In Britain, resistance to genocide is now considered terrorism The Israeli-Palestinian War

At a time when Israel and its leaders are being prosecuted before international courts for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, Britain has chosen to direct its most powerful legal apparatus not at the cause of Gaza’s destruction, but at the opposition.

Filton Decision 4, therefore, it raises questions that go far beyond the fate of the four. Regardless of one’s view of their actions, the case forces Britain to grapple with a vexing debate: why does criticism of Israel’s actions attract so much the language of terror and terrorism, while support for those actions remains within the boundaries of respectable politics?

For more than two and a half years, the world has seen the destruction of Gaza on a scale greater than ever before in Palestinian history. The events that began in October 2023 changed what many legal experts, United Nations experts, human rights organizations and genocide experts call genocide. All areas have disappeared. Hospitals, schools and universities have been destroyed. Support failed. Hunger has been armed. Most of Gaza has been rendered uninhabitable.

Yet in Britain, more and more of the political debate seems to be focusing not on the killing itself, but on those who oppose it.

The Filton 4 case involves property damage. Gaza has seen the destruction of all people. However, it is the first one that is increasingly discussed through the language of terrorism.

That distinction is at the heart of the matter.

Criminal law has a special place within any democratic legal system. It exists to address behavior that appears to pose a serious threat to public safety and national security. The sending of such orders has implications beyond individual punishment. It sends a signal of what the government considers dangerous and what it sees as a legitimate political concern.

The question is not whether activists should be above the law. No one is arguing that they should.

The question is why opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza is increasingly being channeled through security forces while support for these actions remains politically protected.

This case did not come by itself. This is part of a wider trend that has characterized Britain’s opposition to Palestine since the start of Israel’s war in Gaza. Over time, criticism of Israel has become increasingly controversial. The Palestinian Authority has been in doubt. Criticism of anti-Semitism has been closely linked to criticism of the Israeli policy. Protesters have found themselves under extraordinary scrutiny. Extremist language has become commonplace. Now, criminal laws have entered the discussion.

Each phase has moved the public discussion away from Gaza itself and closer to those who speak about Gaza.

Of course, anti-Semitism exists and must be confronted wherever it appears. Any hatred directed at Jewish people because they are Jewish is wrong and has no place in a democratic society. Jewish communities need the same level of protection as the protection afforded to minorities.

But criticizing the government is not the same as hating the people. Democrats depend on maintaining this distinction.

No one thinks that criticizing Vladimir Putin is anti-Russian. Criticism of the Chinese government’s treatment of Uighurs is not interpreted as hatred of the Chinese people. Criticizing the Iranian government does not sound racist to the Iranian people.

However, criticism of Israel is often at a level that is rarely used in any other country, and criticism of the government’s policy often leads to hatred by the general public. The result is a political climate in which support for Palestinian rights is increasingly viewed through a dubious lens.

That situation is important because it creates the limits of acceptable political speech. When criticism turns to suspicion, mutual suspicion can turn into vicious accusations. When this demonstration is viewed through the prism of extremism, it is easy to justify treating it as a security issue. The threat lies not in the prosecution of individuals but in the scale of what is happening to the democratic culture.

The story of the Filton 4 case is also important.

The activists were not protesting against the inconsistency of foreign policy. They were looking for sites related to Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, a company whose products and technologies have been used by the Israeli army during the Gaza offensive. Whether one agrees with their tactics or not, their actions were closely linked to the criticism of Britain’s relationship with the companies involved in the supply of weapons that many legal experts, human rights organizations and genocide experts have described as murderous.

That distinction is important because it gets to the heart of what sparked the protests. The issue was not random vandalism. This was the politics given to a company that cooperates with the military of a government that is accused of violating international law.

It is debatable whether doing so would result in criminal penalties. But it’s also fair to ask why political and legal considerations are becoming increasingly common for those who are trying to disrupt the trend of killing people instead of selling them themselves.

What makes criminal law enforcement interesting is the diversity it reveals.

Britain continues to maintain military, diplomatic and economic ties with the regime that is being prosecuted in international courts for the genocide. Political support continues. The military alliance continues. Exports of equipment continue.

At the same time, some of the most powerful legal tools available to the British government are increasingly aimed at those who oppose that relationship.

This turn of events should trouble anyone who believes in democratic accountability.

People reveal their values ​​not only through the things they hate but also through the things they tolerate. When people who oppose genocide are discussed through the language of terrorism while those who support, protect or benefit from genocide continue to enjoy political immunity, many people may think that something is wrong.

Britain seems to be more concerned about the hackers than the damage itself.

The issue is not whether a person agrees with every method that the promoter uses. The issue is the same. This issue is politically important.

For Palestinians, the problems are hard to ignore.

For years, Palestinians have been told to pursue change through peaceful and democratic means. They have called for international law, documented violence, lobbying governments, organizing campaigns, speaking to the media and participating in public debates. It has been suggested time and time again that democracy, law and dialogue provide the path to justice.

However, as the destruction in Gaza escalates, many Palestinians see the political space available to protest the destruction shrinking rather than expanding. The more serious the problems, the more they investigate those who are trying to stop them.

The result is a growing perception that Palestinian suffering has a different nature than the suffering of others. Actions that may provoke anger in another context are always necessary to qualify. Protest groups that celebrate elsewhere are suspect when the cause is Palestine. The victims are being investigated. The protesters are being investigated. The activists are under scrutiny. However, the structures that cause violence often escape comparative testing.

This is why the story of Filton 4 is important.

Its importance extends to four people. It raises important questions about democratic disunity, selective anger and the British public’s discourse on Palestine.

The most important question is not whether these activists should be punished.

It’s as if Britain is fine with the way racism and genocide are becoming associated with extremism, and extremism is becoming increasingly associated with terrorism.

Because once the project begins, the issue is no longer just Palestine.

The issue becomes the health of democracy itself.

A democratic country should not be afraid of people who want to end great suffering. It should fear becoming a country where such demands are considered dangerous.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect Al Jazeera’s influence.