Branding Palestine Action terrorists ‘completely ludicrous', say supporters
Hundreds gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday where Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, is asking the High Court to temporarily block the Government from proscribing the group as a terrorist organisation.
Among the fluttering flags of green, black, white and red were demonstrators holding signs saying 'Free Palestine' and 'We are all Palestine Action'.
Others masked themselves in sunglasses and a keffiyeh while speakers took turns to address the crowd through a PA system.
Sara, who was standing on the edge of the crowd, said many of the supporters present were carrying 'a lot of rage and anger' about the violence in Gaza.
She said: 'We think that the British Government needs to stop funding the genocidal regime in Palestine against Palestinians.
'They need to listen to protest groups instead of this massive overreach which is trying to stifle legitimate resistance and protest against one of the most horrific instances of violence against humanity in our time.'
One woman, who preferred not to be named, stood in the shade next to a pile of pink boxes containing cupcakes decorated with Palestinian flags.
She said she was raising money to send to a friend in Gaza because the price of basic food there has become so high.
Speaking outside court, she said: 'I think it's completely ludicrous that the Government is, rather than stopping supporting a genocide that is happening, they would rather criminalise people who are trying to stop it on the Government's behalf, seeing as though they are not doing anything.
'They have a legal obligation under the Genocide Convention to do all they can to prevent genocide. And they are choosing to, rather than follow their obligations, remain an active participant in this genocide.
'So civilians of conscience have decided to take up the mantle instead and do what they can.'
David Cannon, chairman of the Jewish Network for Palestine, stood wearing a sunhat and bore on his shoulder a white banner adorned with a Palestine flag and the name of his organisation.
His Jewish upbringing made him proud of Israel, he said, until he realised that the conflict in Gaza has been a 'slow-burn genocide for the last 80 years'.
He said: 'Israel is founded on stolen land and stolen lives. It has not only stolen Palestinian land and lives, it has also stolen the identity of Jewish religion.
'So it's vital that there is a Jewish voice saying there is nothing Jewish about apartheid, nothing Jewish about ethnic cleansing, nothing Jewish about genocide.
'The (UK) Government are desperate to stifle free speech which is trying to point out the truth. It's a desperate action and it may well backfire.'
Not every protester outside the court building was there in support of Palestine Action.
A small group stood across the street, next to several police officers, holding up a blue and white banner that said 'there is no genocide in Gaza'.
Mark Birbeck, from the pro-Israel group, called Our Fight, said they do not support the aims of Palestine Action but neither do they support them becoming a proscribed terrorist organisation.
Speaking on the street, he said: 'We don't actually support proscribing Palestine Action.
'We don't think they are a terrorist organisation, and in fact our argument is that it makes a mockery of what terrorism is.
'It's bizarre that (the Government) is presenting this as some kind of aggressive step.
'My suspicion is that Palestine Action are going to run rings around them.
'These people know what they are doing.
'I don't agree with them, I don't agree with their politics, but they've been doing this for years.
'Our argument against Palestine Action though is not that they are terrorists, but what we do believe they are doing is trying to claim the moral high ground and effectively they are doing that to isolate Israel.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Spectator
Could Hebron join the Abraham Accords?
