Red Paint is Terrorism, Enabling Genocide is Policy
In the early hours of Friday, June 20, 2025, activists from Palestine Action broke into RAF Brize Norton and spray-painted two military aircraft red. Within three days, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had announced that Palestine Action would be proscribed under anti-terrorism laws, placing the group in the same legal category as ISIS, Boko Haram, and National Action (BBC, 2025).
This is the world we now inhabit: red paint on military hardware is terrorism, while Israeli genocide in Gaza is standard operating procedure. The Labour government's decision to ban Palestine Action represents far more than a simple law enforcement measure. It is the latest and most extreme manifestation of a broader campaign to silence Palestinian solidarity across British society - a calculated assault on democratic rights, a desperate attempt to shield UK complicity in genocide from legal scrutiny, and a chilling demonstration of how quickly a supposedly progressive government will resort to authoritarian tactics when its moral bankruptcy is exposed.
The disparity is stark. While ordinary citizens face up to fourteen years in prison for spraying paint in protest against genocide, the British state continues to arm and support Israeli forces engaged in the systematic extermination of Palestinians in Gaza. When Keir Starmer's government criminalises the act of bearing witness to genocide while simultaneously enabling that genocide, we are witnessing something far more dangerous than political hypocrisy. We are seeing the emergence of a state that has abandoned any pretence of moral authority and will use the full force of its repressive apparatus to silence those who dare to name its crimes.
The decision to proscribe Palestine Action represents an unprecedented escalation in the British state's response to Palestine solidarity activism, but it is not an isolated incident. From criminalising expressions of solidarity at cultural events to demanding silence about war crimes while condemning those who expose them, the government has embarked on a systematic campaign to make Palestinian solidarity itself a form of extremism. What makes Palestine Action different is not their methods, but their effectiveness in exposing a British establishment that has made itself complicit in genocide. It will not tolerate any challenges to that complicity, no matter how peaceful or justified.
The fundamental question is whether dissent will be tolerated in a democracy that claims to uphold the rule of law while systematically violating it. The Labour government's assault on Palestine Action is an assault on all of us who believe that ordinary people have not just the right but the duty to resist when their government becomes complicit in mass murder.
The Mechanics of State Repression
Cooper's announcement on June 23 revealed the sweeping nature of the powers being deployed against Palestine Action. Under terrorism legislation, proscription makes membership of the organisation punishable by up to ten years in prison, while inviting support for the group can result in fourteen years behind bars (Guardian, 2025). The draft proscription order is to be laid before Parliament on June 30, where it will likely be rubber-stamped without meaningful debate.
The process itself reveals the authoritarian nature of this power. The Home Secretary's word is sufficient to criminalise an entire movement and everyone associated with it. This represents a fundamental perversion of due process and the rule of law.
The government's justification for this step rests on what Cooper described as Palestine Action's "long history of unacceptable criminal damage." She cited several incidents, including a 2022 break-in at the Thales defence factory in Glasgow that caused £1,130,783 in damages, break-ins at the Instro Precision factory in Kent and the Bristol headquarters of Elbit Systems UK, and the recent RAF Brize Norton incident (BBC, 2025).
What makes this proscription extraordinary is the complete absence of violence against people. Palestine Action's activities have consistently targeted property connected to arms production for Israel, using tactics like occupation and spray-painting. Their methods are indistinguishable from those used by countless other protest movements throughout British history, yet none of those movements faced terrorism charges for property damage alone.
The weakness of the government's legal case has been exposed by expert legal opinion. Lord Falconer, the former Justice Secretary, stated that the "sort of demonstration" at the RAF base would not justify proscription, suggesting "there must be something else that I don't know about" (Guardian, 2025). When asked if the actions were "commensurate with the need to proscribe an organisation," Falconer was clear: "I am not aware of what Palestine Action has done beyond the painting of things on the planes in Brize Norton... There would need to be something that was known by those who look at these sorts of things that we don't know about."
