London police arrest 41 over support for banned Palestine Action group
Listen to article
London's police force said on Saturday that officers had arrested 41 people who had expressed support for the banned group Palestine Action at a protest outside parliament.
British lawmakers proscribed the group under anti-terrorism legislation earlier this month after some of its members broke into a Royal Air Force base and damaged planes in protest against Britain's support for Israel.
"Officers have made 41 arrests for showing support for a proscribed organisation. One person has been arrested for common assault," London's Metropolitan Police said in a statement on social media about the demonstration.
After a similar protest in London last week, police arrested 29 people.
Read More: UN reports 798 deaths near Gaza aid hubs in six weeks
Police also made arrests at a demonstration in support of Palestine Action in Manchester. Other protests took place in Cardiff and in Northern Ireland.
Before Saturday's arrests in London, close to 50 protesters had gathered with placards saying "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action" near a statue of former South African President Nelson Mandela outside the British parliament.
The International Court of Justice in the Hague is hearing a case brought by South Africa accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians in the conflict in Gaza, which began after Palestinian militant group Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. Israel has repeatedly denied committing abuses.
The British government's decision to classify Palestine Action as a terrorist group places it in the same category as Hamas, al-Qaeda and ISIS. Membership now carries a prison sentence of up to 14 years.
Opponents of the ban say using anti-terrorism laws is inappropriate against a group focused on civil disobedience.
Also Read: At least 60 Palestinians killed, 180 wounded in Israeli strikes today
Palestine Action generally targeted Israeli and Israel-linked businesses in Britain such as defence company Elbit Systems, often spraying red paint, blocking entrances or damaging equipment
In an unsuccessful court appeal against the ban, a lawyer for Palestine Action said the government ban was the first time Britain had proscribed a group which undertook this type of direct action.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Pakistan — a bit of history to understand the present
Listen to article Around the middle of the eighteenth century, traders from the islands of Britain were attracted to the land they were to call "India", named after the Indus River. The river originated in Tibet and then flowed through Kashmir into Pakistan. In a vast delta south of Karachi, now Pakistan's largest city and once its capital, the river emptied itself into the sea. The British did not come to India to conquer but to trade. They came to India to buy handicrafts from the skilled workers who produced delicate fabrics from the locally grown cotton. As they established their businesses, the areas' weak rulers offered some resistance which the British traders were able to overcome, sometimes with the help of local chiefs. Over time the British merchants were able to establish themselves as the rulers, laying the foundation of the British imperial raj. Their dominion over the vast land lasted for a couple of centuries. It was finally challenged by local politicians who took advantage of the way Britain had been weakened by its participation in the two world wars, the first fought from 1914 to 1919 and the second from 1939 to1945. The Indian independence movement was led by Mohandas Gandhi, a London-trained lawyer who launched a non-violent campaign against British rule after having tried the approach in South Africa. Gandhi's life as an ascetic and his pursuit of nonviolence as a weapon against the British colonisation of the country to which he originally belonged, became the model that other activists like Martin Luther King were to follow. In the early 1940s, the government in London headed by the Labor Pary leader Clement Attlee decided to leave India and transfer power to the leaderships of the Hindu dominated Congress Party and the Muslim dominated All-India Muslim League. This transfer took place after Attlee had agreed to divide the Indian colony into two states, India and Pakistan. India was to be a predominantly Hindu country while Pakistan was to have a Muslim population. The partition of the British colony led to what was to be later called "ethnic cleansing". As I estimated in my first book on Pakistan, fourteen million people moved from one country to the other. Eight million Muslims who were left on the Indian side of the border gave up their homes and headed towards Pakistan, while six million Hindus and Sikhs went in the other direction. They traveled mostly on foot and there were attacks on them by the members of the other communities. About a million people died in this mass transfer, some because of exhaustion and some because of communal killing. Khushwant Singh, a popular writer who wrote in English, published a widely read book on these moves. He called it The Train to Pakistan. More than half of the Muslim migrants headed to Karachi, which was chosen to be the new country's capital. The new arrivals spoke mostly Urdu while those who went to the Pakistani part of the province of Punjab were mostly Punjabi speaking. Punjabi was the language of the area they came from and settled on the lands the Sikh farmers had tilled before they pulled out their roots and headed to India. The majority of British India's Muslim population was concentrated in two areas: one in the northwest and the other in the northeast. The two together had a total of 65 million people, equally divided between the two regions. For a quarter century, these two areas were parts of the new state of Pakistan, mostly called the "wings" of the two countries. The wings were separated by a thousand miles of Indian territory. The remaining 35 million Muslims stayed in India, scattered in several areas in the vast domain. Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the founder of the Pakistani state. He belonged to the Khoja community, which was concentrated in the city of Karachi. This was one reason why that city was chosen to be Pakistan's first capital. It became what Stephen Inskeep, an American social scientist, called the Instant City. He called Karachi the instant city since within a matter of a few years, it was turned from a small port to a mega capital of millions of people. It was to remain Pakistan's capital for fourteen years. In 1961, General Ayub Khan threw out the civilian-led government and replaced it with the one dominated by the military. Ayub Khan's military rule was the first of four that were to govern Pakistan until 2008. In a long interview I had with him a few months before he died in Islamabad in 1974 at the age of 66, he asked me about the book I was writing on Pakistan. "Would you deal with the period when I governed Pakistan?" he asked me. I answered by saying no serious work on Pakistan would ignore his period. I said that in my view his eleven years in office, from 1958 to 1969, were the "golden years of Pakistan's nationhood". When I was a graduate student at Harvard University for several years, a number of books appeared on Pakistan written by Harvard economists who had served in the country's Planning Commission. They were of the view that the success achieved by Pakistan in the Ayub period could serve as a model for other developing countries to follow. Visibly pleased with my response, he said, "but Zulfie doesn't think so." This was a reference to the campaign launched by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who had served in his cabinet for several years, first as Commerce Minister and then as Minister in charge of Foreign Affairs. It was in the second position which he had that Pakistan become a close ally of China, accusing Ayub Khan of having become an American slave. Ayub Khan responded to this accusation by titling his memoirs, Friends Not Masters. India's Hindu population were not happy that a large number of Muslims over whom they would have liked to rule managed to get away and create a state of their own. However, there are 200 million Muslims who still live in India, the country the Hindu nationalists now like to call Bharat. To dominate this segment of the Indian population is seen as an unfinished business. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has abandoned its effort to be an inclusive place, tolerant of diversity. Its preference is to identify itself as primarily a Hindu state and changing the country's name from India to Bharat.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The 12-day Iran-Israel war
Listen to article The 12-day war between Iran and Israel must have convinced the Iranian regime that only in the possession of a nuclear bomb lies the security and deterrence of their country. Had it possessed a bomb it is most unlikely that Israel would have launched an attack on it on the 13th of June 2025. In an interview with Karan Thapar, the internationally renowned award winning columnist Gideon Levy stated that in case Iran possessed a bomb just as in the case of North Korea and Pakistan it would've provided a guarantee and deterrence against a nuclear attack by an adversary. Although the ceasefire between Iran and Israel may last for a short while, a permanent peace is inconceivable in the absence of a lasting solution to the Palestinian issue. Resolution of the Gaza, Lebanon and Western Bank problems may bring some respite yet complete peace in the middle east will be fraught unless a two-state solution is not implemented. The killing of 100 innocent Gazans every day by the Israelis cannot be called anything like self-defence or security but clear genocide. The best one can say about the 12-day war is that it was short and did not deteriorate into a war of attrition like the brutal war in Gaza. This raises the question whether the war was necessary. The staying power of Iran would've been far greater than that of Israel in a protracted standoff considering that Iran withstood a war for eight years with Iraq. In the 12-day war, Israel and its population had begun to feel the brunt and dismay. The US must've realised that Israel couldn't withstand a long war due to economic pressure and the great drain on its arms and ammunition. The ceasefire is likely to last and hold not because of the goodwill of any party but because it is in the interest of the two sides. The far more important question that arises is whether the war was necessary at all. After the ceasefire the status quo ante is most likely to revive with the same nuclear deal as existed between Obama and Iran. Both the sides suffered militarily, Iran more than Israel, yet the question arises is: for what outcome was the war fought? The ceasefire is likely to hold on since both sides were eager to end the war. After the