logo
Britain once jailed suffragettes. Now it jails Palestine activists

Britain once jailed suffragettes. Now it jails Palestine activists

Middle East Eye4 days ago
On a quiet Saturday in London, beneath the statue of Gandhi in Parliament Square, police arrested 83-year-old Reverend Sue Parfitt. Her crime? Holding a placard that read: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' She smiled as they took her away - dignified, calm, unafraid.
She was one of more than two dozen people arrested that day - many of them women and elderly, most carrying nothing but banners and conscience.
Their 'offence' was to stand in solidarity with Palestine Action, the group newly branded a terrorist organisation by the British government, despite never having harmed a single person.
Its methods? Spray paint, red dye, road blockades - all part of a non-violent campaign to end Britain's role in arming Israel's destruction of Gaza.
The irony is almost unbearable: this proscription was ordered by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and backed overwhelmingly in parliament on the very anniversary of women in Britain winning the right to vote. Most female MPs voted to criminalise Palestine Action - and many of them later smiled for photos celebrating the suffragette legacy of militant resistance.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
That legacy wasn't meek.
The Women's Social and Political Union, led by Emmeline Pankhurst, planted bombs. They disrupted postal services, set fire to public buildings and politicians' homes, smashed windows, handcuffed themselves to railings, attacked Church of England buildings, and vandalised golf courses and male-only clubs. They disrupted political meetings, broke the law, and starved themselves in protest.
Silencing dissent
Palestine Action has never come close to such tactics. And yet today, it is labelled a terrorist threat.
As Baron Peter Hain put it: 'Palestine Action members spraying paint on military aircraft at Brize Norton seems positively moderate by comparison [to the suffragettes' actions].' But while most female MPs today celebrate the suffragettes in words, they vote to criminalise their spirit in action.
One of the few exceptions is Baroness Jenny Jones, a Green peer who has been outspoken in her defence of Palestine Action and searing in her condemnation of Britain's complicity. She is everything the suffragette legacy demands: principled, defiant, willing to speak uncomfortable truths in a chamber soaked in political cowardice. She stands with those resisting oppression - not those funding it.
UK arrests 83-year-old priest for backing Palestine Action and opposing Gaza genocide Read More »
She is the type of female legislator who was in Pankhurst's mind when she spoke at one of her trials: 'We are here, not because we are law-breakers; we are here in our efforts to become law-makers.'
And it is no surprise that while the likes of Cooper target campaigners - including women such as Parfitt and the cofounder of Palestine Action, Huda Ammori - Jones calls out the state's duplicity: the criminalisation of protest, the arming of apartheid, the silencing of dissent.
As she put it in parliament: 'If you want Palestine Action to disappear, then stop sending arms to Israel and giving military support to a foreign government engaged in ethnic cleansing.'
This isn't just hypocrisy. It's a violent moral inversion.
At the same protest on Saturday stood a Welsh nurse who only weeks ago was at the Rafah border pleading with Egyptian security forces to let him through into Gaza to facilitate aid delivery. Now back in the UK, he continues to protest - heartbroken, undeterred.
This is the face of the movement: ordinary people moved by the extraordinary obscenity of genocide, and by the complicity of their own governments in enabling it.
Growing movement
Just a week earlier, punk duo Bob Vylan sent shockwaves through Glastonbury by chanting 'Death to the IDF' on stage, referencing the Israeli army. The words were echoed by thousands and broadcast live on the BBC.
Palestine was everywhere at the festival - in lyrics, on flags, spoken from the stage. The crowds cheered. The establishment panicked. Prime Minister Keir Starmer rushed to condemn the chant, and even the White House weighed in.
What the same western political establishment has failed to condemn, of course, are the crimes giving rise to those chants: the bombs dropped on hospitals, mass starvation, and body parts in rubble.
Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war
Two days later, London's high court ruled it lawful for the UK to supply parts for F-35 fighter jets - the very aircraft used to flatten Gaza.
The message was unmistakable: chanting against genocide perpetrators is a scandal. Arming a genocidal army is lawful.
Yet despite every effort to suffocate the pro-Palestine movement - police vans, proscription orders, media blackouts - it is only growing.
A long-suppressed BBC documentary on Palestinian medics, which the broadcaster delayed and ultimately dropped, was finally aired by Channel 4. It showed in harrowing detail the systematic targeting of doctors and hospitals by Israeli forces. As commentator Gary Lineker said: 'The BBC should hang its head in shame.'
The people are already ahead of their leaders. And sooner or later, the leaders will follow - whether they want to or not
Meanwhile, Haaretz, Israel's own paper of record, published testimonies from Israeli soldiers describing how they were ordered to shoot starving Palestinians gathered for food. Not militants - children, parents, civilians.
The body count in Gaza now exceeds 56,000. And Britain is arresting the people trying to stop it.
But the tide is turning. Public opinion is not just shifting; it is collapsing around the western establishment. In the UK, net favourability towards Israel is now at -46. Nearly half of Britons believe Israel is committing genocide, while a majority support the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Across Europe, it's the same, with net favourability towards Israel at -44 in Germany, -48 in France, -54 in Denmark, -52 in Italy and -55 in Spain.
In the US, the shift is also stark. A Pew poll conducted in March found that 53 percent of Americans now view Israel unfavourably, a rise of more than 10 percentage points from three years ago. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that four in 10 Americans now believe Israel's problems are 'none of our business.'
Unstoppable shift
The battle to liberate Palestine is no longer being fought solely in Gaza or the occupied West Bank. It is being waged just as critically in the heart of the western world: between an increasingly awakened public and an establishment determined to suppress it.
The Israeli project is not a self-contained national affair. It is, at its core, a western colonial enterprise. And the last two years have exposed how deeply its survival depends on the political and military sponsorship of western governments - above all, the United States.
This is why the frontline now runs through London, Paris, Berlin and Washington - through parliaments, universities, media outlets and courtrooms. It is a battle for moral authority, a contest between power and truth. And its outcome will shape the fate of Palestine.
But history teaches us something else too: that the most transformative struggles - from the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage, to the civil rights movement - were won not because the powerful saw the light, but because the public made them feel the heat. And that public pressure, relentless and sustained, forced open doors long held shut.
So it will be with Palestine.
The people are already ahead of their leaders. And sooner or later, the leaders will follow - whether they want to or not.
Public opinion will, in time, impose its will on those in power. It may take years. It may come slowly. But this shift is already underway, and it is unstoppable.
History is watching. And when Palestine is finally free - as it will be - the names remembered won't be those who armed Israel with bombs. It will be the ones they tried to silence. The ones they arrested. The ones who marched. The ones who healed.
The ones like Reverend Sue Parfitt, who smiled as they took her away. The ones like Baroness Jenny Jones, who refused to betray what justice means.
We will remember who stood on the side of freedom - and who stood in its way.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Starmer's migrant deal with Macron is a promising start
Starmer's migrant deal with Macron is a promising start