This admission from a former Justice Secretary reveals the government's predicament: they are attempting to use terrorism legislation against actions that do not meet the legal threshold for such designation. Former Labour shadow chancellor John McDonnell made this point even more forcefully on X, arguing that "putting them on a par with mass killers like Jihadis & Boko Haram & proscribing doesn't seem appropriate & not what the counter-terrorism laws were introduced for" (Guardian, 2025).
The government's approach has been characterised by procedural irregularities that further undermine its legitimacy. Palestine Action reported that the ban "emerged on Friday evening in the form of leaks to the press. We have not been consulted and have received no right of reply" (Guardian, 2025). This bypassing of normal consultation processes suggests a government more interested in political theatre than legal due process.
The timing of Cooper's announcement, just three days after the Brize Norton incident, suggests a knee-jerk reaction rather than careful deliberation. The speed of the response indicates that the government had been seeking an opportunity to ban Palestine Action and seized upon the first pretext that presented itself. This reactive approach to policymaking reveals a government more concerned with political optics than legal consistency.
The decision appears to have been driven not by security concerns but by lobby pressure. The Guardian reported that "the home secretary has been the focus of lobbying by groups, including the Campaign Against Antisemitism, pushing for Palestine Action to be banned" (Guardian, 2025). This reveals the ban as a political response to organised pressure rather than a measured assessment of genuine security threats.
The implications of this legal framework extend far beyond Palestine Action itself. Once the principle is established that property damage in pursuit of political goals constitutes terrorism, virtually any form of direct action becomes vulnerable to the same treatment. Environmental activists, anti-war protesters, and social justice campaigners all employ tactics that could be reframed as terrorism under the expansive logic being applied here.
Starmer's Political Calculation
Palestine Action has highlighted what they call Starmer's "rank hypocrisy," noting that he previously defended protesters who broke into RAF Fairford in 2003 to prevent US bombers from taking off for Iraq (Guardian, 2025). This transformation from defender of protest rights to authoritarian prosecutor reveals the nature of Starmer's political project and exposes the calculated cynicism that drives his approach to power.
The contrast could not be more stark or more damning. In 2003, as a human rights barrister, Starmer argued that protesters had a "lawful excuse" for their actions because they were attempting to prevent war crimes (Telegraph, 2025). He understood then what he now refuses to acknowledge: that ordinary citizens have not just the right but the duty to resist when their government becomes complicit in atrocity. His legal arguments in defence of the RAF Fairford protesters were based on the same moral and legal principles that Palestine Action invokes today.
Yet now, as Prime Minister, Starmer has abandoned these principles entirely in service of a political strategy that priorities electoral calculation over moral consistency. His approach represents the most cynical form of political opportunism: using the language of law and order to silence those who challenge policies he knows to be morally indefensible. This is not the evolution of a politician's views; it is the complete abandonment of previously held convictions for the sake of political advantage.
The moral bankruptcy of Starmer's position becomes even clearer when we examine his response to Israeli genocide versus his response to Palestine Action. Throughout the destruction of Gaza, Starmer has repeatedly intoned that "Israel has the right to defend itself" - a mantra that has served as his green light for every Israeli war crime, every massacre, every violation of international law (LBC, 2023). Yet when Palestine Action spray-paints military aircraft to expose and disrupt British complicity in these crimes, Starmer's condemnation is swift, unequivocal, and backed by the full force of terrorism legislation.
This represents a complete inversion of moral priorities: greater legal consequences for those who expose war crimes than for those who commit them. Starmer has found his voice when it comes to criminalising resistance to genocide but remains conspicuously silent when it comes to condemning the genocide itself. Palestine Action works to expose Israeli crimes; Starmer works to protect them from scrutiny.
His strategy has been to appeal to right-wing voters while assuming the left has nowhere else to go. The banning of Palestine Action represents the logical endpoint of this approach: not content with abandoning solidarity with Palestine, Starmer now actively criminalises it. This calculation reveals his fundamental contempt for the very people who brought Labour to power, treating them as a captive constituency whose concerns can be safely ignored in pursuit of more politically valuable demographics.
