UK Moves to Label 'Palestine Action' a Terror Group
Protests broke out in London on Monday as the UK government announced plans to label Palestine Action a terrorist organisation. The move comes after the group claimed responsibility for damaging two military cargo planes at RAF Brize Norton, allegedly used to support Israel in Gaza.
Hundreds of demonstrators gathered in Trafalgar Square, expressing concern that the decision could suppress broader support for Palestine and blur the line between activism and terrorism.
Government Cites National Security Risk
UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper confirmed that she would submit a formal request to Parliament to proscribe the group. If approved, this would make it a criminal offense to support or be affiliated with Palestine Action.
Cooper pointed to what she called a 'disgraceful' act of sabotage at the Oxfordshire airbase on June 20, stating:
'The UK's defense systems are vital to our national security, and we won't tolerate actions that put that at risk.'
So far, the Home Office has withheld details regarding troop movements or security changes, citing operational confidentiality.
What Is Palestine Action?
Palestine Action is known for its direct-action tactics, including spraying red paint on Allianz Insurance's London office over its alleged ties to Israeli defense firms, and vandalizing Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in Scotland. But it was the damage to military aircraft that escalated government scrutiny.
The group says its actions target companies and institutions enabling what it describes as 'Israeli apartheid and genocide.'
Critics Say It's a Step Too Far
Within the ruling Labour Party, voices of concern have emerged. Former shadow attorney general Shami Chakrabarti warned that the proposed move risks criminalising peaceful dissent.
'There's a difference between criminal damage and terrorism,' she said, 'and labeling everyone loosely associated with Palestine Action as terrorists is a dangerous overreach.'
Lord Charlie Falconer, former justice secretary, echoed similar concerns, arguing that vandalising aircraft alone shouldn't justify a full proscription.
Human Rights Groups Alarmed
Activists and legal experts have long raised flags about the UK's broad terrorism laws, warning that they could be used to stifle protest. Arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000 for pro-Palestinian content have already taken place, with some, like Sarah Wilkinson, detained without charges for extended periods.
'They'll bail me forever and ever,' Wilkinson said, confident that support for Palestine would continue regardless of legal pressure.
A History of Direct Action
Many protesters at Monday's rally were long-time activists, drawing comparisons to past civil disobedience efforts like the Greenham Common women's peace camp and anti-Iraq war protests.
One protester, Deborah McIlveen, recalled:
'I've broken into air bases before. We danced on American bases because we didn't want nuclear weapons. Direct action has always been part of this country's protest culture.'
Political Fallout Looms
Some believe the push to proscribe the group is politically motivated. Activist Fiona Lali argued it was about protecting the government's image after the Brize Norton breach.
'They're embarrassed. That's why they're acting fast—Palestine Action exposed the British military.'
If Parliament approves the order, Palestine Action will join a list of 81 banned organisations under the Terrorism Act, alongside groups like Hamas, Al Qaeda, and the Wagner Group.
As the government doubles down, the debate intensifies—raising crucial questions about the limits of protest, national security, and where the line is drawn between civil disobedience and terrorism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
8 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Israel's war on Gaza: Who are Palestine Action?
