Montreal Fails to Condemn Israeli Expansion
Councillors strip strong language and leave only polite words while Israel expands control.
Montreal city council just passed a watered-down motion of solidarity with Palestinians, and honestly it feels like the bare minimum after years of watching the same patterns play out. On Monday night, August 24, 2026, councillors voted 54-6 for an amended text that expresses support for the Palestinian people and all civilian victims in the Middle East. It nods to international law, supports judicial processes examining possible violations in Gaza, and calls on Ottawa and Quebec to show more leadership through diplomacy and sanctions against those responsible for human rights abuses. The original version from Projet Montréal, the official opposition, was presented by Councillor Nathalie Goulet of Ahuntsic-Cartierville and backed by Councillor Alex Norris. It demanded the city recognize and denounce what it called an apartheid regime and genocide, and suspend institutional ties with the Israeli government, its institutions, and municipalities until Israel returned to internationally recognized borders and ended violations of Palestinian rights. Mayor Soraya Martinez Ferrada’s Ensemble Montréal administration pushed through amendments by a 38-22 vote that stripped out that language, adding instead a focus on local diversity, inclusion, and the need to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia while stressing that Montreal’s Jewish and Israeli-origin communities are not responsible for state actions. Goulet later called the result extremely disappointing and typical of how these things get diluted.
Even this softer step lands at a moment when the imbalance is impossible to ignore. Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the West Bank have faced repeated cycles of destruction that human rights groups and UN bodies have documented in detail: mass displacement, restricted movement, settlement expansion on occupied land, and military operations that leave entire neighbourhoods in rubble. Critics point to these as clear violations of international humanitarian law. Israel’s repeated military campaigns, often framed as self-defence, have drawn accusations of disproportionate force and collective punishment. The pattern of occupation since 1967, combined with blockades and settlement growth widely viewed as illegal under international law, fuels the charge that successive Israeli governments have pursued expansionist policies that keep the conflict alive rather than resolve it. That same disregard for legal limits shows up far beyond Palestine’s borders.
Israel continues to expand its attacks across Muslim-majority countries while taking control of land and resources in clear defiance of international law. The occupation and settlement project in the West Bank and Gaza sets the template, but the reach extends further through repeated strikes into Lebanon and Syria and through its active role in the wider campaign targeting Iran. Settlements keep growing on occupied territory, water sources and farmland get redirected, and military operations push deeper into neighbouring areas. UN resolutions and international court decisions are brushed aside as new facts are created on the ground by force. This is not a defensive posture. It is a consistent drive for territorial expansion and resource control that treats international boundaries and legal rules as optional.
Montreal’s motion at least acknowledges civilian suffering on the Palestinian side. Councillors who backed the stronger original language argued the city has a duty to speak on human rights when voices are rising around the world. That point resonated with many watching the debate outside city hall, where protesters on both sides gathered.
The final version of the motion omits the strongest accusations and contains no call for a boycott or suspension of institutional ties. City officials cited the need to preserve social cohesion in a diverse municipality as a key reason for the changes. The amended text also includes explicit condemnation of antisemitism and Islamophobia. But the underlying frustration remains. For residents who have followed the casualty numbers, the destroyed infrastructure, and the long record of settlement activity that international courts have flagged as illegal, a polite statement of solidarity feels incomplete and frankly cowardly. Montreal has taken stands on global issues before, from apartheid South Africa onward. This motion is a timid public signal that Palestinian civilian lives matter. By stripping out the concrete demands and the honest language about the nature of the occupation and the violence, city hall chose political convenience over moral clarity. Higher levels of government will almost certainly do the same. Leaders must stop treating Israeli expansion, war mongering, and human rights abuses as somehow exempt from the standards applied everywhere else.
BACKGROUNDER
A Chronological Report on Israeli Territorial Expansion and Settlement Activity in Palestine
Late 19th century to 1917
Jewish immigration and land purchases in Ottoman Palestine began in significant numbers during the First Aliyah (1882–1903) and Second Aliyah (1904–1914). Early Zionist organizations acquired land, mostly through legal purchase from Arab and Ottoman landowners, and established agricultural colonies. By 1914, the Jewish population stood at roughly 60,000–85,000 out of a total population of about 700,000.
