There is only one topic of the night: approving a call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Wild.
Background
If you want to read a recap of the Israeli/Palestinean conflict since 1948, go here. And here’s a timeline of all that backstory.
Here are some nonnegotiable facts:
- Hamas murdered about 1200 people on October 7th, 2023, and kidnapped 400 more, and they have not yet returned about 59 hostages.
- The Israeli army has killed an estimated 50,000 Palestinians in this war, and has destroyed an estimated 70% of all buildings in Gaza.
- Antisemitism is a real problem, but calling for a cease-fire is not automatically antisemitic.
- The US is morally culpable in this specific war because we fund weapons for Israel, in a way that we don’t for other wars around the world. (We fund Ukraine, but they’re not the aggressor, of course.)
Why now?
Activists have been calling for this for about a year. About 100 cities across the US passed ceasefire resolutions last spring. However, in San Marcos, it takes two council members or just the mayor to put an item on the agenda. Alyssa was the only council member interested. So it didn’t happen.
In November, we elected Amanda. Now there were two – Alyssa and Amanda – who could put this on the agenda. So they did, and here we are.
At the April 15th meeting, the ceasefire resolution was just a discussion item. The vote was “Do we want to bring this forward for a formal vote, or not?” That passed. So today is the formal vote on the actual resolution.
What happened since the last meeting?
The backlash intensified. Last time we had a letter from Donna Campbell. Now we have additional letters from US House representative Chip Roy:
That letter is obnoxious.
But it pales compared to this next one from Governor Greg Abbott:
The key is that last paragraph. He is threatening to withhold state grants and terminate existing grants if we pass this ordinance. That is a wild escalation.
And from the assistant attorney general:
That’s basically “here’s how we can strip your city of lots of funds”.
…
Then there was the backlash-to-the-backlash, from Greg Casar:
And this from a bunch of local lawyers:
Which basically says “get the fuck outta here with that unconstitutional bullshit,” but in legalese.
That’s all that I caught wind of, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t more out there.
…
Some Pre-game Analysis
The calculus has changed from the last meeting to this meeting, because of these letters from Abbott and the Attorney General. Let’s separate out some issues:
1. Morality. Let’s be very clear: the activists have the moral upper hand.
The sheer scale of obliteration, death, and starvation in Palestine is far disproportionate to the terrorism waged by Hamas, and the toll is mostly borne by civilians. This is a moral atrocity.
2. Strategy, Part 1:
What is the cost-benefit analysis of passing a San Marcos ceasefire resolution? Does it move the needle on the causes we care about? What resources does it cost to pass this?
3. Strategy, Part 2:
The bullying: How do Greg Abbott’s threats affect the calculus?
There are two main issues:
- Free speech and first amendment rights. This is clearly protected speech, and Abbott’s threats are most likely illegal. Threats to your freedom of speech should be taken very seriously.
- Risking city funding for San Marcos residents. If you take on that a legal fight, you are risking the grants and funding that the people of San Marcos depend on. You are also putting the cost of a legal fight on San Marcos, and there is no guarantee that we’d get a fair ruling.
How do you balance standing up for your first amendment rights against risking grant funding for struggling San Marcos residents? Both are incredibly important.
Listen: either decision carries consequences. This is not an easy thing to balance. Anyone who says this choice is obvious or easy is being overly reductionist.
We’ll get into this during the council discussion.
…
This brings us to last Tuesday’s meeting!
Citizen Comment
By my count, there were 125 speakers. They each get three minutes, so you can see how this can add up. My notes have 93 speakers in favor, 29 speakers opposed, and two where I just could not tell which side they were on. (One speaker spoke on the AI Data Center proposal.)
Main Arguments in favor are roughly:
- we are culpable in this mass brutality. Therefore we must speak out.
- This is a local issue because clearly local people are passionate about it.
- There have been about a hundred other cities that have passed resolutions, and the international community has condemned the war
- This is a first amendment fight. Concessions to a bully just makes them come back for more.
Main Arguments against are roughly:
- What about Hamas and the hostages, and October 7th?
- This is a local governing body, and we should stay in our lane
- This isn’t worth the retaliation that it will bring. Don’t play chicken with Greg Abbott
A few stray themes I want to address:
- Many people mention that San Marcos has sent $4 million in tax dollars to fund the war. That number seems to come from this website.