You've heard of the two-state solution (or delusion, as I call it). But have you heard of the eight-state solution? Or the Palestinian Emirates plan? This is the idea of Professor Mordechai Kedar, who I spoke to in February 2024, just four months into the war started by the Palestinians on 7 October, 2023. If his vision once seemed outlandish or unrealistic to many, it now seems considerably less so in light of the fascinating developments emerging from Hebron. A Wall Street Journal report explains that a coalition of Hebron's most powerful clan leaders, led by Sheikh Wadee' al-Jaabari, has issued a public declaration of intent to break away from the Palestinian Authority (PA), establish an autonomous Emirate of Hebron, and seek membership of the Abraham Accords. In doing so, they recognised Israel as the Jewish nation-state (something the PA has never done) and rejected decades of Palestinian rejectionism. Their letter, addressed to Israeli economy minister Nir Barkat, marks an unprecedented rupture with the Palestinian national project as defined by the PLO, and is therefore a welcome shift towards a realistic vision of potential coexistence. And at the heart of this development is Professor Kedar himself. As the Wall Street Journal reported, it was Kedar who introduced Sheikh Jaabari to Barkat and who has, for years, quietly cultivated ties with traditional clan leaders across the West Bank. His blueprint, long dismissed by western diplomats, may now be finding traction precisely because the alternatives have collapsed in blood and failure. Kedar is an expert in Arab culture and a fluent Arabic speaker; a controversial and outspoken academic, he became internet famous in 2008 for schooling an Al Jazeera anchor on the Qu'ran in fluent Arabic. The core of Kedar's argument is sociological. In our 2024 conversation, he laid it out with characteristic clarity: the Arab world is divided into two categories of states. The failing states – Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Yemen – are all patchworks of sectarian, tribal and ethnic groups forced into artificial unity by post-colonial fiat. The successful ones – the Gulf monarchies, particularly the United Arab Emirates – are coherent clan-based structures where legitimacy flows from traditional authority, not abstract ideology. Kedar argues that Palestinian society fits the former mould: deeply clannish, inherently fragmented, and resistant to imposed national identities. The PLO and later the Palestinian Authority attempted to overwrite these loyalties with a centralised nationalist bureaucracy. The result? Corruption, repression, and dysfunction. As Kedar put it, 'the PA is illegitimate… just like Assad in Syria or Gaddafi in Libya.' In contrast, the eight-state or 'emirates' solution proposes a federation of autonomous city-states, each run by its dominant local clan (Hebron, Jericho, Nablus, Ramallah and so on) with rural areas remaining under Israeli sovereignty and offering Israeli citizenship to those who desire it. The model is explicitly drawn from the UAE, where seven emirates function under a federal structure, each rooted in a strong tribal base. Kedar is unapologetic about the cultural foundations of his model. Democracy, he argues, is not merely an institutional framework but a cultural ecosystem, one that is fundamentally alien to much of the Arab world. 'What we treat as sacred cornerstones of democracy,' he told me, 'are totally unacceptable in Islamic societies.' October 7th did not just end the credibility of the Palestinian Authority; it ended the credibility of the two-state paradigm itself. The horror of that day, the slaughter of 1,200 Israelis by Palestinian terrorists, was not an aberration but the culmination of decades of indoctrination, incitement and international indulgence. To continue proposing a sovereign Palestinian state governed by the same ideological and institutional forces that birthed that massacre is not diplomacy, it is moral and strategic derangement. None of this is guaranteed to deliver peace. The sheikhs of Hebron may not succeed. Their vision may be undercut by Israeli inertia, international opposition, or internal division. But their initiative represents something that has been absent from this conflict for too long: strategic imagination rooted in social reality. If Palestinians are to have a future beyond war, indoctrination and kleptocracy, the starting point is to abandon the delusions of the past and begin building with the materials at hand: a commitment to non-violence, recognition of Israel as Jewish state, local leadership, economic pragmatism and a willingness to coexist. The Hebron initiative is not merely a proposal, it is a mirror held up to decades of failed policy. And for those willing to look, it might just be the beginning of a new path.
