---

2,588 words, 14 minutes read time.

Palestine Action is a UK-based direct-action group founded in July 2020 that seeks to “dismantle British complicity” with Israel’s military actions by physically disrupting arms companies supplying the Israeli Defence Forces. Its founders – notably Huda Ammori and Richard Barnard – launched the campaign by breaking into the Elbit Systems UK headquarters in London and spray-painting pro-Palestine slogans. Since then, Palestine Action activists have carried out dramatic stunts at factories and offices of arms manufacturers linked to Israel, while insisting that their goal is nonviolent protest against what they see as war crimes. For example, in May 2021 four activists climbed onto the roof of an Elbit drone factory in Leicester and occupied it for six days. Although ten people were arrested, the judge later directed the jury to consider the common-law defence of necessity, and the activists were cleared. Since then, PA has staged similar occupations in Bristol, Oldham, Tamworth, and more, often in collaboration with other protest groups such as Extinction Rebellion or Animal Rebellion, and also engaged in symbolic actions on council property.

By its own account, Palestine Action uses “disruptive tactics” and direct-action occupations to pressure British manufacturers of drones, munitions, and other military equipment sold to Israel. Its targets have included companies such as Elbit Systems (an Israeli defence firm with UK factories), Leonardo (an Italian/UK arms maker), Thales (a France/UK joint venture), and others. For instance, in 2022 PA activists broke into a Thales equipment factory in Glasgow, causing an estimated £1 million in damage, and in April 2022, a group chained themselves at the gates of UAV Tactical Systems in Leicester. As the war in Gaza intensified, PA broadened its protests—an April 2024 raid involved red paint on Somerset County Hall because the council leased space to an Elbit site. More recently, on 16 March 2025, activists used a cherry-picker and hammer to smash windows and flood Elbit’s Aztec West campus in Bristol with red paint. According to the group, these actions are meant to “prevent genocide and war crimes” by disrupting the flow of arms to Israel; as they argue, “the real crime is not red paint, but the war crimes enabled by those planes” used by Israeli forces. In addition to their provocative actions, Palestine Action claims significant public support from teachers, nurses, students, and many others who back their call for a ceasefire and accountability.

UK Law on Banning Organisations

Banning a group like Palestine Action is legally complex and unprecedented. In the United Kingdom, the only way to “ban” an organization outright is through proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. Under this law, the Home Secretary may proscribe any group “concerned in terrorism” if doing so is proportionate. Terrorism in this context is strictly defined as involving serious violence or significant damage to property—if intended to influence the government or intimidate the public for a political or ideological cause. In practice, proscribed organisations thus far have been armed or extremist groups such as Hamas, al-Qaida, or neo-Nazi organizations, not street protest movements. Before any ban takes legal effect, the Home Office must lay an order before Parliament, and MPs vote to approve it. Currently, roughly 80 organisations are proscribed in Britain, almost all of which are violent extremists. If approved, proscription makes it a criminal offense to belong to or support the group (with sentences up to 14 years), and to encourage or glorify the group. For example, under the Terrorism Act, even issuing a speech that could be reasonably interpreted as encouraging terrorism can lead to charges.

In announcing the move, the Home Secretary cited recent events such as a break-in at RAF Brize Norton as justification, pledging to lay a draft order in Parliament on 30 June 2025. She stated that the Brize Norton incident “is the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action” and promised “zero tolerance” for actions that put national security at risk. This language, echoed by subsequent press releases, paints PA’s actions as criminal sabotage. If the order is passed, membership or support of Palestine Action would become illegal overnight, equating the group legally with organizations like ISIS or al-Qaida.

In parallel with this move, the government has sought new tools against disruptive protests. The Public Order Act 2023, for instance, created new offences for actions such as “locking on” to block roads or critical infrastructure, and gave the police expanded stop-and-search powers—including the authority to ban protests. Government advisers have advocated for categorizing “extreme protest” groups similarly to how terrorist organizations are treated. Until now, Britain has relied on ordinary criminal charges for damage or obstruction during protests; the proposed proscription of PA represents a significant policy shift. It would be the first time that a nonviolent direct-action campaign is subject to a terrorism designation.

