It’s important to remember that the headline refers to the group Palestine action, which has carried out vandalisation of historical pieces, occupations of property, destruction etc (see here). So it’s a group that fits the UK definition of an extremist group.
Some political groups (or even branches of them) can be political cults trapping members with coercive control It’s not always idealistic well meaning people. The court that decreed them an unlawful group will have seen a lot of info we didn’t.
I think we need to look deeper than the headline
Just for the record, I support Palestine action. I condemn the genocide being perpetrated on the Palestinian people by the state of Israel.
Does free speech or democracy exist if the oligarchs/states that buy your politicians/rulers force you to support those states? What would Idi Amin do (perhaps most self enriching open corrupt ruler, or the narrative that gets pinned on a ruler who shifts away from US empire)? Or as in history, UK first decided it was illegal to oppose Idi Amin (support his rivals) to later being illegal to support Idi Amin?
“To know who rules over you, notice who you are not allowed to criticize”
IIUC, it is only Palestine support that is illegal. You may still advocate for UK/NATO war on Israel or at least elimination of support, and elimination of politicians who support Israel. Limiting speech to support for all wars your rulers prefer is the most oppressive of democratic speech.
It’s a particular group not Palestine in general. The headline is misleading
Can someone explain why so many countries support what’s happening in Palestine? Whats going on behind the scenes here?
The idea that the actions of world powers are in any way governed by morality is largely a myth. Politicians will try to twist reality and use morality to justify killing people abroad and sometimes morality does align with their interests by coincidence.
But the motivations are always about furthering financial and strategic interests. See the overthrow of the Iranian regime in 1953 to protect oil interests, CIA coups and supporting murderous dictators in countless South American and other countries around the world, the recent Iraq war etc. If a government gets elected somewhere that would threaten our business interests (by taxing or nationalising them for example), we have historically supported bloody coups to remove them and install murderous facist regimes that enable us to keep making money at the cost of countless innocent lives.
Strategic in the sense that we prevent other powers in a region from becoming strong enough to challenge us. Keeping ourselves on top and in charge by keeping others down. Israel is a valuable ally in this regard - they maintain power in the region by keeping others down and keep them focused more on destroying Israel than attacking us.
Palestinian lives aren’t important to our governments. They have no real power and there’s no real profit to be made from them. Our strategic interest in supporting Israel will always trump any humanitarian interest in preventing genocide.
I do think the situation is more complicated than Lemmy would have you believe.
Both Iran and Hamas have been geopolitical issues for a long time. And it’s worth remembering that all of this was kicked off by a large scale terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas.
It’s also worth noting that Iran is a Russian puppet, and Europe obviously has some “neighbor problems” with Russia at the moment, so there’s a sort of baked in desire to oppose their vassal states.
And, while I think everyone would agree that the loss of civilian life is terrible, there is a huge amount of misinformation that makes it hard to be sure what’s going on. Hamas does have a long history of screwing over the civilian Palestinian population to further it’s political goals, and so people are willing to give Israel a little more credence than they deserve when they claim things like “Hamas was hiding in that hospital” or “we’re blocking aid because Hamas is hoarding it all to drive up tensions” or “it was Hamas who shot those civilians,” because it actually wouldn’t be the first time any of that had credibly happened. Something of a boy-cried-wolf scenario.
Add into that genuine desire to combat real anti-Semitism that’s been a fallout of this whole situation (a problem that hits pretty close to home in Europe due to events of the past century), and you can see why some people might be a bit over-eager to support Israel in this conflict.
It’s worth noting there are no good guys here. Israel is obviously in the wrong, and are committing horrible atrocities. I think that much is plain on its face. But Hamas and Iran have both had “the destruction of the state of Israel” as stated policy goals for the past 80 years. The reason Israel has the Iron Dome is because they’ve been getting missiles lobbed at them non-stop for decades.
And when there are no good guys, people tend to just align themselves with who they like more, or who they owe more to.
And it’s worth remembering that all of this was kicked off by a large scale terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas.
This is insane when Israel was killing Palestinians years before Hamas even existed.
The Nakba happened 40 years before they existed.
Israel has commited genocide and ethnic cleansing since the first day it was conceived and reducing this to “both sides are bad” because the Palestinian way of resisting is not perfect is not an fair assessment of the situation.
Both Iran and Hamas have been geopolitical issues for a long time. And it’s worth remembering that all of this was kicked off by a large scale terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas.
Propaganda is deeply effective because most people’s world events attention span is like a dog that sees a squirrel. History starts at the chosen squirrel event, and of course, geopolitics is viewed as “Us the good guys” vs. “those who fail to obey us”.
Your rant was praised as balanced, but is simply the official justification for colonial apartheid turned genocide our rulers, in submission to our own colonial masters, dictate upon us.
That’s a really balanced comment and I’m sorry you’re getting downvoted for it.
