Is Palestine Action a terrorist organisation?

[IvanV]

This is utter nonsense. You wouldn’t dream of saying the same in the following circumstances:

“I’m worried about immigration policy, and Britain First is really vocal on that issue, so my ‘I support Britain First’ T-shirt doesn’t actually mean I support Britain First.”

“I care deeply about women’s safety, and the English Defence League happens to be loud about it, so wearing ‘I support the EDL’ just means I support women, not the EDL.”

“I oppose low wages, and the BNP once talked about workers’ rights, so an ‘I support the BNP’ placard is really just about my economic concerns.”
The idea there are no other vocal groups on Palestine is ridiculous.

Of course we wouldn't dream of saying those things, because they are utter nonsense. There are numerous more sensible alternatives for representation on those issues. And it is not difficult to find them, nor see that they are being vocal about it.

But who else is focused on the Palestinian situation at the moment, that might offer a vehicle for our support and protest? I've only noticed one other organisation campaigning on that. And it is not one with necessarily mass appeal for directing that support through, as it has too many other interests, and their main focus of interest is something a bit different.

That organisation is Amnesty. And I've just been on their website and found where they say something about the Palestinian situation. It took a little bit of finding. And the points of the campaign are a lasting ceasefire, an end to arms transfers, and getting Israelis prosecuted for genocide. Maybe not precisely to the taste of many. Ironically the first thing I found, top of their list of current campaigns, was a campaign about an Israeli conscientious objector who is in prison for that. Clearly Amnesty's main interest is individual named people who are locked up for their beliefs, what we originally know them for. And when you do find their page about mass human rights denial, they have 6 campaigns there, and the Palestinian situation is one of them. So supporting Amnesty you take on a whole portfolio of stuff, and not very specifically directed at the Palestinian situation.

[Tristan]

So you’ve gone from “Palestine Action is the only visible group” to “I personally struggled to find Amnesty’s Palestine page on their website”, as if that somehow justifies publicly endorsing an organisation that deliberately carries out criminal damage and violent direct action.

There are loads of visible, mainstream, non-violent organisations that have been front-and-centre on Palestine for years: PSC, Friends of Al-Aqsa, Stop the War, MAP, War on Want, major unions, the Greens, Momentum, BDS. All of them are absolutely clear about where they stand, and all of them have been extremely active over the past year.

To claim these groups are “hard to find” or “not focused enough” is absurd when they have organised the largest marches in Britain in decades, filled Trafalgar Square repeatedly, and dominated the news cycle. If someone’s aim is simply to express solidarity with Palestinians, they have more than enough non-violent channels to choose from.

And that is the point. If you walk past all the non-violent organisations and instead choose to hold a placard saying “I support Palestine Action”, you are not making a generic statement about peace in the Middle East. You are endorsing the specific organisation named on the placard.

The wording is unambiguous, the endorsement is unambiguous, and pretending otherwise is just a way of avoiding the consequences of what the slogan actually says.

[headshot]

Should I have put a joke clarification?

I'm not in any way supportive of Palestine Action.

Jeez.

[Tristan]

Should I have put a joke clarification?

I'm not in any way supportive of Palestine Action.

Jeez.

hah, apologies. Though given some of the other comments on this forum about all of this I could believe it as a genuine comment from some.

[IvanV]

So you’ve gone from “Palestine Action is the only visible group” to “I personally struggled to find Amnesty’s Palestine page on their website”, as if that somehow justifies publicly endorsing an organisation that deliberately carries out criminal damage and violent direct action.

I'm not saying it justifies it. I'm saying it explains why many people - specifically excluding me - do it.

I'm pleased you set out a list of other campaigning organisations. Because I haven't noticed them. Why is it that PA are the one that got all the publicity?

[headshot]

So you’ve gone from “Palestine Action is the only visible group” to “I personally struggled to find Amnesty’s Palestine page on their website”, as if that somehow justifies publicly endorsing an organisation that deliberately carries out criminal damage and violent direct action.

I'm not saying it justifies it. I'm saying it explains why many people - specifically excluding me - do it.

