The Jewish Chronicle, on UK Politics, 4 November 2026

8.0out of 10Severe

‘Disgusting sectarianism’: Birmingham council slammed for

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.6 findings

Birmingham City Council has been slammed after councillors voted in favour of a motion calling for a review of financial ties to Israel, . The motion was brought by councillor Nosheen Khalid, the council’s cabinet member for health and social care, whose Better Birmingham political group is a member of the coalition which governs the council. It labelled Israel’s actions in Gaza a “genocide”, , and said that: “Public money should be used in ways that are consistent with respect for human rights, worker protections, environmental responsibility, transparency, accountability and the promotion of peace.”

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The motion also cited the International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion that Israel's occupation is unlawful. The JC mentions only a "disputed UN report", so a reader believes the motion's legal basis was one contested document.

How we know

As well as praising Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband’s decision to sanction Israeli settlements, the motion called for a review of West Midlands Pension Fund’s Pensions Committee’s investment holdings and to examine “options for engagement, exclusion or divestment, subject to the Fund’s legal obligations and investment responsibilities”. It went on to “request that Birmingham City Council’s representative on the West Midlands Pension Fund’s Pensions Committee formally raise these concerns and seek consideration of a transparent review of the relevant investments, including those held indirectly through pooled investment vehicles and external asset managers”.

As it passed on Tuesday night, chants of “free, free Palestine” erupted from the council chamber. After the vote, in a video posted to social media, Khalid described the vote as “historic”. Meanwhile in the UK the Birmingham city council has finally found the root cause of all its problems and is kicking out any company associated with Israel (well, according to the council at least) So now the Birmingham city council has its own international policy, I guess pic.twitter.com/iZl8qBEuyS — Michael Elgort (@just_whatever) November 4, 2026 Standing alongside colleagues wearing lanyards in the colours of the Palestinian flag, she added: “Birmingham City Council is Europe's biggest council, and today the Better Birmingham Group presented a motion asking for divestment from the pension fund and from procurement activities or anything else where there is credible evidence of crimes against humanity” “This is a day that residents should be proud of.

It's a day we're certainly proud of, and it is one step closer to making the right decisions and the right choices for the people of Birmingham and the people beyond and the people of Palestine.” Is this Ramallah? Gaza City? No, it's Birmingham. Where bins go uncollected, more than a quarter of the adult population is economically inactive, and the benefits bill is higher than anywhere else in the country. I will never tire in fighting this disgusting sectarianism. pic.twitter.com/8vMQis1wmS — Nick Timothy MP (@NJ_Timothy) November 4, 2026 She added that the motion passed by a margin of 54 votes in favour and 19 against.

Despite the vote taking place just before 8pm on Tuesday, Birmingham City Council did not provide the JC with a breakdown of the vote when asked on Wednesday afternoon. The JC was told that a breakdown of the vote would only be published on 23 November in an agenda for a different meeting and that this was “normal practice adopted by many local authorities”. Meanwhile, the amount of time devoted to was blasted by Nick Timothy, the shadow justice secretary.

Is this Ramallah? Gaza City? No, it's Birmingham. Where bins go uncollected, more than a quarter of the adult population is economically inactive, and the benefits bill is higher than anywhere else in the country. I will never tire in fighting this disgusting sectarianism. pic.twitter.com/8vMQis1wmS — Nick Timothy MP (@NJ_Timothy) November 4, 2026 On social media, he shared a video of councillors chanting “free Palestine” from the council chamber, along with the caption: “Is this Ramallah?

Gaza City? “No, it's Birmingham. Where bins go uncollected, more than a quarter of the adult population is economically inactive, and the benefits bill is higher than anywhere else in the country. “I will never tire in fighting this disgusting sectarianism.” , telling the JC: “It is deeply concerning that Birmingham City Council is using local taxpayers' money, as a weapon in a political campaign against Israel.

“Birmingham has enough challenges without its council becoming a vehicle for importing the divisive debate surrounding conflict in the Middle East into local government.” Birmingham City Council has been plagued by a rolling refuse worker strike, which has been ongoing since March 2025, and emerged from bankruptcy earlier this year. The vote was also condemned by the Jewish Leadership Council, a spokesperson for the group told the JC: "When the local council of Britain's second largest city supports boycotts against the world's only Jewish state, it does so to the detriment of community cohesion.

“The message taken by its Jewish residents is clear: we care more about a conflict thousands of miles away than the safety and security of British Jews or the challenges faced by local residents.” The vote comes as the leadership of the council – a coalition of independents, Greens and the Liberal Democrats – is under pressure following the Green Party’s decision to adopt a motion equating Zionism with racism. Last week, local Labour MPs including Al Carns, Jess Phillips and Preet Kaur Gill urged the Liberal Democrats to ditch their alliance with the Greens over the motion.

Robert Alden, the leader of the Conservative Group on Birmingham council, told the JC that his party voted against the motion, adding: “Singling out the world’s only Jewish state for exceptional treatment raises serious questions about the principles behind this motion.” The council has insisted that it did not single out Israel, with the motion also covering other conflicts around the world. “Israel is a democratic partner with longstanding ties to Britain in trade, science and security.