Scotsman
44 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Onshore wind is cheapest form of energy by far. Here's why bills are still high
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Scotland's clean-energy transition is at risk of losing hearts and minds. The latest Scottish Climate Survey , published in April, highlighted an interesting contradiction that strikes at the heart of the issues facing governments and renewables developers when it comes to decarbonising energy generation. Almost three-quarters of Scots believe that climate change is an immediate and urgent problem; yet, less than half think the net-zero transition will improve their quality of life by 2045, the Scottish Government's target. In short, people have yet to be convinced of the benefits that a move to cleaner energy will bring to them and their families. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Cheaper household energy bills would go a long way towards persuading them that the net-zero transition is more than an arbitrary concept imposed upon them. Far from what many believe, it is already cheaper to generate energy from renewable sources than from fossil fuels and nuclear. Nonetheless, the growth in renewables has not yet translated into lower household bills. Wind turbine technology has come a long way since the opening of the Whitelee Windfarm near Eaglesham in 2009 (Picture: Danny Lawson) | PA Farcical A significant factor behind this is the – quite frankly – farcical reality that UK electricity prices are based on more expensive fossil fuel prices. That is why electricity market reform is vital if we are ever to unlock the potential of renewables to lower bills. The UK cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that the most effective way to achieve a long-term transition to clean and affordable energy is to build more renewable generation into the UK's energy mix. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Onshore wind might not immediately come to mind when considering the cheapest form of energy generation. Yet advances in technology, driven by a burgeoning global market, have significantly reduced the costs of onshore wind and it is now by far the cheapest form of energy generation. Guaranteeing a healthy supply of these projects over the long term is essential to ensure competitive tension and provide the UK Government with flexibility should other forms of generation prove more expensive or slower to develop than anticipated, such as floating offshore wind. Renewable energy firms are working diligently to develop this pipeline of high-quality onshore wind projects in a manner that directly engages communities and respects the surrounding environment. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Planning problems, slow grid connections Developing wind farm projects does not come without its challenges; an unnecessarily strict planning regime and slow National Grid connections for projects increase costs and uncertainty for developers. These issues must be addressed if we are to reap the benefits of the renewables transition – maintaining the status quo would be an act of self-sabotage. The industry faces considerable uncertainty following a proposal in the UK Government's Clean Power Plan to cap the supply of onshore wind projects at the level of the 2030 target, plus 700 MW. Many in the business – including myself – believe constraining the number of projects could have the unintended consequence of reducing competition, which would drive up prices in Contract for Difference auctions and increase energy bills. For an industry where long-term certainty is vital, we need to understand whether there is sufficient flexibility for onshore wind to connect from 2030 to 2035. That Scotland is at the forefront of the UK's clean energy revolution is not enough. Government – and developers – must work to ensure that Scots see and feel the benefits.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Proscription of organisation won't end the debate around terror laws
This proscription has sweeping consequences – not only for activists formerly associated with the group, but for anyone expressing supportive views about its activities, sceptical feelings about its proscription, or displaying logos associated with the group. All of these activities can potentially expose you to significant criminal liability and risk of punishment under the Terrorism Act. In defence of this decision, Yvette Cooper argued that 'proscription is ideologically neutral', and that the UK Government is only 'demonstrating its zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, regardless of its form or underlying ideology'. READ MORE: More than 20 people arrested at protest in support of Palestine Action This is reflected, she said, by the simultaneous bans imposed on two neo-Nazi groups, including a group describing itself as the Russian Imperial Movement and another called the Maniacs Murder Cult. But you might well think that one of these organisations is not quite like the others. Founded in July 2020, Palestine Action describes itself as a 'grassroots, direct action network' committed to disrupting arms sales from Britain to Israel. One of the founders of the organisation, Huda Ammori, made an emergency application to the High Court last week, asking for the proscription order to be suspended. Ammori's application for interim relief failed, and as of yesterday, Palestine Action is now a proscribed terrorist organisation. In her evidence, Ammori characterised the organisation's aims as 'to prevent serious violations of international law by Israel against the Palestinian people, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid and genocide, and the aiding, abetting and facilitation