No 10 warns against funding Palestine Action after Sally Rooney cash pledge
Downing Street said 'support for a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act' and said no-one should be backing the group.
The Co Mayo native said that if that backing Palestine Action 'makes me a 'supporter of terror' under UK law, so be it'.
Writing in the Irish Times over the weekend, Ms Rooney said she will use the proceeds of her work and her public platform to continue her support for Palestine Action and 'direct action against genocide in whatever way I can'.
Palestine Action was recently proscribed under terrorism legislation in the UK, but not under Irish law.
Ms Rooney currently lives in the west of Ireland.
The BBC has broadcast adaptations of Ms Rooney's novels Normal People and Conversations With Friends in recent years.
But she has never been on the broadcaster's staff and the PA news agency understands the corporation is not working with her on any upcoming projects.
Dr Jilan Wahba Abdalmajid, the ambassador of the state of Palestine in Ireland, said on Monday: 'Sally Rooney is using her voice to call out international law and human rights violations in Palestine.
'I hope these calls result in practical actions that will stop the horrors we're witnessing carried out by Israel in Palestine; to stop the genocide and forced displacement and end the Israeli occupation.'
In Westminster the Prime Minister's official spokesman would not comment specifically on the author's comments, but said: 'There is a difference between showing support for a proscribed organisation, which is an offence under the Terrorism Act, and legitimate protest in support of a cause.'
Asked what message No 10 would give to people considering giving money to the group, the spokesman said: 'Support for a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act and obviously the police will, as they have set out, they will obviously implement the law within the law as you'd expect.'
The spokesman said Palestine Action was proscribed 'based on security advice following serious attacks the group has committed, following an assessment made by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre'.
In a statement, a BBC spokesperson said: 'Matters relating to proscribed organisations are for the relevant authorities.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Netanyahu brands Australia's Albanese ‘weak' over Palestinian state recognition
Mr Netanyahu's extraordinary public rebuke came after an August 11 announcement by Mr Albanese that his government's recognition of a Palestinian state will be formalised at the United Nations General Assembly in September. The announcement was followed by tit-for-tat cancellations of Australian and Israeli visas. 'History will remember Albanese for what he is: A weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews,' Mr Yetanyahu posted on social media. Mr Albanese responded pointedly on Wednesday: 'I treat leaders of other countries with respect. I engage with them in a diplomatic way.' 'I don't take these things personally,' Albanese added. 'Increasingly there is global concern and global concern because people want to see an end to the cycle of violence that we have seen for far too long. That is what Australians want to see as well.' Australian home affairs minister Tony Burke further inflamed Israel's anger by cancelling the visa of far-right Israeli politician Simcha Rothman, a member of Mr Netanyahu's coalition, who planned an Australian speaking tour. Mr Rothman is a member of the Religious Zionism party, which supports continuation of the war, the mass relocation of Palestinians through what it describes as voluntary migration and the reestablishment of Jewish settlements in Gaza. Mr Burke on Wednesday accused Mr Netanyahu of 'lashing out' against Australia as he had done against Britain, Canada, France, Ireland, Norway and Spain over recognition of a Palestinian state. Mr Burke denied Mr Albanese was weak. 'Strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up or how many children you can leave hungry,' Mr Burke told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar retaliated on Monday for Mr Rothman's treatment by revoking visas of Australian representatives to the Palestinian Authority. Mr Saar also told the Israeli Embassy in Australia to 'carefully examine' any official visa applications from Australia to Israel. Australian foreign minister Penny Wong responded by accusing the Netanyahu government of isolating Israel. Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive officer of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry – the nation's peak advocacy group, said the Jewish community was 'profoundly disturbed and concerned by the rapidly deteriorating state of relations' between the two countries. Australian Jews did not feel 'abandoned' by the Albanese government, rejecting Mr Netanyahu's accusation, Mr Ryvchin said. 'When allies speak, they should speak frankly, robustly, but also in a dignified way, and I think firing off tweets which contain elements of abuse to them,' Mr Ryvchin said. 'I don't think that's the way to operate.' Australia is an increasingly multicultural country where more than half the population was born overseas or has at least one foreign parent. There is widespread community concern over the Israel-Hamas war, indicated by tens of thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators marching over the Sydney Harbour Bridge earlier this month. Antisemitism has reached unprecedented levels across Australia, which the government acknowledged last year by appointing the nation's first special envoy to combat antisemitism, Sydney lawyer Jillian Segal. Australia's conservative opposition party has pledged to reverse Australia's recognition of Palestine if it wins the next election, which is due in 2028.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
Netanyahu brands Australia's Albanese ‘weak' over Palestinian state recognition
Mr Netanyahu's extraordinary public rebuke came after an August 11 announcement by Mr Albanese that his government's recognition of a Palestinian state will be formalised at the United Nations General Assembly in September. The announcement was followed by tit-for-tat cancellations of Australian and Israeli visas. 'History will remember Albanese for what he is: A weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews,' Mr Yetanyahu posted on social media. Mr Albanese responded pointedly on Wednesday: 'I treat leaders of other countries with respect. I engage with them in a diplomatic way.' 'I don't take these things personally,' Albanese added. 'Increasingly there is global concern and global concern because people want to see an end to the cycle of violence that we have seen for far too long. That is what Australians want to see as well.' Australian home affairs minister Tony Burke further inflamed Israel's anger by cancelling the visa of far-right Israeli politician Simcha Rothman, a member of Mr Netanyahu's coalition, who planned an Australian speaking tour. Mr Rothman is a member of the Religious Zionism party, which supports continuation of the war, the mass relocation of Palestinians through what it describes as voluntary migration and the reestablishment of Jewish settlements in Gaza. Mr Burke on Wednesday accused Mr Netanyahu of 'lashing out' against Australia as he had done against Britain, Canada, France, Ireland, Norway and Spain over recognition of a Palestinian state. Mr Burke denied Mr Albanese was weak. 'Strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up or how many children you can leave hungry,' Mr Burke told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar retaliated on Monday for Mr Rothman's treatment by revoking visas of Australian representatives to the Palestinian Authority. Mr Saar also told the Israeli Embassy in Australia to 'carefully examine' any official visa applications from Australia to Israel. Australian foreign minister Penny Wong responded by accusing the Netanyahu government of isolating Israel. Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive officer of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry – the nation's peak advocacy group, said the Jewish community was 'profoundly disturbed and concerned by the rapidly deteriorating state of relations' between the two countries. Australian Jews did not feel 'abandoned' by the Albanese government, rejecting Mr Netanyahu's accusation, Mr Ryvchin said. 'When allies speak, they should speak frankly, robustly, but also in a dignified way, and I think firing off tweets which contain elements of abuse to them,' Mr Ryvchin said. 'I don't think that's the way to operate.' Australia is an increasingly multicultural country where more than half the population was born overseas or has at least one foreign parent. There is widespread community concern over the Israel-Hamas war, indicated by tens of thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators marching over the Sydney Harbour Bridge earlier this month. Antisemitism has reached unprecedented levels across Australia, which the government acknowledged last year by appointing the nation's first special envoy to combat antisemitism, Sydney lawyer Jillian Segal. Australia's conservative opposition party has pledged to reverse Australia's recognition of Palestine if it wins the next election, which is due in 2028.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Are British troops prepared to defend Ukraine?