Gulf Today

time3 hours ago

  • Gulf Today

Starmer's migrant deal with Macron is a promising start

The prime minister has been criticised for the modesty of the agreement that he has secured with the French president on cross-Channel migration. He should instead be congratulated for having obtained a returns deal at all. It is more than his Conservative predecessors managed, and it is certainly more than Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform and peddler of "simple" solutions, could do, according to The Independent. The modesty of the arrangement is sensible. Returning undocumented migrants is a complex matter, legally and logistically. It is a good idea to show "proof of concept", as government sources put it, on a small scale, to show that it would be possible with larger numbers. The pilot scheme has already been attacked by the Conservatives on the grounds that it would not be a deterrent. If Britain is able to return 50 people a week to France, that would amount to a small fraction, about 5 per cent, of the numbers currently arriving by small boat. As Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, points out, this means that those attempting the crossing would know that they have a 95 per cent chance of staying in the UK as long as they make it halfway across the Channel, when they have to be picked up by the British authorities. But Mr Philp is missing at least two points. One is that, if the scheme works, it could be expanded. The other is that he argues that the Rwanda scheme would have acted as a deterrent, even though its total capacity of a few hundred would have taken even fewer migrants than this pilot scheme. Mr Farage is even further off beam. His policy is to return migrants to French beaches without permission and by violating French waters. It is hard to see how that can end well, let alone with many migrants being returned. He and Mr Philp would do better to congratulate Sir Keir Starmer for his negotiating skill and his success in landing the deal with Emmanuel Macron that Rishi Sunak tried and failed to secure. We will now be able to discover what is possible rather than listening to lectures about what would have happened if the Rwanda scheme, which the Conservatives had years to implement but which Mr Sunak chose to abandon by calling an election, had gone ahead. Sir Keir was right to cancel the cruel, expensive and ineffective scheme, and now offers the prospect of something better and potentially workable. The whole point of a pilot scheme is that we will be able to find out whether migrants will be able to frustrate the policy by appealing to the courts. The plan will probably require a new fast-track legal channel, so that new boat arrivals can be turned round quickly, in which case it would make sense to test that on a smaller scale. And the other half of the plan, to take an equivalent number of genuine refugees whose claim of a family connection to the UK has been accepted at a processing centre in France, is also fraught with difficulty. How will claims be ranked in order of priority? Again, starting with small numbers is the right approach. Obviously, the end point desired by Sir Keir and indeed by most of the British people, would be a larger scheme which would then quickly become a very small one. If migrants knew that they could not stay in the UK, they would stop trying to cross the Channel altogether. Sir Keir's critics are right about one thing: deterrence is key. French beach patrols may stop some crossings, especially if the dinghies are punctured, but they cannot stop the demand for a new life in Britain. This scheme offers the chance of humane deterrence. This is a nettle that must be grasped, not just by the UK and France, but by the whole of Europe. Sir Keir and Mr Macron have made a promising start.