I'm pleased you set out a list of other campaigning organisations. Because I haven't noticed them. Why is it that PA are the one that got all the publicity?

Streisand Effect? They were proscribed, so people leapt to their defence.

[Allo V Psycho]

This is the most serious criminal action by Palestine Action members that has been brought to our attention, as it involved a violent assault on a police officer with a sledge hammer causing her injury, which fortunately was rather less serious than it might have been given what he did to her.

But nonetheless they are not being charged with terrorist offences. So the CPS did not think this was terrorism. And violent actions by demonstrators for a variety of causes are not so uncommon. Throwing bricks at the police is quite common. So far this is the only violent action by Palestine Action I am aware of.

So still we have seen nothing that indicates why Palestine Action should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation, unless some much worse case is upcoming.

I'm going back to this post, because I've been thinking about it a lot, but am hesitant to post about this issue, even here, because of the depth of feeling plainly involved, which can lead to responses I find difficult. The whole issue poses a moral dilemma, and humans are not good with moral dilemmas, tending to migrate to the extreme in either direction. Bearing these risks in mind:

" So far this is the only violent action by Palestine Action I am aware of."

The attack in Glasgow involved throwing pyrotechnics at an area where people were being evacuated. The Sheriff in the case considered this a violent action, and I concur. That attack also involved using sledgehammers and throwing red paint, at a time when people were at work, rather than in the middle of the night, and I cannot help thinking that this was intended to intimidate and deter workers, especially if exactly the same MO with sledgehammers was used elsewhere with threats of violence followed by actual violence. Deterring lawful actions by creating fear of harm is what I would consider terrorism. No one has to actually die for it to be an act of terror.

i am also concerned that these two actions, and the attack on Brize Norton, had collateral damage on Britain's defence capabilities, in aircraft and on submarines, which are crucial to the defence architecture of the country. My fears that these 'dual action' attacks are harmful to national security are not based on insider intelligence, but on an, I think reasonable fear in a time of asymmetric warfare, regarding what is happening in plain sight across Europe.

I do not find it hard to identify and employ ways to show support support to the Palestinians, as indeed I think the UK government intends with its recognition of Palestine, but I also recognise that the UK Government, in the current situation of open warfare in Europe, and an unpredictable Government in the US, also finds itself in a cleft stick.

No disrespect is intended to IvanV, whose contributions I generally value.

[bob sterman]

i am also concerned that these two actions, and the attack on Brize Norton, had collateral damage on Britain's defence capabilities, in aircraft and on submarines, which are crucial to the defence architecture of the country. My fears that these 'dual action' attacks are harmful to national security are not based on insider intelligence, but on an, I think reasonable fear in a time of asymmetric warfare, regarding what is happening in plain sight across Europe.

Not just defensive capabilities. As I pointed out earlier in this thread - the A330 Voyagers are dual purpose. They can carry passengers and can be, and have been, used to evacuate civilians from war zones.

[IvanV]

i am also concerned that these two actions, and the attack on Brize Norton, had collateral damage on Britain's defence capabilities, in aircraft and on submarines, which are crucial to the defence architecture of the country. My fears that these 'dual action' attacks are harmful to national security are not based on insider intelligence, but on an, I think reasonable fear in a time of asymmetric warfare, regarding what is happening in plain sight across Europe.

I made this point earlier in the thread, so you can understand I agree absolutely. I consider Palestine Action's quite reprehensible and I would have nothing to do with them.

But they aren't terrorists. You mention the attack on Thales in Glasgow, and what happened there - there were no injuries, but maybe that was luck. I observe Glasgow City Council also thinks the nature of that attack doesn't make them terrorists. Had the nature of the attack suggested an intent to injure Thales employees, then that would be different.

Just Stop Oil (now disbanded) caused considerably more economic damage through its disruptive protests, physical damage to energy installations and blockade of fuel terminals. They may have had an indirect effect on safety because of the difficulty of transporting people to hospital, etc. I agree entirely that such very disruptive protests should be prevented. But no one suggested they were terrorists.