The deeper significance of Starmer's transformation lies in what it reveals about the nature of contemporary political power. His journey from human rights defender to authoritarian prosecutor demonstrates how the pursuit of power corrupts even those who once understood the importance of resistance to state authority. It shows how the machinery of government transforms those who operate it, turning former advocates for justice into enforcers of injustice.
This transformation is not accidental and reflects the structural pressures of a political system that rewards conformity to established power while punishing those who challenge it. Starmer's abandonment of his former principles reveals the impossibility of meaningful change through conventional political channels when those channels are controlled by interests that benefit from the status quo. His government's assault on Palestine Action is thus not just an attack on one protest movement but a demonstration of how the system protects itself from challenge.
Political Opposition
The response from opposition figures has been damning and reveals the extent to which the Palestine Action ban has isolated the Labour government from progressive opinion. Jeremy Corbyn called the decision "as absurd as it is authoritarian," describing it as "a draconian assault on democratic right to protest and is a disgraceful attempt to hide the real meaning of violence: the mass murder of Palestinians" (Guardian, 2025). Corbyn's intervention is particularly significant given his position as the former Labour leader whom Starmer systematically purged from the party, making his criticism a pointed reminder of the values Labour once claimed to represent.
Labour MP Nadia Whittome warned that the decision sets a "dangerous precedent, which governments in future could further use against their critics" (Guardian, 2025). Her concern reflects understanding among progressive politicians that today's assault on Palestine solidarity will inevitably expand to target other forms of dissent. Whittome's willingness to break ranks with her own government demonstrates the depth of unease within Labour's parliamentary party about the authoritarian direction of Starmer's leadership.
Former Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf described Cooper's action as a "shameful abuse of anti-terror legislation" and an "utterly ludicrous overreaction" designed to "intimidate and ultimately silence protestors and pro-Palestinian protesters" (Guardian, 2025). Yousaf's intervention carries particular weight given his position as a former head of government and his understanding of the proper use of state power. His characterisation of the ban as "shameful" reflects the moral revulsion that the decision has provoked among those who understand its implications.
Civil liberties organisations Amnesty International and Liberty have expressed concerns about this use of terrorism legislation against a protest movement (Guardian, 2025). Their intervention reflects understanding among human rights advocates that the ban represents a threat to the right to protest and freedom of assembly. The involvement of these organisations transforms the issue from a partisan political dispute into a fundamental question of civil liberties and democratic rights.
The breadth of opposition to the ban reveals how isolated the Labour government has become from the very constituencies that brought it to power. From former Labour leaders to current MPs, from Scottish politicians to civil liberties organisations, the consensus is clear: the Palestine Action ban represents an unacceptable assault on democratic rights. This opposition demonstrates that the government's attempt to normalise the criminalisation of dissent has failed to achieve legitimacy even among those who might be expected to support it.
The failure to build consensus for the ban reveals the weakness of the government's position and suggests that its authoritarian turn lacks popular support. When a supposedly progressive government cannot convince even its own supporters of the necessity of its actions, it demonstrates that those actions are driven by political calculation rather than genuine security concerns. The isolation of the Labour government on this issue foreshadows the broader political consequences of its abandonment of progressive values in pursuit of electoral advantage.
The Broader Context
The Palestine Action ban cannot be understood in isolation from the Labour government's broader approach to the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza. Since taking power, Starmer's government has maintained its support for Israeli genocide while criminalising those who challenge this support. This represents a deliberate political choice to prioritise strategic relationships over moral obligations and democratic accountability.
Palestine Action called the government's decision "unhinged" and accused Starmer of hypocrisy given his previous legal work defending similar protesters (Guardian, 2025). The organisation argues that the real crime is UK complicity in Israeli genocide in Gaza, not their attempts to disrupt the arms trade that enables that genocide. This framing exposes the contradictory logic at the heart of government policy: those who enable genocide are protected, while those who resist genocide are punished.
