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.

[IvanV]

The latest move in his area seems not to be a relaxation, but rather a doubling down. More people demonstrating on behalf of Palestinians will be arrested, in particular those that chant "globalise the intifada" and similar wordings that some might interpret as a call for violence.

[Tristan]

The latest move in his area seems not to be a relaxation, but rather a doubling down. More people demonstrating on behalf of Palestinians will be arrested, in particular those that chant "globalise the intifada" and similar wordings that some might interpret as a call for violence.

Good.

[IvanV]

There was a profile in the Economist earlier this month of Roger Hallam (Wikipedia). He has been a substantial influence in several organisations and campaigns that go in for disruptive forms of demonstration. He is, or has been in, Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, etc, and now is playing a part in pro Palestine Action demonstrations.

The Economist quotes him as saying that people getting arrested and going to prison is necessary to achieving the prominence he desires for his messages. And that's not just for other people - he was sentenced to 4 years (after reduction on appeal) for blocking the M25, and released earlier this year.

So when Greta Thunberg was arrested (BBC) a short while ago in London - and released shortly after - for putting up just the pro Palestine Action placard that made it likely she would be arrested, this was Mr Hallam's influence and quite deliberate. At least on his part. I wonder if the people he persuades to do this always realise that they are risking going to prison. I'm suspect Ms Thunberg was well informed.

[IvanV]

Many of the demonstrators arrested for carrying Palestine Action placards are being given the opportunity to pay a £100 fine in lieu of prosecution, according to an article in Byline Times, or just given warnings.

A number of people quoted in the article suggest that this exposes the cynical nature of the ban. The government indicates that publicising support for Palestine Action is such a terrible thing it has to be outlawed under terrorism legislation, and then lets people off for the equivalent of a parking fine or less.

I suppose with many offences, there are graduations of seriousness. And we are told de minimis non curat lex - the law is not concerned with small matters. In relation to this particular piece of legislation, it is rarely enforced in Northern Ireland, as breaches of it are widespread, common place, and surprise no one - and maybe making a fuss about it would contribute to rather than dampen down community unrest. But in broader areas of law, there is large variation in the extent to which this maxim of proportionality is observed in practice.

A number of people will deliberately choose not to pay the fine, for the greater publicity of having their day in court.

[El Pollo Diablo]

There was a profile in the Economist earlier this month of Roger Hallam (Wikipedia). He has been a substantial influence in several organisations and campaigns that go in for disruptive forms of demonstration. He is, or has been in, Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion, etc, and now is playing a part in pro Palestine Action demonstrations.

The Economist quotes him as saying that people getting arrested and going to prison is necessary to achieving the prominence he desires for his messages. And that's not just for other people - he was sentenced to 4 years (after reduction on appeal) for blocking the M25, and released earlier this year.

So when Greta Thunberg was arrested (BBC) a short while ago in London - and released shortly after - for putting up just the pro Palestine Action placard that made it likely she would be arrested, this was Mr Hallam's influence and quite deliberate. At least on his part. I wonder if the people he persuades to do this always realise that they are risking going to prison. I'm suspect Ms Thunberg was well informed.

On this, I listen to the Political Thinking podcast and, generally, am able to make it through quite a large swathe of different characters on there, whatever their political stripes. When Nick Robinson interviewed Hallam though, I found it near enough unlistenable.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Well, the High Court reckons it isn't.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... udges-rule

If the Home Office had a lot of big, hidden, important reasons why it definitely was a terrorist organisation, it kept them to itself, and thus lost a court case that DAG reckons was very hard to lose.

[Tristan]

Well, the High Court reckons it isn't.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... udges-rule

Yes and no. The court didn't think the way they were proscribed was lawful or that it was proportionate, but they did accept that some of their actions did amount to terrorism:

Real weight must attach to the fact that Palestine Action has organised and undertaken actions amounting to terrorism as defined at section 1(1) of the 2000 Act. Those actions are small in number but they are still significant and it is also significant that these actions have happened in the United Kingdom. There is, obviously, a heightened public interest in eliminating the risk of any action amounting to terrorism as defined in the
2000 Act within the United Kingdom. Any such action is the antithesis to the notion of a democratic society that is the foundation of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is significant that Palestine Action has not suggested that its actions that have been assessed to comprise terrorism were either a mistake or an aberration. Rather, Palestine Action has lauded those who took part in those actions. It is, further, significant that the contents of the Underground Manual provide good evidence of Palestine Action’s continuing intention to promote the use of violence regardless of the risk that this will result in serious damage to property or serious violence against members of the public.

