The Israel-Palestine conflict has led to arguments and hurt feelings all around the world for centuries. The Wilson Building is no exception now.
The Middle East may be thousands of miles away from the District, but Loose Lips hears that the violence in Gaza has prompted all manner of conflict among D.C. politicos over the past few months. Disputes over how to address the situation have pitted councilmembers against each other, against a variety of activists, and even against their own staff members. Although many of these arguments have been held out of the public eye so far, some lawmakers could soon force the matter into the open.
A group of councilmembers is considering introducing a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza in the coming days, according to activists working on the issue. The measure would meet the demands of many who have been trying to draw attention to the plight of Palestinians ever since the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas kicked off an intense retaliation by Israel. Organizers are hopeful that a majority of the Council will back the resolution, which is purely ceremonial. But the situation remains fluid, largely thanks to the two staunchest opponents of a ceasefire bill: Ward 1 Councilmember Brianne Nadeau and Council Chair Phil Mendelson.
There’s been interest among some several of the Council’s more left-leaning lawmakers in supporting a call for a ceasefire for some time now to at least provide some symbolic acknowledgment of the current horrors in Gaza, bringing D.C. in line with other major cities to do so, such as Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston. Plus, it would quiet the vocal demands of activists who have taken to disrupting Council meetings with some regularity and urging lawmakers to take a moral stand against a situation described by some observers as a genocide. Although the precise list of supporters has fluctuated, LL is told that Ward 4 Councilmember Janeese Lewis George; Ward 5 Councilmember Zachary Parker; and At-Large Councilmembers Anita Bonds, Christina Henderson, and Robert White have been the most consistent in supporting the resolution.
Parker is the most likely to lead the introduction of the measure, LL’s sources say, but he has not responded to requests for comment. Mendelson told reporters Monday that he does not believe any lawmaker will put a resolution forward and argued that organizers are conflating general support for a ceasefire among councilmembers with an actual desire to advance a bill on this subject. (LL also hears that Mendelson urged lawmakers to drop the matter shortly after speaking with reporters.)
Mendelson and Nadeau have been maneuvering behind-the-scenes on the issue for several months, according to three sources in and around the Wilson Building. Their opposition to the resolution has chilled many discussions of the matter over fears of retaliation from the pair. A group of Council staffers even began organizing a letter to their bosses demanding they take action on a resolution before the legislature’s July 15 recess (a draft of which they provided to LL). But that push fell apart when Nadeau and other councilmembers caught wind of the effort.
“It’s been creating some real rifts within the building itself,” says Dante O’Hara, an organizer with the Claudia Jones School for Political Education who has been helping to lead the ceasefire efforts. “We didn’t think it would take this long or be this hard to even get something introduced. It’s been really daunting.”
Councilmembers have different motivations for opposing a resolution, of course. Mendelson, ever the cautious traditionalist, doesn’t feel it’s wise for the Council to wade into a controversial subject when such a resolution would likely do very little to persuade Israeli or U.S. leaders to abandon their support for the campaign in Gaza. “Personally, I would like to see a ceasefire in the Middle East, but I don’t think the Council should take the issue up,” he said Monday.
Nadeau, one of the Council’s two Jewish members, has a much more intense ideological opposition to the idea.
She has a history of working with staunchly pro-Israel organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, and it seems her views on the present situation in Gaza fall along similar lines. Nadeau has frequently told activists pressing for a ceasefire that she could only support one if it included provisions to limit Hamas’ influence in Gaza or is conditioned on the release of Israeli hostages, talking points frequently repeated by Israel’s conservative government. And she is aligned closely with the influential Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, which issued a statement in March alongside the ADL urging the Council not to take up the issue. (“Our job is to stop these resolutions from happening,” JCRC executive director Ron Halber told Jewish Philanthropy in April, deriding supporters as “anti-Israel activists.”)
The pro-ceasefire bloc on the Council doesn’t need Nadeau to pass a resolution, but many of these progressive lawmakers tend to work closely with her on most other issues. Given her strong opposition to the idea, they suspect she’d be less inclined to support their priorities (and she has implied as much, LL’s sources say).
“In a lot of ways, I feel like she’s kind of weaponizing the fact that she’s Jewish, to say, ‘Well, I’m Jewish, and I don’t believe in this,’ and so people don’t want to go against her,” says Emily Siegel, a longtime Jewish organizer in the District who has been working on the ceasefire effort. “And, for me, it’s been really frustrating because I don’t believe it’s a Jewish issue. I think it’s a Zionist issue, and I think it’s an issue with Israel, but Israel doesn’t represent all Jewish people and neither does Zionism.”
Nadeau declined an interview for this story, but a spokesperson writes in a statement that “no councilmember has approached Councilmember Nadeau saying they would like to introduce a resolution” and “no member has publicly indicated they would introduce or vote for a resolution.” (LL will note that’s not quite accurate, however, as White said on The Politics Hour in May that he would support a ceasefire resolution.)
“The councilmember is pained by the ongoing conflict and the suffering and violence in the region,” Nadeau’s spokesperson continues. “She has said in numerous meetings with individuals and groups that she wants a lasting peace and a ceasefire that will protect innocent lives, free the hostages, and end the fighting. She does not believe a resolution on this issue is an appropriate role for the Council.”