- A couple people call on Matthew Mendoza to recuse himself, because he works for an Israeli IT company. He works for these guys, I think. (He addresses this in his comments.)
- A few people call Shane out for falling asleep.
Is this true? Was Shane asleep??
Mostly he looks like this:
Sadly, I can’t really tell. You know I would have enjoyed making a big deal out of this, but I can’t quite justify it. I have standards.
Seven hours later, Citizen Comment winds down.
…
Council Discussion
It’s 1:00 am now, when Council finally dives in.
First, Amanda introduces the updates to the resolution. (Old version here, new version here.)
The major changes are:
- Explicitly condemning the targeting of civilians
- Explaining and organizing the intent of the resolution, and limiting the scope to the past 18 months
- A legal CYA paragraph at the end, to reassure Abbott that this resolution does not call for San Marcos to break any state laws
- Some #allwarsmatter language to clarify that we also care about Ukraine, Sudan, Ethiopia, etc.
- Naming the international and federal laws that govern arm shipments
Council approves swapping in these changes, so this is the official version being voted on at the end of the meeting.
Everyone states their positions:
Jane: Rereads the Kirk Watson quote that she stated at the last meeting:
“The proposed resolution of the Austin City Council will not realistically end the violence on the other side of the globe. Nor will it stop federal taxes from being used to implement foreign policy. That is not in our power. The resolution, however, has the power to divide Austin, and will.”
Jane’s avoiding the morality discussion altogether, and strictly making a strategic argument here: this issue is causing too much fighting between residents of the same community. Therefore she is a “no” on this issue.
Later on, she states that she was a “no” even before Abbott’s letter. She is not responding to bullying. She is trying to end the discussion locally.
Amanda goes next.
The first half of her comments address the morality issue:
Last time I spoke to you all, I spoke off the cuff. I didn’t want to do that, because I felt like there are some things I really want to say, but listening to you all…
There are many things I don’t know.
I do not know what amount of death will finally be enough to quiet the screams in Gaza—the screams of children crushed by bombs, of doctors carrying the limbs severed without anesthesia, of stomachs howling from hunger while this country turns away.
I do not know how many more nights Palestinians must dream of meals they will never taste, or how many more days must pass where the only thing that briefly drowns out the screams is the sound of bombs falling.
I don’t know how many more years and decades need to pass for our government to care more for all of us and our loved ones, more than their cravings for funding death, deceit, and suffering around the world. I don’t know how many more years we have to watch our loved ones working till their bodies wear down and give up, to be able to survive. I don’t know how many more years we have to spend nights scared of the future we will leave for our children.
The second half of her argument addresses the strategic issue. Here she is making the case that this is the best way to respond to bullying and threats from the Governor:
But if there’s anything bringing forward this resolution has taught me so very clearly, our democracy is dying – if not dead already.
The past few days have revealed something deeply disturbing. We’ve witnessed, in real time, the methods of collective punishment this state is willing to use to force a city to bend the knee—not because of violence, not because of lawlessness, but because of speech they disagree with.
To everyone here, and to those watching—do something for me: Set aside the contents of this resolution, just for a moment.
Your Governor—and the political machinery behind him—threatened to defund you. Your neighborhoods. Your city. Why?
Because your neighbors dared to courageously ask this council to speak out against the targeted and indiscriminate killing of Palestinians in Gaza. The very neighbors we are taught—by faith, by conscience, by shared humanity—to love.
We didn’t arrive at this moment by accident. Generations of misplaced energy, of silencing dissenters, of confusing comfort with justice, have led us here, to a moment where the foundational right to free speech is not just under threat — it is being dismantled in plain sight.
And all of it is happening against a backdrop of rising hyper-individualism and deepening apathy, where too many have been taught that someone else’s suffering is not of their concern.
Know this: whatever your stance on this resolution is, that is no longer the question before us.
The real question, the only question, is whether you can walk out of these chambers tonight, and carry on with your life, knowing that the right to dissent now belongs only to those in power, and those who pull their strings. That our ability to speak truth has become conditional—granted or revoked at their convenience.
As those before me have used their power to raise alarms, so shall I.
And I don’t know where the camera is, but to Governor Greg Abbott: how dare you. How dare you use your energy to perpetuate collective harm against those who are already suffering, due to the shortcomings of this state. You have the power to protect, yet you wield it to destroy, to punish, to fuel the suffering of those you were sworn to serve. Your actions scream louder than any words ever could. And for that, I do not hate you. I feel sorry for you. It must be so miserable being that cruel and vindictive.
