This is a day of humiliation for those who facilitated Israel’s genocide in Gaza – and a moment of vindication for those who stood against “the crime of crimes”. It is worth underlining what the high court in London has today ruled to be unlawful: our government’s decision to place the direct-action group Palestine Action on the same legal footing as al-Qaida and Islamic State. Legally speaking, simply showing support for it risked a jail sentence of up to 14 years. The consequences? More than 2,700 people arrested for holding placards opposing genocide and supporting Palestine Action, many of them elderly, including a retired octogenarian priest.
No one who engages in criminal damage for a political cause imagines they will avoid arrest. As the court ruling makes clear, normal criminal law remains available for such acts. But when a government applies the badge of “terrorism” to movements that, however disorderly, are clearly not terrorist movements, an alarming precedent is set. As the court recognised, the proscription interferes with rights to freedom of expression, to peaceful assembly and free associations with others. You do not need a fevered imagination to see how a future Reform UK government could build on such a precedent. (As things stand, the ban on the group remains in effect so the government has time to appeal.)
Owen Jones on Palestine Action high court win | The Latest
The judges’ ruling did argue that Palestine Action’s adoption of direct action goes beyond civil disobedience. That’s because it seeks to damage property – primarily, to destroy equipment belonging to the Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems. Well, fine, but then the suffragettes weren’t a civil disobedience movement either. Today, they are secular saints, lauded by some of the same MPs who voted to proscribe Palestine Action, even though their tactics were far more extreme. Let’s not forget, the suffragettes planted bombs, burned down private homes and even killed people.
History’s judgment on that movement is clear: the greater crime was the disenfranchisement of women. Their actions are seen through that prism.
In this case, a UN independent commission, genocide scholars and NGOs ranging from Amnesty International to Médecins Sans Frontières have concluded that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people. The international criminal court (ICC) – of which the UK is a founding member – long ago issued arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former defence minister for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Britain supplies crucial components for Israel’s fighter jets, shares intelligence and permits its citizens to fight in Israel’s army.
In the abstract, how would a reasonable person respond if asked: “If you have strong grounds to conclude that your own government is facilitating genocide – the crime of crimes – should you do whatever it takes to stop it, even if that means breaking the law?” That is undoubtedly a question English juries have wrestled with, because they have repeatedly acquitted Palestine Action activists hauled before the court. No wonder the government wants to curb trial by jury.
Our home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has declared that she will “fight” the judgment in the court of appeal. It is worth noting that according to his published correspondence with Peter Mandelson, Mahmood’s cabinet colleague Wes Streeting declared last year: “Israel is committing war crimes before our eyes.” Moreover, more than a decade ago, Mahmood was marching against an Israeli onslaught against Gaza which – however horrific – was not anywhere near the scale of the current genocide.
It stretches incredulity to believe that Mahmood does not share Streeting’s conclusion that Israel has committed war crimes, because denying that is like subscribing to flat-Earthism. The British government refuses to state the obvious because that would impose legal obligations on it. For a start, it would not be lawful to supply the crucial components of fighter jets to a state committing war crimes. That’s why the then foreign secretary backtracked last year when he described Israel’s blockade of Gaza as what it is: a violation of international law.
In sum, smashing up the equipment of an Israeli arms manufacturer isn’t lawful – but neither is arming a state committing war crimes, and indeed genocide. Which should we treat as the most serious?
There is one major question to be answered. After Palestine Action vandalised Donald Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland in March 2025 – before the group was proscribed – the president described them as “terrorists” and expressed hope they would be “treated harshly”. We also know that Trump discussed Palestine Action twice with our prime minister. The contents of that conversation must be revealed to establish whether proscription was discussed.
That only 26 MPs voted against this unlawful legislation tells you everything you need to know about our soulless, cowardly political establishment. But those who have facilitated genocide should begin to panic. The suffragettes, alas, did not have court rulings in their favour at the time, and their cause was – however absurdly – controversial. Women did not receive the vote in full until 1928, and the suffragettes’ canonisation came decades later.
But polling shows that the British public believes Israel’s attack on Gaza was not justified, supports an arms embargo and sanctions against Israel, and supports the arrest of Netanyahu. Polling in the US shows that half of Americans believe Israel has committed genocide, with just over a third disagreeing. That the ICC issued arrest warrants despite colossal western pressure is another sign of where this all leads.
It is obvious that Israel’s genocide will be remembered as one of the great crimes of our age. Those complicit will be damned by history, and may one day find themselves hauled before the courts. Those who were arrested for holding placards will be vindicated as courageous fighters against the worst crime that can possibly exist. Whether Mahmood wins or loses her appeal, that reckoning is coming.
Owen Jones is a Guardian columnist
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
