The meeting saw several community members expressing their opinions on the resolution’s impact, both locally and in the broader context of the conflict. One speaker urged the council to support Palestinians and accused Israel of human rights abuses, while another criticized a proposed resolution for being one-sided and ignoring the Palestinian death toll.

A Jewish resident was disappointed with the city’s apology for its previous peace resolution and advocated for the council to maintain its support for peace. This sentiment was echoed by a Jewish man who criticized the handling of the situation in Gaza, stressing that the original call for an end to hostilities was justified, and urging compassion and intelligence in decision-making.

The concerns of a nonprofit leader highlighted potential local repercussions, pointing to a rise in anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian incidents in the U.S., and the safety and well-being of Muslim refugee families in the community. This was in line with another speaker’s objections that the resolution could grant a foreign government unchecked power and hinder free speech.

A combat veteran, Bill Watts, spoke about the horrors of war and the importance of decisions that foster peace and unity. In contrast, Commissioner Paul Cruz compared Hamas to terrorist organizations and called for solidarity with Israel. Camilo Payen raised concerns about local safety and the Zionist movement, while Jeff Alan challenged the portrayal of Palestinians and Hamas, urging the council to follow conscience and integrity.

Alejandra Perui from Engage Florida argued against rescinding the original resolution, citing concerns about the exclusive focus on anti-Semitism and the promotion of unequal treatment. Samuel Aljana expressed staunch support for Israel, and Miami Beach City Commissioner David Suarez spoke about the ramifications of anti-Semitism, referencing incidents in Miami Beach.

The council, after hearing several views, debated the merits of the resolution. Some members stressed the city’s historical support for Israel and the importance of clarifying the city’s stance. Discussions also touched on the perceived flaws of the original resolution and the imperative to condemn terrorism. Ultimately, the decision was made to rescind the original resolution.