Mpls. resolution on Gaza deserves a veto

Opinion editor’s note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

After discussion and a 9-3 vote on Thursday, an overreaching Minneapolis City Council resolution on the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza awaits a response from Mayor Jacob Frey. We urge him to veto the resolution on principle. It takes — as he’s made clear — a one-sided focus on events in the Middle East. Reaching it was also, as we emphasized in a Jan. 13 editorial, a poor use of the council’s time and an overly generous application of its expertise.

The resolution, as most recently modified before approval, primarily addresses concerns about the war’s impact on Palestinians and the conditions under which they lived even before the war (and Israel’s perceived role in that). While it mentions the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas on Israeli citizens, it omits the complicated history of the Holocaust and pogroms that led to the need for a Jewish state and the continued declared intent of Hamas to obliterate Israel as an entity. And the Minneapolis resolution, although its top-line recommendation is for a permanent cease-fire in the current war, seems intent on backgrounding that with accusations of an Israeli-led genocide — not directly, but by implication, by sourcing the language to the unofficial expressions of other organizations.

These are all legitimate subjects for debate and even activism. The intensity of disagreement surrounding them — and the danger felt amid this tension by residents of Minneapolis and the Twin Cities — are why this resolution is not like others the City Council has reached on foreign affairs. If the council felt the need to amplify views on the Mideast, it should have pursued neutral language that represents the common ground among its constituents, as a minority on the council recommended and as other municipal governments around the country, including Hastings, Minn., have done.

One problem with attempting to make foreign policy as a City Council is the risk of being overrun by events. The resolution notes proceedings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague related to Israel’s response in Gaza. On Friday, in what will be subject to interpretation but strikes us as a nod to complexity, the court declined to call for a cease-fire. It did tell Israel to do more to avoid harm to civilians. And it will continue to investigate the allegation of genocide that launched the proceedings — leveled by South Africa as an interested observer. That will take years to resolve. The court adjudicates disputes among nations, but its findings have only advisory influence.

Back in Minneapolis, Frey has five business days to make a decision. He told Star Tribune editorial writers that he would take the weekend to decide the best response. Signing the measure isn’t a consideration. The alternative to a veto is to leave the measure unsigned, which would allow the language to take effect as an official pronouncement of Minneapolis as represented by the voice of the City Council.

That would have one benefit — it would allow the council to move on to the many pressing Minneapolis issues over which it has jurisdiction. We believe there’s a chance, however, that the council still could find its way to a better place on Gaza and that doing so, even while now extending the debate, could mitigate the damage done by language that clearly originated from a singular agenda.

At Thursday’s meeting, Council Member Linea Palmisano proposed an alternative resolution with neutral language expressing concern for lives on both sides of the conflict. It appeared to pique the interest of at least some of the council members who subsequently voted for the original resolution. If just one of them could be persuaded to flip, and if Council Member Emily Koski continues to conspicuously abstain on the matter, Frey’s veto would stand. An override requires nine votes among the 13 council members.

(Koski explained that abstention “is something I can do without disappointing, angering, triggering, dividing or isolating part of my community or the other, part of the city or the other, by choosing one side or the other here in this room.” It is at least reasonable to wonder if she is in fact pursuing a strategy of political positioning. Since the issue has come unavoidably before her, however, her job is to decide. Palmisano’s language gives her ample opportunity to strike her desired balance.)

Minneapolis is a left-leaning city. Our concern is whether a City Council dominated by a new strong-left majority but tempered by a minority of moderate Democrats can come together for constructive change. The council’s start has not inspired confidence. Thursday’s approval of the Gaza resolution followed what amounted to a bitter family counseling session on the dais.

Minneapolis needs insightful leadership. The greater Twin Cities area and Minnesota as a whole need to know the state’s largest city can thrive. Instead there’s doubt about the city’s direction, and while some of it is driven by two-bit opinions and rigid politics of a different kind, much of it is warranted. The council would do best by focusing on actions that give confidence a boost, not skepticism an assist.

Editorial Board members are David Banks, Jill Burcum, Scott Gillespie, Denise Johnson, John Rash and D.J. Tice. Star Tribune Opinion staff members Maggie Kelly and Elena Neuzil also contribute, and Star Tribune CEO and Publisher Steve Grove serves as an adviser to the board.