Is Palestine Action a terrorist organisation?

[Rich Scopie]

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.)

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.

I'm not sure you can logically go from 3 to 6...

How about:
4. However, I do not support the violent actions of a small minority of Palestine Action members / supporters
5. Therefore I do not support all the actions of Palestine Action
6. "Evidently" is doing a lot of hard work. Maybe; "While violent actions are the aim of a few, I would go further and say I am opposed to the violent "wing" of Palestine Action.

I had a long bit about N.Irish Republicans and the Provisional IRA, but a better analogy is probably the Suffragists / Suffragettes.

[Allo V Psycho]

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.)

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.

I'm not sure you can logically go from 3 to 6...

How about:
4. However, I do not support the violent actions of a small minority of Palestine Action members / supporters
5. Therefore I do not support all the actions of Palestine Action
6. "Evidently" is doing a lot of hard work. Maybe; "While violent actions are the aim of a few, I would go further and say I am opposed to the violent "wing" of Palestine Action.

I had a long bit about N.Irish Republicans and the Provisional IRA, but a better analogy is probably the Suffragists / Suffragettes.

Thanks, Rich: all reasonable propositions, several of which I considered before I came to my current view.

For your #4, first can I set aside 'supporters', because I do not think an organisation can automatically be held responsible for the actions of anyone who says they support it. For instance, a supporter of Scottish Independence and hence the SNP might carry out a terrorist act and claim they did it as supporters of the SNP. But the SNP are not responsible for the terrorist act. Of course, that requires that the SNP did not covertly encourage that act, and in my view, the SNP should explicitly disavow that and any other terrorist or violent act. So I would not automatically assume that a violent act carried out ostensibly in support of Palestine Action was endorsed by Palestine Action unless they claimed it as one of their actions (as they did, for instance, for the attack on a Jewish business in London). And indeed I suspect that many of those who currently say they support Palestine Action (such as your friend and Ivan's dad) are non-violent. We probably agree here.

So we are left with members of Palestine Action. I do not in fact know that the violent acts claimed by Palestine Action are that of a minority of members at all, never mind a small minority (I'll come back to 'wing'). I do know that the attacks acknowledged by Palestine Action are highly structured. The use of fire extinguishers filled with red paint as a way of getting widespread and rapid coverage of the paint is ingenious, I suppose, but is plainly not spontaneous. It appears to be an organised plan. Similarly the carrying of sledgehammers is a way of carrying something which plainly can be (and was) used as an intimidatory and offensive weapon yet avoids being a firearm or edged weapon. Then too there is the coordinated use of pyrotechnics (I assume this means fireworks). Together, these all seem to me to represent coordinated and planned attacks, which are violent in nature. Hence I conclude that not merely do I not support the violent actions of Palestine Action, I am opposed to the organisation that planned them.

in #6, you raise the possibility of a violent 'wing'. In my view, an organisation that incorporates a violent wing is a violent organisation. If there was a violent wing of the SNP, then I would expect the SNP to expel and condemn that wing. If Palestine Action knowingly has a violent wing, it is a violent organisation.

The suffragettes are an interesting and much-canvassed case study, on which I have views, but alas, I have almost reached the length of an Ivan V post, without his lucidity or wisdom (and my employer probably expects some work from me at some point this morning) so I will leave that to others, or another day.

[Tristan]

in #6, you raise the possibility of a violent 'wing'. In my view, an organisation that incorporates a violent wing is a violent organisation. If there was a violent wing of the SNP, then I would expect the SNP to expel and condemn that wing. If Palestine Action knowingly has a violent wing, it is a violent organisation.

This is a key point. I have not seen any attempts by Palestine Action to repudiate violent acts done on their behalf. That, along with their claim that they are not non-violent, tells me the organisation does support the use of violence.

[jimbob]

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.)

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.

I'm not sure you can logically go from 3 to 6...

How about:
4. However, I do not support the violent actions of a small minority of Palestine Action members / supporters
5. Therefore I do not support all the actions of Palestine Action
6. "Evidently" is doing a lot of hard work. Maybe; "While violent actions are the aim of a few, I would go further and say I am opposed to the violent "wing" of Palestine Action.

I had a long bit about N.Irish Republicans and the Provisional IRA, but a better analogy is probably the Suffragists / Suffragettes.

I think 4 is the problem.

The core and leadership of Palestine Action are violent. Before the Good Friday Agreement, both Sinn Féin and the SDLP wanted a united Ireland, but only one supported achieving it through violence.

I'd say that PA is analogous

[Si_B]

How about:
4. However, I do not support the violent actions of a small minority of Palestine Action members / supporters
5. Therefore I do not support all the actions of Palestine Action
6. "Evidently" is doing a lot of hard work. Maybe; "While violent actions are the aim of a few, I would go further and say I am opposed to the violent "wing" of Palestine Action.

I had a long bit about N.Irish Republicans and the Provisional IRA, but a better analogy is probably the Suffragists / Suffragettes.

I think you have side-stepped the crucial issue that I and others have raised, and your reframing of point 4 is not consistent with the evidence already in the public domain.

The evidence strongly suggests that PA is already the subset of supporters of that cause who plan violent protest and endorse violent methods. Those that support PA are supporting that position. If they do not support PA's violent intent, then they should repudiate PA and support another organisation entirely that is explicitly non-violent and non-terrorist.