By Abdikarim H. Abdi Buh

By treating pro-Palestinian direct action as a national-security threat while continuing to arm and defend Israel amid grave allegations of international crimes, Western governments risk exposing the limits of their commitment to universal human rights.

The contradiction at the heart of Western policy is becoming increasingly difficult to defend: an activist organization campaigning against companies linked to Israel’s military operations can be banned under counterterrorism legislation, while Israel continues to benefit from American military assistance and diplomatic protection despite grave allegations concerning its conduct in Gaza.

For critics of Western foreign policy, this is not simply a dispute over the methods of protest. It is a question of power, accountability and the credibility of the international legal order. Why does direct action against military-related property provoke such a forceful response, while the consequences of military operations that devastate civilian communities fail to produce comparable political pressure on an allied state?

The answer lies partly in the different legal frameworks governing activist organizations and sovereign states. But it also lies in geopolitics: powerful allies often enjoy forms of political protection that less powerful actors cannot access.

A Terrorism Label with Far-Reaching Consequences

The British government proscribed Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 in July 2025, citing serious criminal damage and attacks on defense-related facilities, including an incident involving military aircraft at RAF Brize Norton.

The government argued that the organization’s activities justified proscription. Its critics, however, questioned whether banning the entire organization was a proportionate response to the conduct cited by ministers.

That distinction matters. Individuals who commit criminal acts can be investigated and prosecuted. Banning an entire organization carries wider consequences, potentially criminalizing membership and certain forms of support while chilling legitimate political expression.

The courts have disagreed over the legality of the ban. The High Court ruled against the government’s decision in February 2026, but the Court of Appeal overturned that ruling in June and upheld the proscription. The dispute has proceeded to the UK Supreme Court, with a hearing scheduled for 4–5 November 2026. Readers can consult the Court of Appeal judgment and the Supreme Court case summary.

The legal position should not be confused with the political argument. Palestine Action’s stated objective of disrupting companies it associates with Israel’s military campaign does not automatically make every tactic lawful. Nor does the criminality of particular acts automatically settle whether proscription of an entire organization is the most appropriate response.

The question is whether counterterrorism powers are being used proportionately—and whether the same determination to uphold the law is evident when the alleged wrongdoing involves a powerful ally.

Washington’s Protection of Israel

Israel’s relationship with the United States is built on decades of military cooperation, intelligence-sharing, strategic calculations and domestic political considerations.

The scale of American assistance is substantial. A 2016 agreement committed Washington to seeking $38 billion in military assistance for Israel over the 2019–2028 financial years, subject to congressional appropriations. The wider history and structure of this assistance are documented in the Congressional Research Service’s report on US aid to Israel.

This relationship gives Washington considerable leverage over Israeli policy. The United States can influence arms transfers, diplomatic pressure and the conditions under which its assistance is provided. Yet successive American administrations have continued to regard Israel as a strategic partner, even as its conduct in Gaza has attracted severe international criticism.

Strategic alliances are not inherently illegitimate. Governments routinely cooperate with states they consider important to their national interests. But an alliance should not become a shield against scrutiny, and military cooperation should not override obligations to prevent serious violations of international law.

The real test of a government’s commitment to human rights is not how firmly it condemns its adversaries, but how consistently it confronts alleged wrongdoing by its allies.

Gaza and the Demand for Accountability

The allegations arising from the war in Gaza include war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. These are distinct legal categories, and claims concerning them must be assessed according to the relevant evidence and legal standards.

South Africa brought a genocide case against Israel before the International Court of Justice. The Court issued provisional measures in 2024 concerning the protection of Palestinians under the Genocide Convention.

Those measures were not a final judgment that Israel had committed genocide. Israel rejects the accusation, and the Court’s eventual determination must be distinguished from allegations, expert assessments and interim judicial decisions. The proceedings can be followed through the International Court of Justice’s official case page.

But legal precision must not become an excuse for political indifference. The absence of a final judgment does not eliminate the obligation to take credible allegations seriously, protect civilians and ensure that humanitarian assistance can reach those who need it.

If Western governments consider security concerns sufficient to justify extraordinary legal measures against activists, they should be equally committed to investigating credible allegations of grave violations by states receiving Western weapons and diplomatic support.

