it. It is measured by the alliances it creates, the contradictions it exposes, the questions it forces people to answer, and its ability to turn issues once considered untouchable into matters that public officials can no longer ignore. Over these past months, that is exactly what has been achieved: a debate has been brought into municipal politics about Montréal’s responsibilities, its institutional relationships, and the contradiction of presenting itself as a city committed to human rights while refusing to examine certain political and economic ties.

That is why yesterday’s vote closes nothing. On the contrary, it opens a new phase. Precisely because of its limitations, this motion shows where the resistance lies today and the extent to which certain sectors continue working to prevent solidarity with Palestine from becoming material political decisions. The next step is to broaden the pressure even further, document the city’s relationships with organizations and institutions that support or legitimize Israeli policies, demand transparency, and force every public representative to explain openly which interests they are prepared to defend.

The goal of Montréal Free of Apartheid can never be reduced to obtaining symbolic declarations. It must be to build enough political and social power for the city to sever any institutional relationship that contributes to normalizing occupation, colonization and apartheid, and to ensure that no pressure network can silently dictate the limits of what our representatives are allowed to say or do. This is not about replacing one lobby with another, but about reclaiming democratic space from any organized structure that seeks to shield a state from criticism, accountability or the consequences of its actions.

We must also learn from the struggles taking place in other cities across the United States and Canada, where grassroots movements are increasingly challenging the power of lobbying organizations such as AIPAC and forcing politicians and institutions to answer to their own communities. That process demonstrates that forms of influence that seemed untouchable for decades can be confronted when there is organization, perseverance and a sufficiently broad social base.

What happened yesterday, therefore, is not a complete victory, but neither can it be considered a defeat. It is the partial result of months of collective work and, at the same time, proof of how much remains to be won. We have succeeded in having Palestine named within an institution where, for far too long, even that gesture was avoided. Now we must ensure that those responsible are also named, that occupation, apartheid, colonization and destruction are discussed without euphemisms, and that words begin to carry real political consequences.

Next time, a solidarity motion carefully emptied of responsibility will not be enough. Next time, we must arrive with more organization, a stronger presence in the neighbourhoods, broader alliances and greater pressure, so that City Hall can no longer hide behind diplomatic formulations. The objective is not for Montréal to utter nicer words about Palestine, but for it to adopt decisions consistent with the values it claims to defend.

This work did not end yesterday. In many ways, it has only just begun.