Pro-Palestine thugs who target Israeli-linked buildings must be banned | Politics | News

Last Saturday, Palestine Action took to the streets of London, not to peacefully protest, but to vandalise and deface buildings associated with Jewish businesses and organisations with ties to Israel.

These were not random acts; they were deliberate assaults on groups that stand for British-Jewish values, community support, and cultural exchange. This time, however, Palestine Action went further, trespassing onto private properties, scrawling hateful graffiti, and leaving behind a trail of damage.

These actions were not merely symbolic. They were acts of intimidation aimed at spreading fear and silence within the Jewish community. And under the guise of “activism,” Palestine Action is using anti-Zionism as a cover to legitimise violence, not just against a political position, but against an entire community.

What we are witnessing is a dangerous transformation of anti-Zionist rhetoric into a disturbing justification for violence. Palestine Action’s activities have gone far beyond criticism of Israel’s policies. Instead, they have evolved into a campaign of relentless aggression, harassment, and vandalism aimed at anyone with connections to Israel.

It began with companies like Elbit Systems, but has since expanded to encompass organisations and businesses across the UK, including those working to foster mutual understanding and dialogue. This is not activism, nor is it legitimate protest.

It is a sinister campaign to isolate, intimidate, and silence those who hold any ties, however tenuous, to Israel.

We must call this what it is: extremism. Palestine Action has embraced a philosophy of “by any means necessary,” a mandate that they wield to break the law, deface property, and instil fear.

Each act of vandalism, every shattered window, and every defaced building is a calculated strike against those they deem unworthy of being part of the community. This is not dissent — it is coercion, plain and simple.

Last Saturday’s attacks were only the latest in a string of actions designed to bully organisations like BICOM and terrorise the Jewish community into silence.

The UK’s Terrorism Act 2000 provides the government with the authority to proscribe organisations that employ violence or intimidation to promote a political or ideological cause.

Palestine Action’s tactics fit these criteria all too well. They are not merely expressing dissent; they are attempting to shape British policy on Israel by instilling fear, undermining public order, and coercing those they target.

Their message to Jewish communities, charities, and organisations connected to Israel is clear: conform to our views, or you will be next.

The implications of allowing these tactics to continue unchallenged are profound. Palestine Action’s aggression fuels antisemitism and division within British society. The more they target Jewish institutions, the more they embolden others to view hostility towards the Jewish community as acceptable.

And once such hostility is normalised, it leaves the door open for other groups, other minorities, to be targeted in similar ways. This is not only a threat to Jewish communities; it is a threat to British values themselves. Where does it end if we allow radical ideologues to dictate who can and cannot participate in British society?

Some may argue that proscribing Palestine Action would infringe upon free speech. But let us be clear: free speech does not include the right to intimidate, vandalise, or terrorise. Failing to act would set a dangerous precedent, signalling that groups are free to operate outside the law, provided they dress their actions up as “activism.”

Proscribing Palestine Action would not stifle debate; it would defend the very framework that allows for genuine debate by ensuring that activism remains distinct from extremism.

To proscribe Palestine Action is to defend British principles. Britain has long prided itself on the values of respect, tolerance, and civility. When a group abandons these values in favour of intimidation and fear, the state has an obligation to respond.

Proscription would equip law enforcement with the necessary tools to dismantle their network, prevent further violence, and make a clear statement that Britain will not allow its society to be fractured by extremism.

The choice is before us. Either we act now to protect the core values of British society, or we allow anti-Zionism to serve as an increasingly acceptable excuse for violence. If we allow this, we risk sacrificing not just one community, but the entire social fabric of Britain itself.

Britain must send an unequivocal message that it will not permit fear and intimidation to flourish under the guise of “activism.” If we are to retain our identity and uphold our values, the time to act is now. We must ensure that those who seek to undermine our society through fear and force find no safe haven here.

Catherine Perez-Shakdam – Executive Director We Believe In Israel