Lubaba Khalid presents the petition at an all-member meeting

---

WATCH OUR HISTORY CHANNEL, UNTOLD LONDON, ON YOUTUBE

---

LABOUR councillors were told they were at a “moral crossroads” over its pension deposits as thousands of residents forced them to debate divestment in the Town Hall chamber.

They were told to “stand on the right side of history” as campaigners said contributions made by Camden workers were being used by companies involved in the manufacture of arms used by Israel in Gaza.

Every seat in the public gallery was taken while a crowd of up to 300 people lined the street outside the council’s building in Judd Street, King’s Cross, watching the meeting on a big screen.

The call was to order lawyers to begin the process to remove deposits from a list of companies immediately, and the debate was triggered by a petition signed by 4,000 people.

Lubaba Khalid, a Palestinian living in Camden, presented the petition by asking councillors to remember how the council took an all-out, international stance against apartheid in South Africa.

She said: “I ask you: what am I meant to do? What am I meant to tell my cousin whose home was bombed, killing three of his children and severely injuring his wife by weapons this council invests in? What do I say to my cousin whose husband was gunned down in a busy market by a drone financed by companies this council invests in?

“How do I explain to my aunt who lost two sons that her pain is tied to investments made with money collected here in Camden?”

She added: “This is a moral crossroads. The decision you make today will not only define the legacy of this council but also impact countless lives far beyond Camden.”

While some Labour councillors said they had sympathy with the concerns of the campaig­ners, they also said it would be impossible and unfair to divest– and that it could not be done quickly. Liberal Democrat councillor Matthew Kirk said that he thought the petition was trying to extend a wider boycott of Israel.

The Tories in the chamber did not offer a comment.

The only councillor in the room to fully support the petition outright was Green councilor Lorna Russell, who said money from Camden’s fund could never be tied to suffering. She also spoke to the crowd outside.

The petition had been drawn together by a coalition of solidarity groups and led by the Camden Friends of Palestine.

It had the support of Unison organisers on the steps of the Town Hall. The union’s local representatives have already said members paying into the scheme and those drawing from it objected to the money being used to help firms involved in war. T

here are disputes about the scale of the investments and how directly involved some companies are.

But Camden’s pension committee is facing calls to prove it really does have an ethical investment strategy – and to do so quickly.

Ms Khalid said: “Let Camden be remembered as a borough that chose to act with courage, compassion and conviction when it mattered most.” The campaigners, however, said they felt let down when councillors chose to send the petition to be discussed by the pensions committee, rather than voting on divestment outright.

Committee chair Rishi Madlani said he was deeply heartbroken by pain suffered “by both Palestinians and Israelis”.

He said: “We have policies in place that prevents investments in illegal weapons and we act when sanctions are imposed. However, that being said I recognise the strong public sentiment from unions, staff and the public in the room today.”

Cllr Madlani said a review would “prioritise engagement on conflict zone exposures and an advanced human rights strategy will be forthcoming. There is already work going on this but I am agreeing to beef that up.

“Let us please hold space for humanity on both sides. I want us to choose hope over despair.”

A Camden Friends of Palestine spokesperson said the council; had “failed to take a clear position of principle” and the promise of a review of investment priorities “can only be the beginning.”

Lib Dem tells protesters that they are pushing for boycott of Israel

INVESTMENTS in arms companies can be ethical, if they are supplying “brave democratic states defending themselves”, a Liberal Democrat councillor told Monday’s pension deposits petitioners.

Councillor Matthew Kirk went on to suggest that the protesters who had come to the Town Hall on Monday were more interested in running a boycott of Israel than anything else.

He also said that the petition should have been withdrawn or postponed due to the ceasefire deal announced over the weekend.

“In relation to the arms industry, it’s unquestionably right that we have a clear position on controversial weapons and probably right that the arms industry represents only a tiny fraction of our portfolio – under 0.15 per cent of our 2 billion whatever it is holdings,” he told the council chamber.

“I speak for many in saying this that the supply of arms to enable brave democratic states to defend themselves, be that Ukraine, be that Israel, or others is an ethical industry.”

Cllr Kirk had argued at earlier meetings for demonstrators to sit in the public gallery and opposed a ban on them holding up signs spelling out the word “genocide”.

But he has also said that he disagrees with their campaign.

“I don’t fully understand what the petition means in the context of a ceasefire being announced yesterday,” he said.

“The fact that it hasn’t been withdrawn or postponed makes clear that this is not designed as a specific response to what’s been happening in Gaza but a continuation of the BDS [Boycott, divest, sanction] campaign of many years standing.”

He added: “In relation to the wider call of this petition and of this campaign – because it is not linked to the arms industry – what in practice we have seen over many many years is that this operates as an attempt to attack any company that has any link to Israel. That is not a position the pensions committee will or should support.”

Earlier in his speech he blamed former PLO leader Yasser Arafat for what he saw as puncturing a two-state solution more than two decades ago, but he said that he felt this week’s events might set the region “on the path” to that now.

