Labour is facing allegations of overlooking anti-Semitism in local councils as pro-Palestinian activists intensify efforts to sever ties with companies linked to Israel.

In recent years, activists have advocated for various boycotts, urging nations to withdraw from the Eurovision Song Contest, pressuring retailers to stop selling Israeli products, and calling for the blacklisting of sports teams, musicians, and academics. These actions are part of a broader attempt to ‘cancel’ Israel in response to its conflict with Hamas and reported human rights abuses in Gaza.

Currently, UK-based Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) activists are urging local councils to re-evaluate their pension funds and divest from entities associated with Israel.

Critics argue that these initiatives are ‘anti-Semitic’ as they disproportionately target the world’s only Jewish nation.

Sir James Cleverly, the shadow secretary for housing, communities, and local government, contends that these divestment calls serve as a ‘pretext for attacking’ the Jewish community. He believes the increase in such motions indicates a failure by the Government to eradicate ‘anti-Jewish hate.’

On the other hand, BDS advocates insist their campaigns are driven by ‘ethical obligations’ and urge councils to divest from firms ‘complicit in Israel’s actions against Palestinians.’

The Daily Mail has drawn up a map showing the sheer pace at which the cause has gathered momentum, with more than 40 councils spanning the length and breadth of Britain adopting or reviewing motions to withdraw their pension investments.

More are expected to join the list after the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) – which is largely driving the boycott action – recently wrote to ‘every council in England and Wales’ urging local bodies to back their campaign.

Of the more than 40 councils identified by Daily Mail as having considered axing ties with Israeli companies, the vast majority are Labour-controlled or are run by a Labour-Lib Dem coalition. 

Among the exceptions is Tower Hamlets, which is run by the heavily pro-Palestinian Aspire Party, and Caerphilly, Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion, which are controlled by Plaid Cymru.

Such motions are however problematic. Opponents say divesting might not be in the best interests of pension scheme holders, while others argue foreign policy issues are not for local councils to debate. 

And those most strongly opposed to them assert there is an undercurrent of anti-Semitism driving the motions.

Among them is Sir Cleverly, MP for Braintree, unequivocally told Daily Mail: ‘This Labour Government is turning a blind eye to growing anti-Semitism in town halls across the country.

‘Labour councils are bringing in Israel boycotts in a cynical, sectarian attempt to win votes. Those boycotts are frequently a cover for attacking Jewish people and culture.

‘Keir Starmer pledged to eradicate anti-Jewish hate from his party – but it clearly persists at the local level.

‘He must act to bring his councillors under control. It is not the job of local government to set UK foreign policy.’

British multinational bank Barclays is among the blacklisted companies that pro-Palestinian campaigners are calling on local councils to divest from. Pictured: A rally in Bristol last year

Five councils and one pension authority rejected or halted motions calling for divestment after advisors warned such a move could have regulatory implications, be financially hurtful for pension holders, or run the risk of costly legal challenges.

Nevertheless, there has been exponential growth in the number of local authorities considering or approving motions to divest from blacklisted organisations.

The companies include more obvious targets for boycott supporters, such as RTX Corporation, a US-based firm which has supplied Israel with weapons and military technology.

But even those with lesser or peripheral connections to Israel appear on the list.

Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc, and Amazon, are two of the multinational corporates targeted by local council petitions. 

They feature on the list because Alphabet and Amazon provide cloud computing services and other technologies to the Israeli military. Alphabet’s other major military clients include the UK, the US and NATO.

British multinational bank Barclays is another company that BDS supporters say local councils should divest their pension schemes from.

According to research by the PSC, War on Want and Campaign Against Arms Trade, Barclays holds over £2bn worth of shares and provides financial services worth £6.1bn for nine companies supplying Israel with weapons and military technology. 

According to BDS supporters, the councils have an ‘obligation’ to divest from organisations ‘enabling Israel’s crimes against Palestinians’. Pictured: A demonstrator holds a flare at a demonstration outside King’s College, London in 2024

They claim Barclays is also a ‘primary dealer’ of Israeli government bonds, and therefore helps ‘fund its crimes against Palestinians’. 

South Korean company Hyundai and Japanese car maker Mitsubishi have equally been named. 