Its government can and should be scrutinised but its people’s right to security and the Jewish people’s right to self-determination deserve respect,” Alden continued. “Jewish people in the city deserve to go about their lives without fear of intimidation or violence. Scenes like last night make that harder. “Birmingham residents need a council concentrating on reliable bin collections, support for vulnerable children and adults, decent housing and getting its finances under control.

Those are responsibilities this Council can actually deliver.” Birmingham has been in the spotlight since the decision by authorities in Birmingham last year to ban fans of Israeli football team Maccabbi Tel Aviv from watching their team play. The JC revealed that authorities exaggerated the threat posed by Maccabi fans to justify their ban and a probe by a Parliamentary committee revealed that police downplayed the threat to Israeli fans.

A Birmingham City Council spokesperson said: “Following the debate at full council, the motion was amended and agreed as set out in the attached document. “This motion, while carried at a vote, does not commit the city council to any action – only to consider their position in relation to procurement, investment and banking arrangements with any organisations that may directly or indirectly fund countries or regimes wherever atrocities are being committed.

“The agreed motion also covers conflicts in Ukraine, Congo, United Emirates and Sudan, as well as Israel. “To be clear, this does not constitute a new council policy, but it is a request of the city council. “Next steps are that the motion will be formally shared with individuals and organisations named in the resolution, which is for them to consider taking forward. This motion is not binding on anyone, including the city council.”

Read the original article on thejc.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (6)

The Jewish Chronicle calls the UN Commission of Inquiry's genocide finding a "disputed UN report" in its own voice and never says who disputes it. It labels the motion "anti-Israel" and overstates it as aimed at complete divestment, though the council says the motion is non-binding and covers other conflicts too. The JC gives critics most of the space and quotes no supporter but the councillor who brought the motion.

  1. Hedges the documented record

    Severe

    “citing a disputed UN report from 2025”

    Why this matters
    The JC calls the genocide finding "a disputed UN report" in its own voice. It never says who disputes it or that the report came from the UN Commission of Inquiry.
    The impression it gives
    That the motion rested on one contested document of doubtful standing, and that whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza is an open question.
    The context
    A UN Commission of Inquiry found that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Other coverage of the same motion names the source as the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry led by Navi Pillay. The JC attributes the dispute to no one.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  2. Makes a false claim

    Minor

    “with a view to completely divesting from the Jewish State”

    Why this matters
    In its opening line and in its own voice, the JC says the council voted with a view to "completely divesting" from Israel. It names Israel as the only target.
    The impression it gives
    That Birmingham committed itself to a total divestment from Israel alone.
    The context
    The motion the JC quotes asks for a review of "options for engagement, exclusion or divestment". The council says it commits it to no action, is not binding, and also covers Ukraine, Congo, the United Arab Emirates and Sudan. The JC prints all of this only at the end of the article.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“options for engagement, exclusion or divestment”
    • Elsewhere in the article“does not commit the city council to any action”
    • Elsewhere in the article“also covers conflicts in Ukraine, Congo, United Emirates and Sudan”

    Show it in the article

  3. Headline goes beyond the article

    Minor

    “anti-Israel divestment vote”

    Why this matters
    The headline calls it a "divestment vote" aimed at Israel alone.
    The impression it gives
    That the council voted to divest, and only from Israel.
    The context
    The council says the motion is a non-binding request to consider its position, and that it covers several conflicts besides Israel.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“This motion is not binding on anyone”
    • Elsewhere in the article“also covers conflicts in Ukraine, Congo, United Emirates and Sudan”

    Show it in the article

  4. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “the anti-Israel motion”

    Why this matters
    The JC labels the motion "anti-Israel" in its own voice, as it does in its headline.
    The impression it gives
    That the motion is hostility to Israel as such, not a review of investments on human rights grounds.
    The context
    The motion the JC quotes speaks of human rights, worker protections and transparency. The council says it covers several states.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“consistent with respect for human rights”

    Show it in the article

  5. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “David Simmons, the shadow local government minister, added his criticism”

    Why this matters
    The JC stacks critics: Timothy, Simmons, the Jewish Leadership Council and Alden all get extended quotes.
    The impression it gives
    That opposition dominates the response to a vote that passed by 54 to 19.
    The context
    Apart from Khalid's video, no supporter of the motion and no Palestinian voice is quoted. The council's explanation comes last.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“passed by a margin of 54 votes in favour and 19 against”

    Show it in the article

  6. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Minor

    What is missing

    The motion also cited the International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion that Israel's occupation is unlawful. The JC mentions only a "disputed UN report", so a reader believes the motion's legal basis was one contested document.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Jewish Chronicle

  1. 4 NovLabour MPs condemn legal challenge to school antisemitism review over IHRA definition3.0
  2. 4 NovUK sanctions on Israel ‘stoking antisemitism’, warns former minister6.0
  3. 4 NovExclusive: BBC faces new claim of Jewish staff ‘being investigated’3.0
  4. 3 NovMajor review of antisemitism in education faces legal challenge over IHRA recommendation3.0
  5. 3 Nov‘Zionism is racism’ motion damaged Greens electoral ambitions, admits former party leader3.0

Everything we scored from The Jewish Chronicle