Most western countries have committed genocide or invasion in very recent history. Either in the context of WWII, colonialism or economic interests. Countries don’t magically change over night. Wouldn’t it be more surprising if they didn’t support their ally?
Most
westerncountries have committed genocide or invasion in very recent history. Either in the context of WWII, colonialism or economic interests.Countriespeople don’t magically change over night. Wouldn’t it be more surprising if they didn’t support their ally?There. Fixed that for you. Dont have to thank me, its good.
Big Israeli lobby. Bribes and Epstein blackmail.
At risk of sounding like that dipshit Vance, you guys don’t have free speech, not really. The uk seems to exist in a “yes, but no” realm. The press can’t report on trials such that it might influence outcome. 1988 law iirc. That’s smart, but it’s still a guardrail on speech. Some of the arrests and even sentences over there, for speech and sometimes even ideology related infractions, are a bit wild. I remember reading something about a woman being fined for calling her ex a leprechaun on social media.
That said, I feel a need to reiterate how crazy this defense of war and slaughter is. I’ve been a casual observer at best but I do not understand why either government cares if a people across an ocean (who are not and never will be boots on the ground for either side of this war) say they don’t like a war. So what? The war will rage on regardless of wether or not college students in Michigan walk around outside on a nice day holding signs. Or if some guy in London posts an objection on social media. That’s not even a speed bump to this war or either government if either government even sees or hears any of it. So why does either government even care? Why even spend energy on that? For them, it’s like a volume setting that maybe can’t be turned to zero, but in the end it’s just a bit of noise to them. So why bother? The war will continue. As such, their reaction makes no sense whatsoever.
I think it makes sense when you consider there are many government workers who do not support the genocide of Palestinians, and would be more vocal about it if they the political capital that, say, a large protest nets you.
It’s actually possible to end this with only the ingredients we have available right now.
The Met statement (https://news.met.police.uk/news/update-on-policing-in-london-following-proscription-of-palestine-action-499157) includes a ‘report your neighbour’ statement; "If you see material supporting terrorism online report it – visit www.gov.uk/ACT
You can also report suspicious activity by contacting the police in confidence on 0800 789 321."
Use this information wisely.
And i thought police in the V for Vendetta movie was extreme. Reality is a bitch.
Luckily I’m not from Terf island (although things aren’t looking so good around here either), but I support Palestine action
Every British politician belongs in a mass grave. Just a total stain on humanity
Yeah but that’s been the opinion of the British public since the 1960s. Calling every British politician a useless skidmark (preferably to their face) is as close as we get to patriotism.
Save some room for the American politicians though please too.
Dangerous and many voted against it. We already had politicians dead across both sides of the pond. Shouldn’t be encouraging this BS.
As long as you don’t touch Corbyn
Bah, he can get in the sea as well, he supported brexit
Time to make a new group and to spite them call it “palestine 2 action”
2 Palestine 2 Action
I’m more shocked it hasn’t already happened to Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain or Just Stop Oil.
But I guess blockading motorways and rocking up to art museums dressed like extras from a Wham music video and defacing paintings makes you less of a threat than wanting Netanyahu to stop his genocide of the Palestinian people.
Still, calling blocking motorways and defacing painting terrorism is a stretch.
And that’s pretty much what Palestine Action did.
And that’s pretty much what Palestine Action did
Not quite.
three protestors from the group “stormed, scaled and occupied” an APPH drone factory in Runcorn.[33] Activists daubed red paint on the exterior, dismantled drone and aircraft machinery and destroyed windows
(…)
In January 2024, Palestine Action vandalised an office of the logistics company Kuehne + Nagel in Milton Keynes by smashing windows and spraying the building with paint
(…)
In May 2024, Edinburgh Palestine Action activists targeted a Leonardo factory in Crewe Toll (…) a spokesperson for the group saying, "In the early hours of Tuesday 28th May [2024], a group opened the box of cables, cut the internet wires, sprayed expanding foam inside the box
(…)
October 2024, Palestine Action targeted a factory in Bromborough, Wirral Peninsula, a producer of F-35 fighter plane (…) The action consisted of breaking through the roof and spraying red paint into cleanrooms, with a manager for Teledyne allegedly claiming "damage to the clean rooms could halt production for up to 12 months
They did proper sabotage as well.
In June 2025, members of Palestine Action gained access to RAF Brize Norton on electric scooters and used “repurposed fire extinguishers” to spray red paint into the engines of two Royal Air Force Airbus A330 MRTT refuelling planes
I think it’s also worth noting that this is the stupidest possible way of protesting against Israel and pro-Palestine. There are SO MANY weapons suppliers all over the place… But more importantly, Israel can do fine with domestic production when fighting Hamas/Hezbollah. They need external supplies for fighting Iran, sure, but this was all before that happened.