thereof by others, including corporate actors' and 'to expose and target property and premises connected to such crimes and violation'. This disruption has most recently extended to RAF property, with the group claiming responsibility for gaining access to the Royal Air Force Base at Brize Norton last month, taking the opportunity to damage the engines and exteriors of two Voyager jets with red paint and crowbars. The Home Secretary also cites Palestine Action's 2022 at Thales UK in Govan as justification for the proscription. A small group of activists scaled a roof wearing red overalls, unfurled banners, and set off smoke bombs at the military equipment manufacturer. They have since been convicted of public order and property offences in Glasgow Sheriff Court, without any need to mobilise the Terrorism Act at all. Terrorism may be conventionally understood as the use of violence, especially against civilians, to pursue ideological ends, but as the High Court pointed out this week, UK law adopts a much broader definition of who can properly be classified as a terrorist. Blair-era legislation provides that actions taken for the purpose of advancing a political cause can be sanctioned as terrorism, 'if it involves serious damage to property, even if it does not involve violence against any person or endanger life or create a risk to health or safety'. 'In this respect,' as Mr Justice Chamberlain observed on Friday, 'the statutory concept is wider than the colloquial meaning of the term.' This gap has potential consequences. While Chamberlain emphasised that it is not the 'court's function to comment on the wisdom of the use of the power in this case,' it is difficult not to detect a degree of judicial scepticism in the reflection that the Home Secretary's decision to exercise this power 'in respect of a group such as Palestine Action may also have wider consequences for the way the public understands the concept of terrorism and for public confidence in the regime of the 2000 Act'. This point was picked up in the evidence of Professor Ben Saul, reflecting on the international context. Saul is the Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism. In his submission to the High Court, Saul pointed out that 'most responsible States globally have limited terrorism designations to extremist actors engaged in grave large scale atrocities' and 'treating 'direct action' against property interests as 'terrorism' seriously over-classifies the nature of the conduct, and is fundamentally contrary to best practice international standards on the nature and scope of terrorist acts'. Doing so, he suggests, puts the UK 'out of step with comparable liberal democracies,' where 'mere property damage has seldom been a sufficient basis for designating groups as terrorist'. The Home Secretary – and the overwhelming number of MPs who voted on the proscription order – disagreed. READ MORE: David Pratt: The shadowy figures behind US-Israeli aid operation Because it is now an offence for anyone to 'belong or profess to belong' to Palestine Action, exposing anyone who does so to a fine or prison term of up to 14 years. 'Inviting support' for the organisation is now also a criminal offence. So too is expressing any 'opinion or belief that is supportive' of Palestine Action in a way which is 'reckless' and might be interpreted as encouraging an audience to support the proscribed organisation. As civil liberties organisations Amnesty International and Liberty pointed out in their High Court intervention this week, 'there is a real risk that advocacy for the de-proscription of Palestine Action could amount to one or more offences under the 2000 Act.' The consequences don't end there. The Terrorism Act and the police officers charged with enforcing it are also going to have a new interest into what you are wearing. Once an organisation has been proscribed by the British state, wearing a T-shirt, wearing a badge, or carrying a banner 'in such a way' as to 'arouse reasonable suspicion' that you support Palestine Action becomes a crime. This restriction also extends to selfies or social media posts, picturing banners or signs which could be interpreted as sympathetic to the organisation. Under section 13 of the Act, publishing an image which arouses 'reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation' can attract a prison sentence of up to six months or a fine – not to mention the wider stigmatic consequences of carrying a conviction under the Terrorism Act around with you. Anyone who organises an event after this weekend which supports a proscribed organisation, which 'furthers its activities', or which is 'addressed by a person who belongs' to such an organisation will also now commit a terrorism offence. Section 14 of the Terrorism Act defines 'terrorist property' as including any resources of a proscribed organisation. Contributing resources or donations to the organisation could now land you up to 14 years imprisonment, transforming what would have been a crowdfunding donation on Monday into 'fundraising for the purposes of terrorism' today. I came to political consciousness as an adult during the 'War on Terror' of the early Noughties. I can all too clearly remember the circular debates about how the concept of terrorism should be defined in law, concerns about ambiguous definitions, government insistence that public safety and security demanded the state and law enforcement agencies should be given more and more unstructured power above and beyond the ordinary criminal law, undiscouraged by concerns about the dangers of draconian enforcement and executive overreach. Last week's decision is guaranteed to revive these debates – but at least in terms of Palestine Action, under the long shadow of the criminal law.