As a child, I used to ask myself and God, how horrors like chattel slavery were ever allowed. How could entire genocides unfold across the globe, with no one stopping them? How could some live in unimaginable wealth, while others starved in silence? How could humanity bear such cruelty?
But I understand it now. I see the truth in the crushing silence of our leaders. I see a media too afraid—or too complicit—to show us the truth of what we’re funding. And I see the dangerous, dangerous weaponization of Judaism to justify violence, not just against others, but at the expense of Jewish safety and integrity. Despite the atrocities of today being live-streamed, we still are left to confront the crushing weight of our tax dollars contributing to the suffering without our consent.
I’ll end with this. Despite the constant assertion that local governments should stay within their carefully crafted lanes, history has shown us something else entirely. Local governments have always been on the front-line defenders of the most marginalized and oppressed in our society. They have been the first to sound the alarm when the system falters, when justice is denied, when communities are left to suffer. Local governments should never be passive bodies that wait for the perfect moment to act, or hesitate while injustice takes root. They should be bold and courageous because that’s what the moment requires.
To everyone here today, I ask you this, and not just the people who came to speak for this: Do not sit idly by as this country continues its spiral into destruction, thinking you have no power to change the course of things. The power has always lied in the hands of the people. And that’s exactly why they work tirelessly to keep you from realizing it, to keep you from knowing what you’re capable of. But the truth is, your power is real, and it’s undeniable. It took you a year to get here, and you got here, because you didn’t give up. They fear you, and that’s why they try so hard to suppress you.
I plead with you: Whatever happens tonight, get involved. Engage with your communities. Talk to your neighbors. Learn from each other. Listen. Share your stories, your knowledge, your anger, and your hope. Do not let them strip you of the strength that lies within us all. It doesn’t have to be just death. Death can mean rebirth, and that happens because of you. So I thank you. I thank you for coming here and displaying such courage, such courage that for so many people, they are not willing to show. And I love this city, despite what people may say.
For the people who are sitting here, and not condemning the fact that our own governor – who you are all constituents of – has threatened to defund you, because he cares more about silencing you, than protecting you.
And I want to end with one quote. “When words offend people more than babies buried under the rubble, something is very wrong with our society.”
Saul goes next. He has been openly upset by the accounts of brutality in Gaza, and has acknowledged the moral argument in previous meetings.
Here he sticks to the strategic argument:
This topic has drawn so much attention in San Marcos. And it is dividing our community, in ugly ways. I hate to go back to the way it was, years back.* But as for my decision, I decided, after talking to several of my constituents, to stay in my lane and deal with the citizens of San Marcos voted me to do and the responsibilities that come with that. Therefore I’ll be voting no on this one, Mayor.
*I don’t know exactly what he’s referring to, here.
I’m extremely sympathetic to Saul here. I think he’s really wrestled with this in a genuine way.
Matthew goes next. Some of the citizen comments asserted that he should recuse himself, because he works for an Israeli IT company. Matthew addresses this part first:
First and foremost, I’ve already run through my company, and I’ve already asked them if there’s any conflict of interest, and they flat out told me “We don’t even know who you are.” I’ll make it very clear: I don’t have security clearance with the United States, let alone security clearance for any other organization.
I’m just a peon in a corporation, and I want a job, and I’m sorry if people feel like I shouldn’t work for that company, but guess what, it’s one of the few jobs in the world that allows me to use a skill set – which by the way, I don’t have college, so I busted my ass to get to where I’m at right now in the IT company. So I’m going to work there. And I want to work there because it’s a company that provides me with funds for my family, funds for me to be able to stay home, and to be able to contribute to our great community.
I go back eight generations in this family. First generation non-migrant worker. Ok? So to sit there and pretend like I am compliant to all this crap is ridiculous, it is insulting for you to sit there and call me that I’m willing to go ahead and contribute to genocide. That’s just – c’mon, you’re human beings. Why would you claim that somebody else who doesn’t have that power? So that’s done.
(For what it’s worth, I don’t think Matthew needs to recuse himself. Israeli support for the war is very split, so who knows how his bosses feel.)
He mostly makes the Stay In Your Lane case:
Now, I was elected to represent my city limits of San Marcos. I have no control or no authority over any other city, any other county, or any other nation. And nor do I want France or Germany or Israel or Palestine telling me how I should run my city, and make the decisions I have with these amazing 6 other individuals I have with me. We were elected. We are all different. We argue with each other consistently. We hold each other in such high regard so we treat each other with respect.
