Under The Terrorism Act 2000 the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation that he/she believes is engaged in terrorism. The same Act in Part 1, Section 1 defines terrorism as follows:
“1 Terrorism: interpretation.
(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4) In this section—
(a) “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b) a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c) a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d) “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5) In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.“
It is difficult to take issue with this definition and it makes sense that any “organisation” engaged in these activities should be proscribed. Certainly, given their actions over the years, and specifically the medieval brutality of 7 October, Hamas clearly deserve their status as a proscribed organisation. Their actions are clearly caught by the definition of terrorism as set out in the Act.
However, if one looks at what has happened in Gaza over the past 18 months questions might be thought to arise as to whether any other organisation has been engaged in terrorism as defined above.
The whole of the civilian population of Gaza, “the public”, have been subject to actions which might fairly be described as intimidatory and judged by the perpetrators as advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. The self-defence justification started out weakly and has declined ever since.
But are the actions of the type specified in Section 1 Para 2?
Over the past 18 months Gaza has been subject to a sustained bombing campaign that exceeds the scale of any actions taken in the Second World War. The serious violence against a person and damage to property criteria are clearly met. Endangering persons lives and creating a serious risk to health and safety of the public, it may be argued, are met, not just by the bombing, but also by the turning off of critical utilities like water and energy. Stopping food and medical supplies probably add further evidence to breach of this condition.
In terms of interfering or disrupting an electronic system, destroying any or all of the systems in Gaza probably meets this condition.
Given this definition of terrorism, and what the Netanyahu administration has been doing and continues to do ,should the UK government consider the case as to whether the Netanyahu administration should be classed as a proscribed organisation?
Despite being an atheist I still enjoy and feel it is right for us to celebrate Christmas. Anything which promotes goodwill and peace on earth gets my vote however naive I fear it may be. At the very least it does make people think, however briefly, or even cynically, about what might be. It is also an opportunity to reflect on how lucky some of us are.
We should, however, also think of those who, at this time, whether they be Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, any faith or no faith, live in fear or terror or want or all thee.
As a meditation on this I recommend a book of poems by the Palestinian poet, Mosab Abu Toha, “Forest of Noise”. Although it is focussed on Gaza, I think it makes real, in some sense, the human fears and feelings of all those existing in war zones.
As time goes by, the daily terror that people face in Ukraine, Palestine, Afghanistan the Sudan and countless other places begins to loose it’s ability to move us.
Continuity, transforms deaths into statistics, distance gives comfort and security. Moral outrage fades as numbers numb our minds.
It is this,which makes front-line poetry so important and so powerful. Reports that Gaza is being bombed begin to lose their meaning. Indeed, for those who have never experienced it, it is difficult to really appreciate what it means.
Poems from the front line.
Mosab’s poems take you into homes where families sit with their backs against walls as they listen to the sounds of bombs making the whole house shake. He makes real the silent fear between blasts and the tiny acts of kindness which provide some sense of humanity and hope.
I recommend the poems as a way of getting beyond the inoculating statistics and tasting the immanent fear of loss. Even though it is continuous, when your neighbours ,or members of your family, are obliterated in an instant, I guess it is difficult to become inured. Inured to an existence of random but frequent death.
Celebrating a call for peace on earth is a good thing. However, being conscious of your good fortune is also important. The harsh reality of other’s lives should make the calls for peace on earth something that is not just for Christmas.
There has been a narrative about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s war aims and how they are shaped by the religious-right members of his cabinet. One which presents him as something of a hostage to their extreme demands. In parallel with this is the view that he is desperate to remain in power in order to delay the case against him relating to fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes. This creates the impression that his personal legal woes are to a great extent shaping his approach to the War in Gaza and elsewhere.
It is almost certain that PM Netanyahu has an eye to his personal legal jeopardy. He may feel that victory in a war against Hamas would make hims so popular that no Israeli court would be able to find him guilty of the charges he faces. I’m not sure I would bet on that, however.
When PM Netanyahu appointed his current cabinet it was said to be the most right-wing in the history of Israel. However, the bar for this was set by PM Netanyahu himself. According to Ian Black in his work “Enemies and Neighbours” when Netanyahu formed his first government in 1996 it was “the most right-wing coalition in Israeli history.(pp349) And at the time he pledged to support the “pioneering settlement” of Eretz-Yisrael, making good on this promise by lifting the restrictions on settlement that the previous Labour Government had imposed.
PM Netanyahu is not a hostage to the religious right, he shares their expansionist view of the future of Israel and is very clearly an active promoter of their aims.
This brings us to the Prime Minister’s war aims. These were clearly articulated in a speech at the start of the military campaign as being about, 1) bringing home the hostages, 2) destroying Hamas. But in the same speech he also spoke more broadly about “changing the Middle East”. What these words meant was never specified at the time but they are starting to sound, and look, as if they related to a war aim as fundamental as the other two.