I'm not in any way in support of such organisations, as I repeat I consider their methods quite reprehensible. I'm just trying to make a scientific explanation of why, nonetheless, other ordinary people seem to think it is appropriate to support Palestine Action. And in particular I am aware of the case of my father, who still has his marbles and spends a lot of time reading the up-market newspapers, who thought them a bona fide organisation, and it took me quite a lot of discussion with him to persuade him they aren't, and I can't even say I succeeded.

I suspect the fault lies with the mainstream media, who concentrate on Palestine Action and tell us very little about the alternative routes of protest.

[bob sterman]

I made this point earlier in the thread, so you can understand I agree absolutely. I consider Palestine Action's quite reprehensible and I would have nothing to do with them.

But they aren't terrorists. You mention the attack on Thales in Glasgow, and what happened there - there were no injuries, but maybe that was luck. I observe Glasgow City Council also thinks the nature of that attack doesn't make them terrorists. Had the nature of the attack suggested an intent to injure Thales employees, then that would be different.

Whether or not they meet most people's understanding of the term "terrorism" there is a good chance they meet the (arguably too broad) UK definition set out in the 2006 Terrorism Act.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... m-act-2006

Take the Brize Norton or Thales attacks...

"Serious damage to property" - yes - >£1 million in damage in Glasgow and chucking paint into a £10 million+ jet engine renders it ususable until overhauled.

"Designed to influence the government" - yes

"For the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause" - yes

Now many people would argue with the appropriateness of this defintion - but it's the definition in effect in the UK right now.

[IvanV]

Whether or not they meet most people's understanding of the term "terrorism" there is a good chance they meet the (arguably too broad) UK definition set out in the 2006 Terrorism Act.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... m-act-2006

Take the Brize Norton or Thales attacks...

"Serious damage to property" - yes - >£1 million in damage in Glasgow and chucking paint into a £10 million+ jet engine renders it ususable until overhauled.

"Designed to influence the government" - yes

"For the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause" - yes

Now many people would argue with the appropriateness of this defintion - but it's the definition in effect in the UK right now.

The famous aphorism is that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. This definition seems to be designed to be much broader than than just freedom fighters, and so gives the government considerable discretion in how they use it. Our governments keep on giving themselves broad powers capable of being abused, and always say they will use them responsibly. They say it is necessary so nothing falls through the holes. Like the recent spying case that failed because China doesn't meet the definition of an enemy. But then they abuse the broad power. Or worse, when enforcement is up to the police, the police enforce in every case meeting a definition, because that is what the law says. Which is why people keep get arrested for posting offensive stuff on social media, which is often a disproportionate response to it.

Here we have that vague word, "serious". In the case of the offences of causing "serious injury" by "careless" or "dangerous" driving, it is apparent that "serious injury" means "life-changing injury". That is a narrower definition of "serious injury" than colloquial use of term. Most people would say a broken leg requiring an operation to fix it was a serious injury. But it wouldn't typically be life-changing.

What upon earth is "serious damage to property"? We have absolutely no idea of the quantum intended. When a person once deliberately pushed my bicycle to the ground and stamped on it, bending the frame, that was serious damage to the bicycle. It was irreparable. It was a kind of political act by a bicycle-hater. But it doesn't quite meet all the criteria of terrorism in this legislation.

[Rich Scopie]

What does your pal think about people who support an organisation who threaten to use and actually use sledgehammers against the police?

As I've said many times - maybe not here - in any group of people, 98% of them are perfectly decent people, 2% are ar5eholes. Except groups of ar5eholes, where, obviously, 100% are ar5eholes.

(Figures may not be absolutely accurate)

(Oh, and to answer the question, he's absolutely against violence of any kind.)

[bob sterman]

The famous aphorism is that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. This definition seems to be designed to be much broader than than just freedom fighters, and so gives the government considerable discretion in how they use it. Our governments keep on giving themselves broad powers capable of being abused, and always say they will use them responsibly.