It also disagrees with the framing of PA as a non-violent organisation:

The claimant in her case in these proceedings has sought to portray Palestine Action as a “non-violent” organisation. This is not a sustainable proposition. It rests on the premise that damage to property, regardless of extent, does not involve the use of violence. That is a view that many would struggle to comprehend, and we for our part are unable to accept, especially when such damage goes further than the merely symbolic. The proposition also ignores the real risk of injury (to members of the public) which may occur when individuals go equipped with sledgehammers to do damage to property as Palestine Action suggests they should do, and are intent at the same time on avoiding detection.

This is not a vindication of Palestine Action by any measure. While the court quashed the proscription, it accepted that Palestine Action meets the statutory description of an organisation ‘concerned in terrorism’. The judgement supports rather than undermines the claim that Palestine Action has engaged in terrorist activity, even though the formal designation was held to be unlawful.

[plodder]

It also disagrees with the framing of PA as a non-violent organisation:

The claimant in her case in these proceedings has sought to portray Palestine Action as a “non-violent” organisation. This is not a sustainable proposition. It rests on the premise that damage to property, regardless of extent, does not involve the use of violence. That is a view that many would struggle to comprehend, and we for our part are unable to accept, especially when such damage goes further than the merely symbolic. The proposition also ignores the real risk of injury (to members of the public) which may occur when individuals go equipped with sledgehammers to do damage to property as Palestine Action suggests they should do, and are intent at the same time on avoiding detection.

This is not a vindication of Palestine Action by any measure. While the court quashed the proscription, it accepted that Palestine Action meets the statutory description of an organisation ‘concerned in terrorism’. The judgement supports rather than undermines the claim that Palestine Action has engaged in terrorist activity, even though the formal designation was held to be unlawful.

How the f.ck do you terrify property?

[headshot]

It also disagrees with the framing of PA as a non-violent organisation:

The claimant in her case in these proceedings has sought to portray Palestine Action as a “non-violent” organisation. This is not a sustainable proposition. It rests on the premise that damage to property, regardless of extent, does not involve the use of violence. That is a view that many would struggle to comprehend, and we for our part are unable to accept, especially when such damage goes further than the merely symbolic. The proposition also ignores the real risk of injury (to members of the public) which may occur when individuals go equipped with sledgehammers to do damage to property as Palestine Action suggests they should do, and are intent at the same time on avoiding detection.

This is not a vindication of Palestine Action by any measure. While the court quashed the proscription, it accepted that Palestine Action meets the statutory description of an organisation ‘concerned in terrorism’. The judgement supports rather than undermines the claim that Palestine Action has engaged in terrorist activity, even though the formal designation was held to be unlawful.

How the f.ck do you terrify property?

Sneak up behind it and shout "boo!"

[Tristan]

It also disagrees with the framing of PA as a non-violent organisation:

The claimant in her case in these proceedings has sought to portray Palestine Action as a “non-violent” organisation. This is not a sustainable proposition. It rests on the premise that damage to property, regardless of extent, does not involve the use of violence. That is a view that many would struggle to comprehend, and we for our part are unable to accept, especially when such damage goes further than the merely symbolic. The proposition also ignores the real risk of injury (to members of the public) which may occur when individuals go equipped with sledgehammers to do damage to property as Palestine Action suggests they should do, and are intent at the same time on avoiding detection.

This is not a vindication of Palestine Action by any measure. While the court quashed the proscription, it accepted that Palestine Action meets the statutory description of an organisation ‘concerned in terrorism’. The judgement supports rather than undermines the claim that Palestine Action has engaged in terrorist activity, even though the formal designation was held to be unlawful.

How the f.ck do you terrify property?

You don’t “terrify property”. You terrify people by damaging property.
The law recognises that serious damage to property can be terrorism because of its impact on people: workers who have to flee, security staff and police who are injured, businesses and communities who are intimidated, and the wider public who are meant to get the message “this could happen to you next”.
That’s exactly what the court accepted here. It rejected the idea that large‑scale, destructive attacks with sledgehammers and covert tactics are “non‑violent”, because they create a real risk of injury and panic, and are designed to intimidate and coerce. That’s why serious property damage can (and did) meet the statutory definition of terrorism.

[bjn]

The government definitely acted in bad faith, the “Trust us we have super secret secrets that we can’t tell you about that prove they are super bad!” turned out to be bollocks.