By suggesting pro-Palestine demos could be banned, Starmer is betraying his authoritarian instincts

Martin Shipton

Exactly 100 years ago trade union members took part in a nine-day General Strike in support of miners whose salaries were being slashed by the mine owners.

The strike didn’t succeed, but it has entered union folklore as a moment when working people were prepared to take action against injustice.

While the way the General Strike played out is hardly a template for effective industrial action, there is no doubt that collective initiatives undertaken by trade unions have improved the lot of workers.

Paid holidays, sickness pay, maternity and paternity leave and the right not to be dismissed unfairly are elements of working life we take for granted that would not have been achieved without the strength through unity that trade unions provide.

Such advances did not take place overnight, but were the result of cumulative effort over many years.

Equally there are causes today that will require cumulative action if the aims of campaigners are to have a chance of success.

Keir Starmer has stated that he is considering banning pro-Palestine demonstrations because of the cumulative impact they are having on Britain’s Jewish community.

The prolonged injustice facing Palestinians, whose land was stolen from them by colonial settlers [read The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe if you don’t know the history] and who face continuing murderous aggression from such settlers in, for example, the West Bank, has engendered much worldwide sympathy.

Such sympathy has been greatly amplified by the IDF’s genocidal attacks on the people of Gaza.

It’s not surprising that large numbers of sympathetic people in Britain and elsewhere want to express their horror at Israel’s brutality. Inevitably, the aims of the protesters vary.

Some react to the immediacy of the situation and want, for example, the UK to stop supplying arms to Israel. Others want further measures to be taken against Israel, and ally themselves with the BDS (Boycott Divestment Sanctions) Movement, which campaigns for economic sanctions such as a boycott of goods and disinvestment by pension funds from companies connected to Israel.

There are also those who oppose former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s decision to proscribe the Palestine Action group as a terrorist organisation. Members of the group have engaged in direct action protests, which have included damaging an Israeli-owned drone factory near Bristol.

My neighbour’s 89 year-old sister is one of many elderly and disabled protesters who have been arrested for holding up placards that state: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.”

Unlawful

When the High Court ruled that the proscription of the Palestine Action group was unlawful, saying it was wrong to put it in the same category as the likes of Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, the Metropolitan Police had indicated that its officers would be unlikely to make arrests pending an appeal.

But in March 2026, the force said it would resume arresting protesters for supporting Palestine Action. We can only speculate on what manoeuvres went on behind the scenes. Whole books have been written about the influence of the Israeli lobby.

Meanwhile, around 2,000 British citizens who volunteered to participate in the IDF’s murderous assault on Gaza have faced no sanction.

There are those who suggest that the frequency of pro-Palestine demonstrations is having a “cumulative [negative] impact” on Britain’s Jewish community. Starmer has bought this argument and is suggesting that, as a result, some demonstrations should be banned. Such a development would represent a further erosion of British citizens’ right to protest.

There are a number of objectionable elements to this. Firstly, it is suggested that there has been a negative impact on “the Jewish community”, as if such an entity existed as a homogenous whole.

The fact is that many Jewish people share concerns about the behaviour of Israel towards the Palestinians – and many have joined demonstrations against Israel, including Holocaust survivors and members of their families.

Golders Green

There is also the fallacious argument that, for example, the knife attacks in Golders Green were somehow inspired by antisemitism triggered by demonstrations against Israel.

From what we know, this appears highly unlikely. The alleged perpetrator has a history of mental illness and of stabbings, and had very recently been released from a mental hospital.

On the day he allegedly attacked two Jewish men, he had also allegedly attacked a Muslim man.

Also, to argue against the right of protesters to engage in a cumulative series of protests is to deprive campaigners of their aim to make a difference.

As the long struggle of trade unionists for better conditions for workers demonstrates, one-off protests don’t tend to be effective. Sustained campaigning over a period of time was necessary before those holding power made the desired concessions. The same can be said about the Suffragette movement, which secured votes for women.

By throwing out the possibility that pro-Palestine demonstrations could be banned because they offend people who see nothing wrong with Israel’s behaviour in Gaza, which the International Criminal Court (ICC) has described as “plausible genocide”, Starmer is betraying his authoritarian instincts and courting further unpopularity. One might think he is in enough trouble already. As has been demonstrated on previous occasions, however, his default inclination is to back Israel.

Focus groups

No doubt having heard the results from party-commissioned focus groups, he decided that it would be unwise to show support for Trump’s Israel-inspired attacks on Iran – an illegal and foolhardy misadventure that is causing serious economic damage and having a truly negative impact on ordinary people’s budgets.

But Starmer had better be careful how many times he has to say sorry to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister who is the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the ICC in respect of alleged war crimes and alleged crimes against humanity – otherwise Labour’s funding from pro-Israel businessmen may dry up.

It’s probably a vain hope, but like so many other world leaders, Starmer should stop looking at the symptoms of the crisis in the Middle East and try finding solutions.

How, for a start, will he assist in the creation of a sustainable Palestinian state, following the UK’s token recognition of one last year? Thanks to Israel, the two state solution appears to be dead. The only option left, therefore, is a one state solution.

Currently Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank are the victims of an Israeli occupation, have no vote and their freedom of movement is severely curtailed. Following a visit, the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu said Palestinian Arabs were treated worse than Blacks in South Africa under apartheid.

Starmer needs to realise that the protests will continue until Palestinians are fully emancipated. He should do something useful for once.