Pro-Israel professor Shai Davidai leaves Columbia University after 'mutual agreement'
Pro-Israel professor Shai Davidai leaves Columbia University after 'mutual agreement'

Middle East Eye

time9 hours ago

  • Middle East Eye

Pro-Israel professor Shai Davidai leaves Columbia University after 'mutual agreement'

An assistant professor who was accused of harassing pro-Palestinian students as well as staff at Columbia University has left the institution following a "mutual agreement" he will not return to teaching at the Ivy League school, according to a university official. Shai Davidai, a controversial pro-Israel advocate who taught at Columbia's business school, left the university on 8 July. His campus access had been restricted since October following the 'intimidation' of university employees. 'Assistant Professor of Business Shai Davidai has decided to depart Columbia, effective July 8, 2025,' a Columbia University spokesperson wrote in an email to Middle East Eye, adding: "Assistant Professor Davidai has chosen, by mutual agreement with the University, to not return to teaching at Columbia." 'The University thanks him for his service and wishes him the best in his future endeavors.' Davidai said in a post on X on Friday that he left the university because he did not trust 'the anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, and anti-American hate festering on [Columbia's] campus'. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters 'I didn't leave Columbia to 'pursue other endeavors', he said. 'I left because I no longer trust its so-called leadership to confront the anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, and anti-American hate festering on campus. During my six years there, I met plenty of well-paid bureaucrats - but not once did I meet a true leader.' Davidai has been a vocal critic of Columbia and other universities for their response to pro-Palestinian protest encampments on US campuses against the war in Gaza, while also being accused of threatening behaviour to students and faculty at the institution. Davidai had been under investigation by Columbia's Office of Institutional Equality (OIE) into allegations of harassment made against him in February 2024. Davidai shared in a post on X on Thursday that Columbia had 'tried to smear' his name and that he 'wouldn't let them', sharing a letter from Laura Kirschstein, vice-provost at OIE, saying: 'On July 8, OIE closed its investigations relating to you without issuing any findings or conclusions of wrongdoing, and without imposing any discipline or penalty on you.' A university official said that any OIE investigations normally terminate when an individual "is no longer employed at the University" and consequently the investigation into Davidai had closed 'without issuing any findings or conclusions of wrongdoing'. Katherine Franke, a former law professor who had taught at Columbia University, shared on Instagram on Thursday a video of her showing a letter from OIE sent to students who had made allegations against Davidai, which said that the 'OIE process has been terminated without any determination', meaning that Davidai had not been absolved of wrongdoing, just that a determination wasn't made before he had left. Columbia University has been criticised for capitulating to the Trump administration's demands over its allegations of antisemitism. Access denied In October, Columbia University issued a statement regarding Davidai's access to the institution being restricted, saying, 'Columbia…does not tolerate threats of intimidation, harassment, or other threatening behaviour by its employees'. The university also said it had "temporarily limited his access to campus while he [Davidai] undertakes appropriate training on our policies governing the behavior of our employees". After he was barred, he took to Instagram to criticise the decision, saying that it was 'because of October 7th [2023]. Because I was not afraid to stand up to the hateful mob. And because I was not afraid to expose Mr fucking Cas Holloway'. Holloway is the chief operating officer at Columbia. That video has since been taken down, but Davidai shared many social media posts harassing Holloway. It was the second time the non-tenured Israeli professor had been barred from the campus in a year. He had also been barred on 22 April for around a month for threatening to do a pro-Israeli sit-in on a pro-Palestinian encampment. Harassment Davidai in April 2024 called pro-Palestine students "the Hitler Youth" on X (his post has subsequently been taken down) and used his social media accounts, where he has over 108,000 followers, to repeatedly call for the US National Guard to be brought into the protest encampment at Columbia. More than 13,000 students signed a petition asking for him to be fired because he used his 'personal social media accounts to target, harass, and bully students, including Palestinian students who have lost family members in Gaza'. As well as students accusing him of harassing them both in person and on social media, critics said he also endangered staff, students and faculty. For example, he called on Secretary of State Marco Rubio on a post on X for Columbia graduate and Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil to be deported from the US. This happened two days before he was picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents dressed in plain clothes. Khalil was subsequently freed on 8 March after 104 days at a detention centre in Jena, Louisiana. In another incident, he tagged former faculty member Mohamed Abdou in posts with the FBI and Homeland Security. Abdou subsequently discovered he was "terminated" from a faculty position while watching on CSPAN, Columbia's antisemitism congressional hearing in April 2024. Abdou said his 'doxxing" and 'termination' was "irreparable'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store