‘An absolute disgrace’: Palestine boycott row erupts at Waverley Council over Israel ‘genocide’ claims

A proposed boycott of Israeli goods sparked a furious row at Waverley Borough Council, with councillors trading accusations of antisemitism, political grandstanding and wasting taxpayers' money.

The clash followed a call by Green Party Cllr Steve Williams for Waverley to investigate whether public money could be linked to alleged Israeli human rights abuses against Palestinians.

The debate on Tuesday, November 10, exposed deep divisions over whether a borough council should take a stand over global conflicts.

Introducing the motion, Cllr Williams said: “Like many people, I have been deeply moved by the appalling images of human suffering in Gaza, the deaths of innocent civilians, the deliberate starvation, the destruction of homes, the maiming and traumatising of children.

“I am also profoundly concerned by the continuing demolition of people's homes, destruction of their livelihoods, and continuing violent attacks on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.”

Cllr Williams said his original proposal had sought to consider a boycott of Israeli products and services through council procurement, alongside representations about pension investments in Israel.

These proposals were ruled inadmissible under Waverley's constitution, leaving councillors to debate a narrower motion.

He expressed frustration that the council could not formally endorse the Palestine Solidarity Campaign's Councillor Pledge for Palestine.

Reading from the pledge, which he said had been signed by 1,728 councillors across the UK, Williams highlighted its call to “uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people” and seek accountability for “Israel's crimes of genocide, military occupation, ethnic cleansing and apartheid”.

The pledge also calls on councils to avoid complicity in alleged violations of international law by divesting pension funds from companies implicated in such abuses and reviewing their procurement policies.

“For me, standing up for the Palestinian people is a moral and humanitarian imperative,” he added.

“Waverley should not regard itself as exempt from considering the human consequences of how public money is spent and invested.”

He pointed out that the council already recognised ethical responsibilities in areas including human trafficking and fossil fuel investments.

“I recognise that the responsibility for foreign policy rests with the UK government,” he said. “I'm asking us to take responsibility for what is within our own remit.”

Supporting the motion, Conservative Cllr Daniel Husseini told councillors that relatives in southern Lebanon had been forced to flee their homes following repeated Israeli bombing.

During a recent visit to Beirut, he said he had heard drones constantly overhead.

“Something that should be frightening and unusual for everyone has become an everyday reality for people living there,” he said.

Cllr Husseini argued that the motion was not an attempt to determine British foreign policy but a question of ensuring public money was spent responsibly.

But Conservative Opposition leader Cllr Jane Austin challenged the Green Party's position accusing them of political grandstanding.

“I'm deeply uncomfortable with the framing of this debate which I believe belies the sinister undercurrent here, an undercurrent which the Green Party is using for political gain nationally at the moment.” she said.

“But I'm concerned it risks stoking hatred, anti-semitism and anti-Muslim behaviour and racism of all kinds in our borough.”

She asked Cllr Williams: “Do you support the Green Party recent vote that Zionism is racism?”

Cllr Williams strongly rejected any suggestion that he or his party were anti-semitic.

“I made no anti-semitic statements at all in my introduction. I am not anti-semitic. I abhor anti-semitism,” he said.

He added that it was “disingenuous” to suggest that he, the Green Party or anyone else in the council chamber was antisemitic.

Cllr Austin argued that foreign policy and international sanctions were matters for Parliament, while Waverley councillors should concentrate on their local responsibilities.

Some of the fiercest criticism came from Conservative Cllr Carole Coburn, who represents the Bourne area of Farnham.

She questioned why councillors were devoting so much time to an international issue when the council faced pressing local responsibilities.

“To me, this is a total waste of the public's money because they're paying for us to be in here. They're paying for the heating, the lighting, the hot air and everything else that we're generating,” she said.

“I'm almost ashamed that we're sitting here at this time of night, having debated this for near enough an hour, when we know that not a single resident in Waverley will benefit. I think it's a disgrace.”

Her criticism centred on the use of council time and resources, rather than whether residents cared about the conflict.

Council leader Cllr Paul Follows also expressed sympathy with the motion's aims but said he could not support it.

“I hold strong personal views as to the actions of the Israeli state, and I agree with those who believe that the actions of the Israeli state in Palestine constitute a genocide,” he said.

But he questioned whether the matter was appropriate business for Waverley.

“I will not be supporting asking officers to do work that detracts from safe and legal,” he said.

Cllr Follows pointed to existing procurement policies and the considerable pressure on officers preparing for Waverley's replacement by West Surrey Council next April.

“I'm not going to vote against this motion because I hold very strongly a matter of conscience on the matter that has been put forward in regards to Palestine,” he said.

“But that being said, I cannot vote for it either.”

He argued that the council's priority should be ensuring a safe and lawful transition to the new authority rather than commissioning additional work shortly before its abolition.

In his closing remarks, Cllr Williams rejected accusations of political grandstanding, insisting the motion represented a genuine attempt to secure cross-party agreement on a humanitarian issue.

He maintained that the proposed review would not impose an unreasonable burden on officers.

But councillors rejected the motion by 14 votes to nine, with 14 abstentions.

The decision means Waverley will not proceed with the proposed procurement review or representations arising from the motion before its abolition next April.