A significant controversy has emerged in the UK regarding the government’s proscription of the protest organization Palestine Action, with Jewish activists challenging official assertions that the group deliberately targets Jewish-owned businesses. The dispute centers on a recent Channel 4 Dispatches documentary that examined the government’s rationale for designating the group as a terrorist organization.
Central to the debate are claims repeated in the documentary by Gideon Falter, chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), who stated that Palestine Action had ‘created a climate of fear’ within the Jewish community through a series of attacks on Jewish commercial properties. Falter described these incidents as ‘thuggish, violent attacks’ involving property damage and red paint splattering.
However, Jewish activists and Palestine Action representatives have vigorously contested these allegations. Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, asserted that their targets were selected exclusively based on connections to Israel’s weapons industry and complicity in Gaza operations, regardless of the owners’ identities. She characterized the accusations as ‘weaponizing antisemitism’ and ‘obfuscating the facts.’
The documentary also featured Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who questioned the official narrative by stating that press briefings about Palestine Action’s alleged ties to Iran were ‘wrong.’
Notable Jewish organizations joined the critique. Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi of Jewish Voice for Liberation expressed shock at the suggestion that Palestine Action constituted a threat to Jewish people, noting that the CAA was ‘stoking antisemitism in a completely irresponsible way.’ Similarly, the group Na’amod argued that characterizing Bicom—a targeted organization that facilitates journalist access to Israeli officials—as ‘merely a Jewish business’ deliberately obscured its complicity in Gaza operations.
Evidence presented in the report indicates that the government’s Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre assessment, used to support the proscription decision, did not include claims about attacks on Jewish businesses. Instead, the justification focused primarily on property damage incidents aimed at advancing political causes.
Specific cases examined include the targeting of Discovery Park Ltd, registered at a Stamford Hill address with a large Jewish population. While government officials portrayed this as an attack on a Jewish business, Palestine Action clarified they targeted the company because it served as landlord to Instro Precision, a subsidiary of Israel’s major weapons supplier Elbit Systems. Ammori acknowledged the Jewish ownership but emphasized: ‘If the landlords were somebody else, they would also have been targeted, regardless of whether or not they were Jewish.’
The proscription of Palestine Action, which places it on the UK’s terrorist list alongside organizations like Islamic State and al-Qaeda, has drawn widespread criticism across the political spectrum, with many questioning the evidence supporting the designation.
