The Jerusalem Post, on UK Politics, 5 November 2026

7.3out of 10Serious

Birmingham council votes to review Israel investments

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.5 findings

Birmingham City Council has voted to review its financial ties to Israel, .On Tuesday, a majority of the council voted to pass the motion, which seeks to review investments held by the West Midlands Pension Fund, banking arrangements and other financial ties, including the possibility of excluding or divesting from companies connected to Israel. The motion also urges stronger ethical investment standards .Videos from the council meeting show members erupting into applause and chanting 'Free Palestine.'Katie Lam, the shadow communities secretary, told The Telegraph: “The fact that Birmingham City Council is focused on the Middle East, rather than on dealing with the city's actual problems, is a complete disgrace.”“This is Europe's largest council.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article never says who proposed the motion: independent councillor Nosheen Khalid of the Better Birmingham Group, the council's cabinet member for health and social care. With Katie Lam blaming "the Greens and their Lib Dem enablers" and the article closing on the Green Party's Zionism vote, a reader believes the Greens brought the motion.

How we know

In just the past few years, people in Birmingham have suffered nearly two years of bin strikes, and watched their council go bankrupt. “Yet, in an effort to stoke up group-based grievances, the Greens and their Lib Dem enablers are spending their time grandstanding about foreign affairs.”Birmingham is considered Europe's largest local authority. It serves approximately 1.2 million people. It is one of seven metropolitan councils participating in the West Midlands Pension Fund, which is administered by Wolverhampton City Council.

The fund provides pension benefits to more than 360,000 members, including current and former public-sector employees, and holds approximately £21 billion in assets.Lawyers warn of legal limitsAhead of the vote, UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) called for the motion to be withdrawn or deferred until councilors receive proper legal and equality advice, requesting that its communication be circulated to all councilors before the debate.In the letter, UKLFI pointed out that section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 restricts politically motivated procurement boycotts, while the Procurement Act 2023 prevents suppliers from being excluded simply because they conduct business in or with an occupied territory.UKLFI also noted that the West Midlands Pension Fund must make investment decisions in the financial interests of its members rather than pursue political objectives, pointing out that government guidance prohibits the exclusion of investments in particular countries or companies., “Birmingham City Council cannot lawfully use public contracts, pension funds, and banking arrangements to pursue political campaigns.“It is particularly disturbing that a motion which could increase hostility toward Jewish residents is being presented as having no equality implications.

Left out here: Leaves out what changes the picture

The article sets out UKLFI's legal objections but never says the motion itself made any engagement, exclusion or divestment subject to the pension fund's legal obligations and investment responsibilities. Without this a reader believes the council voted to override the law.

How we know

Councilors must put the law, the interests of pension fund members, and community relations ahead of performative political gestures.”Local leadership in Birmingham has already faced friction over Israel-related policies. In October 2026, local Labour MPs including Al Carns, Jess Phillips, and Preet Kaur Gill publicly urged Liberal Democrat council leader Roger Harmer to end his power-sharing agreement with the Green Party following a controversial policy motion passed at the national Green Party conference in September 2026 when a policy stating that Zionism is racism and calling for Israel to be replaced by a single Palestinian state was adopted.Alex Carson contributed to this report.

Read the original article on jpost.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (5)

The Jerusalem Post reports Birmingham's vote to review Israel-linked investments almost entirely through its opponents, a Conservative frontbencher and UK Lawyers for Israel. It reduces the motion's stated grounds to vague 'concerns', although its own report two days earlier said the motion cited the ICJ advisory opinion and the UN Commission of Inquiry's genocide finding. It never names who proposed the motion or says the motion made any divestment subject to the fund's legal obligations, so readers are left believing the council ignored the law and that the Greens brought it.

  1. Drops what it reported before

    Serious

    “amid concerns over Israel's actions in Gaza”

    Why this matters
    The words "concerns over Israel's actions in Gaza" are all the article says about why the council acted.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the motion rests on loose political feeling about Gaza rather than on international legal findings.
    The context
    The Jerusalem Post's own report of 3 November said the motion cites the ICJ's July 2024 advisory opinion that Israel's occupation is unlawful and the UN Commission of Inquiry finding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The JC reports the motion labelled Israel's actions a genocide. The article never uses the word genocide.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    The motion cites the ICJ's July 2024 advisory opinion that Israel's occupation is unlawful and the UN Commission of Inquiry's finding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

  2. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Serious

    What is missing

    The article never says who proposed the motion: independent councillor Nosheen Khalid of the Better Birmingham Group, the council's cabinet member for health and social care. With Katie Lam blaming "the Greens and their Lib Dem enablers" and the article closing on the Green Party's Zionism vote, a reader believes the Greens brought the motion.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

  3. Leaves out what changes the picture

    Serious

    What is missing

    The article sets out UKLFI's legal objections but never says the motion itself made any engagement, exclusion or divestment subject to the pension fund's legal obligations and investment responsibilities. Without this a reader believes the council voted to override the law.

    How we know

    Show where it belongs

  4. Headline goes beyond the article

    Minor

    “despite warnings the move may be unlawful”

    Why this matters
    The headline speaks of "warnings" without saying whose they were.
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes the legal warning as neutral or official advice the council brushed aside.
    The context
    The only warning in the body comes from UK Lawyers for Israel, an advocacy group that opposed the motion. The motion itself, as the JC reports, made exclusion or divestment subject to the fund's legal obligations.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  5. One side gets the space

    Minor

    “A UKLFI spokesperson said”

    Why this matters
    The article quotes UKLFI at length, including its claim that the motion "could increase hostility toward Jewish residents", with no reply from the council or the motion's backers.
    The impression it gives
    A reader is left with the claim that the motion endangers Jewish residents standing as the last legal and moral word.
    The context
    No supporter of the motion is given space to answer, though the proposer had spoken publicly about its human rights basis.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

    “despite strong condemnation from UK-based Jewish groups”

    Why this matters
    The article speaks of plural "Jewish groups" condemning the vote.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes a range of Jewish community bodies spoke against the motion.
    The context
    The only group named or quoted in the article is UK Lawyers for Israel, an Israel advocacy legal group.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“UKLFI pointed out that section 17”

    Show it in the article

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Jerusalem Post

  1. 7 NovBritain’s colonial legacy undermines its moral lectures against Israel - opinion6.0
  2. 5 NovUK bans Palestinian-American activist flagged by antisemitism watchdog0.0
  3. 4 NovTo save the BBC, their institutional anti-Israel bias must be investigated - opinion6.0
  4. 3 NovJewish groups say Birmingham City Council move to discuss 'divestment boycott' of Israel is illegal7.3
  5. 3 NovUK government legally challenged over IHRA antisemitism definition being adopted in British schools3.0

Everything we scored from The Jerusalem Post