He added that all councillors welcomed the release of hostages this week.

Blood on our hands? So what phone have you got?, asks Congo -born councillor

A LABOUR councillor hit back at people in the public gallery as cries of ‘you’ve got blood on your hands’ were heard during Monday’s pension petition debate.

The session had seen several protesters shout out before Kilburn councillor Nanouche Umeadi stood up and looked up at the upstairs seating areas.

“I don’t really appreciate the phrase that people have been shouting out, about blood on our hands,” she said. “I was born in the Democratic Republic of Congo where there is destruc­tion, there is war. I’ve experienced that first hand and some people here haven’t.”

Holding up her own mobile phone, she added: “People are dying in my country, based on the phones we all have in our hands. “So based on that notion, everyone here who owns a Samsung or an iPhone also has blood on their hands.”

In the DR Congo, there have been bloody battles over the discovery of minerals used to make the chips that power smartphones and personal computers in the UK, Europe and beyond.

Human rights organisations say money raised from valuable coltan mining has been used to finance groups fighting a civil war.

Cllr Umeadi said: “We can have a discussion without name-calling because you don’t know what everybody else has experienced. We are all humans and none of us have been killing any children.” The public galleries were open again on Monday after being locked at a me

eting last year. Camden said then that possible disruption from Gaza protesters would risk leaving councillors with no time to set the annual budget.

Who said what in Gaza debate

Anna Burrage

LABOUR councillor ANNA BURRAGE: Labour Party policy and UK government policy on Israeli and Palestinian conflict calls for a balanced approach. The party supports a two-state solution and recognises the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, security and dignity.

Blanket divestment risks being seen as one-sided and could inadvertently undermine Labour’s broader commitment to fostering dialogue and peace. As local councillors, we must align with these principles of fairness and constructive engagement…

I want to highlight the chancellor Rachel Reeves’ prioritisation of economic growth as a cornerstone of Labour’s agenda.

At a time when local authorities face financial pressures and our communities are looking to us to protect jobs services and opportunities, we cannot afford to take action that may hinder investment growth or send signals that may undermine investor confidence.

GREEN councillor LORNA RUSSELL: I want to speak in full support of this petition – it’s both a matter of principle and practicality that this council must ensure that our pension fund aligns with international law and the values that we hold as a community.

Let us compare the legal and moral imperatives. International law including humanitarian law exists to safeguard fundamental rights and protect the most vulnerable. By allowing investments in companies that are complicit in breaches of these laws – we risk being on the wrong side of history.

Camden is a borough that I’m proud prides itself on fairness, equity, human rights – and we have a duty to ensure our financial practices reflect these principles.

We must ask ourselves: If we know our money is tied to suffering, how can we justify inaction? This is not just about legality, it’s about moral leadership. The residents of Camden expect us to act responsibly and ethically.

They want a pension fund that they can trust and making a commitment would send a really powerful message that we will not profit from the suffering of others.

Heather Johnson

LABOUR councillor HEATHER JOHNSON: Divestment in itself doesn’t stop investment in these companies.

What is does is make cheap investment for other people who may not care at all about responsible investment – because the money doesn’t go away.

Somebody else will buy those investments and somebody else will use them.

We make very sure that we talk to the companies that we’re invested in. We don’t invest in the high-risk arms industries.

Some of the companies that have been mentioned in this are not providing arms, they’re not doing this.

But if we think that there are human rights issues within these companies in what they are doing, we need to make sure we are talking to them.

And that we are having those difficult conversations to ensure that they move away from what they’re doing.

Edmund Froundigoun

LABOUR councillor EDMUND FRONDIGOUN: It would be politically expedient for me at this stage to be announcing support for divestment from controversial assets knowing that such a statement would not, in fact, lead to a tangible change of policy ­– which it wouldn’t.

I genuinely do not believe it would be fair to mislead my residents by saying that. I don’t think its conscionable to make hollow commitments that do not lead to tangible outcomes for your family and people you care about.

To put that into plain English, that’s because this council can’t unilaterally and immediately divest from certain companies on whim.

We are bound to ensure that the pension funds do not jeopardise the financial security of our staff’s pensions.

Shah Miah

LABOUR councillor SHAH MIAH: We welcome and support the work of the Pensions Committee, its chair and officers in engaging with such organisations as the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), the UN and Palestine in order to ensure that our ethical investment strategy does not support brutality and violence towards the innocent.

We understand the frustrations expressed by many that this is taking much longer than they would like, but we have full confidence that our committee, councillors and officers share our concerns and are committed to doing the right thing.

But I will take this opportunity to go a little further and say directly to the LGPS that watching the events of the past 15 months unfold is increasingly unconscionable that they continue to invest in companies that prop up an ever-violent government in Israel.

The call from our side will only get louder and it is increasingly difficult for them to justify doing nothing in the face of such brutality.