On Friday morning, Palestine Action published video footage of some of their activists infiltrating RAF Brize Norton, the UK’s largest air force base. The group claimed their activists had caused damage to two military planes and had managed to escape undetected.
By the end of the day, the Government had announced that it would be proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. Cue the inevitable uproar from the far-left.
Richard Burgon, MP for Leeds North-West, described Palestine Action as following “a long tradition in our country of people using non-violent direct action to oppose war – like the women at the Greenham Common base. But even those opposed to such tactics should see that proscribing Palestine Action – treating them as terrorists – is a dangerous step.”
Nadia Whittome, MP for Nottingham East, told her social media followers that “We should all be concerned about plans to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group. Targeting non-violent protesters in this way is a misuse of terrorism-related powers. It sets a dangerous precedent, which governments in future could further use against their critics.”
There is an exquisite irony in elements of the far-left vocally condemning what they clearly see as the redefining of the definition of “terrorism” to include Palestine Action, given that they simultaneously appear to have trouble grasping the meaning of “non-violent”.
Last August, members of Palestine Action used a van to ram through the gates of an Israeli defence firm in Filton, near Bristol. According to a statement subsequently released by the Avon and Somerset constabulary, police and company employees responding to the break-in were assaulted. This included two police officers who were attacked with a sledgehammer, one of whom was taken to hospital due to her injuries. Clearly in the spirit of Gandhi, I’m sure you’ll agree.
In March of this year, another site targeted by Palestine Action saw multiple members of the group arrested, including three charged with “assault by beating”.
But don’t just take my word for it. The Palestine Action website is still online at this point, as it likely will be until proscription takes effect. Absolutely nowhere does it describe itself as a “non-violent” organisation – because it isn’t. It repeatedly calls itself a “direct action” outfit.
In what is described as its “underground manual” it gives advice on how to “create a cell”, “pick a target” and “prepare for action”, as well as a great deal of advice on how to avoid law enforcement consequences, before, during and after an “action”.
One section says that “with an efficient sledgehammer in your hand, you can cause quite a bit of damage”. This is referring to smashing equipment, but further down the same page it says that “the tactics mentioned are examples of previous actions so by all means think big! Try not limit your action based on what’s been done before. Remind yourself when brainstorming different ideas, what could I do to be creative?” Later in the manual, step five – “Take Action” – says “Adrenaline and nerves will be pumping through you at the same time. This is normal. Make sure you run through your plans right before taking action another time, to make sure everyone is on the same page. Then go for it.”
The fact that more than one “action” by the group has ended in assault charges for its members makes it perfectly clear what such people have interpreted “think big”, and “go for it” as meaning.
Over the weekend, the barrister who is currently representing Hamas in its own efforts to overturn its proscription as a terrorist organisation made his thoughts on Palestine Action clear.
“The British State is weak”, wrote Franck Magennis. “For many reasons, its moral and political legitimacy is in free-fall…this is a test of strength. Palestine Action will prevail if everyone in Britain who supports Palestine rallies behind them.”
Leaving aside the hilarity of Magennis considering himself an authority to comment on moral legitimacy, his words should show us something. The widespread perception is indeed that the British state is weak. Successive governments have struggled to deal with a wave of campaigns – of which Palestine Action is the most extreme – designed to cause significant damage in pursuit of their cause. Whether intentionally or not, the statement from the Metropolitan Police commissioner, in response to reports of a demonstration in support of Palestine Action on Monday, was highly revealing. He described himself as “frustrated”, noting that “this is an organised extremist criminal group, whose proscription as terrorists is being actively considered…multiple members of the group are awaiting trial accused of serious offences…actions in support of such a group go beyond what most would see as legitimate protest.”
Many in the Jewish community have been calling for Palestine Action to be proscribed for some time, in light of its attacks not just on Israeli targets, but on Jewish communal charities linked to Israel as well. Last month, Palestine Action also targeted a Jewish premises in Stamford Hill, which the group claimed had leased a site to an Israeli company. The apparent government reticence to move forward with proscription, despite the violence of a number of its members, was reportedly due to concerns that a judicial review could overturn such a move. The decision by Palestine Action to broadcast the activities of its members targeting an air-force base was an acute embarrassment to the government, which simultaneously would have made it far easier for it to push for proscription. But the overall problem remains; the state’s apparent inability, for years on end, under multiple governments, to deal with an organisation dedicated to widespread damage and disruption in support of its cause.
It has now been more than a year since Lord Walney, then the government’s advisor on political violence and extremism, released his report, ‘protecting our democracy from coercion”. Despite the subsequent election, the current government would be wise to move to implement many of his recommendations. The stability of the UK may well depend on it.