Yes alongside damaging historical artifacts
They get too much money from it. The things you listed are visible and awful, But, money…
Not only is the ruling wrong - it is the very thing it claims to be opposing. It is itself an act of terrorism, carried out with the intention of inspiring fear in the British public to further a political agenda.
In every way, the British government is replicating the actions it accuses PA of - except that the scale of harm to British society and the terror inspired is magnitudes greater, and performed in service of the opposite political goal.
This is a terror attack by the government against the British people.
The British people’s opinion and will are the thing from which the goverment gains it’s only source of legitimacy - and they do not line up with the government on this issue.
But evidently the government believes in a different model of legitimacy: they believe that legitimacy is derived from the mere fact that they hold power. In the mind of the government and it’s supporters, the difference between a terrorist organisation and a legitimate government is just power and only power. To them, right and wrong has absolutely nothing to do with it. They think that they are winning, and that they are going to get away with it. Nothing else matters.
But evidently the government believes in a different model of legitimacy: they believe that legitimacy is derived from the mere fact that they hold power.
*Macht macht Recht"
Ignorance is strength freedom is slavery war is peace
There are few things I like about being an American, but one of them is the first amendment. It doesn’t always work, and Trump is sure to try some shit like this soon, but at least I know for now I won’t go to prison for saying that I do indeed support Palestine Action
As long they can send people to torture prisons without due process or evidence, we do NOT have a First Amendment.
Or a 5th or 14th amendment
You could absolutely go to prison for it. A group of people in an unmarked van can grab you, send you to a prison in your country or even somewhere else, where you will be tortured possibly to death, and even if there will be an international fuss about it, nobody will ever do anything about it.
There is no more laws in your country, none.I could, because our rights are not bulletproof. That said, it’s not a given that I will go to jail for being against genocide
It’s not given in the UK either. At least they still have the ability to challenge that.
Do they have jury trials in the UK? This seems like a perfect use of jury nullification.
Just to be clear because everybody seems to be missing this point.
Palestinian Action, is an organisation. Membership of that group is banned, it is not illegal to support Palestinians or to call out Israel’s genocide. The government doesn’t like it when you do, but it’s not actually illegal for you to do it.
This organisation broke into a UK air force base in order to protest. They are not being charged because they protested, they’re being charged for breaking in and damaging a lot of military equipment. I think it’s a bit far to call them terrorists, but you can sort of see the government’s point, if you squint.
The UK government does however absolutely deserve to get it in the neck for their support of Israel. Labour have had a pretty awkward relationship with Israel in particular and anti-Semitism in general for a long time, and they’re now keen to be seen as supporters, but there are limits.
Thank you for this clarification. This is an extremely important context. “Palestine Action” is the particular name of a very specific organization, so the title of the article is obviously a bit misleading.
Still very worrying and more than a bit concerning, though. Here’s to hoping for a future strengthening of UK speech laws. Though, frankly, I’m not so sure about US speech laws anymore. Cheers.
Yes and I support that particular organization and the actions they perform. From what it sounds like reading the article, this very comment makes me a criminal in the UK
God bless the first amendment 🦅🇺🇲
I think it’s a bit far to call them terrorists,
Did you mean “a bit unfair”? Because I don’t see how anybody would be terrorized by this. It’s clearly illegal but using terrorism here is very problematic, especially since what the military does to people in the middle easy is actual terrorism but not called that.
Afaik the “anti-Semitism in Labour” was basically a made up smear by the Labour Party themselves to prevent Jeremy Corbyn getting elected. Not sure about other instances though.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Really? Oh so is the USA and Israel a terrorist country too and any organization they support terrorists as well?
deleted by creator
No, it’s “Reductio ad Absurdum” showing how your argument is fallacious.
Removed by mod
What anti-Semitism where they accused of?
I don’t think it was ever anything concrete. Some members of the Labour Party made some comments that could potentially have been interpreted as being anti-semitic. Everyone went absolutely crazy, without anything in the way of evidence, and it caused a major political scandal. Labour themselves made the whole situation infinitely worse by not properly investigating the allegations, which made it look like they were trying to protect people. In reality I think it was just incompetence.
It was the very definition of a storm in a teacup, essentially nothing had happened but the opposition parties reacted as if it was some major scandal for the sole purpose of political point scoring.
Labour subsequently lost the 2019 elections and the suggestion was it was because of this scandal.
So when Starmer became leader one of the things he said he was going to do was root out anti-Semitism within the party (no matter how much he had to dig for it), this was around 2020 but he had been campaigning about it since around 2018. Anyway when he became leader there was a big bust up where he got rid of anyone he thought was being anti-semitic (again there was a lot of doubt about whether or not they were being). Then in 2024 they won the election. So ever since then they’ve been very careful to not appear anti-semitic to the point at which they are refusing to even acknowledge Israel’s war crimes.
