Ch4 doc shows Starmer's ban on Palestine Action was done to protect the arms industry

Palestine Action wasn’t banned because it’s a terrorist organisation. It was banned because large corporations, like the Elbit weapons firm, have captured the UK government

Channel 4's documentary last night on Palestine Action’s proscription as a terrorist organisation was a game of two halves. The first half, which built the government’s case for proscription, was presumably the “balance” needed to avoid a pile-on by the rest of the establishment media. The second half then proceeded to tear down the government’s case brick by brick.

Here are the five main takeaways from the second half:

1. The film reminded us that the government's proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation was done at the behest of Elbit Systems – the Israeli arms firm making killer drones for use in Gaza that Palestine Action was chiefly targeting.

Government officials regularly met with Elbit. A 2023 internal Home Office email, two years before proscription, states: "Reassure Elbit Systems UK and the wider sector affected by Palestine Action that the government cares about the harm the group is causing the private sector [arms industries]."

2. A senior Home Office official told the film-makers that there was a widespread belief among staff that the government was "wrong" to proscribe Palestine Action, and there was "disquiet" that the government was using Palestine Action as a way to curtail rights to protest and speech more generally.

3. Lord Hain, a former Labour government minister, explained that, when MPs and Lords were presented with an amendment to the Terrorism Act in 2020 under which Palestine Action has now been proscribed, the government had made explicit assurances that criminal damage to property – Palestine Action’s modus operandi – would not qualify as terrorism.

He also reminded viewers that, had earlier governments adopted the same approach as Sir Keir Starmer’s government, the Suffragette and anti-apartheid movements would also have been declared terrorist organisations.

4. The government's terrorism adviser, Jonathan Hall KC, made clear that there was zero evidence of any links between Palestine Action and Iran – a claim leaked to the press by the government on the same day Palestine Action was proscribed. Private Eye had already reported in November that the claim was concocted by a PR firm for Elbit Systems.

5. Additionally, Lord Walney, the government's former "independent" adviser on political violence, who has been at the forefront of demanding even more draconian legislation to ban protest in relation to Israel and its genocide, struggled through his interview.

It was only too obvious that his views on the subject had nothing to do with the public good but were shaped by his ties to the arms industries and his role as an Israel lobbyist.

What the programme made clear was that Starmer's government took the unprecedented decision to declare Palestine Action a terrorist organisation not because the group is a terrorist organisation but because large corporations – arms firms like Elbit – have captured the UK government.

But I want to add a point of criticism, in particular, about one scene from the first half. An interview with Huda Ammori, Palestine Action’s co-founder, included a truly cringe-inducing request that she condemn Hamas over its October 7 2023 attack.

We should have long moved past the point – more than two years into a genocide of their people – where Palestinians are expected to make such ritual denunciations before they can be heard.

If that isn't obvious, consider another interview during the programme – this one with Gideon Falter, the head of the Campaign Against Antisemitism. The CAA is a virulently pro-Israel organisation that was recently excoriated by a judge for repeatedly and intentionally misleading him – lying – in an antisemitism case it brought before the court.

Why did the programme makers not ask Falter, who actually is an apologist for violence – in his case, by Israel – whether he would condemn Israel for its two-year slaughter of children in Gaza? Presumably they shied away from that confrontation because it would have suggested that they were holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.

In which case, why is it still ok to imply that Palestinians are collectively responsible for the actions of Hamas?

That this double standard is still a respectable position for journalists to adopt should be genuinely shocking.

All video clips courtesy of Saul Staniforth.

[Many thanks to Matthew Alford for the audio reading of this article.]

---

All my posts are freely accessible, but my journalism is possible only because of the support of readers. If you liked this article or any of the others, please consider sharing it with friends and making a donation to support my work. You can do so by becoming a paid Substack subscriber, or donate via Paypal or my bank account, or alternatively set up a monthly direct debit mandate with GoCardless. A complete archive of my writings is available on my website. I’m on Twitter and Facebook.