But activists believe they will be able to overcome that opposition with a mix of organizing and pressure from Council staffers.
Lawmakers have certainly been feeling the heat from prominent outside organizers. Rev. Graylan Hagler, Busboys and Poets owner Andy Shallal, the Washington Teachers’ Union, and the prominent hotel workers’ union Unite Here Local 25 and have been involved in pushing for a ceasefire. The latter group even called on D.C. voters to write in “uncommitted” instead of casting a ballot for President Joe Biden to make a statement in the June primary. (Elections officials have yet to release specifics on write-in votes, but 7 percent of D.C. voters cast write-in ballots in the primary. Ironically enough, Ward 1 recorded the highest share of write-ins with just over 16.7 percent.)
“Our call for a ceasefire is rooted in a global commitment to justice for all workers — which is impossible for the millions of Palestinians and Israelis who cannot escape the violence and war,” Benjy Cannon, Unite Here’s spokesperson, writes in a statement to LL ahead of a planned protest by local unions at the Wilson Building Tuesday. “We are horrified by Israel’s ongoing destruction of Gaza and by the many thousands of refugees who have been left homeless, especially given that many of our members have emigrated to the U.S. after fleeing violence in their own home countries. We believe that all hostages should be returned to their homes. We demand a ceasefire and encourage our elected local leaders to do the same.”
It’s one thing to hear from activists, no matter how influential they may be in D.C. politics. It’s another matter entirely when the Council’s own staff joins the fray. Activists hope their circulation of a letter in late June, signed by staff from all 13 Council offices, represented a wake-up call for waffling legislators.
Although the devastation in Gaza might seem far beyond the Council’s reach, the group wrote that “the thousands of D.C. residents contacting our offices make clear that this is indeed a local issue.”
“Many of us and many of the constituents we work with every day have deep connections to Gaza, Israel, and the region, including friends, family, and loved ones,” the staffers wrote in their letter, which was provided to LL on the condition that he not print their names.
“While a ceasefire resolution from this legislative body may only be symbolic, symbols are powerful,” the letter continued. “At a time when families in Gaza do not know if they will live to see tomorrow, if they will have food sufficient for the day, or if they will see their loved ones ever again, symbols of solidarity and hope are not to be underestimated. Washington, D.C.—home to the White House, State Department, U.S. Congress, and federal workforce—is extremely important in speaking out on this issue, especially in the face of Congressional attacks on our democracy by the forces who want to prolong this conflict with our taxpayer dollars.”
LL hears that the letter caused quite the stir. Nadeau, in particular, began calling her colleagues to inform them of its existence and urge them to dissuade their own employees from signing. Parker tried to tamp down its release, fearing it would imperil his own efforts to advance the resolution. Staffers began to fear reprisal from their bosses and ultimately opted not to distribute it widely.
“The fact that it did leak created some disarray,” O’Hara says. “It’s unfortunate it didn’t go out … but [councilmembers] were like, ‘Oh, shit, our staff are organizing around this, because we haven’t moved on it.’”
Still, Parker and other lawmakers backing the resolution were hesitant about moving forward as negotiations over the 2025 budget were still ongoing and Mendelson, who wields a tremendous amount of influence over the legislative process, had the ability to threaten spending priorities if a resolution advanced. Some also held out hope of attracting the support of the Council’s other Jewish member, Ward 3 Councilmember Matt Frumin, in order to fend off charges of antisemitism from Nadeau, the JCRC, or other groups. But Siegel says Frumin raised similar concerns as Nadeau, despite showing some initial interest in meeting with ceasefire activists.
Ultimately, organizers are hoping that Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen and Ward 8 Councilmember Trayon White will join the initial group of supporters to ensure that the resolution, which only needs a simple majority of the 13-member Council to pass, has a clear base of support. This would represent pretty much all of the left-leaning members of the Council, minus Nadeau and plus Bonds, consistently the most inconsistent member of the body. “The councilmember fully believes that what is going on in Gaza is an absolute tragedy, and she is 100 percent against the bombings and killings of civilians,” Bonds spokesperson Kevin B. Chavous tells LL via email. “This is what she has said and continues to say to anyone who asks her about this issue.”
Supporters still need Mendelson, who wields quite a bit of control over what measures make it onto the agenda, to bring the matter up for a vote. They’ve missed the chance to get something passed before the summer recess because the measure is not on the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting, the last until September. That gives them only a few months to persuade Mendelson before a new Council session starts in 2025. Mendelson would not directly answer LL’s questions on Monday, saying only that he’s “unaware of members who are supporting it.”
O’Hara notes that Mendelson allowed a vote on a similarly symbolic resolution urging an end to the blockade of Cuba, which passed easily. Maybe he’d be swayed by that precedent, considering the sky didn’t fall (nor did the blockade end) after that vote, O’Hara reasons. At the least, organizers plan to focus their advocacy on the chair once other councilmembers finally acknowledge their support for the issue publicly.
“It’s a lot of energy to target every single councilmember,” O’Hara says. “So we’d rather just focus our efforts towards one person.”