The Hackney Council meeting on 23 October 2025 convened to address a cross-party motion concerning the council's ties with Israel amidst the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The council did not carry the original motion put forward by the Green Party and Hackney Independent Socialist Group. Instead, the council voted to approve recommendations outlined in the Labour group's amended motion.

Cross Party Motion: Cut all Council Ties with Israel’s Genocide in Gaza

The council convened to discuss a motion regarding the council's relationship with Israel, in light of a United Nations commission of inquiry statement on 16 September 2025, asserting that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

The original motion, proposed by Councillor Claudia Turbet-Delof and seconded by Councillor Zoë Garbett, called for the council to:

1. Divest from companies profiting from Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank, following similar commitments from other councils.
2. Terminate Hackney's twinning arrangement with Haifa, a key military port city in Israel.
3. Urge the UK government to act on the UN's findings, including ending arms sales, military intelligence gathering, and training cooperation with the Israel Defense Forces.

The Labour Group, led by Mayor Caroline Woodley and Councillor Susan Fajana-Thomas, proposed amendments to the motion, which were partly incorporated into a revised motion. The key changes proposed by the Labour group were:

• Changing the motion title to Israel and Gaza .
• Acknowledging the International Court of Justice timeline for a decision on the 'Application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide in the Gaza strip'.
• Referencing the UK's formal recognition of the Palestinian State and a ceasefire deal agreed by Israel and Hamas.
• Removing reference to the legal notice issued by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

The Green Group and Hackney Independent Socialist Group accepted some of the Labour Group's amendments, but not all. The remaining points of contention were:

• The Labour group wanted to remove the statement that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza .
• The Labour group wanted to acknowledge the International Court of Justice timeline for a decision on the 'Application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide in the Gaza strip'.
• The Labour group wanted to remove reference to the legal notice issued by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

The council did not carry the original motion. Instead, the council approved the recommendations outlined in the Labour group's amended motion:

1. Undertake actions, in accordance with fiduciary duties¹, outlined in Mayor Caroline Woodley's statement of 23 September 2025, regarding the formal recognition of the state of Palestine and action on divestment. This includes exploring changes required to engage with and divest pension fund investments from companies tied to human rights breaches, including conflict, in collaboration with other London councils.
2. The council will not engage in any twinning activity where conflict is ongoing, including Hackney’s twinning arrangements with Haifa, which is currently inactive.
3. Write to the UK Government following the UN’s findings and ongoing developments in the peace process.

The Director of Legal, Democratic & Electoral Services, Louise Humphreys, noted that while a decision to end the twinning arrangement is essentially a political question, the procedural process through which a twinning arrangement is brought to an end could be challenged by way of judicial review. She advised that written legal notice of an intention to withdraw from the twinning arrangement would need to be given to the municipality of Haifa, with a notice period of at least 3 months. She also recommended a period of consultation prior to a final decision to minimise the risk of challenge based upon expectation of consultation.

The Group Director, Finance & Resources, Naeem Ahmed, clarified the Pensions Committee's financial obligation to act in the best financial interests of the scheme's members. He stated that while the Fund is committed to its role as a responsible investor, non-financial factors, such as humanitarian concerns, can only be considered insofar as they present a material financial risk to the Fund's assets. He also noted that the motion, as presented, was unactionable as it did not provide a specific list of companies from which divestment is sought.