1917–1947 (British Mandate)
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 expressed British support for a Jewish national home in Palestine. Under the Mandate, Jewish immigration increased, especially in the 1930s due to persecution in Europe. Land purchases continued, and the Jewish population grew to about 600,000 by 1947. The 1937 Peel Commission proposed partition. The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan (Resolution 181) recommended dividing the territory into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem under international administration. Jewish forces accepted the plan; Arab leaders rejected it.
1948–1949 (War of Independence / Nakba)
Following Israel’s declaration of independence on 14 May 1948 and the subsequent war with neighbouring Arab states, armistice agreements in 1949 left Israel in control of approximately 77 percent of Mandatory Palestine. The West Bank (including East Jerusalem) came under Jordanian control, and the Gaza Strip under Egyptian administration. Roughly 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled during the fighting. Israel’s borders were defined by the 1949 armistice lines (the Green Line).
1949–1967
Israel consolidated control within the Green Line. Limited settlement activity occurred in some border areas, but the major expansion phase had not yet begun. The West Bank and Gaza remained outside Israeli sovereignty.
June 1967 (Six-Day War)
In six days of fighting, Israel captured the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights. Israel immediately annexed East Jerusalem and later applied Israeli law to the Golan Heights. The West Bank and Gaza were placed under military occupation. Security Council Resolution 242 called for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the war in exchange for peace and recognition.
1967–1977
The first Israeli settlements were established in the newly occupied territories shortly after the war. Early settlement policy under Labour governments focused on strategic locations, including the Jordan Valley and areas around Jerusalem. By 1977, several dozen settlements existed, housing several thousand Israelis.
1977–1993 (Likud governments and settlement acceleration)
After the 1977 election, settlement construction expanded significantly across the West Bank and Gaza. Governments provided subsidies, infrastructure, and security for new communities. By the early 1990s, the settler population in the West Bank and Gaza had grown to approximately 100,000–110,000 (excluding East Jerusalem).
1993–2000 (Oslo Accords period)
The Oslo process created the Palestinian Authority and divided the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C. Area C, under full Israeli civil and security control, contained the majority of settlements and most of the land. Settlement construction continued and even accelerated in some periods despite the peace process. The settler population roughly doubled during the
1990s.2000–2005
The second intifada brought intensified violence and further settlement growth. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew all settlers and military forces from the Gaza Strip (the disengagement plan), removing approximately 8,000 settlers. Settlement activity in the West Bank continued.
2005–2023
The settler population in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) grew steadily, reaching over 450,000 by the early 2020s, with an additional 200,000-plus Israelis living in East Jerusalem neighbourhoods built after 1967. Successive Israeli governments approved new housing units, outposts, and infrastructure. International bodies, including the International Court of Justice and numerous UN resolutions, have repeatedly described the settlements as illegal under international law, a position Israel disputes, arguing historical and security claims.
2023–2026
Following the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack and the ensuing war in Gaza, settlement approvals and outpost legalization in the West Bank accelerated. Israeli officials announced plans for thousands of new housing units. Military operations, restrictions on Palestinian movement, and land designations for settlements or security zones continued to reshape control on the ground. East Jerusalem settlement construction also persisted. As of 2026, the combined Israeli population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem exceeds 700,000 according to most monitoring organizations.
Throughout the post-1967 period, Israeli policy has combined “security” considerations, ideological commitment to settlement in the biblical heartland, and demographic goals. Palestinian population growth, restricted access to land and resources in Area C, and the physical fragmentation of the West Bank have been documented by Israeli, Palestinian, and international sources. Israel maintains that the territories are disputed rather than occupied and that final borders should be determined by negotiation. The international consensus, reflected in UN Security Council resolutions and the 2004 and 2024 International Court of Justice opinions, holds that the settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.
