SF Mayor Breed Refuses To Sign Israel-Hamas Cease-Fire Resolution

San Francisco Mayor London Breed returned the controversial Gaza cease-fire Resolution back to the clerk of the Board of Supervisors unsigned on Friday, days after she had first spoken out against the Resolution.

Since late last year, San Francisco supervisors have been discussing on issuing a resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza, as well as condemning both Hamas and the Israeli’s for their decisions in the war. While many cities issued similar resolutions before, such as Oakland  in November 2023, few larger cities have passed something like it. In San Francisco, Palestinian supporters and Israel supporters clashed over the idea of a resolution. During discussion, known antisemites got on the microphone, denouncing Israel, and didn’t even mention a cease-fire. However, pro-resolution votes won out, and on January 9th, the Board passed the Resolution 8-3.

While some groups praised the resolution being passed, it ultimately ended up receiving a mostly negative backlash. Earlier this week, Mayor Breed added to the dissent against the Resolution by coming out against it, saying that it would only further divide people as a result. However, as it was passed by the Board, it still needed to go to the Mayor for approval. While some Palestinian groups held out hope this week that Breed would have a change of heart, it ultimately did not come to pass, with Breed refusing to sign the resolution on Friday.

“Since the Board of Supervisors introduced their Gaza ceasefire resolution, and certainly since they passed it last week, our city has been angrier, more divided, and less safe. Sadly, that may have been the point,” said Breed in a statement posted to X. “Their exercise was never about bringing people together; it was about choosing a side. And while late amendments mitigated this, the damage was already done.”

⬇️ My statement on the Board of Supervisor’s Gaza ceasefire resolution: pic.twitter.com/HrvpuYyPFo

— London Breed (@LondonBreed) January 20, 2024

Breeds decision was largely positively received on Friday, with many Breed detractors even applauding her for her decision. Some, hoping for a veto, expressed some disappointment but also readily noted that not signing was better than signing it.

“Respect for standing up to hate,” wrote one commentor on X.

Another posted “You know, the state department handles foreign policy. Not the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Maybe that’s why you all have such poor governance.”

A different user also posted “A broken clock is right twice a day. You won’t hear this again from me anytime soon most likely, but, Good job Mayor Breed. That’s a sensible decision.”

However, Board President Aaron Peskin, who supported the resolution, denounced Breed’s decision in a short statement on Friday, saying that “Breed chickened out by not signing or vetoing the resolution.”

Experts told the Globe on Friday that Breed’s decision will likely be a win for her and a loss for the Supervisors who supported it.

“If the Board of Supervisors wanted to make the Mayor look good for awhile, they just did it,” said Jessica Duane, a Washington-based think tank researcher on relationships between local governments and international affairs, to the Globe. “The Supervisors really made a lot of their constituents mad on this, and you can bet that they won’t forget it. Most people have opinions on these sorts of things, but from surveys we have done, most believe local governments should sit on on doing these sorts of things like resolutions unless they are directly connected to the overseas events, like, say, they get a lot of refugees from a location or maybe they are a sister-city. And even then, you need to listen to the people. Not just some protestors there for or against it, but everyone. The San Francisco Supervisors forgot that.”

More on the failed resolution is likely to come out soon.