The fact that ordinary citizens feel compelled to risk imprisonment reveals the failure of democratic accountability under the current system. When teachers and nurses are driven to break the law because their government refuses to change its policies on arms exports, the problem lies not with the protesters but with a political system that has become unresponsive to moral concerns. Palestine Action's membership, described by the organisation as "teachers, nurses, students and parents," represents a cross-section of British society that has concluded normal political channels are insufficient to challenge government complicity in genocide (Guardian, 2025).
This failure of democratic responsiveness is not accidental. It reflects the systematic capture of the political system by pro-Israel lobby groups and arms industry interests. The scale of this capture is staggering: 180 of Britain's 650 MPs - over a quarter of Parliament - have accepted funding from pro-Israel lobby groups, with total donations exceeding £1 million (Declassified UK, 2024). Within Labour specifically, 41 MPs have accepted over £280,000 from the Israel lobby, including 15 who have been directly funded by the Israeli state itself (Declassified UK, 2024).
The influence operation is systematic and sophisticated. Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) counts 75 Labour MPs as supporters - a number that has actually increased since the onset of Israeli genocide in Gaza (Declassified UK, 2024). The organisation has paid for 32 Labour MPs to visit Israel, contributing over £64,000 to these propaganda trips. Remarkably, even during the ongoing genocide, Labour MPs have continued to accept Israeli lobby funding, with Margaret Hodge accepting £2,500 from LFI for a "solidarity mission" to Israel in January 2024 (Declassified UK, 2024).
The corruption reaches the very top of the Labour Party. Trevor Chinn, a long-time pro-Israel lobbyist whose father was president of the Jewish National Fund - described by historian Ilan Pappé as a "colonialist agency of ethnic cleansing" (Declassified UK, 2024) - has donated £195,210 to Labour MPs, including over £50,000 to Starmer's leadership campaign (Declassified UK, 2024). Eight of Chinn's funded MPs are now in Starmer's shadow cabinet, including Deputy Leader Angela Rayner, Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves, and Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy. Starmer failed to declare Chinn's donation until after he had won the leadership election.
This represents a textbook case of regulatory capture, where the interests supposedly being regulated have gained control over the regulatory apparatus. As Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori observed: "Accepting funding from a lobby group on behalf of the perpetrators of a genocide should immediately bar anyone from standing as an MP. To see how politicians continue to travel to Israel and engage with the genocide lobby explains why our government continues to defy international law by facilitating Israel's war crimes" (Declassified UK, 2024).
The government's response to this democratic deficit has been to prohibit dissent rather than address the underlying issues that drive people to desperate measures. Rather than engaging with the moral arguments raised by Palestine Action, the government has chosen to silence those arguments through legal repression. This approach reveals a political establishment that knows it cannot defend its policies in open debate and therefore seeks to prevent that debate from occurring.
It feels obscene to be lectured on the law and what is legal and what is not by a government who is silent on genocide, who is silent on war crimes and who helps supply the weapons and support that not just green lights the genocide but helps make it possible. The moral authority to enforce law comes from respecting law, and a government that systematically violates international law while punishing those who resist Israeli genocide has forfeited any claim to legitimate authority. When the state becomes the primary enabler of genocide while criminalising resistance to that genocide, its attempts to outlaw resistance become acts of moral perversion rather than law enforcement.
The broader international context makes this domestic repression even more significant. At a time when other European nations are beginning to impose consequences for Israeli violations of international law, Britain has chosen to double down on its support while criminalising those who challenge that support. This places the UK increasingly isolated from international opinion and on the wrong side of history.
The Authoritarian Precedent
The implications of the Palestine Action ban extend far beyond one protest group. By establishing that direct action protest can be classified as terrorism, the Labour government has opened the door to systematic banning of dissent. Every social movement that challenges state power now faces the prospect of being excluded if their activities prove inconvenient to those in power.
