For Britain’s Jewish community, the UK High Court’s ruling on Palestine Action is not an abstract constitutional debate. It raises a far more pressing question: who protects minorities when intimidation falls short of terrorism?
The High Court ruled on Friday that the government's decision to proscribe Palestine Action was "disproportionate" and unlawful and proposed that the order be overturned. Specifically, it found that the ban breaches Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, which protects freedom of expression.
The judges decided that, while the anti-Israel protest group engaged in "criminality," not enough of its actions amounted to terrorism. The Court did not deny that criminal offences had occurred; it ruled that the threshold for terrorism, and therefore proscription, was not met. For now, the group remains banned to give the government time to consider an appeal.
Palestine Action brought a legal challenge against its proscription after it was banned in July last year. The group maintains that its actions were not terrorism, and that it merely carried out "property damage against the weapons trade and against weapons that would have been used to massacre people in Palestine."
"Most people understand that is not terrorism. Acting to save lives is a necessity," Palestine Action founder Huda Ammori told Sky News. Over 2000 people have been arrested in the UK since the ban was enacted.
Home Secretary stood by the decision
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood stood by her government's decision, saying it followed a "rigorous and evidence-based decision-making process" and that the ban does not prevent peaceful protest in support of the Palestinian cause. "Supporting the Palestinian cause is not the same as supporting Palestine Action," she said.
She also announced that she will fight the judgment in the Court of Appeal.
The ruling underscores that in the UK, even decisions framed as national security matters are subject to judicial review, and that the courts will scrutinize whether proscription is proportionate.
As the Board of Deputies of British Jews said, judicial oversight is "vitally important" in matters of national security. And yet this decision has a deep and pervasive impact on the Jewish community, whose way of life was affected by Palestine Action's campaigning. Jewish restaurants, businesses, and communities were targeted by Palestine Action for almost two years, causing fear, discomfort, and also incurring high costs (such as the need to repair vandalised buildings or remove graffiti).
Sans proscription, what measures will be in place to protect the Jewish community from repeated vandalism, graffiti, destruction, and harassment? Much of this activity was framed as a legitimate anti-Israel protest. But for those on the receiving end, such a distinction offers little comfort. At the end of the day, it is Jewish communities that suffer when their windows are smashed, or when kosher products are removed from shelves, or when cafes are forced to close because of constant targeting.
While there is some validity to the argument that arresting every person who supported Palestine Action was a waste of police resources, it at least sent a message that the government and law enforcement were taking steps to crack down on behaviour that intimidates Jewish and Israeli communities in the UK.
Coming so soon on the heels of the acquittal of six Palestine Action activists on aggravated burglary charges, a case in which a police officer suffered a serious spinal injury, the ruling may reinforce the perception among activists that the legal risks of disruptive protest are manageable.
Prosecutions for antisemitic crimes remain relatively rare. When high-profile cases end in acquittals, confidence in the system inevitably erodes, as the community questions whether it can rely on the criminal justice system to protect it.
It was never about peaceful protest
The debate now risks collapsing back into a narrow argument about freedom of speech, as if Palestine Action was simply about writing lengthy op-eds. But it was never about peaceful protest or holding up a banner; it's in the name - Action - and in many cases, this action was violent, destructive, and disruptive.
The High Court is right to guard civil liberties. But liberty without security is hollow for minorities who find themselves repeatedly targeted.
If a proscription is deemed disproportionate, the government must demonstrate what proportionate protection would look like. Otherwise, Britain’s Jewish community will be left asking whether the law protects not only their rights in theory, but their safety in practice.