Key Points
- Jewish Labour councillor Michael Levy accuses Hackney Greens of promoting hatred through an anti-Israel motion passed by the council.
- The motion condemns Israeli government actions against Palestinians and calls for local government divestment from companies involved with Israel’s occupation.
- Hackney Greens defend the motion as a legitimate criticism of Israeli policy, not anti-Semitism.
- The controversy has sparked intense debate over the line between political criticism and hate speech.
- Community leaders express concern about the impact on social cohesion and combatting anti-Semitism.
- The Labour Party faces pressure to address internal divisions on Israel-related issues.
- The motion has drawn wider attention amid escalating tensions in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
What happened in Hackney’s council regarding the anti-Israel motion?
On October 21, 2025, Hackney Council passed a motion sponsored by the local Green Party faction criticizing the Israeli government’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. As reported by Amelia White of The Guardian, the motion explicitly condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank and urged the council to reconsider its investments in companies profiting from the occupation.
The motion passed with support from some Labour councillors and Greens, reflecting a growing activist push in parts of London politics for solidarity with Palestinians. The council’s decision includes calls to review pension fund allocations and contracts connected to businesses allegedly complicit in human rights abuses.
Why does Jewish Labour councillor Michael Levy accuse the Greens of promoting hatred?
Michael Levy, a prominent Jewish Labour councillor in Hackney, publicly condemned the motion, accusing Hackney Greens of promoting “a campaign of hatred” against Jewish people under the guise of political protest. As quoted by Jonathan Smith of The Times, Levy stated,
“This motion crosses the line from legitimate political critique into outright hostility against the Jewish community. It fosters division and inflames tensions.”
Levy argued that the motion singles out Israel unfairly and risks validating anti-Semitic narratives. He urged the council and political parties to reject motions that blur anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding inclusive community relations.
How do the Hackney Greens respond to the accusations of hate promotion?
Responding to the allegations, Grace Coleman, co-leader of Hackney Greens and lead drafter of the motion, defended the council’s stance. According to Emma Roberts of the BBC, Coleman said,
“Our motion targets government policies that violate international law and human rights. It is not an attack on Jewish people or Judaism. We firmly reject any suggestion that our political position is motivated by hatred.”
Coleman added that the Greens are committed to fighting all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism, and called on all parties to focus on constructive dialogue and justice for Palestinians and Israelis alike.
What do community leaders say about the impact of this controversy?
The motion and ensuing debate have caused concern among local faith and community leaders. Rabbi Joseph Cohen, who heads the Hackney United Synagogue, expressed anxiety regarding social cohesion. As reported by Sarah Lewis of the Jewish Chronicle, Cohen said,
“When political disagreements spill over into accusations of hate, it harms the fabric of our diverse communities. We call for respectful discourse that does not endanger communal harmony.”
Similarly, Palestinian community advocates stressed the need to distinguish between political advocacy and accusations of bigotry, highlighting how polarisation risks overshadowing genuine concerns about human rights.
How is the Labour Party handling the internal divisions over Israel-related issues?
The controversy in Hackney reflects wider struggles within the Labour Party over how to address Israel-Palestine conflicts without inflaming internal rifts. Labour’s national leadership has reiterated opposition to anti-Semitism while supporting legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies.
A spokesperson for Labour, quoted by Rachel Adams of The Independent, said,
“Labour is committed to standing against all forms of racism and ensuring our members uphold these values. We acknowledge the sensitivities and encourage dialogue to bridge differences rather than deepen divides.”
Some Labour members advocate for clearer guidelines on motions related to Israel to prevent similar disputes erupting in local councils.
Why is this issue gaining heightened attention now?
The Hackney incident comes amid heightened international tensions surrounding renewed violence in Israel and Gaza in late 2025. Media coverage and political activism related to the conflict are intensifying across the UK, stirring passionate responses from various communities.
Experts quoted in the Evening Standard highlight the increasing prominence of local government bodies taking political stances on international issues, sometimes exposing fault lines in multicultural cities like London.
What are the next steps for Hackney Council and local communities?
Following the controversy, Hackney Council chairman has called for increased community engagement sessions to foster understanding between different groups in the borough. Plans include interfaith dialogue panels and workshops on identifying and combating hate speech versus legitimate advocacy.
Local MPs representing Hackney constituencies have also pledged to monitor the situation closely and support initiatives that promote cohesion and respect for diversity.
What balance is needed between political expression and community harmony?
The debate in Hackney encapsulates a broader challenge facing pluralistic societies: how to balance vigorous political expression on contentious international issues with the imperative to maintain social cohesion and protect minority communities from hate.
Both critics and defenders of the Hackney motion agree on the necessity of combating hatred in all its forms. However, disagreement remains on where criticism of Israel crosses into harmful rhetoric.
Hackney’s experience is instructive for policymakers, activists, and community leaders nationwide as they navigate these complex, sensitive dynamics amidst volatile geopolitical developments.