The events of the last few days – the Trump/Putin summit in Anchorage, the visit of European leaders to the White House and the virtual conference of the 'Coalition of the Willing' – have felt strangely detached and surreal. It has been almost like the anxiety dream of a stressed European diplomat: full of famous faces and sententious words, none of it making much sense. Even summing up the status quo is a challenge. Thanks to President Trump, we know that the idea of a ceasefire in Ukraine is now off the table and branded unnecessary. He has also said that the country will not be admitted to Nato, while his special envoy Steve Witkoff talked about a 'land swap' between Ukraine and Russia and 'robust security guarantees that I would describe as game-changing'. President Putin has agreed to these guarantees, or perhaps he hasn't. The White House at least agrees that a peace settlement cannot be made without involving Ukraine, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that 'you can't have a peace deal between two warring factions unless both sides agree to give up something'. As we pass the 80th anniversary of imperial Japan's unconditional surrender, one wonders what President Truman would have made of that assertion. There will be a bilateral meeting between Presidents Putin and Zelenskyy at some unspecified point, or perhaps there won't. Trump says Ukraine will have to resign itself to Russia's possession of Crimea, while Zelensky says there is no possibility of giving up its territorial rights. Most strikingly, there will be a 'reassurance force' deployed to Ukraine. President Trump explained: We've got the European nations and they'll front-load it and they'll have, some of them – France, Germany, UK – they want to have boots on the ground. I don't think it's going to be a problem, to be honest with you. A 'reassurance force' will require a 'combat mandate' but will not be responsible for enforcing a putative peace deal. The United States will not commit ground troops but it could provide support 'by air'. However, Germany's foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, has said that 'stationing troops in Ukraine would probably be too much for us', while the Kremlin has consistently said that the presence in Ukraine of troops from Nato countries is a red line. Not all of these propositions can be true. They reveal the dangerous and worrying extent to which individual actors are fixating on what they would like to happen, as if that somehow reifies their hopes. This level of disconnectedness in a complex strategic and military situation is a breeding ground for costly mistakes. Earlier this week, the defence secretary, John Healey, was giving the impression that a reassurance force was simply waiting for its command. He told the BBC last week: We're ready to put UK boots on the ground in Ukraine. They are ready to go, they're ready to act from day one. The military plans are complete. Is that true? Above everything else, have planners at the Ministry of Defence been persistent enough in asking the question that matters above all other: 'And then what?' The windy rhetoric of politicians has its purpose but when the armed forces are being committed to operations, they need more than vague intentions and broad-brush aims. They need detailed plans, objectives and rules of engagement. Let us suppose, mirabile dictu, a peace agreement is somehow reached, and the Coalition of the Willing has managed to generate some kind of meaningful reassurance force of 15,000 or 20,000 soldiers. They are deployed on the Ukrainian side of an agreed border, while half a million Russian troops are on the other side. Vladimir Putin, whom we know we cannot trust, pushes his luck: Russian soldiers 'accidentally' cross the agreed border into Ukrainian territory. The reassurance force warns them they must withdraw, but they refuse. And then what? Do British or French soldiers open fire on Russian units? Refusing to withdraw, the Russians are reinforced and move further into Ukraine. They engage Ukrainian troops, and British personnel are injured or killed alongside them. And then what? If we are still not prepared to take military action, our presence is pointless and we have reassured no-one. That means we must be prepared to take military action. Now we are facing the prospect of British infantry and armour engaging their Russian counterparts. Bullets, tank rounds, shells and missiles are fired. There will inevitably be casualties, and the reassurance force will be heavily outnumbered. Do they request American air support? Is Donald Trump willing to authorise air strikes on Russian army units? Every one of these questions must already have been answered hypothetically before we could safely contemplate deploying troops to Ukraine. We cannot wait and see, or allow troops to improvise, when the outcome could be a full-scale kinetic war with Russia. Whatever happens must be the result of a clear, sober, considered decision. Have these conversations happened in the Ministry of Defence and Downing Street? Have we actually thought this through? If only we could be sure.
