Key Points

• Green party councillor Brenda Puech’s official portrait was removed from the Hackney Council website after a complaint from UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) about her wearing a keffiyeh
• The photograph, taken after Puech’s May local election victory representing London Fields, was taken down on Monday, June 2, 2026
• UKLFI claimed the keffiyeh is “a divisive political symbol” associated with hostility towards Israel and potentially antisemitism, causing distress to at least one Jewish resident
• Puech’s name and surgery times remain on the council website; a blank rectangle now replaces the image
• Puech responded on X, calling the photo “too offensive to publish” and criticizing UKLFI as “a threat to democracy”
• Hackney Mayor Zoë Garbett stated neither she nor Puech were part of the removal decision; it was taken by council officers
• Hackney Council did not comment on whether the photo will be reinstated
• UKLFI has previously filed complaints about keffiyeh wearings in public settings, citing alarm among Jewish people since October 7, 2023

Hackney (East London Times) June 12, 2026 – The official portrait photograph of newly elected Green party councillor Brenda Puech has been removed from the Hackney Council website following a complaint from UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) about her wearing of a keffiyeh in the image .

This development has sparked debate over the symbolism of the keffiyeh, the role of council officers in decision-making, and the impact on democratic representation in East London.

As reported by the journalist covering the story for the Hackney Citizen, the portrait was taken down on Monday, June 2, 2026, after UKLFI made representations to the council .

The image showed Puech, who was elected to represent London Fields in May’s local elections, wearing the patterned black and white cotton scarf that has become an international symbol of Palestinian nationalism and solidarity .

Why did UK Lawyers for Israel complain about the keffiyeh in the councillor’s portrait?

UKLFI stated in a public statement that the portrait

“was causing distress to at least one Jewish resident of the borough” .

The group described the keffiyeh as

“a divisive political symbol which many Jewish and Israeli residents associate with hostility towards Israel and, in some cases, with terrorist organisations and antisemitism” .

According to the UKLFI statement, the group has previously filed complaints over the wearing of the scarf in other public-facing settings .

They argue that the keffiyeh can cause alarm and distress to Jewish people, particularly since the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, in which 1,195 people were killed, 828 of them civilians . Critics of the keffiyeh contend that its adoption by Hamas fighters has made it an emblem of the proscribed group .

How did Cllr Brenda Puech respond to the removal of her portrait?

Responding to the removal on Monday, Cllr Puech wrote on X:

“A blank space on @HackneyCouncil website where my mugshot used to be! Fortunately I can still publicise my surgery times, though photo below is too offensive to publish. You now need refer to UKLFI media to see what I look like as they are quite happy to show the offensive image” .

She also reposted a comment describing UKLFI as “a threat to democracy and our way of life” and called for the group to be proscribed . Puech’s statement highlights her frustration with the decision and her criticism of UKLFI’s role in the removal.

What exactly remains on the Hackney Council website after the portrait’s removal?

The councillor’s name and surgery times remain on the council website . A blank rectangle now sits where the photograph used to be .

This means residents can still access basic information about Puech, but her visual representation as an elected representative has been erased from the official council page.

Who made the decision to remove the photograph, according to Hackney’s Mayor?

In a statement to the Hackney Citizen, the Mayor of Hackney, Zoë Garbett, said:

“I want to be very clear that neither Cllr Puech or myself, nor anyone else in the Green councillor group, were part of the decision to remove the picture” .

Mayor Garbett added:

“I appreciate that many people are alarmed by this. It was a decision taken by officers, and one that has led me to raise my concerns” .

This clarification separates the Green councillor group and the Mayor from the decision, attributing it instead to council officers.

Did Hackney Council provide any comment on whether the photograph will be reinstated?

Hackney Council did not respond to a request from the Hackney Citizen for comment on whether the photograph would be reinstated .

This lack of response leaves the situation unresolved and raises questions about the council’s future policy on similar issues.

What broader context exists around keffiyeh complaints in public settings?

UKLFI has previously filed complaints over the wearing of the scarf in other public-facing settings . The group argues that the keffiyeh can cause alarm and distress to Jewish people, particularly since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attacks .

The attacks resulted in 1,195 deaths, including 828 civilians, and have intensified debates over symbols associated with Palestinian solidarity .

Critics of the keffiyeh point to its adoption by Hamas fighters as evidence that it has become an emblem of the proscribed group .

How has this incident affected the local community in Hackney and East London?

The removal of Puech’s portrait has alarmed many people in the borough, as acknowledged by Mayor Garbett . The incident has sparked discussions about free expression, democratic representation, and the symbolism of the keffiyeh in post-October 7 Britain.

Residents in Hackney and wider East London are now grappling with questions about whether political symbols should be restricted in official council communications and what impact such restrictions have on elected representatives’ ability to represent their communities.

Background of the Development: The Keffiyeh, UKLFI, and Hackney Council’s Decision-Making Process

The keffiyeh, a patterned black and white cotton scarf, has evolved into an international symbol of Palestinian nationalism and solidarity . Historically, it was a traditional Arab headscarf, but in recent decades it has been adopted by protesters and activists supporting Palestinian rights.

UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) is a legal advocacy group that has filed multiple complaints about the keffiyeh in public settings .

The group argues that the scarf is associated with hostility towards Israel and, in some cases, with terrorist organisations and antisemitism .

Hackney Council’s decision to remove Puech’s portrait was taken by council officers, not by the Mayor or the Green councillor group .

This suggests that the council’s administrative staff, rather than elected officials, made the decision following UKLFI’s complaint.

The incident reflects broader tensions in Britain over the symbolism of the keffiyeh since October 7, 2023. The Hamas-led attacks, which killed 1,195 people, have intensified debates over whether the keffiyeh should be considered a divisive political symbol or a legitimate expression of solidarity .

Puech’s election to represent London Fields in May 2026 marks her as a newly elected Green party councillor . The Green party has often been associated with progressive politics and support for Palestinian rights, which may explain Puech’s choice to wear the keffiyeh in her official portrait.

Prediction: How This Development Could affect East London Residents, Elected Representatives, and the Green Party

This development could significantly affect East London residents, particularly those in Hackney, by shaping how they perceive democratic representation and free expression in public communications.

Residents who support Palestinian solidarity may view the removal as an erosion of their right to express political views, while those who associate the keffiyeh with antisemitism may see it as a necessary step to protect Jewish residents.

Elected representatives in East London, especially newly elected councillors like Puech, may face increased scrutiny over their choice of symbols in official portraits. This could lead to self-censorship or hesitation to wear political symbols that might be controversial, potentially limiting their ability to represent communities with strong political identities.

The Green Party in East London could experience reputational impact, as the incident highlights tensions between progressive politics and concerns about antisemitism. The party may need to clarify its position on the keffiyeh and address concerns from both supporters of Palestinian solidarity and Jewish communities.

Council officers in Hackney and potentially other East London boroughs may face pressure to develop clearer guidelines on political symbols in official communications.

This could lead to more consistent decision-making but also increase the risk of controversies if guidelines are perceived as biased.

Jewish residents in Hackney and East London may feel more secure if they believe the council is taking steps to address their concerns about antisemitism. However, they may also worry about overreach that could limit free expression for all residents.