The UK–Israel Arms Connection

At the heart of Palestine Action’s motivation is a critical perspective on the relationship between the UK’s defence industry and Israel’s military machine. Analysts highlight that numerous British and international weapons firms supply the hardware used by the Israeli military. Elbit Systems, for example, is one of Israel’s largest arms manufacturers, producing munitions and drones widely deployed by the Israeli army. Human rights groups document cases where Elbit-made bombs and drones have been used in the conflict in Gaza, causing civilian casualties. This connection is precisely what drives PA’s focus: they note that Elbit’s UK subsidiaries, including UAV Tactical Systems, have been involved in deals worth nearly £1 billion with the Ministry of Defence. In one case, UAV Tactical Systems Ltd—part of a Thales–Elbit joint venture—developed the Army’s Watchkeeper drone, a cornerstone of a major UK-Israel arms contract. Other subsidiaries supply targeting equipment for ground troops or components essential for production of systems used by Israel. Additionally, established British firms such as Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems, and Leonardo manufacture parts for aircraft and other equipment deployed by Israeli forces. Campaign Against Arms Trade and related groups have mapped dozens of UK sites that produce components for Israeli military systems.

Conversely, the UK government continues to conduct arms trades with Israel. The Ministry of Defence recently contracted Elbit Systems UK for a surveillance drone system—the first such deal announced since October 2023—which underscores the complicated, often contradictory, policy positions at play. For Palestine Action and its supporters, these arms deals underline a troubling ethical dilemma: while the state is willing to protect established arms relationships, it treats dissent and protest as criminal sabotage. For many of its supporters, this is not just a matter of property damage but the moral imperative to stop the flow of arms that they assert directly facilitates war crimes in Gaza.

Who’s Pushing to Ban Palestine Action?

The momentum for proscribing Palestine Action comes not solely from official state security considerations; a confluence of political, corporate, and lobbyist influences is evident. Prominent British Zionists and pro-Israel organizations have been among the most vocal proponents of the ban. The Community Security Trust (CST), responsible for protecting Jewish institutions in Britain, stated that it had long urged the government to act against “ideologically-driven violence, intimidation and criminality.” Similarly, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the community’s primary representative body, publicly welcomed the move, describing Palestine Action’s tactics as “increasingly egregious” and even linking graffiti and property damage on Jewish charities and communal sites to a broader extremist trend. Figures aligned with Zionist advocacy have also pressed for drastic measures. Groups such as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and Labour Friends of Israel have repeatedly called on government officials to crack down on PA, with some politicians praising the ban as an overdue demonstration of “zero tolerance” toward terrorism.

Behind the scenes, lobbying efforts have reportedly intensified. Declassified documents suggest that one month after PA was founded, then-Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab met with Israel’s strategic affairs minister and agreed to curb protests against companies like Elbit. In 2022, Home Secretary Priti Patel met with Martin Fausset, CEO of Elbit Systems UK, to discuss the disruptive tactics of Palestine Action—a meeting that internal memos indicate left Patel “deeply concerned.” Soon after, classified legal recommendations emerged that bolstered the state’s stance on protest-related damages. These recommendations culminated in government proposals to treat even “significant damage” during protests as a more severe criminal offence, effectively targeting Palestine Action’s methods.

The lobbying influence extended even further when, in January 2024, Elbit’s UK security director publicly urged a government minister for a retrial of PA’s cleared co-founders, arguing that their actions were “prolific and serious” and that justice demanded a reassessment. Not long after, the Crown Prosecution Service was ordered to issue a retrial—a sequence of events that directly linked corporate interests to a legal crackdown on protest.

This pattern of advocacy suggests that the initiative to ban Palestine Action is not purely a matter of national security or public safety; it also appears to be politically convenient. Criticism quickly emerged among civil liberties groups and independent analysts who argued that the banning of PA is less about curbing genuine terror threats and more about stifling dissent during a particularly contentious moment in UK-Israel relations. The bans come at a time when the government is under pressure to demonstrate its commitment to national security while simultaneously maintaining lucrative arms deals with nations implicated in controversial conflicts.

Criticisms of the Ban

A broad coalition of human rights advocates, legal experts, and civil society organizations have raised red flags about using counter-terrorism laws to silence a protest group. Amnesty International UK warned that the move would “risk unlawful interference with the fundamental rights of freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.” According to Amnesty’s chief executive, employing terrorism legislation—especially when ordinary criminal law suffices to handle issues of property damage and unlawful entry—sets a dangerous precedent. Under such a policy, even supporters of Palestine Action, simply by wearing a Palestine flag or voicing their dissent online, could potentially be charged with glorifying terrorism.