I have seen the division in this city in just the last month, and it’s become disgusting. People that are here – again, these are simple individuals – what people don’t realize here is this area that you’re in right now – San Marcos, Texas, that we love and that we cherish – ladies and gentlemen, the majority of it are migrant workers that have lived here for generations*. So simplicity is what sits in our hide. We don’t want to worry about everybody else. We’re so concerned about making our bills. We have an average family’s wealth here making $51,000 a year. We are one of the poorest counties in our state of Texas** and we are the poorest city in our beautiful county.
*This is not technically true, but I see what he’s getting at.
**This is definitely not true.
We’re being outrun by every other city, and you guys see where it’s coming out there. Ok. My priority – because my constituents have called me – my people who live in Barrio Pescado, who live in Sunset Acres, who live on Hunter Road, who have lived there for decades and I keep bringing this over again. Go to Parkdale on a day that it rains more than two inches and you have – excuse my french – but you’ve got shit coming out of their drains.
Now, why is that not a priority? Why are we not fighting over that? You know, if we’re going to fight the governor – which, I’m sorry to say it, it sucks that he’s here for two years, it is what it is – he’s elected, okay? I can’t change that. For us to actively go out there and try and yank funding from our very poor community makes no sense to me. It makes no sense that we’re denying our first obligation to the oath that we took to our charter of San Marcos. Our constitution. That’s where our obligation should stand, is within our city limits. And again, it’s called “city limits” for a reason.
I in no way want genocide to exist. I’m a human being. I don’t want children dying. I don’t want any of that stuff happening. But I want to remind everybody about the 1980s, 1990s, and the atrocities of Yasser Arafat***. This has been going on. There is such complicated behind this. You see division existing in my beautiful city. So I’m going to vote no, because my priority is the citizens of San Marcos.
*** I dunno, decide for yourself.
This next part is the strongest part of Matthew’s speech:
Now I hope we can get together, and there was a gentlemen there in the sunglasses that had a great idea about trying to reach out to the governor. You want to make a difference, you want to talk about the funding that’s coming through? Then talk to our state representatives. Go talk to Erin Zweiner. Mrs. Zwiener’s one of the most amazing representatives that we have. And she’s willing to fight. But nobody’s going and knocking on her door! You need to go and talk to her. She has the power. Go run down Carrie Isaac. Go talk to Greg Casar. These are people who we all voted for! To make those choices for us. My limitations are here.
And I’ll be honest, I don’t want Greg Casar or Carrie Isaac or any other representative I have telling me how I should run my city that I live here and I intend to die here. I was born here. Eight generations go back, I can’t repeat that further enough that I am more committed to this now than anything else. That’s where the strength comes too, okay? And the fact again – I said it – Greg Abbott has made this threat. Whether you believe it or not, whether you want to sit there and say he’s a great man or evil man, the fact is that he’s the governor and he has the authority to do this, whether it’s legal or not, it’s going to be done. Now we could spend years going through litigation. We don’t have the funds for litigation like Houston, Dallas, or any of those cities that are sitting there doing it. And I’d sit back and ask yourselves, “Why haven’t these other cities done it? Why?” Because they have so many citizens that are at risk of this. My answer’s no.
Alyssa goes next. She is focusing on the First Amendment argument.
That is a perfect segue to my comments! Thank you, Matthew. I think that really helped set this up. You mentioned you don’t want Casar or other reps to tell you how to do your job as a local elected official. And so you don’t want to tell them how to do their job. The thing is, the Governor is telling us how to do our job in this situation.
I echo everything Amanda said. And for me, what it comes down to is – all of us can agree. Genocide is bad, right? Okay.
We are here to decide: Will we allow Greg Abbott to dictate what this community is allowed to care about? Will we allow ourselves to be threatened into silence? Because that is what’s happening. We’ve received letters from the Governor, Senator Campbell, and the Attorney General’s Office—all saying the same thing: “Shut up, or we’ll take away your money.”
But dozens of legal experts—right here in Texas and beyond—have confirmed what we already know: These threats hold no legal merit. This is political theater meant to scare us into submission. And yet… here we are.
So I’ll ask my colleagues: Do you condemn the Governor’s threats to San Marcos—yes or no?