There's a discussion here on the "serious" threshold which suggests that the definition of "serious" has not really been fully tested in court...

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/07 ... terrorism/

[Tristan]

What does your pal think about people who support an organisation who threaten to use and actually use sledgehammers against the police?

As I've said many times - maybe not here - in any group of people, 98% of them are perfectly decent people, 2% are ar5eholes. Except groups of ar5eholes, where, obviously, 100% are ar5eholes.

(Figures may not be absolutely accurate)

(Oh, and to answer the question, he's absolutely against violence of any kind.)

I’m confused. Does your friend support Palestine Action or not?

[IvanV]

There's a discussion here on the "serious" threshold which suggests that the definition of "serious" has not really been fully tested in court...

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/07 ... terrorism/

Thank you for the reference to this article. Well worth reading.

[Allo V Psycho]

I'll summarise the BBC article that was linked earlier.

Ms Heer told the jury that each of the "red team" carried a sledgehammer to cause damage - but they were also prepared to use them as weapons.
"The evidence demonstrates that all of these defendants used them for that purpose, to threaten or to attack the security guards and to lend support to one another as they did so," she said.
"When the police arrived, as the defendants knew they would, Samuel Corner attacked them, going so far as to strike a female officer, Sgt Kate Evans, across the back with his sledgehammer while she was on the floor, facing away from him."
…
"Inside the warehouse, the Red Team set about destroying as much property as they could," said Ms Heer, adding the group was armed with sledgehammers, whips, and fireworks.

'Screamed in pain'
…
Footage played in the opening address was said to show Zoe Rogers brandishing and swinging a sledgehammer in front of a security guard, Angelo Volante.
He also said he had been whipped by Charlotte Head and threatened with a saw by Leona Kamio.
Eventually he retreated - but later returned with the police. As he led officers into the factory, video played to the jury on Tuesday was said to show Ms Kamio raising her sledgehammer over her head and bringing it down towards him.
She was then tasered - but continued to resist arrest. The video is then said to show Samuel Corner approaching Sgt Evans and striking her back with a sledgehammer.
"Having hit her once, he raised the sledgehammer again and hit her with it a second time," said Ms Heer.

Whips? They carried and used whips? Hitting someone with a sledgehammer to knock them down and then hit them on the back when they were lying on the floor?

And I'll repeat again that the Sheriff in the Glasgow case categorised the discharge of pyrotechnics towards where people were being evacuated as a violent act.

IANAL but this looks to me like both violent intent and violent acts, clearly planned in advance. I'm puzzled as to how there can be any other interpretation. But then I'm easily puzzled. However, that puzzlement extends to the UKCLA statement that:

The proscription of Palestine Action therefore involves a subtle but significant shifting of the legal understanding of terrorism. Prior to the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action, no organisation, movement or group has ever been proscribed solely on the basis that they carry out actions which cause serious damage to property under s.1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Act.

Again, to my simple minded view of the law, as helpfully cited by UKCLA, the actions in Glasgow and in Wales unequivocally fall under the definition of terrorism. This is despite the fact that I support the cause that Palestine Action purport to espouse.

[Tristan]

Footage from their attack in Glasgow. Watch to the end for one of them hitting a police officer across the back with a sledge hammer.

https://x.com/courtnewsuk/status/199327 ... 63683?s=46

[Allo V Psycho]

Footage from their attack in Glasgow. Watch to the end for one of them hitting a police officer across the back with a sledge hammer.

https://x.com/courtnewsuk/status/199327 ... 63683?s=46

Is that available anywhere other than X?

[Tristan]

Footage from their attack in Glasgow. Watch to the end for one of them hitting a police officer across the back with a sledge hammer.

https://x.com/courtnewsuk/status/199327 ... 63683?s=46

Is that available anywhere other than X?

Not that I know of. The person who linked to it on Bluesky had tried to find it elsewhere but hadn’t been able to.

[Rich Scopie]

What does your pal think about people who support an organisation who threaten to use and actually use sledgehammers against the police?