This represents a fundamental shift in how the British state responds to protest. Rather than prosecuting individuals for specific actions, the government now seeks to outlaw entire organisations and ideologies. The message being sent is clear: conform to the narrow bounds of state-approved protest or face the full weight of anti-terrorism legislation. This transformation of protest from a democratic right into a potential terrorist offense represents one of the most significant erosions of civil liberties in modern British history.
But the real goal is not to arrest every dissenter - it is to create a climate of fear that makes people self-censor and fall in line. The Palestine Action ban is designed to send a chilling message to anyone who might consider holding a mirror to government complicity in genocide: stay quiet, don't resist, don't expose our crimes. When teachers and nurses see that spray-painting military aircraft gets you fourteen years as a ‘terrorist,’ the intended effect is clear - people will choose compliance over resistance, silence over solidarity.
This is precisely how authoritarianism functions in practice. You don't need to arrest everyone; you just need to make the consequences so severe that people police themselves. The goal is to normalise genocide while criminalising conscience, to make dissent so dangerous that ordinary citizens choose complicity over resistance. It is a deliberate strategy to protect the system from moral scrutiny by terrorising those who would dare to challenge it.
The precedent being established will outlast the current government and could be used by future administrations to target any movement that challenges state power. Environmental groups that engage in direct action against fossil fuel infrastructure, anti-war protesters who disrupt military facilities, and social justice campaigners who occupy corporate premises. All now face the prospect of being banned as terrorist organisations if their activities prove sufficiently effective.
The international implications of this precedent are equally troubling. Authoritarian governments around the world will undoubtedly cite the British example when justifying their own crackdowns on dissent. If a supposedly democratic government can classify property damage as terrorism when it serves political purposes, then every dictatorship has been handed a ready-made justification for similar measures. The Labour government has not only undermined British democracy; it has provided a template for authoritarians everywhere.
The erosion of democratic rights rarely happens all at once; it occurs through a series of incremental steps that each seem reasonable in isolation but collectively constitute a fundamental transformation of the political system. The Palestine Action ban represents one such step, and its acceptance by the political establishment and mainstream media suggests that further steps will follow. Today it is Palestine solidarity activists who are labeled terrorists; tomorrow it could be anyone who dares to challenge the powerful.
What makes this development particularly dangerous is its bipartisan nature. While we might expect such authoritarian measures from a Conservative government, their implementation by a Labour government demonstrates that the assault on democratic rights transcends traditional party politics. Both major parties have now shown themselves willing to use anti-terrorism legislation against domestic protest movements, suggesting that this represents a fundamental shift in the British state's relationship to dissent rather than a temporary aberration.
The Strategy of Deflection: Moving Palestine into the Culture Wars
As we have discussed, the Palestine Action ban represents more than just authoritarian overreach - it reveals a deliberate strategy to avoid any substantive conversation about what drives these protests in the first place. The government's goal is not to address the moral crisis that compels working people to risk imprisonment, but to deflect attention from the substance of their concerns by focusing entirely on their methods.
This strategy was perfectly illustrated at Glastonbury Festival, where rapper Bob Vylan led chants of "Death to the IDF" during his performance. The government and media response were swift and predictable: condemnation of the chant itself, stripped of all contexts about the ongoing Israeli genocide that prompted it (Sky News, 2025). Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy demanded "urgent explanation" from the BBC, Health Secretary Wes Streeting called it "appalling," and Tory leader Kemi Badenoch labeled it "grotesque" (Sky News, 2025).
What was conspicuously absent from this outrage was any acknowledgment of why artists feel compelled to make such statements. Bob Vylan performed in front of a screen displaying claims that Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide, yet this context was not discussed in official responses (Sky News, 2025). The government condemned words while Palestinians were literally being killed in genocide, refusing any serious conversation about the cause that drives such desperate expressions of solidarity.