The British government is set to ban the direct action group Palestine Action under anti-terror legislation after activists broke into RAF Brize Norton earlier this month and spray-painted two planes. The group said the airbase was targeted because flights leave there daily "for RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, a base used for military operations in Gaza and across the Middle East". The activists damaged Airbus Voyager aircraft, which carry military cargo and refuel fighter jets and military planes. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said she will bring legislation to proscribe the group before Parliament on 30 June. If passed, it will designate Palestine Action as a proscribed terrorist organisation, making it illegal not only to be a member of the group but also to show support for it. It would mark the first time a direct action group has been proscribed in the UK, placing Palestine Action on a par with al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria under British law. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Direct action involves tactics, including protests, boycotts, strikes and damage to property, rather than appealing to institutions and politicians. Examples include the Suffragettes, the American civil rights movement and ACTUP, a grass roots political group which fought to end the AIDS epidemic during the early 1980s. MEE looks at the group and whether it meets the criteria for proscription. Who are Palestine Action? Palestine Action was founded in 2020 after activists broke into and spray painted the London headquarters of Israel's largest arms firm, UK-based Elbit Systems. Its network of activists have subsequently used tactics, including direct action, to target what it says are the 'corporate enablers of the Israeli military-industrial complex', often breaking into offices and factories to spraypaint or damage equipment they say is used to commit war crimes in occupied Palestine. Elbit Systems is the group's primary target, prompting multiple companies to sever ties with the defence contractor, and costing the company 'billions' in lost contracts and divestments, according to Palestine Action. Barclays, which owned 16,000 shares in Elbit Systems, divested from the contractors in October, while the UK's Ministry of Defence cancelled £280m worth of contracts with the company. Many of its activists have previously been acquitted by juries, on the grounds of "defence of necessity", namely that the damage to property was justified as it was intended to prevent deaths. 'Repressive': UK government confirms Palestine Action terror proscription as hundreds rally Read More » But these defences have been systemically removed, using anti-protest legislation which has expanded police powers to crack down on peaceful protest, and impose increasingly severe sentences for those activists found guilty. This culminated with the unprecedented use of terror charges against a group of Palestine Action activists known as the Filton 18. In August last year, six activists drove a modified van into Elbit System's research and development hub in Filton, Bristol. The activists dismantled weapons, including quadcopter drone models deployed by Israel in its war on Gaza, causing £1m ($1.24m) in damage. The six activists were arrested at the scene for violent disorder and assault. A further 12 activists were rounded up in connection with the action by counter-terrorism police in two waves of raids. They were subsequently charged with non-terror related offences, including aggravated burglary and criminal damage. But because they were arrested for terrorism offences, the 18 have been held on remand under counter-terror powers until their trial in November. By then they will have been detained for more than a year - far longer than the usual six-month (182 days) detention limit for those facing trial. The move has been denounced by UN experts. The Crown Prosecution Service, which is prosecuting the case, has said that it intends to argue the offences they allege the Filton 18 committed have a 'terrorist connection', which could aggravate their sentence. Activists have also been arrested under anti-organised crime laws intended to target individuals on the periphery of criminal gangs, and tried on charges of conspiracy to blackmail. What is proscription? Proscription bans membership of, or support for, an organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Proscription offences can carry sentences of up to 14 years in prison. First, the government needs to consider whether a group has commited, encouraged or is 'otherwise concerned with terrorism'. The legislation defines 'terrorism' in this context as the use or threat of action which - involves serious violence against a person - involves serious damage to property - endangers a person's life - creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or section of the public or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. Then, the home secretary will consider whether to proscribe the organisation, based on a number of criteria, according to the Home Office - the nature and scale of an organisation's activities - the specific threat that it poses to the UK - the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas - the extent of the organisation's presence in the UK - the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. At time of writing, 81 organisations are proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000; and a further 14 organisations in Northern Ireland were proscribed under earlier legislation. Does Palestine Action meet the threshold for proscription? In assessing whether Palestine Action is eligible for proscription, the UK government appears to be focusing on what Cooper has described as the 'serious damage to property' it caused at Brize Norton on 20 June. In a written statement on 23 June, Cooper said the action was 'the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action' and that 'the UK's defence enterprise is vital to the nation's national security'. She said police estimated that Palestine Action operations had incurred 'millions of pounds' worth of damage since its launch in 2020. Kelly's Solicitors, which specialises in political and protest-related work, and represents Palestine Action, has argued in a letter to Cooper that a 'significant number' of the group's activities have employed 'entirely conventional campaigning methods such as marches, rallies and demos'. Laura O'Brien, head of the protest team at Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors, told MEE: 'Palestine Action isn't a membership organisation, really it's a campaign. And the people that become involved in what are generally expressive forms of protest have often never been in trouble before. 