The ban on Palestine Action: what comes next?
Image Credit: Free Malaysia Today
In July of this year, the UK government’s decision to proscribe the direct-action network, Palestine Action, as a terrorist group under the Terrorism Act 2000 became a watershed moment for the Labour administration. It marked a rare moment in which a protest group with no history of armed action, let alone fatalities, was placed into the same category as militarised terrorist organisations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda. In the subsequent months, this has sparked huge controversy, mass protest and a legal battle that is only just beginning to take shape.
In July 2020, Palestine Action was established when members broke into the London headquarters of Elbit Systems, an Israel-based technology company that is vital in supplying the Israeli ministry of defence. The protesters spray painted the exterior to protest the housing of the company on UK soil. In the subsequent years, the group has engaged in numerous instances of civil disobedience on the premises of businesses and organisations with ties to Israel- often through vandalism, trespass and destruction of equipment. While many of the incidents led to arrests and media coverage, the group retained a relatively small public profile until recently.
The inciting incident that led to the group’s proscription occurred in June of this year, when four alleged Palestine Action members trespassed onto the premises of RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The group claims that planes sent off to Cyprus from the base are being used to assist the Israeli military in surveillance over Gaza. In an act of protest, they damaged two planes using crowbars and repurposed fire extinguishers to spray paint into the turbine engines.
The response from the government was swift and uncompromising; Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the incident as “disgraceful,” branding the protest as an attempt to influence policy through illegal means. This was followed just days later by a statement from then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, announcing that a draft proscription order would be laid in parliament. She stated that her decision was “a legitimate response to the threat posed” by the group. When passed, the order made it officially illegal to be a member of, or rally support for, Palestine Action. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, this can carry a prison sentence of up to 14 years.
Historically, civil disobedience and property damage have not generally led to groups being proscribed as terrorist organisations. However, the UK’s notably broad definition of terrorism includes not just using threat or the use of violence to promote a cause, but also the use of criminal damage. This is partially due to the strategy often utilised by the IRA in the 1990s of using bombs to cause economic damage rather than to endanger life. When Cooper proscribed the group, it was based on the serious property damage caused by Palestine Action during their campaigns- although she did also cite a history of violence. In 2024, three injuries occurred during a Palestine Action raid on Elbit Systems at Aztec West, and on another Elbit facility raid in March 2025, three protesters were charged with one count of assault by beating.
It should be noted that not all the details on Palestine Action’s campaigns have been made available to the public- specifically regarding the group’s actions at Elbit Systems in Bristol and Instro Precision in Kent. Cooper herself has stated that many who support the group do not know their “full nature,” suggesting that she believes their opinions would change if they were privy to Palestine Action’s full history. However, this is hard to gauge without access to all of the relevant information. As it stands now, the consensus among much of the public is that the proscription and subsequent arrests during protests mark an overreach on the side of the government that endangers the right to free speech.
Human rights organisation Amnesty International has condemned the ban, branding it as an abuse of counter-terrorism powers. The UN’s human rights chief, Volker Turk, echoed this sentiment, stating that the action placed the UK outside of international law. In many countries, the definition of terrorism is narrower and does not include property damage, leading many to view the UK government’s ability to outlaw unarmed protest groups as the power to suppress free speech. When observing the actions of law enforcement after the ban, it is not difficult to see why; at a rally protesting the proscription on the 6th of September, the Met Police arrested 890 people, with 857 of those being detained simply for expressing support for Palestine Action through placards. Defend Our Juries, the rally’s organisers, alleged that peaceful protesters were met with unnecessary force from arresting officers. This was backed by the sharing of a video showing police pushing an elderly protester to the ground. All of these events pose a serious question about what proscription means for the future of political protest in the UK.
While the government expressed that they acknowledge the distinction between supporting Palestine Action and supporting the state of Palestine, the mass arrest of mainly peaceful protesters risks creating a culture of fear and infringing on freedom of speech. In The Guardian, journalist Owen Jones wrote: “This column does not express support for Palestine Action – here’s why … This piece must be carefully written to avoid my being imprisoned for up to 14 years. That’s a curious sentence to say as a newspaper columnist in Britain in 2025.” It also sets a worrying precedent- one that may lead to other protest groups being treated in the same manner as violent militant organisations that genuinely pose a danger to British lives. While the acts committed by Palestine Action were disruptive, created nuisance and were often unlawful, protest is not meant to be polite or convenient. It is meant to draw attention to issues that governments may otherwise be inclined to ignore.
The process by which the proscription took place has also raised concerns. In parliament, Palestine Action was bundled together in an order for proscription with two neo-Nazi groups, Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement. This meant that MPs and peers voting on the issue could either vote to proscribe all three groups or none of them. The move was criticised by numerous MPs and described by Baroness Jenny Jones as “sneaky,” as it increased pressure to vote in favour of proscription. Overall, many feel that the case is in need of a review to ensure a fair process.
So, what comes next for Palestine Action, and for other similar protest groups? The answer is that nobody can be certain- for several reasons.
Just last month, the UK government officially recognised Palestine as a state, stating that they believed this necessary for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine to eventually be viable. While this does seem to suggest that the government may soften their stance on groups like Palestine Action, their actions do not reflect this. Shabana Mahmood, who replaced Yvette Cooper as Home Secretary after a cabinet reshuffle last month, is historically an avid supporter of Palestinian rights and abstained on the vote over Palestine Action’s proscription. Despite this, she stated unequivocally in a recent interview with LBC that anybody who expresses support for a proscribed group- even if they are simply holding up a placard (as was the case with many of those arrested last month) are breaking the law and will be treated accordingly.
Conversely, Palestine Action are unwilling to quietly accept their outlawing. Lawyers representing Huda Ammori, the group’s co-founder, have argued that the ban violates the right to free speech, and have thus been granted the right to appeal. However, the Home Office was later given permission to challenge this appeal, leaving the future of the group uncertain.
Ultimately, the judge has warned that a ruling on Palestine Action may not come until 2026- stating that it “will have an impact on the claimant’s and others’ freedom of expression and freedom to protest on an issue of considerable importance to them and, whether one agrees with them or not, to the country as a whole.”
The battle over Palestine Action’s proscription is no longer just about one protest group. It is about the future of the right to protest in modern Britain- and whether the government will continue to wield the power to criminalise dissent.
Words by Lucy Eason