Palestine Action must be blacklisted as terrorists

On Friday night, just as my spoon was diving into a bowl of chicken soup, across town two hooded figures were smashing their way into Manchester University’s chemistry building. Their aim was to steal statues of Chaim Weizmann, the first president of Israel and a former academic at the university.

Had this egregious act occurred in isolation it would have been disturbing enough.

What compounded the horror was that such criminal behaviour formed part of a number of coordinated acts of vandalism on the same night, all directed at Jewish institutions such as the offices of the charity Jewish National Fund (JNF) and Bicom. The synchronised thuggery, all under the banner of the group “Palestine Action”, was timed to coincide with the 107th anniversary of the signing of the Balfour Declaration (secured by Weizmann and through which the British government stated its support for a Jewish national homeland in Palestine).

On a personal level, such hate crimes cut deep. Back in the 1980s I was a student at Manchester University. It was a time when campus hummed with young Jewish people from across the country since it was, if you like, the place to go. That the university has since October 7 become the focus of so much anti-Israel (and let’s face it, anti-Jewish) behaviour and harassment has been alarming, not least for its now small but valiant Jewish student body. But the systematic violence harnessed by Palestinian Action isn’t just a problem for our own community. Such criminality is also an affront to anyone who believes in the rule of law. For this is a group that defaces, defiles and destroys without any recourse to the cost exacted in terms of personal fear or finance. Which is why there can be only one way to stymie Palestine Action: to proscribe this noxious band of extremists as a terrorist organisation.

This isn’t just another group of entitled headbangers who bandwagon lefty causes because they like a good fight. Palestine Action are malevolent, intimidating and violent. They commit acts of theft and damage, harass and terrorise, causing innocent people to fear for their safety.

By proscribing them as a terrorist organisation Home Secretary Yvette Cooper would make clear that the security of British citizens and businesses operating in this country will not be cowed or compromised by those who seek to enforce their views in dangerously extreme ways.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, a home secretary may proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do so. According to the rulebook this means that the organisation “commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism”.

But what is the definition of terrorism? (If you work for BBC News, follow this bit carefully.) It is the unlawful use of violence and intimidation (tick), especially against civilians (tick), in the pursuit of political aims (tick). Palestine Action? Tick, tick, tick.

Though such a move should be clear-cut, there may still be bleeding hearts who will regard proscription as a highly controversial move. Indeed they may, given the scale of the “cause”, argue that extreme acts of protest are not only legitimate, they are necessary. Yet extremist groups such as Palestine Action surrender any recourse to their own “human rights and democratic values” by waging campaigns of naked aggression.

That’s why proscribing them is vital. It would mean any form of support for the group – including membership, financing, or promoting its activities – would be criminalised. It would also effectively bar their ability to coordinate on any legitimate communication platform, making it harder for them to plan more crimes.

This is not about stifling debate. Though so much rhetoric surrounding Israel is drenched in double standards, the right to speak out and indulge in peaceful protest is enshrined in statute. As it should be.

But any suggestion that Palestine Action is interested in legitimate protest or considered discussion is for the birds. They want to create mayhem and fuel a climate of fear. Otherwise they would peel off their balaclavas and lay down their hammers and paint pots. They would abandon the kind of radical and violent behaviour that is designed to terrify and intimate, as well as encourage the spread of extremism. That they don’t simply underpins their terrorist credentials. It is time for the law to take control.