The issue is not whether Israel should be denied the protections of international law. It is whether Palestinians are entitled to those protections in practice—and whether alleged violations will be investigated without political interference.

Different Legal Categories, Unequal Political Consequences

Supporters of the British ban argue that Palestine Action’s conduct should be judged under domestic counterterrorism law, while Israel’s military operations must be assessed under international humanitarian law. There is a valid legal distinction here.

A non-state organisation can be proscribed under national legislation. A state may face international proceedings, sanctions, arms restrictions or investigations into the responsibility of individual officials. The two cannot simply be placed on the same legal list.

Yet this distinction does not answer the wider question of accountability. It is possible for legal systems to differ while political standards remain inconsistent.

An activist group may face immediate and far-reaching consequences from a terrorism designation. A state with a powerful ally may continue to receive weapons, financial assistance and diplomatic backing while international proceedings unfold.

That disparity does not automatically prove that the ban is politically motivated or that every allegation against Israel has been legally established. It does, however, expose the influence of power over the practical consequences of international criticism.

The law may distinguish between actors, but it should not treat the suffering of civilians as less important because their government is politically influential.

Is National Security Being Applied Selectively?

The most serious concern is not that governments investigate criminal damage. They have a legitimate responsibility to protect people and enforce the law.

The concern is that the language of national security can be applied forcefully to political activism while being used more cautiously when an allied state faces allegations of serious wrongdoing.

This creates a credibility problem for governments that present themselves as defenders of a rules-based international order.

Britain must explain why proscription was necessary and proportionate, particularly given the implications for freedom of expression and association. The United States must explain how its continued support for Israel is consistent with its obligations and stated commitment to human rights. Both governments should be judged by evidence, legal standards and the consequences of their decisions—not merely by the intentions they claim.

A credible policy would demand civilian protection, humanitarian access, independent investigations and meaningful consequences where violations are established. It would also distinguish peaceful advocacy from criminal conduct rather than treating solidarity with Palestinians as inherently suspicious.

Defending Palestinian Rights Without Excusing Every Tactic

There is no contradiction in supporting Palestinian self-determination while opposing unlawful violence by any party. Nor is there a contradiction in defending the right to protest while acknowledging that particular acts of property damage can be criminal.

Palestinians are entitled to dignity, freedom and protection under international law. Advocating those rights is not terrorism. Peaceful opposition to Israeli government policy is not terrorism, and criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic.

At the same time, a legitimate political cause does not excuse actions that unlawfully injure people or endanger lives.

The strongest defence of Palestinian rights is rooted in universal principles: protect civilians, reject collective punishment, oppose antisemitism and anti-Palestinian racism, investigate credible allegations of international crimes and insist that political influence must not determine who is held accountable. Those principles must apply to activists, governments and military forces alike.

The Final Test: Does International Law Apply to the Powerful?

The Palestine Action controversy raises a question that Western governments cannot answer through legal technicalities alone.

Britain has maintained a terrorism ban despite significant controversy over its implications for civil liberties. The United States continues to sustain a deep military relationship with Israel while grave allegations concerning the war in Gaza remain the subject of international scrutiny.

These are different situations under the law. But they reveal a wider challenge: whether international rules are applied with equal seriousness when the accused are powerful states and their allies.

The United States has considerable leverage over Israel. Britain also has choices about its own diplomatic, military and economic relationships. Both can use their influence to promote civilian protection, compliance with international law and credible accountability.

When they decline to use that leverage meaningfully, they risk sending a message that strategic interests take precedence over the rights of those suffering the consequences of war. A rules-based international order cannot survive on declarations alone. It must be measured by whether its principles protect the powerless as firmly as they constrain the powerful.

If governments can mobilize the full weight of counterterrorism law against activists but hesitate to impose meaningful consequences when an ally faces credible allegations of grave international crimes, the resulting perception of double standards is neither surprising nor easily dismissed.

The answer is not to excuse every action taken in the name of Palestine, nor to prejudge the outcome of international legal proceedings against Israel. It is to demand consistent standards, independent investigations and accountability without political exceptions. International law loses its moral authority when the powerful are protected by alliances while the powerless are left to plead for justice.

Abdikarim H. Abdi Buh
Email: abdikarimshak@gmail.com