Because regardless of how you vote tonight, I really want to challenge myself and the rest of this body to lead courageously. Our community deserves to know where each of us stand. I think it’s important for us to contemplate whether or not we believe it is just for the Governor to weaponize our city’s financial future to silence our voice. Whether it’s acceptable for a state leader to misrepresent irrelevant legal statutes to threaten our ability to govern?
We all know this isn’t about legality. It’s about control. He’s told us plainly: if this resolution isn’t fully denied, our bonds may not be approved. They’re going to take all our money. They’re going to make it harder for us to get any form of external funding that – to Councilman Mendoza’s point – we need. We’re not a rich city, by any means.
So no matter how each of you vote—I urge you: Use the platform our neighbors entrusted you with to name this for what it is: Government overreach. And it’s not okay.
We have to not just represent, but lead. And I can already feel the energy. I know how this vote is going to go. But not because anyone here supports genocide, Not because y’all agree with Abbott’s tactics, But because many of you can’t see the precedent this sets.
We’ve watched preemption escalate across Texas and the nation. And time and time again, local bodies fail to push back.
Like, I understand why. We have felt the anxiety of city staff. We’ve felt the anxiety of our neighbors who are reading in the newspapers and reading social media that all these lifelines are going to be taken from them. Right? If this body chooses to voice an opinion.
We care about operations, we want to keep things running, we want to protect what we have. But that’s exactly what we have here, because staying quiet does not protect us. And I just do not understand how that doesn’t weigh heavy on you.
This just makes it easier to be steamrolled next time. At what point do we say no more? At what point do we stop pretending that silence is strategy? At what point do we call on other cities to join us in refusing to be bullied?
Because yesterday, it was the constitutionality of our local can ban. Before that, it was whether citizen-led ballot initiatives were worth defending. And tomorrow, it’s gonna be whether we’re allowed to maintain some of the most robust environmental protections in the state.
Texas has been ground zero for regulatory preemption — where state leaders strip away local power every time cities do something they don’t like. And that’s messed up, y’all!
The onus is on us to figure out a way to push back. They don’t want us governing. They want us to comply.
But the more we fold to keep the peace, and to save us – the struggle of trying to figure out where to pull the money from to keep the lights on – the more control that they take. I feel like it’s so dystopian and wrong.
And I also just want to be clear—this resolution didn’t ask anyone to break the law. We’re not asking for anything illegal. But I do think that the edits that my colleague made reaffirm that and really lay it out in words.
We’re simply calling on our federal government and our state government to reconsider how it allocates our dollars, and how that money could be reinvested right here, in San Marcos.
Because we are interconnected. And again, it baffles me when people say this isn’t a local issue. That inability to see how all of this connects—how what we fund abroad shapes what we can fund at home—is why we’re losing local power. We can’t keep pretending that if we just “stay in our lane,” we’ll be safer. We need that external funding—the very funding going to another country, And that very funding Governor Abbott is now threatening to take from us.
I also just think it’s interesting that the Governor didn’t go door to door in San Marcos asking residents if they wanted their dollars funding bombs in Gaza. He didn’t poll Texans on whether to maintain business ties with a government accused of war crimes.
But the second we – the level of government closest to the people, speak up – suddenly we’re overstepping? Like, that’s bizarre. We are the government closest to the community’s heart. We feel the grief. We hear the voices. And if our people are calling on us to speak, I think we have to answer.
And yes—this is about genocide. I’m not drilling on that because I think everybody did a wonderful job presenting that piece. I just think we don’t get to say we care about children and then stay silent about the ones buried under rubble. We don’t get to say we care about safety while ignoring the violence we have helped fund. Even if it’s unintentional.
For me, the resolution isn’t symbolic. It is a stand for life, for local authority, for the soul of our city.
So I’ll close by asking once more: Do you stand with your community? Or with the Governor’s threats?
Because history is watching. And so are your constituents. That’s all I got.
Alyssa has been focused on the creep of legislative preemption for a while now. It is a really huge problem, but it mostly flies under the radar of what most people hear about.
That’s basically the end of the conversation.
What about Shane and Lorenzo?
Neither Lorenzo nor Shane say anything.
…
Finally, it’s time to vote:
Should San Marcos approve a resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza?
So there it is. The ceasefire resolution does not pass.
There are another 15 minutes of Q&A with the public, and the meeting finally ends at almost 2 am.
The San Marxist 