'Many of the actions carried out under the banner of Palestine Action don't include significant damage, some of them include damage which is low value, often as simple as throwing red paint which is washed away. 'When people are charged with criminal damage, and we go to court, a lot of those damages which are put forward aren't in fact criminal damage - they're consequential losses,' Simon Pook, a solicitor representing several of the Filton 18 activists, told MEE. 'The costs that are initially put forward when the case opens are subsequently substantially reduced." Cooper stated that the assessment of damage by the group's actions over the last five years had been based on 'a robust evidence-based process, by a wide range of experts from across government, the police and the security services'. But Charlie Falconer, who served as justice secretary under Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, said that the Brize Norton action did not merit proscription 'so there must be something else that I don't know about'. How does the action at RAF Brize Norton compare to similar cases? Legal experts have highlighted that Palestine Action's methods are not unprecedented: protestors have targeted military facilities in the past and been acquitted. In its letter to Cooper, Kelly's pointed to the discrepancy between the government's response to Palestine Action and that of the Fairford Five, a group of activists who, in 2003, broke into an RAF airbase and sabotaged US bombers before they flew to Iraq during the US-led invasion. Josh Richards, one of three protesters, was defended by current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who was a barrister at the time. Starmer argued that the actions of his client, who allegedly intended to set fire to a military jet with a mixture of petroleum and washing-up liquid, were a justified attempt to prevent war crimes. 'If you look at the guidance that Keir Starmer set out in that case, it seems to be a massive contradiction,' said Pook. 'People may be outraged about spraying red paint on military jets. In my view, that is far less serious than having a can of petrol." Can proscription be challenged or reversed? Under the Terrorism Act, an application can be made to the home secretary, requesting that they de-proscribe an organisation. If refused, then there is a right of appeal to the Proscribed Organisation Appeal Commission. According to the Home Office, the commission will permit the appeal "if it considers that the decision to refuse de-proscription was flawed, applying judicial review principles". The most recent was that of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, in November 2019. O'Brien said that few organisations have challenged proscription. 'But that's perhaps not surprising, because often the organisations that are being proscribed are so often identified as militant organisations who promote violence in order to bring about regime or political change. 'This is a different type of case, because a direct action group is the subject of the proscription. There is much more likely to be a challenge this time." Palestine Action have launched a fundraising campaign to challenge the ban.
Arabian Business
10 hours ago
- Arabian Business
Dubai Media Council wraps up UK tour to strengthen global media strategy
The Dubai Media Council has concluded the UK visit of its Media Leadership Programme, marking a key step in efforts to build globally aligned media capabilities across Dubai's government ecosystem. The week-long visit brought together 25 participants from various Dubai government entities, forming the inaugural cohort of the programme launched earlier this year by Sheikh Ahmed bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Second Deputy Ruler of Dubai and Chairman of the Dubai Media Council. The initiative aims to develop a new generation of media leaders capable of shaping narratives that reflect Dubai's global standing. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Dubai Media Council (@dubaimediacouncil) During the visit, participants engaged in sessions and site visits focused on media trust, digital transformation, artificial intelligence, and international communication strategy. Institutions visited included the Financial Times, Sky News, Google, the Thomson Foundation, and the policy platform Apolitical. Highlights of the tour included a keynote on nation branding by the GREAT Britain & Northern Ireland Campaign, as well as a session with the Thomson Foundation on global media development. At Google, discussions centred on the future of information in the digital age. Participants also met with senior diplomats and former UK government communication officials to explore best practices in strategic messaging and public trust. The programme provided insight into how leading institutions are adapting to global shifts while maintaining high professional standards. Nehal Badri, Secretary General of the Dubai Media Council, said in a statement, 'The Media Leadership Programme is a key element in our strategy to raise Dubai's global media profile by cultivating leadership talent capable of shaping powerful, future-ready narratives that can contribute to the emirate's development journey.' 'The UK engagement featured in-depth discussions designed to provide insights that not only help strengthen Dubai's government communication and media competencies but also reinforce the city's position as a leading voice in the international media landscape.' She also added, 'Apart from knowledge exchange, the tour aimed to build a strong network of collaboration with global players who can support Dubai's vision for media excellence and align communication strategies with evolving global standards.' Hesham Al Olama, Director of Strategy and Performance Management at the Dubai Media Council, added as well, 'The tour provided the Media Leadership Programme participants a unique understanding of how institutions can adapt to change while staying rooted in the highest professional standards.' 'From strategic diplomacy to data-driven storytelling, the ideas shared during this tour will support the programme's objective of developing a new generation of media leaders who are equipped to navigate global shifts with confidence and clarity.' The Media Leadership Programme was launched in January as part of the Council's efforts to strengthen the media sector's contribution to Dubai's development journey. It includes both local and international engagements aimed at enhancing the capabilities of government communication leaders.