According to supporters of divestment, Hyundai manufactures heavy machinery while Mitsubishi has supplied SUVs that have been used by the Israeli army ‘to demolish Palestinian homes and structures in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.’

PSC said earlier this month that it had now issued a legal notice to ‘every council in England and Wales’ persuading them to ‘divest for Palestine now’.

In a statement on their website, PSC said: ‘Local councils are under an obligation not to recognise or assist Israel in its grave violations of international law, and to do everything in its power to bring them to an end. 

‘This means that local councils administering a Pension Fund must take steps to divest from companies enabling or profiting from Israel’s crimes, such as arms companies supplying Israel with weapons and military technology, and companies involved in the financing and construction of Israel’s illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land. 

‘They must also put in place policies to ensure no future investments can be made in these companies.’

The PSC campaign continues to gain traction, but opponents say legal, financial and regulatory hurdles lie ahead for any council wanting to put the motions into action.

Sir James Cleverly, shadow secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, accused the Labour Government of ‘turning a blind eye to growing anti-Semitism in town halls across the country’

Jonathan Turner, chief executive of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) said the campaign was more ‘performative’ than anything else, ‘because implementing them would be unlawful.’

He explained that councillors responsible for administering pension schemes have ‘fiduciary duties’ to ensure financial returns on investments are maximised with ‘prudent risk management.’

As the reason for divesting is political rather than financial, the pension administrators ‘must have good reason to think that scheme members would share the concern and, second, the decision must not involve a risk of significant financial detriment to the fund.’

Turner cited the example of the Avon Pension Fund, administered by Bath & North East Somerset Council. Earlier this month it became the first in the UK to survey its members on divesting – with the majority found to be against it, meaning that to continue with the move would have been ‘unlawful’. 

Like Cleverley, UKLFI believes however that such motions are illegal for other reasons – including the ‘inflaming of community tensions’.

Turner said that allowing such motions to be brought into council chambers violates the Equality Act under the ‘public sector equality duty’. 

According to the law, public authorities must show due regard to ‘the need to foster good relations between persons of different nationality, ethnicity, religion or philosophical belief.’

But Turner is unequivocal that such motions do not adhere to this obligation.  

He said: ‘These motions provide a platform for appalling libels against Israel that promote antisemitism. 

‘Extensive research at US universities found close correlations between BDS activity and targeting Jewish students for harm. 

‘Historically, boycotts targeting Jews have led to physical attacks on them. For this reason, many of these motions are unlawful even if they are not implemented, because they violate the Equality Act.’ 

The last Conservative government expressed similar views.

In a speech to the House of Commons in 2024, then Communities Secretary Michael Gove said the BDS movement is ‘explicitly and regrettably antisemitic.’ 

He had sought to introduce The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, that would ban public bodies from making their own boycotts, divestment or sanctions campaigns against other countries – unless that was endorsed by the UK government’s own foreign policy.

Gove said the bill was ‘in the interests of community cohesion, fighting antisemitism and making the United Kingdom a safe house for everyone.’ 

But after facing cross-party opposition and free speech concerns, the bill failed to pass through the stages before Labour was elected into government in July 2024.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews said it had ‘worked closely with local councilors who have been forced to oppose these kinds of motions.’

A spokesperson added: ‘Community cohesion is vitally important and this means avoiding importing international conflict into local communities. 

‘Given the alarming rise of antisemitism in recent times, local politicians should reject divisive gestures and motions and focus on dialogue and bridge building within communities.’ 

A spokesperson for PSC said: ‘Trade unions representing pension scheme members are at the heart of the many dozens of local divestment campaigns active in communities across Britain. 

‘Pension fund members are making it clear that they want a decent pension that does not come at the expense of the Palestinian people. 

‘The current status quo sees council-administered pension funds investing in companies supplying weapons to a state carrying out a genocide, overseeing an illegal military occupation and upholding a regime of apartheid – as recognised by legal experts, genocide scholars, UN bodies and human rights organisations. 

‘This situation is opposed by a wide section of the public in Britain, who recognise that councils are under an obligation to stop contributing to harm by divesting from companies enabling grave human rights abuses.’

Daily Mail also contacted the Labour Party for comment.