As I've said many times - maybe not here - in any group of people, 98% of them are perfectly decent people, 2% are ar5eholes. Except groups of ar5eholes, where, obviously, 100% are ar5eholes.

(Figures may not be absolutely accurate)

(Oh, and to answer the question, he's absolutely against violence of any kind.)

I’m confused. Does your friend support Palestine Action or not?

He supports not killing innocent people and not destroying the lives and homes of those still living. In that, he supports Palestine Action's aims. He doesn't support violence. (And branding the whole organisation violent, because of the actions of a small number of a..eholes is equivalent to branding all football supporters violent hooligans because of Harry The Dog.)

[Tristan]

As I've said many times - maybe not here - in any group of people, 98% of them are perfectly decent people, 2% are ar5eholes. Except groups of ar5eholes, where, obviously, 100% are ar5eholes.

(Figures may not be absolutely accurate)

(Oh, and to answer the question, he's absolutely against violence of any kind.)

I’m confused. Does your friend support Palestine Action or not?

He supports not killing innocent people and not destroying the lives and homes of those still living. In that, he supports Palestine Action's aims. He doesn't support violence. (And branding the whole organisation violent, because of the actions of a small number of a..eholes is equivalent to branding all football supporters violent hooligans because of Harry The Dog.)

Was he holding an “I Support Palestine Action” placard? If not, on what grounds was he arrested?

Also, it’s worth bearing in mind that PA describe themselves as not being non-violent.

[Allo V Psycho]

As I've said many times - maybe not here - in any group of people, 98% of them are perfectly decent people, 2% are ar5eholes. Except groups of ar5eholes, where, obviously, 100% are ar5eholes.

(Figures may not be absolutely accurate)

(Oh, and to answer the question, he's absolutely against violence of any kind.)

I’m confused. Does your friend support Palestine Action or not?

He supports not killing innocent people and not destroying the lives and homes of those still living. In that, he supports Palestine Action's aims. He doesn't support violence. (And branding the whole organisation violent, because of the actions of a small number of a..eholes is equivalent to branding all football supporters violent hooligans because of Harry The Dog.)

Ah, thanks, Rich, that helps me clarify my thinking. I've numbered my thoughts, entirely for my own convenience.

1. I too support not killing innocent people and not destroying the lives and homes of those still living.
2. Many individuals and organisations support those propositions with regard to Palestine.
3. Palestine Action assert that they support those aims
4. However, I do not support the violent actions of Palestine Action.
5. Therefore, I do not support Palestine Action.
6. Further, since violent actions are also evidently their aim, I would go further, and say I am opposed to Palestine Action.

7. Finally, since the actions of Palestine Action are harmful to the UK's defence infrastructure in a time of asymmetric warfare, I suspect (but cannot personally confirm at the moment) that they have aims beyond supporting Palestine.

(Others, including your friend, may have different views. Thought 7 may be my unique fear).

The point about the number of what you call a..eholes is interesting. It is true, I think, that there are a certain number in any organisation. My suspicion is that when a group espouses violence, then those of violent tendency (and sometimes criminals) gravitate towards it. I have observed this at first hand with 'football hooliganism', when my favoured team began to attract violent individuals who were not previously supporters in any meaningful way, and at second hand with the Troubles in Northern Ireland, where I have family, friends and colleagues. The percentage of a..eholes is therefore amplified. Indeed, in some organisations, the violent and criminal come to dominate, since they tend to drive out (or kill) the ethically-minded (while still pretending they support the ostensible aims for which violence was first proposed). This sequence is why I am opposed to political violence under all but the most extreme circumstances. I fear your 2% estimate may be reasonable in general, but not stable in circumstances of political violence.

[jimbob]

I’m confused. Does your friend support Palestine Action or not?

He supports not killing innocent people and not destroying the lives and homes of those still living. In that, he supports Palestine Action's aims. He doesn't support violence. (And branding the whole organisation violent, because of the actions of a small number of a..eholes is equivalent to branding all football supporters violent hooligans because of Harry The Dog.)

Ah, thanks, Rich, that helps me clarify my thinking. I've numbered my thoughts, entirely for my own convenience.

