Anna Stanley
The Daily Sceptic
Proscribing Palestine Action might seem like a win for law and order – and in many respects it is. But banning a group with such support in the UK exposes the fragility of our legal system, the limits of state authority and the deep divisions undermining social cohesion.
Through direct action and intimidation, Palestine Action targeted UK arms manufacturers linked to Israel – and in some cases, successfully shut them down. It also vandalised banks, attacked Jewish-owned businesses, and most infamously stormed RAF Brize Norton, the UK’s primary military airbase – an escalation that ultimately led to its classification as a terrorist group.
The state will move to target its organisers, freeze its funds and seize its assets. But the situation extends far beyond the group itself. On Saturday, police arrested more than 20 members of the public at a London protest opposing the ban – an indication that the proscription has already galvanised resistance.
Although hard to quantify exactly, estimates suggest tens of thousands of supporters in the UK. Before its accounts were shut down in July 2025, Palestine Action had a quarter of a million followers on X and regularly drew thousands to its protests. MP Richard Burgon said the legislation risked “criminalising thousands of volunteers and supporters”, including “students, nurses, retirees and professionals”, highlighting the diverse coalition backing the group and the potential for perceived overreach.
If these protests continue to grow, will the police attempt mass arrests of supporters? Both politically and practically, that seems unthinkable. The challenge now is not just about suppressing the group but about navigating the broader consequences for public dissent and civil liberties.
We’re entering dangerous territory: a law that exists on paper but is inconsistently enforced. Support of the group is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Yet inconsistent enforcement – harsh on some, lenient or non-existent on others – undermines the credibility of counter-terrorism legislation and the very principle of equal justice. This breeds cynicism and resentment, especially among those who feel protected or targeted based on political alignment.
The issue becomes even sharper when considering elected officials. Some MPs openly supported Palestine Action prior to its proscription. Last week, MP Zara Sultana spoke in the House of Commons, declaring: “We are all Palestine Action.” If they were to publicly support the group now, would they realistically face investigation or prosecution, as ordinary members of the public might? It’s hard to imagine. This kind of selective enforcement not only fails to restore order but deepens divisions and makes a mockery of justice itself.
Such an enforcement gap emboldens supporters, signalling that illegal actions may go unpunished, encouraging them to view their conduct not as criminal, but as justified resistance. For many in Palestine Action, this mindset reframes tactics like vandalism or intimidation as part of a moral struggle against what they perceive as a genocidal, apartheid state. Actions such as targeting arms factories or storming company offices are cast as virtuous responses to alleged complicity in war crimes.
Of course, extremists and terrorists always believe their cause is just. This is not an argument for cultural relativism, but an acknowledgment of an uncomfortable reality: the sense of righteousness motivating Palestine Action and its supporters is no longer a fringe phenomenon. The narrative that Israel is committing genocide and enforcing apartheid has gained traction – or at least tacit acceptance – across significant segments of the mainstream, including in academia, the media, NGOs and even parliament. This belief is no longer confined to the fringes: it now shapes public debate and motivates direct action, with real consequences for social cohesion and public order.
Against this backdrop, the government’s proscription targeted Palestine Action’s illegal tactics – not free speech or the right to protest. But it failed to control how this distinction was portrayed in the media and by activist groups. As a result, many people who oppose vandalism and intimidation nevertheless ended up conflating the group’s illegal actions with legitimate protest. This ultimately weakens public trust and complicates enforcement efforts.
When the shared legitimacy of law breaks down – when large parts of society reject who is labelled criminal – the law’s power to govern is weakened. This reflects a deep political and cultural fracture that offers no easy solutions and demands difficult reckoning.
Proscribing Palestine Action was justified, but in a deeply divided country, the government faces a minefield: enforce the law selectively and lose trust or enforce it strictly and risk unrest. There’s no easy answer, and every step risks deepening the very divisions that threaten public order.
This article was originally published by the Daily Sceptic.
