Reversing Palestine Action ban would do catastrophic harm to UK

The November 5 hearing follows a series of contrasting lower court rulings over whether the ban constituted a lawful and proportionate response to the group’s activities.

The joint article rejects claims by Palestine Action’s defenders that the group is non-violent and motivated purely by concern for Gaza, stating: “None of these claims are true.”

The editorial details a series of violent assaults attributed to Palestine Action, including an incident in which a police officer’s back was fractured with a sledgehammer.

The group’s targets, the papers write, have included not just defense companies, but also Jewish charities and businesses. “A Jewish property company in the heart of Stamford Hill was targeted because the group claimed that it had rented out a site to an Israeli defence firm. It must be a coincidence that no other property company appears to have been targeted by the group for this,” the editorial notes.

It notes how Palestine Action members “have committed hundreds of attacks on property, businesses and military targets of huge importance to the security and interests of the UK.”

The editorial highlights a high-profile incident in which members of Palestine Action filmed themselves breaching an RAF base and damaging military aircraft, later boasting about the act online.

“No country which wishes to be taken seriously – by either its allies or its enemies – could sit back and countenance such an act,” the newspapers argue, framing the government’s proscription as a necessary response to the escalation.

Palestine Action was banned by then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper in July 2025 after a series of direct actions, including break-ins and property damage, mainly targeting Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems.

In February, the High Court ruled the ban unlawful, calling it a disproportionate interference with rights to freedom of expression and assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, in June, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court, finding the proscription lawful and proportionate given the group’s methods.

The Supreme Court granted permission for the group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, to appeal.

The editorial is highly critical of opponents to the ban.

“A predictable rogues’ gallery of ‘human rights organisations’ and celebrity activists have opposed the proscription decision,” it states.

“It is important to recognise that if a group was carrying out the exact same attacks in the name of, for example, banning abortion, or preventing mass immigration, the same groups and individuals signing endless open letters would have had no qualms about proscription.”

As the Supreme Court hearing approaches, both newspapers warn of potential consequences if the ban is lifted.

“To undo proscription at this critical moment in the country’s history would do catastrophic harm,” it is argued.

“It would come at a time when there is already an extraordinary scale of Iranian-linked hostile activity on British soil, targeting military sites and the Jewish community.

“It would signal to all of Britain’s enemies that our country is helpless in the face of those who seek to damage it. And, inevitably, it would lead to a re-energised group which would use its newfound freedom to carry out hundreds more such attacks.”

The editorial concludes by expressing concern for the wider Jewish community: “While the safety of the Jewish community will not be a factor in the Supreme Court’s final decision, there is little doubt that if proscription is reversed, many British Jews will see it as evidence that the State is unable to protect them.”