Greenpeace UK’s co-director criticized the ban as “a grave mistake,” emphasizing that unlike violent extremist groups, PA explicitly refrains from advocating or engaging in violence against people. Other protest networks, like Netpol and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), have decried the policy as part of a broader government crackdown on dissent. The PSC’s petition, which quickly gathered over 20,000 signatures, argued that acts like spray-painting warplanes are forms of civil disobedience—not acts of terror—and that criminalizing such actions amounts to suppressing political dissent.

Legal experts have also expressed concern about the shift. The legal team defending Palestine Action noted there is “no precedent” for proscribing a group solely engaged in direct-action protest, emphasizing that the legal damage inflicted by PA’s actions is minor compared to the label of terrorism. Indeed, only property, and not people, has been damaged in the incidents so far attributed to PA. Marking an activist who spray-painted a building or occupied a site as a terrorist not only distorts legal proportionality but also jeopardizes the broader framework of free speech and peaceful protest in the United Kingdom.

Several key criticisms have emerged:

• Disproportionality and Rights: The minor property damage attributed to PA pales in comparison to what is typically defined as terrorism. Critics argue that existing criminal laws are entirely adequate for addressing property damage or obstruction. The risk is that proscription would criminalize even nonviolent expression or minor support for a broader political cause.
• Political Motives: The timing of the ban, implemented amid the Gaza conflict and under the looming prospect of further military engagement, suggests that it is driven by political expediency rather than strict law enforcement concerns. The adoption of counter-terrorism language during this period appears tailored to deflect growing domestic criticism of arms deals with Israel.
• Slippery Slope: If one protest movement can be banned under terrorism statutes, critics warn that many other forms of protest could follow. This redefinition of “terrorist” tactics to include direct action against military infrastructure risks ushering in a future where dissent in any form is unfairly labeled as extremism.
• Community Impact: Rather than protecting national security, banning groups like Palestine Action may incite further anger and divide communities. Public opinion polls indicate that many Britons support a ceasefire in Gaza and view the state’s arms policies as morally questionable. By banning a group that channels these sentiments into protest, the government could alienate a significant segment of the population and weaken trust in democratic institutions.

Historical Context and Consequences

Using terrorism laws to silence dissent sets a dangerous historical precedent. The Terrorism Act was designed to counter violent extremism, not to stifle forms of protest that have historically been part of the struggle for justice and human rights. The actions of Palestine Action, while undoubtedly provocative, do not mirror the bombings or shootings associated with previously proscribed groups. Instead, the group’s tactics—graffiti, property occupation, and symbolic damage—align more closely with forms of civil disobedience seen in the past.

For instance, in 2003, opposition leader Ken Livingstone defended anti-war campaigners who blocked US bomber flights to Iraq, and no similar charge of terrorism was brought forward. In 2017, two Bristol activists who broke into a plane factory with the intention of disabling military equipment were acquitted after being charged under conventional laws. These cases illustrate that the justice system has historically managed acts of civil disobedience without resorting to the broad reach of anti-terrorism laws. The current push to proscribe Palestine Action therefore appears to extend legal definitions in unprecedented ways.

Furthermore, the proposed ban emerges at a time when the UK government has already enacted repressive measures—the Public Order Act 2023, for example, introduced draconian penalties and extensive police powers over protest methods. With these laws in place, the additional step of proscribing a political protest group risks converting a matter of public safety into one of political repression. As one journalist put it, the move represents “a massive escalation” in state response, potentially paving the way for further charges against other groups engaged in radical protest.

Conclusion

The UK government’s move to proscribe Palestine Action represents a significant moment in the nation’s approach to dissent. Advocates of the ban argue that the disruptive acts carried out by the group pose a national security threat by undermining critical defense industry infrastructure. However, the evidence suggests that the group’s actions—though dramatic—have so far involved only property damage, with many activists winning acquittals under existing legal defences.

Rather than addressing the ethical dilemmas inherent in the UK–Israel arms connection, the ban appears to serve political ends. It silences a protest movement that challenges deeply entrenched relationships between the state and its arms suppliers, and in doing so, risks setting a precedent where any form of radical dissent can be swiftly labeled as terrorism. Legal experts, human rights organizations, and civil society groups have all pointed out the disproportionate nature of this response, warning that it will likely lead to a chilling effect on political protest and free speech in the United Kingdom.

In sum, while national security and order are undeniably important, the proposed use of counter-terrorism legislation to target a protest group like Palestine Action reveals a worrying tendency to blur the lines between defending a state’s interests and suppressing political dissent. The government must carefully weigh these concerns against the realities of the protest – and remember that when dissent is crushed in the name of security, democratic values themselves are imperilled.

By Pat Harrington