On Friday, The Times reported that the High Court had overruled the government’s proscription of Palestine Action and their designation of them as a terrorist organisation. However, the ban remains in place ‘to allow more arguments to be made and the government time to consider an appeal. Membership of, or support for, the direct-action group remains a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.’ Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, is planning to take the matter to the Court of Appeal in the hope of overturning the High Court ruling.
I must admit, I was dubious when the government first proposed banning Palestine Action. From a purely common sense perspective, it seems fairly obvious to anyone with eyes to see that the group is not in any way akin to Al-Qaeda or Islamic State. Whilst Palestine Action have engaged in some intimidating activities and some criminal action, it is difficult to reckon these things to be terrorism as properly understood. Indeed, the organisation as a whole is not guilty of these things, but some actors within the organisation. Whilst it is entirely right and appropriate that criminal activity should be prosecuted – and part of the High Court ruling made note that there were powers available to do exactly that – this is altogether different from co-ordinated terrorist activity.
It is difficult not to agree with the co-founder of the organisation, Huda Ammori, that proscription has led to the arrest ‘of nearly 3,000 people — among them priests, vicars, former magistrates and retired doctors — under terrorism laws for simply sitting in silence while holding signs reading, ‘I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action’. Whether we agree with them or not, whether we like what they stand for or not, the very idea that holding a sign peacefully should end up in arrest is clearly a huge overreach. Again, Ammori is about right when she says, ‘it is one of the most extreme attacks on free speech in recent British history.’
The Labour Party do, indeed, have a bit of a history and penchant for both extending terror legislation and using against people to whom it absolutely ought not to be applied. It shouldn’t come as a great surprise that the party that once ejected a peaceful protestor holding up a sign during one of Tony Blair’s conference speeches using terror legislation might be inclined to proscribe a direct-action organisation on the same grounds. But to equate Palestine Action with the likes of the IRA is plainly not credible to anyone with eyes to see.
This bears saying not because I am particularly sympathetic to Palestine Action. I am somewhat cautious of claiming a “side” on the Israel-Palestine discussion, recognising that Hamas are a heinous evil whilst also acknowledging that the Israeli government are not exactly scrupulous actors. These things at a national leadership level must also be distinguished from the people in both Gaza and Israel. There are plenty in Gaza who loathe Hamas and many in Israel who have little truck with the Netanyahu government. This is complicated further by the questions of who should own what land and what political solutions ought to be implemented to accomplish it. At a minimum, given where we are at, any solution will involve the mass eviction of large swathes of people who have previously settled and setup home legitimately. These issues are complex with no answers being without complication and serious human cost.
I am not any sort of ideological Zionist – I don’t believe Jewish people have an inherent ‘right’ to that land – but I am somewhere close to being a pragmatic Zionist. I have outlined what I mean by that here. I am of the somewhat pessimistic view that refusal to create an Israeli state back in 1948 would mean the Jews could never be safe within other nations whilst the creation of that Israeli state means they will probably never be safe there either. Which is to say the arguments of the anti-Zionist Jews and the Zionist Jews were both kind of right. I am similarly pessimistic about the creation of a recognised Palestinian state – whether of the one, two or three state solution variety – and can only see it suffering the same kind of problems.
How any of these things will ever be resolved, and what we do about the inevitable slew of complications that emanate from every which potential solution, is well beyond my ken. Again, I outline here what I consider to be the one ‘good’ argument (with all its attending complications) for an Israeli state, along with why I also support the existence of a Palestinian state, whilst going on to highlight a set of ‘bad’ yet troublingly common arguments that we should reject for the existence of an Israeli state. It is the closest to ‘a view’ I can get.
Why am I sharing all this? Simply to say I am not exactly ‘in the pocket’ of Palestine Action. I am sympathetic to some of what they stand for inasmuch as I am for the creation of a recognised Palestinian state, albeit without Hamas anywhere near the helm. I am for Palestinian self-determination. Nevertheless, I am deeply against a lot of what Palestine Action stand for, have serious concern about some of the elements that exist within the organisation and am equally against many of their methods. But what I cannot fathom is their proscription as a terrorist organisation and I think the High Court ruling is right. The recognition of Hamas as terrorists, and those who support them are terrorist sympathisers, is about right; Palestine Action, not so much.