Palestine Action targets an Israeli company – and the UK looks the other way

If you’re wondering why you’ve heard no outrage over this incident, I should probably fess up to my ruse. There has been no outrage because, while what I narrated above did indeed happen, it happened not in London but Manchester, at Rico House in Prestwich, and the vandalism was not anti-Indian but anti-Israel in nature.

The defence contractor is Elbit Systems, not the fictional Raksha Materiel, the direct protest group is Palestine Action, and the premises and businesses affected Jewish rather than Indian-owned. The quote is from the Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester and Region.

The targeting of Rico House failed to garner much coverage beyond the communal press because the British authorities are prepared to tolerate a sustained campaign of harassment against an Israeli firm in a way that, I’m guessing, they would not a company hailing from most other countries.The knock-on effects on local Jewish communities, to say nothing of local economies, are disregarded in a fashion that it’s hard to believe would happen if it was any other minority.

Palestine Action, which was formed in 2020, was characterised in Lord Walney’s “Protecting Our Democracy from Coercion” report as “a far-left, anarchist, anti-Israel activist group” that “engages in law breaking and business disruption” to frustrate Israeli defence enterprises in the UK and bring an end to “apartheid”.

Its strategy, according to its website, is one of “sustained disruption” (relentless disturbance of Elbit and firms which “work and facilitate” Elbit’s operations), “dilemma” (forcing firms to decide whether the hassle of contracting with Elbit is worth it), and “sacrifice” (accepting that direct action could have legal consequences).

Palestine Action has claimed credit for closing Elbit’s premises in Tamworth. One press release describes “action” at the site including “premises smashed into… the factory’s camera systems dismantled… its windows and fixings smashed through”.

Another press release touts a successful campaign to compel Barclays to divest from Elbit shareholdings, listing actions such as “smashing branch windows” and “spraying them in blood-red paint”.

In yet another media notice, Palestine Action boasts that machinery supplier Hydrafeed ceased supplying Elbit after a campaign “which involved activists abseiling inside Hydrafeed to dismantle their equipment, smashing through the front doors and spraying their premises in blood red paint”.

It should surprise no one that the Tarquin-and-Tabitha Taliban has its own comms operation. Like so many fashionable direct action groups, Palestine Action appears to have three basic membership requirements: a keffiyeh, a hyphen, and a trust fund.

Perhaps more surprising is the brazenness with which the group documents its law-breaking activities. It’s not as though Palestine Action activists are never arrested, but the organisation’s almost admirable transparency confirms its scope, coordination and determination to continue. Given the use of property damage as a political tactic, and the public interest in enforcing the law in this area, it seems as though the state should be taking a more proactive approach here.This is all the more urgent following the smashing up of a Jewish-owned business in Stamford Hill last week. Palestine Action claims the firm, owned by Charedi Jews, is the landlord of an Elbit factory. This campaign of intimidation is not going to stop until the authorities stop it.

In his report Lord Walney, formerly the government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption, recommended restriction short of proscription for direct action movements which “advocate mass disruption and law-breaking as a core tactic for achieving their objectives outside of democratic procedures”. Lord Walney suggests restricting the right of such organisations to assemble or fundraise.

While a liberal society should always err on the side of maximum free expression, there are ample means for robustly criticising Israel and clear political routes to limiting or ending cooperation between British firms and the Israeli defence sector. In habitually destroying property, and in targeting a facility such as Rico House, Palestine Action crosses a line it would not otherwise be permitted to cross. Doing so should bring legal measures that impose on Palestine Action the sort of “sustained disruption” it imposes on others.

​

Stephen Daisley is a columnist for the Scottish Daily Mail and writes regularly for The Spectator