ceasefire Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Israel had achieved two of its goals: undoing the nuclear capability and removing the Iranian ICBM threat. A US Intelligence Agency report leaked by CNN just one day after the ceasefire informed that the Iranian nuclear capability had only been set back by a few months and not completely obliterated. There were also reports that some nuclear facilities and materials had been removed from the three sites – Ferdow, Natanz and Isfahan – and the bunker busters GBU-57A, carried by US B2 bombers, could not completely exterminate nuclear facilities nor were any radioactive signs traceable over the sites. Some scholars of the middle east argue that if Iran does obtain a nuclear bomb, it may add to stability in the region in the sense that everyone will be deterred from using the bomb due to the horrible consequences of such a conflagration which will be suicidal for all sides. Possession of a nuclear bomb by Iran may lead it to change its mind from extermination of Israel and diversion of its resources towards socio-economic development. Prof John Miershiemer has averred that the long-term policy and goal of Israel, with the support of the US, is to break up and fracture the Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran. That is why Israel is hell bent on depriving Iran from becoming a nuclear power and thus depriving it of its nuclear monopoly. For similar reasons Iran wants to establish a Kurdish state so that Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran are fragmented. The US and Israel also hold countries like Egypt and Jordan by the gullet so that they are dependent upon America for their economies. Any threat to Israel will lead to economic strangulation of these countries. The Israel-US goal of regime change in Iran has proved a failure. Regime change without boots on the ground and merely through air power is impossible as was seen in Iraq. In fact, the Iranian regime has gained in strength and popularity due to rallying of the population around the flag. Even if a regime change was possible the consequences would be disastrous as is clear from the examples of Syria and Iraq which led to a power vacuum and acute social dissensions within the country and conditions of civil war. If Iran had a nuclear bomb, it is unlikely that it would use it as at the end of it all, Iran is not a suicidal country and its leadership is no less rational than that of the US and Israel despite some of the illegitimate policies it pursues like repression of opposition and attitude towards women freedoms. Avi Shlaim, the leading Israeli historian, states that: 1) Iran has never attacked any of its neighbours, while Israel has; 2) Iran doesn't possess a nuclear bomb and Israel does; 3) Iran is a signatory of the NYPT whereas Israel is not; and 4) Iran allows IAEA inspections and Israel doesn't. Israel is treated differently from other countries in so many ways which are morally illegitimate. Some people justify this special treatment of Israel on account of the Holocaust but the latter provides no justification for any country to treat other nation as in the holocaust. Trump and Israel spoke of eliminating Ayatullah Khamenei and hunting nuclear scientists which can only be regarded as morally and legally repugnant. If there was a justification for assassinating Khamenei, what prevents the same treatment not being meted out to Natanyahu not the least for the vicious and amoral genocide in Gaza.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Mahmoud Khalil claims Trump administration used ICE detention to silence activism on Gaza
Palestinian activist and former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil has spoken out about his prolonged detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), alleging it was politically motivated due to his activism in support of Gaza. In an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Khalil said he believes the Trump administration targeted him as part of a broader effort to intimidate those advocating for Palestinian rights. 'They want to conflate any speech for the right of Palestinians with speech that supports terrorism, which is totally wrong,' Khalil told CNN, asserting that his 100-plus days in detention were an attempt to make an example of him and discourage similar activism. A legal permanent resident, Khalil was arrested in March without any criminal charges filed against him. He described harsh treatment during his transfer to a Louisiana detention facility, including being shackled and arriving with a severely swollen leg that made it difficult to walk. While in custody, Khalil was denied temporary release to attend the birth of his child. 'It was the most difficult moment in my life,' he said, calling the situation avoidable and unnecessarily punitive. Khalil was involved in campus demonstrations urging Columbia University to divest from companies allegedly complicit in violence in Gaza. He emphasized the peaceful nature of the protests and suggested his detention sends a chilling message: 'Even if you are a legal resident, even if you are a citizen, actually, we will find a way to come after you.' His legal team has filed a $20 million claim, accusing the government of political retaliation. A White House spokesperson told Axios that Khalil had 'consistently engaged in conduct detrimental to American foreign policy interests.' The case continues to raise concerns about free speech and the potential use of immigration enforcement as a political tool.