This is precisely how the government wants to handle Palestine solidarity more broadly - by moving it into culture war territory where no substantive debate is needed. They deliberately misinterpret "death to the IDF" as "death to Israelis," stripping away all nuance and context to avoid discussing why people are driven to such expressions of rage against a military force committing genocide. The goal is to make Palestine solidarity appear as mere antisemitic extremism rather than a response to systematic atrocity.
The media plays a crucial role in enabling this deflection strategy through what can only be described as lazy tabloid journalism. Rather than investigating why artists feel compelled to make such statements or examining the context of genocide that drives these desperate expressions of solidarity, journalists simply want the easy headline handed to them: ‘Artist says shocking thing at festival.‘ This approach requires no research into the meaning behind the words, no investigation into the conditions that produce such anger, and no examination of the government policies that create the moral crisis in the first place.
The obscenity of this approach becomes clear when we consider the timing: while government ministers were condemning Bob Vylan's words, Palestinian children were being murdered with British-supplied weapons. While they demanded BBC explanations about "due diligence," they showed no such concern for due diligence in arms exports to a genocidal regime.
The grotesque nature of these priorities was laid bare during the very weekend of Glastonbury, when Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed that Israeli soldiers had been "ordered" to shoot at unarmed Palestinians seeking aid in Gaza (Al Jazeera, 2025). According to the report, troops were told to fire at crowds of Palestinians and use "unnecessary lethal force" against people who posed no threat. "We fired machineguns from tanks and threw grenades," one soldier told Haaretz. "It's a killing field," said another, describing how "between one and five people were killed every day" at aid distribution sites (Al Jazeera, 2025).
The United Nations confirmed these killings constitute "a likely war crime" that violates international standards on aid distribution (The Intercept, 2025). Israeli soldiers had "reportedly killed aid-seekers with bullets, tank shells, and drone-mounted weapons" - at least 410 people in the past month alone at Israeli-run aid sites (The Intercept, 2025). This systematic slaughter was enabled by a "privatized, militarized aid distribution system" that over a dozen human rights groups condemned for undermining "core humanitarian principles," funded with $30 million from the US government (The Intercept, 2025).
So, while the government and media worked themselves into hysteria over Bob Vylan's words about the IDF, the IDF was committing UN-confirmed war crimes against starving Palestinians with US-funded weapons. While ministers demanded BBC explanations about "due diligence" for festival coverage, they showed no concern for due diligence in enabling systematic war crimes. At least 549 Palestinians had been killed and 4,066 injured while waiting for aid, yet this received a fraction of the attention devoted to condemning an artist's chant (Al Jazeera, 2025). The moral bankruptcy is complete: greater shock at words about the Israeli military than at the Israeli military's actual crimes in the Gaza killing fields.
By wrapping Palestine solidarity in culture war rhetoric, the government hopes to sidestep the substantive moral questions entirely. They want to make this about ‘extremist language’ and ‘glorification of violence’ rather than about genocide and complicity. They want to debate the appropriateness of protest methods rather than the appropriateness of enabling mass murder.
This strategy reveals the government's fundamental weakness: they know they cannot win the moral argument, so they seek to avoid having it altogether. They know that any honest discussion of British complicity in Israeli genocide would expose the corruption and moral bankruptcy of the entire political system. So, they criminalise the conversation itself, making it ‘terrorism’ to challenge their policies and ‘extremism’ to name their crimes.
Conclusion: The Real Terror
The Labour government's decision to ban Palestine Action marks a watershed moment in British politics. It demonstrates how quickly a supposedly progressive government will resort to authoritarian tactics when its policies are challenged.
But this moment is about far more than one protest group or one government decision. It is about the fundamental question of whether we will be silenced about the killing fields of Gaza, whether we will accept that speaking out for Palestinians is now terrorism, whether we will allow our governments to demand our silence while they enable genocide.