This is all especially annoying since they would have won the 2024 general election no matter what because the Conservatives were polling so badly. So this big arguement about anti-Semitism was completely unnecessary. Had it not happened Labour would still be in power, but would be less inclined to shy away from criticism of Israel.
TLDR
Accusing Labour of been anti-semitic has been the default position of the opposition for a while because it works. Who cares about the truth anymore?
The bit you’ve skimmed over is that it happened under Corbyn, who was hugely popular with Labour members for being actually Left Wing, and hugely unpopular amongst the entire rest of the political and media establishments (including Labour MPs) for exactly the same reason. Pretty much everyone on all sides who’d never given a toss about antisemitism before were suddenly pearl-clutching over the tiniest statement made by a backbencher’s assistant’s brother’s gibbon because it was a handy way to bring Corbyn down without having to give any airtime to debating his (very popular) policies.
Thanks for clarifying, I’ve heard about the accusations before but never really understood what they were accused of… But I think the last couple of years of “anti-Semitism” left and right accusations aimed at individuals who are simply against the murder of innocent people help explain it. My guess is that some members of labour saw the Israeli regime for the terrorists they are ages ago and didn’t shut up about it… The Zionist lobby in the UK is obscene… Shame on these crooks!
they’ve been very careful to not appear anti-semitic to the point at which they are refusing to even acknowledge Israel’s war crimes.
And that’s how you completely conflate the meaning of a word.
Yeah, they lost an election over an antisemitism row a few years ago and have chosen the worst possible moment in history to start overcompensating for it.
It should be noted that it was the “please stop murdering children” kind of “antisemitism”, not real antisemitism.
The worst kind of antisemitismn, according to Isreal.
They are not being charged because they protested, they’re being charged for breaking in and damaging a lot of military equipment. I think it’s a bit far to call them terrorists, but you can sort of see the government’s point, if you squint.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the US Federal definition of terrorism
definition
- the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that-
- involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
- appear to be intended-
- to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
- to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
- to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
- occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
Due to the element danger to human life, their definition wouldn’t fit.
However, the UK legal definition
definition
- In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
- the action falls within subsection (2),
- the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][1] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
- the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial][2] or ideological cause.
- Action falls within this subsection if it—
- involves serious violence against a person,
- involves serious damage to property,
- endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
- creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
- is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
- The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(2) is satisfied.
- In this section—
- “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
- a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
- a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
- “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
- In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
is wild: no danger to human life required, merely serious damage to property suffices!
The UK definition isn’t that wild - the ‘ra used to plant bombs and then phone it in. There’s still terror seeing a building explode - knowing the only reason there aren’t casualties is because the bombers, this time, called it in with 15 minutes on the fuse.
Acts dangerous to human life don’t require actual casualties: if people need to leave to avoid death or injury, then that’s an act dangerous to human life.
In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
the action falls within subsection (2), the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][1] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public
Wow, so the very act of peaceful protest is now defined as ‘terrorism’ because the below can be very loosely interpreted in whatever way necessary:
creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public
creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public
I don’t know: it’s possible. If legal definitions & case law (which I don’t know enough about) don’t settle their meaning, then they could mean anything. A lawyer could clarify.
For sure. e.g. Block the road, you block emergency vehicles / assault on emergency workers = terrorism.
Plain old traffic jams and collisions block emergency vehicles all the time. Doesn’t seem to be a problem during these very normal things that happen all the time … but protestors block a road and suddenly it’s a huge problem.
I see: that technically could.
- the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that-
Removed by mod
Yeah which is damaging.
I am simply providing information here I am not providing my personal opinion. Please stop trying togenerate arguement where non-exists the waters are already muddied enough.
They even forbid the playing of “Don’t cry for me Argentina” during the wer to protect their Malvinas colony.
That would have been the Conservatives though. The Conservatives under Thatcher were in power during the Falklands war.
Same as in the US, that doesn’t matter.
They will always support their regime wars.
R/D in the US or Labour/Cons in the UK.
Warcriminal Blair is a good example.The actions one political party are irrelevant to the actions of another political party. Especially over the course of such time.
If you want to make the arguement that the labour party are warmongering then there’s much that you can do to make that arguement but to equate the current situation to the Falklands war is disingenuous at absolute best.
you are wrong
That’s good reason to remind people, that law is written by particular people, mostly to protect those people interests.
Feeding, housing and guarding someone for 14 years has got to be ridiculously expensive. All for uttering a few words.
Do prisoners in the UK do slave labor like in the US?
Technically its not slave labor.
They just out you in solitary confinement with really bad food, zero things to do to pass the time. Psychologically torture you until you agreed to do unpaid/below-minimum-wage work.
“They are voluntarily working!” -the warden said to the judge, while concealing a police baton behind him.
Not yet
