A council’s anti-Israel motion is “wholly alienating” for many Jews, the Court of Appeal has heard.

Jewish Human Rights Watch made the argument as it sought to persuade the court Leicester City Council was wrong to pass a resolution four years ago to boycott goods from “illegal Israeli settlements” in the West Bank.

The High Court rejected JHRW’s case for a judicial review in 2016 but the group mounted a fresh effort at the one-day hearing at the Court of Appeal on Wednesday.

Robert Palmer, counsel for JHRW, argued Leicester had failed to consider the impact of any boycott position on the Jewish community.

The council resolution came in the wake of the conflict in Gaza that summer, which had led to a “marked increase” in antisemitic incidents in the UK.

There was a “direct” link between events in the Middle East, as well as the international response to them, and antisemitism in the UK, JHRW said.

The council had not adopted any similar position against other countries despite “manifold and egregious” breaches of human rights that had occurred elsewhere, the campaign group told the court, arguing that singling Israel for a boycott was “wholly alienating”.

The council, it said, should have taken into account that the announcement of a boycott would have a “damaging effect on integration and community cohesion”.

The court will deliver its judgment at a later date.

The government has taken steps to counter local boycotts over the past two years, making clear to councils they could not divest pension fund money, for example, for political reasons unless it was in line with government policy.

Last month the Court of Appeal upheld the government’s right to introduce such restrictions following a legal challenge from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.