Today, in that renowned citadel of freedom of expression and freedom of the press that was once the UK, if you profess your support for the Palestinian resistance you can be arrested and imprisoned, your mobile phone and PC confiscated and your home raided by police in assault gear; you can even lose your job and be expelled from the country.
This was not the case in the past. Even Karl Marx, although closely watched by the police, enjoyed full freedom of expression and freedom of the press while residing in London from 1849 until his death in 1883. Not only was he able to have his Manifesto of the Communist Party (calling for an armed revolt) printed there, but he also was free to distribute his controversial essay On the Jewish Question – a text that, while respecting ethnic Judaism, severely castigates economic Judaism, or Zionism as we would say today.
But that was then. Today in the UK, criticizing Zionism or praising the Palestinian armed revolt is met with fierce repression. Take, for example, the case of pro-Pal British journalists.
The long arm of the Zionist lobby and the intimidation of journalists
Explanation of the term “Zionist lobby”: “Zionism”, originally an identitarian and nationalistic movement reclaiming a homeland for Jews, today has turned into ‘fideistic imperialism’, i.e. the defence of Israel’s ‘divine right’ to occupy not only the lands originally taken from the Palestinians but also other neighbouring territories, stretching as far as the Jordan and even the Euphrates Rivers. Anyone who holds this belief is a ‘Zionist’, whether Jewish or non-Jewish. For example, Christian Zionist evangelicals in the United States desire a ‘Greater Israel’ as a harbinger of the return of Christ. Thus, the term ‘Zionist lobby’ today indicates a network of Zionists, in one or more countries, seeking to favour the territorial expansion of an integralist Jewish state. One last point: anti-Zionism (the perfectly legitimate politico-ethical stance which condemns Israeli expansionism at the expense of other peoples) must not be confused with anti-Semitism (a vile, racist hostility toward Jews as an ethnic group). Trying to equate the two is simply a dishonest attempt at suppressing criticism of Israeli fideistic imperialism.
On 16 October 2023, British journalist Craig Murray, a pro-Palestinian activist and former UK diplomat, was detained by anti-terrorism police at Glasgow airport on his way back from a meeting with WikiLeaks staff in Iceland. His PC and mobile phone were seized and he had to undergo an hour-long interrogation – and not not just about his WikiLeaks connections. In fact, the police – perhaps tipped off by the Zionist lobby in the UK, which keeps an eye on every move of activists like Murray – were well aware that the journalist had attended a pro-Palestinian rally while in Iceland and wanted to know what had been said at that event. “I have no idea, I don’t speak Icelandic, I simply attended the rally out of solidarity,” replied Murray, much to the chagrin of the interrogating officer, who eventually had to release him – without his electronic devices, however.
On 15 August 2024, police arrested pro-Palestinian journalist Richard Medhurst on his arrival at London’s Heathrow Airport, apparently because of his reporting in favour of the Palestinian resistance, considered to be ‘apologia (support) for terrorism’. Thrown into a cell for 15 hours, Medhurst had to sleep – half undressed – on a cold concrete block. In the end, the journalist was released, but with the obligation to report to a police station three months later and with the warning to be careful, in the meantime, about what he writes.
Two weeks later, on 29 August 2024, at dawn, police in riot gear raided the home of pro-Palestinian journalist and activist Sarah Wilkinson, ransacking every room and confiscating her passport and electronic devices. With irreverent cruelty, the officers even scattered on the floor and treaded on her mother’s ashes, which Sarah kept in a sealed urn on a shelf. Put under house arrest on suspicion of supporting terrorism, the 61-year-old could not even go to the chemist’s to buy the medicine she needed and, with no mobile phone and unable to leave her home, she could not ask neighbours to do so for her. She now faces a maximum of 14 years in prison. Her crime? The articles she wrote in favour of the Palestinian resistance. “They want to instil fear,” she said, “to make me stop denouncing the genocide in Gaza; but they won’t succeed.”
Then, on 17 October 2024, at dawn, the anti-terrorism police raided the house of the well-known journalist Asa Winstanley, deputy editor-in-chief of the Electronic Intifada. His mobile phone, PC and other electronic gear were confiscated and broken into and he was intimidated throughout the search. Again, his offence was his pro-Palestinian-resistance writing that someone had apparently denounced to the police as apologia for terrorism. And it is easy to imagine who that someone was and what powerful lobby had encouraged her or him to sift through every word of Winstanley’s articles to find affirmations that could get him arrested.
These and other examples of repressive actions against pro-Palestinian journalists in the UK have been denounced in a damning report by the United Nations, made public last week (5/2/2025). The report had been sent confidentially to Prime Minister Starmer last December 4th with the request for acknowledgement within 60 days; that period has elapsed with no response from Starmer so the authors of the report – four UN Special Rapporteurs – have now chosen to disclose the contents. The report concludes that “the Terrorism Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2006, and the Anti-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 provisions appear to have been employed to investigate, detain, collect data, and prosecute political activists and journalists, raising concerns about potential infringements of their fundamental rights.”
Weaponizing the laws against terrorism
The abuses described above – and others – were, as the UN report states, made possible by a draconian anti-terrorism law dating back to the year 2000, the Terrorism Act and its various iterations. In particular, Section 12 criminalises any support of any kind given to a proscribed organisation as well as any public expression of sympathy for that organisation.
The Act then goes on to list the proscribed organisations that one cannot aid or even speak favourably of. Most are genuine terrorist groups, such as al-Qaida and ISIS (in Muslim countries), Boko Haram (in Nigeria), al Shabaab (in Somalia) and the Tamil Tigers (in Sri Lanka).