1. I too support not killing innocent people and not destroying the lives and homes of those still living.
2. Many individuals and organisations support those propositions with regard to Palestine.
3. Palestine Action assert that they support those aims
4. However, I do not support the violent actions of Palestine Action.
5. Therefore, I do not support Palestine Action.
6. Further, since violent actions are also evidently their aim, I would go further, and say I am opposed to Palestine Action.

7. Finally, since the actions of Palestine Action are harmful to the UK's defence infrastructure in a time of asymmetric warfare, I suspect (but cannot personally confirm at the moment) that they have aims beyond supporting Palestine.

(Others, including your friend, may have different views. Thought 7 may be my unique fear).

The point about the number of what you call a..eholes is interesting. It is true, I think, that there are a certain number in any organisation. My suspicion is that when a group espouses violence, then those of violent tendency (and sometimes criminals) gravitate towards it. I have observed this at first hand with 'football hooliganism', when my favoured team began to attract violent individuals who were not previously supporters in any meaningful way, and at second hand with the Troubles in Northern Ireland, where I have family, friends and colleagues. The percentage of a..eholes is therefore amplified. Indeed, in some organisations, the violent and criminal come to dominate, since they tend to drive out (or kill) the ethically-minded (while still pretending they support the ostensible aims for which violence was first proposed). This sequence is why I am opposed to political violence under all but the most extreme circumstances. I fear your 2% estimate may be reasonable in general, but not stable in circumstances of political violence.

I'd agree with all these including #7

[Si_B]

(And branding the whole organisation violent, because of the actions of a small number of a..eholes is equivalent to branding all football supporters violent hooligans because of Harry The Dog.)

(On an infrequent visit to this page - Hi everybody!).

This is the nub of the argument surely. Your analogy falls down because PA appears to be a violent proscribed sub-group within the general group of people who wish to protest. PA seem to use terrorist methods to further their aims (e.g. assaulting a police officer with a sledgehammer or sabotaging military aircraft) hence their proscription (it will be interesting to see what the Judicial Review decides). It is the explicit support for PA that is being charged as a criminal offence, not the other part of their slogan on their soggy cardboard. It may be the case that useful idiots are proclaiming support for a proscribed terrorist organisation because of their lack of understanding of the difference between PA and other protesters, but that is not an excuse in the eyes of the law. I think it is telling that more prominent people (including MPs) have not repeated their pre-proscription statements of support, because they are well aware of the criminal consequences. They appear to be letting the useful idiots take the fall to keep PA in the headlines while the leaders keep their mouths firmly shut on the specific issue of supporting PA.

If I were a Milwall supporter, I would be aggrieved if I was labelled a violent hooligan simply because I supported Milwall and wore a Milwall scarf. However, if I were to explicitly support a criminal firm of hooligans who use their alleged support of Milwall to justify violent attacks on their opponents, then I would only have myself to blame for any personal consequences that ensued.

[Tristan]

Agree with pretty much everything Allo vs Psycho said.

(And branding the whole organisation violent, because of the actions of a small number of a..eholes is equivalent to branding all football supporters violent hooligans because of Harry The Dog.)

It may be the case that useful idiots are proclaiming support for a proscribed terrorist organisation because of their lack of understanding of the difference between PA and other protesters, but that is not an excuse in the eyes of the law.

I think "useful idiot" is, at this point, maybe becoming a bit generous. Whilst we now have footage, none of it is surprising as it was all described months ago. For someone to still have an "I support Palestine Action" placard at this stage shows one or more of the following:

- A total lack of curiosity. The organisation has been prescribed and it doesn't take much research to find out why. Why aren't these people saying to themselves "huh, maybe I should look into them a bit more"
- A particular emphasis on the "idiot' part
- People knowing but not caring about the violence of the group

I find there's a lot of handwaving and attempts to justify PA's supporters in a way that wouldn't happen with other similarly violent group. It's part of the impulse to say "well, they're a left wing cause so they're on the right side of things. It's ok to support them" that happens a lot.