Ceasefire Resolution

January 27, 2024 Jack Siegel

I had planned to skip today’s pro-Palestinian demonstration. After more than three months, the Saturday outings have become boringly repetitive. The organizers, however, changed their playbook. Instead of Jane Byrne Plaza or the intersection of Ida B. Wells Drive and Michigan Avenue, those in charge chose Daley Plaza, which is adjacent to City Hall. Their decision made perfect sense because next Wednesday, the Chicago City Council will consider a ceasefire resolution.

I decided to hit the gym this morning, and then swing by Daley Plaza on my way home so that I could hear any city council members who spoke. I did not plan, nor did I stay, for the march that inevitably would follow the speeches.

While I, like many, would like to see an end to hostilities in Gaza, the Chicago City Council should not be engaging in what is best characterized as virtue signaling. Chicago voters elect their representatives to address local issues, such as crime, education, infrastructure, public transportation, housing, city finances, and a host of other issues that confront municipalities. Neither the City Council, nor Mayor Johnson were elected to speak for Chicagoans on matters of foreign policy.

Three pertinent questions demonstrate the city council’s folly: Will Mayor Johnson fly with a delegation of council members to Switzerland or Middle Eastern capitals to negotiate the ceasefire? Will Mayor Johnson engage in shuttle diplomacy to bring about a two-state solution? Will the city council appropriate funds for rebuilding of Gaza to facilitate a two-state solution?

During the hour that I spent in Daley Plaza, Alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez was the only elected representative who spoke. His remarks were incendiary, frequently name-checking Fred Hampton, the chairman of the Illinois Chapter of the Black Panther Party who was killed during a police raid on Hampton’s Monroe Street apartment.

In calling for approval of the ceasefire resolution, Sigcho-Lopez linked white supremacy and Zionism; objected to the use of Holocaust Remembrance Day to justify atrocities; equated Israeli tactics in Gaza to those of the Chicago Police Department; and asserted that yesterday, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel had engaged in genocide—something that the court did not do. He also objected to the closing or possible closure of 50 schools—at times I had trouble hearing what he was saying largely because he was speaking so fast. He concluded by proclaiming that “Liberation is in reach.”

Although Alderman Sigcho-Lopez called for approval of the ceasefire resolution, his own words demonstrate why such a resolution is a waste of the city council’s most precious resource—time. While the council is listening to members of the public comment on the resolution during next Wednesday’s meeting and debating the resolution, it could be discussing school closures and the related financial issues.

Alderman Sigcho-Lopez referred to the Chicago Police Department, which raises the question of crime. Yesterday, at 12:25 PM, two Chicago high school students were shot to death in what has been described as an ambush while the two were exiting Innovations High School just blocks from the site of today’s rally. The city council’s time would be better spent addressing crime in schools and its impact on students than discussing a meaningless resolution over matters that are far outside of the city council’s jurisdiction.

More pointedly, Alderman Sigcho-Lopez is concerned with the killing of children in Gaza, but like the rest of us, there is not much he can do about it. On the other hand, Sigcho-Lopez, unlike most of us, is in a position to directly address the killing of children on Chicago’s city streets and now in Chicago’s schools, but for him, Gaza is the shiny object that warrants his attention. If the alderman is not interested in addressing the problems that confront Chicagoans daily, maybe he should run for the U.S. House of Representatives so that he can become a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Others also believe that these sorts of resolutions are an inappropriate exercise of local governmental powers. The City of Evanston has been considering a similar resolution, as proposed by the city’s Equity and Empowerment Commission rather than by the Evanston City Council. In response, Evanston resident Greg Miller filed an ethics complaint against the commission, arguing that it had exceeded it jurisdictional boundaries. In his complaint, Miller states, “They are misusing their authority and visibility as city leaders to promote views about an issue far outside the scope of their management. They are misusing city resources that are specifically allocated for achieving equity in Evanston, and in doing so, appropriating time and money that could be devoted toward that vital goal.”

On my way to the gym on Wednesday, I may stop by city hall to see whether people are demonstrating, but I do not plan to attend the meeting because based on my prior experience, the lines to enter will be too long.

During my time in Daley Plaza, I heard two other noteworthy comments. First, I asked one of the demonstration’s organizers about the March4Gaza in Washington, D.C. two weeks earlier. He did not attend but told me that there were 400,000 people present. As one of my earlier posts demonstrates rather conclusively, there were nowhere close to 400,000 people in attendance, but this man’s comment demonstrates how quickly gross exaggerations become accepted fact. If there were 400,000 people present, why haven’t the march organizers reversed the changes made to the Wikipedia page reducing the initial claimed attendance at the march?

Second, several speakers referenced the International Court of Justice ruling. While an attorney speaking about the ruling did note that it was not a final determination, other speakers played fast and loose with the court’s nuanced distinctions, strongly suggesting, if not stating, that the court held that Israel had committed genocide. Rather, the court, while finding plausible evidence, stated that a final determination was sometime in the future—most commentators indicated years away. One rally speaker went so far as to describe the court as the most powerful court in the world, which is nonsense given that it possesses “few means of enforcement,” according to an article in the New York Times.

I will undoubtedly attend future pro-Palestinian demonstrations, but on a more limited basis.