But in 2019 and then in 2021, under pressure from the powerful Zionist lobby in the UK, the list of proscribed organisations was enlarged to include the two armed groups which oppose Israeli occupation of their homelands. One was Hezbollah, the armed resistance created in 1982 to repel the Israeli army that had invaded and was occupying Lebanon. The other was Hamas, the armed resistance created in 1987 to drive out the Israeli army that was occupying Gaza.
It is worth noting that neither of these groups were active or even existed before the Israeli invasion and occupation of their lands. Moreover, neither has ever tried to occupy and control parts of Israel. Both are simply defensive forces which seek to drive out foreign troops occupying their land, namely, the IDF. In this sense, they can be compared to the Chinese partisans, led by Mao Tse-Tung, who drove out the Japanese occupiers and founded the People’s Republic of China.
In light of all this, it is patently specious to designate Hezbollah and Hamas as ‘terrorist’ organisations – especially since the 20th UN General Assembly (1965) legitimised “the [armed] struggle of peoples under colonial rule… for self-determination and independence”. Of course, the struggle to drive out an occupying foreign force does not entitle resisters to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity; if they do so, they must answer before a court of law. Many of the atrocities attributed to Hamas on 7 October 2024 (such as the never verified ‘beheading of children’) turned out to be just Israeli propaganda, but others are documented and should be prosecuted, starting with the hostage-taking itself, which is a war crime.
Therefore, Hamas – and Hezbollah as well – are to be considered forces of (armed) resistance despite the crimes they may have committed. Calling them ‘terrorist groups’ by putting them on some black list like Section 12 of the British Terrorism Act, is just a ploy to demonise them and prevent them from being talked about. It is an age old tactic: during the Resistance in Italy, the Nazis called the Italian partisans ‘bandits’, just as, during the Resistance in China, the Japanese called the Chinese partisans ‘devils’ – in both cases, to alienate them from the sympathy and support of the population. ‘Terrorist’ is the demonising term used today by Israel to discredit the forces that oppose, with arms, its expansionism.
Conclusion
Due to Section 12 of the Terrorism Act, it has become a crime in the UK to speak favourably of Hezbollah or Hamas or even simply of the ‘Palestinian resistance’: doing so constitutes so-called apologia for terrorism. Hence the arrests, raids and intimidation of those British journalists who have dared to advocate the right of Palestinians to liberate their land, even by means of armed struggle (if conducted in accordance with the Law of War and the relevant international conventions).
But the Terrorism Act, as written, is extremely broad and vague; the police – even with the help of AI – cannot possibly check for any and all violations of Section 12 by going through all of the writings of all of the journalists and activists in the UK, and weighing the nuances of all of the words they employ. The repression of pro-Palestinian journalists and activists, currently underway in the UK, therefore clearly requires a network of grassroot informants. These are most likely ordinary brits, with Zionist sympathies, who have been asked to keep tabs on certain journalists and activists and to alert their superiors when they come across something said or written that can pass for ‘apologia for terrorism’ according to Section 12. Their superiors, most likely the more influential Zionists, can then get the police to issue search warrants to ascertain the facts. This ploy serves two purposes: it intimidates the journalists or activists in question and, at the same time, it gives investigators access to their private cellphone contacts and to all the reserved documents on their computers and electronic gear. They become totally spied upon and every one of their contacts becomes a possible suspect.
Is all this pure conjecture? Perhaps not. One indication that such a cynical operation actually exists is, as Craig Murray points out, the total absence of police intervention in cases where journalists and leading personalities express support – as they now frequently do – for the terrorist organization HTS (Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham) in Syria. HTS, although officially proscribed, is currently being courted by the West, and so the Terrorism Act seemingly no longer applies to it: the proof is that no one, from the Prime Minister on down, has ever been arrested for speaking favourably about HTS.
It would seem, then, that the police are being led to ferret out and arrest, under Section 12, only those individuals who speak favourably of the Palestinian resistance. Led by whom? Surely a prime candidate is the Zionist lobby which, besides having the clout, is able offer the police a network of informants.
There is a way out of all this. British activists could file a lawsuit asking the High Court to determine that, although Hezbollah and Hamas are indeed armed resistance forces, they are by no means to be considered “terrorists”. They should therefore not appear in the Terrorism Act and it should not be a crime to support them.
A precedent for such a ruling exists: the UK Court of Appeal was recently able to block the transfer of migrants from the UK to Rwanda by challenging the government’s definition of that country as ‘safe’ for deportation. In the same manner, the Court could now overturn the government’s designation of Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist groups. This would put an end to the current climate of repression of pro-Palestinian activism, which is only tarnishing the reputation of the UK. Indeed, putting an end to the repression of journalists and activists would bolster the fundamental freedoms of expression and of the press in the UK. Britannia would once again be seen as the citadel of those freedoms in the world.
————–
NOTE 1: This article in Italian appeared, in a shortened form, in the February 2025 issue of the monthly L’Indipendente (1:1, pp. 44-45) with the title UK: vietato difendere la resistenza palestinese.
NOTE 2: The author of this article, while recognising the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves against Israeli occupation using force, believes that only through nonviolent political means can they truly achieve self-determination. Resorting to violence only generates more violence, as we have seen. But for nonviolent political means to succeed, it is necessary for the international community to step in and offer support en masse, thus isolating Israel. If, instead, the war in Gaza and the West Bank continues, it is to a large extent because of the absenteeism of the rest of us. What about Israel’s legitimate right to security? How to guarantee it? As Noam Chomsky wrote, ‘The best way to fight terrorism is not to practise it.’