The National
12 hours ago
- The National
UK's largest Jewish body suspends five members after criticism of Israel
The UK's largest representative body for British Jews has suspended five of its members who wrote an open letter criticising Israel's military campaign in Gaza. The Board of Deputies of British Jews investigated 36 members who signed the letter which was published in the Financial Times in April, and found them to be in breach of the code of conduct. In the board's conclusions published on Tuesday, it said that the members had 'misled' the public in presenting the letter as an 'official document of the board as a whole'. Five deputies who were seen to have promoted the letter further after its publication will be suspended for two years, with three of them given a change to shorten the suspension to six months. The remaining cosignatories were issued a formal caution. The group of five were not named in the statement, but they are said to be surprised and hurt by the outcome, as they had hoped their letter would push the board to present a wider range of views within the community on the Israel-Gaza conflict. The investigating panel stressed that the breach was not due to the 'content of the letter' but to the 'behaviour of the signatories', who had actively promoted it. The panel also said its team had spent 'considerable time' contacting media outlets to correct the coverage of the letter, which had been portrayed as an official statement from the board. 'We are a democratic organisation that welcomes debate, diversity and free speech. Managing diversity of opinion within our organisation depends on our Code of Conduct,' said Michael Wegier, the board's chief executive. 'That code ensures deputies do not create misunderstandings about the position of the board or its members, do not bring the institution into disrepute, and treat one another and the institution with respect.' The BoD's members are elected by their synagogues, charities and other Jewish organisations as representatives. The letter caused significant outrage and debate when it was published, prompting a large number of complaints to the BoD. Daniel Grossman, one of the letter's signatories who resigned from the board in May, said the decision risked undermining faith in the BoD – which has historically been the main representative of the Jewish community to the UK government. 'It will show to more deputies that change from within is quite futile, and if you try to speak out you get suspended,' Mr Grossman told The National. The letter had led to more hardline support from the BoD for Israel's military campaigns in Gaza and Iran. 'If anything they've double down on their support,' Mr Grossman said, pointing to its recent statements on the escalation in Iran. Though debates about the war are commonplace among British Jews, the 36 members were criticised for 'airing dirty laundry' in public. The tension shattered an image of unity which the Board of Deputies has sought to project. The letter's supporters say it emerged out of frustration for the BoD's ardent support of the war, which they said was no longer representative for many British Jews. They also pointed to growing support in Israel for a hostage deal with Hamas, including from the victims' families, and opposition to the Israeli military's resumption of hostilities when the first stage of the ceasefire ended in March. The signatories in the April letter wrote that their 'Jewish values compel us to stand up and to speak out'. 'We know in our hearts we cannot turn a blind eye or remain silent at [the] renewed loss of life and livelihoods, with hopes dwindling for a peaceful reconciliation and the return of the hostages,' they said in the letter. 'Israel's soul is being ripped out and we, members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, fear for the future of the Israel we love and have such close ties to.'