The government's strategy of deflection - moving Palestine solidarity into culture war territory while media outlets provide lazy tabloid coverage - is specifically designed to prevent us from confronting the reality of what is being done in our name. By focusing on the methods of protest rather than the substance of Palestinian suffering, by stripping context from expressions of solidarity, and by avoiding any substantive discussion of genocide and complicity, the system seeks to keep us trapped in surface-level controversies rather than confronting the fundamental moral question: will we be silent while Palestinians are systematically exterminated with British support?
This strategy will ultimately fail because it cannot address the underlying moral crisis that drives people to such measures. As long as British weapons enable the destruction of Gaza, as long as Palestinian children are murdered with our government's approval, there will be British citizens willing to risk imprisonment to break that silence. The red paint on those military aircraft represents something the government cannot legislate away: the refusal to be silent in the face of genocide.
The deeper tragedy of this moment lies not just in the criminalisation of dissent but in what it reveals about a political system that demands our silence about Palestinian suffering while rewarding those who enable it. When human rights barristers become authoritarian prosecutors, when progressive parties embrace repression, and when democratic governments fear their own citizens more than international law, we are witnessing the collapse of any veneer that Palestinian lives matter to those in power.
Yet this collapse also creates opportunities for moral clarity. The Palestine Action ban has exposed the true nature of a system that will use terrorism laws to silence solidarity with Palestinians while protecting those who arm their killers. By forcing this choice between complicity and resistance, the government has clarified the stakes: they are demanding our silence about genocide.
This revelation creates both danger and possibility. The danger lies in the normalisation of that silence - the acceptance that we must not speak too loudly about Palestinian suffering, that we must not act too decisively against British complicity in their destruction. But the possibility lies in the awakening that such moments can provoke: the recognition that our silence is exactly what enables the killing to continue.
The choice now facing all of us transcends any single issue or campaign: it is the choice between accepting a system that demands our silence about Palestinian genocide or refusing to be silenced about the fate of Palestinians no matter what penalties are imposed. The government has made its choice clear through its actions. It has chosen to punish solidarity with Palestinians while rewarding complicity in their destruction.
But we do not have to accept this demand for silence. The courage shown by those willing to risk imprisonment rather than remain silent about Palestinian suffering demonstrates that moral clarity cannot be legislated away, that solidarity cannot be banned, and that the human impulse to speak out against genocide will always find expression, no matter how severe the penalties imposed.
The red paint on those military aircraft will fade, but the moral stain on the government that proscribed those who applied it will endure. In the end, it is not the protesters who will be remembered as terrorists, but those who used the language of terrorism to silence voices speaking out for Palestinians. History will judge not those who refused to be silent about Gaza's killing fields, but those who demanded that silence while enabling the killing to continue.
The question that remains is whether this moment will mark the beginning of a broader refusal - a refusal to be silent about Palestinian suffering, a refusal to accept that solidarity with Palestinians is terrorism, a refusal to let our governments demand our silence while they enable genocide. The answer lies not in any single act of defiance, but in the collective decision to refuse the silence that power demands about Palestinian lives, to reject the complicity that convenience offers in Palestinian destruction, and to insist that speaking out for Palestinians is not a crime, no matter how desperately those in power wish to make it so.
As long as Palestinians are dying in Gaza's killing fields with British support, there will be those who refuse to be silent. As long as our governments care more about arms profits than Palestinian lives, there will be those who refuse to accept that silence. The choice is ours: complicity in genocide through silence, or solidarity with Palestinians through resistance. The government has made its choice. Now we must make ours.
But make no mistake: change is coming. Israel knows it. The governments of the world know it. That is why they are so desperate to silence us, why they resort to terrorism laws against those who spray-paint aircraft, why they demand our complicity through silence. They want to tell us that solidarity is impossible, that change is impossible, that we must accept the world as it is rather than fight for the world as it should be.
They are wrong. As Nelson Mandela said, "It always seems impossible until it's done." The same was said of apartheid in South Africa, of slavery in America, of colonialism across the globe. Each seemed permanent, each seemed impossible to overcome, each had governments and institutions that demanded silence from those who dared to resist.
