Questions and statement on Feb 5th 2005
in advance of a debate on a motion on Palestine submitted by the Green Party, many Palestine supporters wrote to their councillors urging them to support the motion.
On the day of the full council debate, 4 questions and five statements were read out. Each one pointing to the councils complicity with the genocide in Gaza, their refusal to take any action about the situation (claims that twinning with Nablus or flying the flag show this are ridiculous), and in particular the contract with Barclays in the knowledge that they are the only British Bank to deal in Israeli government bonds as a key example of complicity
Here is the statement from Hilary Smith as an example
In the last year the leader of the Council has refused direct requests from Sheffield residents on at least two occasions to write a letter to Barclays bank, the bank used by this Council. He has refused requests to even write a letter asking for clarification about whether Barclays bank invests in companies which may be involved in Israel’s military operations or lends to such companies.
It is incomprehensible why he would find such a course of action unacceptable. It is incomprehensible to believe that this Council would not be interested in such information and would not accept that Sheffield residents have a legitimate interest in such information.
It is now clear that Barclays bank acts as dealer for Israeli Government bonds. Indeed, its is the only British based bank that acts in this way. I believe that any reasonable councillor would want to express serious concern to Barclays Bank about its practices in dealing in Israeli Government bonds and indicate that this information means that the Council should give serious consideration to whether the Council should continue to bank with Barclays.
Council leader Tom Hunt’s response repeated hand wrong claims he understands our passion and why we were there. Clearly he does not understand – yes all the Palestine supporters in the public gallery are incensed about the genocide. But we were at the council to protest about their complicity.
Recent timeline
October 9th 2023: the Council flew the Israeli flag above the town hall, following guidance from the UK Government, as a gesture of solidarity with Israel. During spontenous protests outside the town hall that evening a protestor climbed up and removed the Israeli flag, replacing it briefly with a Palestinian flag. The actions of the Council in putting up the flag, and the subsequent protest against it, resulted in national and international media coverage.
May 2023; A question submitted by Julie Pearn, which referred to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people was censored by the Lord Mayor (following legal advice by the Council’s legal officer) on the grounds that it was ‘possibly anti semitic’. Julie submitted a formal complaint and the Council finally backtracked and, in a partly incoherent response to her complaint withdrew the allegation that her words had been anti semetic and also stated that the IHRA was not Council policy.
The original question by Julie had referred to the Council’s delay in responding to an invitation by the City of Nablus to develop a twinning relationship with Sheffield. (add more on Council and Nablus)
2021: a petition was presented to the Council calling on the Council to support the campaign for SYPA to divest from complicit companies (add wording here)
2019; the council became the first in the Country to recognise the State of Palestine (need link). At the same meeting the Council agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Rembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti semitism, (although more recently, in 2023, they have stated that the IHRA definition is not actually adopted by the Council).
2016 – 2017: Sheffield PSC called on the Council to exclude from its procurement process any company guilty of grave misconduct and highlighted the actions of companies like G4S which were enabling human rights violations by Israel against the Palestinian people. Members of Sheffield PSC engaged in consultation over the Council’s development of an Ethical Procurement policy but concluded that the Council failed to use its powers of discretionary exclusion (need to check this with Annie).