Leicester, Swansea and Gwynedd Councils did not overstep the mark when they passed resolutions criticising the state of Israel, the High Court has ruled in a unique test case.
All three councils faced accusations that, by condemning Israel, they encouraged discrimination against and harassment of British Jews.
Jewish Human Rights Watch (JHRW), a charity formed to fight what it says is a tide of rising antisemitism in the UK, argued all three resolutions were unlawful.
But two senior judges today emphasised democratic freedom of speech as they ruled that none of the councils did anything wrong.
In November 2014, Leicester City Council resolved to boycott any produce coming from "illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank".
It said the embargo would remain in place "until such time as Israel complies with international law and withdraws from Palestinian occupied territories".
Jeffrey Kaufman, a Jewish elected member of Leicestershire County Council, described the "dismay" the resolution caused to the city's Jewish community.
He said the City Council had "picked on Israel", but Leicester's mayor, Sir Peter Soulsby, "emphatically" denied that a criticism of Israel was "necessarily an attack on British jews".
In October 2014, Gwynedd Council in Wales also resolved to boycott products emenating from the West Bank until Israel withdrew from Palestinian occupied territories.
Swansea's resolution, which was also critical of Israel, dated back to June 2010, Lord Justice Simon told London's High Court.
JHRW claimed all three councils ignored their duty to eliminate discrimination and harassment of British jews and to foster good community relations.
Placing an embargo on goods coming from parts of Israel also breached the councils' obligations to act even handedly in procurement matters, it was argued.
The judge said the case raised important issues about "where the dividing line between criticism of Israel and anti-semitism may lie".
JHRW strongly "disavowed any suggestion that it was seeking to inhibit freedom to criticism Israel".
Dismissing the charity's challenge, however, the judge, sitting with Mr Justice Flaux, ruled that the councils had done nothing unlawful.
The resolutions were "non-binding" and had not the slightest effect on any contractual dealings with the state of Israel, he said.
And, in the cases of Swansea and Leicester, it was specifically stated that they should only operate within the confines of the law and "free political debate".
Swansea had also suffered "significant prejudice" due to the delay of more than five years in challenging the resolution it passed.
Lord Justice Simon concluded: "It follows that each of the claims must be dismissed".
Jewish Human Rights Watch said it would appeal against the ruling.
In a statement released after the decision, it said: "The local councils, recognising that such boycotts would be unlawful, insisted that their motions were non-binding and not actually implemented, and that the resolutions were in fact never intended to influence policy.
"So this was never about investment at all. Instead, it was about councils being able to make offensive and misleading declarations that divide communities for cheap political gain and put Jews in the UK in jeopardy –
and all at the ratepayer’s expense."
"Therefore, Jewish Human Rights Watch intends to make a formal application in order to appeal
this decision, which flies in the face of what Parliament intended in legislating for fair treatment and
community cohesion – not just for the Jewish community but for all minorities in our country."
Rob Stewart, leader of Swansea Council, said the decision was "a victory for freedom of expression".
He said: “We have stressed throughout this process – and we do so again today – that the Notice of Motion of June 17, 2010, was not and has never been antisemitic or an attack on Jewish people. That was never our intention. The council has never boycotted Israeli goods and has no intention of doing so.
“It was a difficult decision to go to court on this matter. However, given that this was an issue about the democratic rights of councillors to speak on matters of public interest, we believed there was no other option than to defend that fundamental right in court."