Yet each fell when enough people refused to be silent, refused to accept the impossible, refused to let those in power define the limits of what could be achieved. The red paint on those military aircraft is a declaration that the impossible will be done; that Palestinian liberation will come, and no amount of government repression can silence the voices that speak for justice.
The question is not whether change will come, but whether we will be part of making it happen. Let's get it done.
or support us with a one-off tip → Buy Me a Coffee
References
Al Jazeera (2025) 'Israeli soldiers "ordered" to shoot unarmed Gaza aid seekers: Report', Al Jazeera, 27 June. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/27/israeli-soldiers-ordered-to-shoot-at-unarmed-gaza-aid-seekers-report [Accessed 28th June 2025 ]
Al Jazeera (2025) 'What is the Palestine Action group, and why is the UK banning it?', Al Jazeera, 25 June. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/25/what-is-the-palestine-action-group-and-why-is-the-uk-banning-it [Accessed 28th June 2025]
BBC (2025) 'Palestine Action to be banned as terrorist organisation', BBC News, 23 June. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g83l33wdeo [Accessed 28th June 2025]
Declassified UK (2024) 'Israel lobby funded half of Keir Starmer's cabinet', Declassified UK, 9 July. Available at: https://www.declassifieduk.org/israel-lobby-funded-half-of-keir-starmers-cabinet/[Accessed 28th June 2025]
Declassified UK (2024) 'Labour MPs have accepted over £280,000 from Israel lobby', Declassified UK, 13 February. Available at: https://www.declassifieduk.org/labour-mps-have-accepted-over-280000-from-israel-lobby/ [Accessed 28th June 2025]
Declassified UK (2024) 'Israel lobby funded a quarter of British MPs', Declassified UK, 5 June. Available at: https://www.declassifieduk.org/israel-lobby-funded-a-quarter-of-british-mps/[Accessed 28th June 2025]
Guardian (2025) 'RAF base vandalism not enough to justify Palestine Action ban, says ex-minister', The Guardian, 22 June. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/22/palestine-action-raf-base-vandalism-not-enough-legal-justification-ban-lord-falconer [Accessed 28th June 2025]
Guardian (2025) 'Yvette Cooper vows to ban Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws', The Guardian, 23 June. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/23/yvette-cooper-vows-ban-palestine-action-anti-terrorism-laws [Accessed 28th June 2025]
Guardian (2025) 'Ban on Palestine Action would have "chilling effect" on other protest groups', The Guardian, 23 June. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/23/ban-on-palestine-action-would-have-chilling-effect-on-other-protest-groups [Accessed 28th June 2025]
LBC (2023) 'Israel "has the right" to withhold power and water from Gaza, says Sir Keir Starmer', LBC, 11 October. Available at: https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/sir-keir-starmer-hamas-terrorism-israel-defend-itself/ [Accessed 28th June 2025]
OpenDemocracy (2025) 'Lovebombed by lobbyists: how Starmer's Labour became the party of big business', OpenDemocracy, June. Available at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/lovebombed-by-lobbyists-how-starmer-labour-became-the-party-of-big-business/ [Accessed 28th June 2025]
Sky News (2025) 'Israeli embassy deeply disturbed by Bob Vylan's death to the IDF Glastonbury chant', Sky News, 29 June. Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/israeli-embassy-deeply-disturbed-by-bob-vylans-death-to-the-idf-glastonbury-chant-13389912 [Accessed 28th June 2025]
Telegraph (2025) 'Starmer defended protester who sabotaged military aircraft', The Telegraph, 20 June. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/20/starmer-defended-protester-who-sabotaged-military-aircraft/ [Accessed 28th June 2025]
The Intercept (2025) 'Israeli Soldiers Killed at Least 410 People at Food Aid Sites in Gaza This Month', The Intercept, 27 June. Available at: https://theintercept.com/2025/06/27/israel-killed-palestinians-food-aid-gaza/ [Accessed 28th June 2025]