The state’s crackdown on arms trade protests shows moral pressure is no longer enough—it’s time to target the war machine at its source
~ Kevin Blowe ~
As perhaps it was intended to, the 5 July ban on Palestine Action—the protest group targeting Britain’s complicity in arming Israel, especially through Israeli-owned Elbit Systems UK—has created enormous confusion.
Alongside the immediate question of what people can and cannot say about the ban, there is strong evidence of police treating any expression of solidarity with Palestinians as suspect. It is also becoming clearer that the state is more likely to treat any future disruption aimed at the defence sector as “terrorism” or having a “terrorist connection”.
In Scotland, three women have already been arrested under the Terrorism Act for protesting at Leonardo’s Edinburgh factory, which makes laser targeting systems for the F-35 fighters used by Israel to bomb Gaza. They were not members of the banned group. Everyone we at Netpol speak to who has opposed the arms trade is quietly nervous.
What does this mean for groups that adopt direct action in future—and how does that differ from ‘civil disobedience’? In Netpol’s witness statement to the recent judicial review of the ban, we stressed these tactics are distinct, though both stem from the belief that governments and corporations are acting immorally, and from frustration at mainstream democratic engagement failing to stop them.
Civil disobedience means deliberately breaking the law and placing oneself in an “arrestable” situation to draw state and media attention to immoral acts, or to keep them in political debate—in the belief that enough moral pressure might eventually force change. Recent examples include Extinction Rebellion’s London protests in 2019, Insulate Britain’s motorway blockades, Animal Rising at Aintree, Just Stop Oil’s high-profile stunts, and Defend Our Juries’ actions inviting arrest over Palestine Action’s proscription.
Direct action, by contrast, does not seek the state’s attention but bypasses it, targeting a problem at its source—undermining the share price, supply chain, or ability of polluters, climate wreckers, or arms dealers to deliver products. Examples include the ‘Ploughshares Four’ breaking into a British Aerospace factory in 1996 to damage a Hawk jet bound for Indonesia; the Fairford Five disabling RAF equipment in 2003 to disrupt the Iraq War; the 2008 coal train and Drax blockade; the 2014-19 anti-fracking site shutdowns; and HS2 protests that cost £80 million.
There is a long British tradition of both tactics, stretching back decades. While all faced repressive policing, injunctions and prosecutions, none were ever banned or labelled “terrorist”. The risk attributed to Palestine Action—the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre said only three of its 385 protests reached the legal ban threshold—is clearly overstated. The Home Secretary acted after lobbying from a defence sector with enormous governmental influence.
Taking the next step
Direct action is a step beyond civil disobedience, taken when mass arrests prove insufficient against powerful corporate interests. After countless London demonstrations, it is harder to believe the government will ever respond to moral pressure. In the three months after announcing a limited suspension of arms sales to Israel in 2024, ministers licensed £127.6m in new exports—more than in the previous four years combined.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer appears convinced, despite the evidence, that a defence spending boom is central to economic growth and job creation. Elbit Systems UK has held a series of private lobbying meetings with the Home Office, reportedly to influence prosecutions of Palestine Action members.
Labour now mirrors the Conservatives in collaborating with sections of the media to frame pro-Palestine protests as illegitimate and threatening “social cohesion” (as Netpol highlighted in our 2024 report In Our Millions).
With Gaza’s starvation and deaths mounting daily, moral appeals are not working fast enough. Many are so angered by Palestine Action’s banning that hundreds have taken part in the mass civil disobedience coordinated by Defend Our Juries on 9 August – even though terrorism-related consequences are far harsher than those for public order offences, as Netpol’s advice explains. The danger for the state is that some may conclude it is more worthwhile to risk a terrorism arrest for something bolder than holding a placard.
In September, London will host DSEi 2025, one of the world’s largest arms fairs. It brings together the defence industry, the military and politicians, with Israel regularly present – although its pavilion was recently scrubbed from the DSEi website. Elbit Systems is a frequent participant.
DSEi is where Britain’s complicity in genocide is brokered. A coalition of groups has called for a mass blockade on 9 September, the opening day, to make it impossible for delegates to network and strike deals without serious disruption.
Shutting down DSEi would need thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, to blockade entrances. Protests at past fairs have involved civil disobedience but never reached this scale. This call is an invitation to take the next step and engage in direct action – an alternative to simply accepting arrest under the Terrorism Act.
Organisations are now being asked to back The Big One on 9 September, with a detailed plan due soon.
The author is Campaigns & Media Coordinator for the Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol). Image Disarm DSEi 2009, fotdmike on Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0