After the precision carpet bombing of the whole of Gaza there are signs preparations are being made for what happens when the war ends. Various corridors are being established which it is said will be used to divide Gaza in ways which will make it easier to control and so prevent Hamas regaining any foothold in the area.
If this were the case the picture of life, for remaining Palestinian civilians would look bleak. Their movements would be further constrained between secure areas within the largest open prison in the world. The practicalities of life within this context would mean its very viability as a place to live would be questionable. Which of course some on the religious-right in Israel may regard as a happy “unintended consequence” of their need for effective “self-defence”.
However, in the North of Gaza steps might be being taken for an even more radical solution. A corridor, or new military dividing line, is being developed to separate an area in Northern Gaza from the rest of the territory. Its ostensive purpose, according to the IDF, is to trap Hamas in a confined area with no means of retreat or supply. This is the area which the Israeli government through the IDF have ordered all civilians to leave on pain of being treated as hostile combatants if they remain. An area into which it was suggested no foreign aid would be allowed, nor water of power, on the basis that there would be no civilians to need it as it would simply be a battle zone.
Some rhetorical retreat from that has occurred however any aid that does get into the area is woefully inadequate and fears that starvation and the lack of any medical facilities or medicines will lead to further significant loss of civilian lives.
This area in the North is subject to significant clearance. A process which some fear may be followed, at some stage. by a new programme of settler development. This would mean the permanent loss of the area, thus reducing the size and viability of Gaza even further. It would be a brave person who would take a bet that this will not happen.
Indeed, this scenario is leading to fears amongst neighbouring Arab states that they may well face a massive refugee crisis in the not too distant future. A crisis caused by Palestinians fleeing from a non-viable and hostile Gaza and West Bank.
The Israeli government denies this as a war aim. If they are honest in this assurance, it still leaves open the possibility that their practice of “self defence”, in the long term, has the “unintended consequence” of making everyday life so intolerable that it drives the Palestinians out of Palestine.
The US and the UK have access to detailed satellite imagery, military strategy experts, intelligence reports and a whole lot more information than is in the public domain. Perhaps this all supports the Israeli contention that their acts of defence are within International humanitarian law. Further, they remain focused on their original and limited aims of getting the hostages back and destroying Hamas.
From outside it does not look like this. What is happening, right now, in the occupied territories is unspeakable. It is being called out by a number of western institutions including the UN and the International Court of Justice and a range of NGO’s operating in the region. And yet our government and that of the United States are not taking decisive action to prevent what is happening.
What is happening in Palestine is already having far reaching implications. The dramatic collapse of Assad’s Syrian regime is the result of many factors, however, the weakened position of Hezbollah in Lebanon will have played its part.
If it turns out that this is a second Nakba PM Netanyahu may well achieve his objective of “changing the Middle East”. However, it might not be for the better for the Middle East, or, indeed in the long term for Israel.
This is a collection of articles and speeches by novelist David Grossman, winner of the 2017 International Man Booker Prize. They span a period from July 2017 to June 2024, obviously taking in the barbaric attack of 7 October 2023. The book is a mere 87 pages long and exceptionally well written. It provides an intelligent and humane analysis of the problem of a just peace in Palestine, something Mr Grossman has spent decades campaigning for. It is a testament to his commitment that, despite the medeival horrors of 10/7 he remains convinced that “…it is impossible to begin resolving the Middle Eastern tragedy without offering a solution that alleviates the Palestinian’s suffering.”
His critique of Prime Minister Netanyahu is searing. He is equally critical of the ulta-Orthodox religious right who have a inappropriate and disproportionate say in the politics of the State of Israel. Promoting Eretz-Yisrael or Greater Israel, an area which has a number of definitions but certainly encompasses the current State of Israel, and the Palestinian Territories. It is this aspiration which “legitimises”, in their view, the settler movement in the West Bank and current demands for the same in Gaza.
Mr Grossman describes the Judaism he connects to as “…secular and humanist. It has faith in human beings. The only thing it holds sacred is human life.” You can imagine how acceptable this definition of Judaism is to those of the religious right who call for the State to go to War for a Greater Israel but “…refuse to send their own children to military service because, according to their faith, praying and studying Torah is what guarantees the continued existence of the Jewish people…”. Their single minded labours aim to preserve the purity of their contested view of the faith which sees God as being in the real estate business and having promised them the land of Palestine 2000 years ago.
What is interesting about the book is how it charts the growing stranglehold of PM Netanyahu and his actions to undermine, not just the rights of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, but also those of Arab citizens within the State of Israel. Mr Grossman sees all the actions of the Netanyahu government as being focussed on keeping alive and raw the wound that is the relationship between Israel and its Arab citizens and those in the occupied territories. He characterises the Nationality Law of 2018, which defines Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people and reserves the right of self determination to the Jewish people alone as a “…renunciation of the chance to ever end the conflict with the Palestinians.”
The articles in this collection remain optimistic and chart the growing internal opposition to Netanyahu. The demonstrations and marches against his attempts to consolidate his power and limit the rule of law were particularly vocal in the run up to 10/7. Despite the horrific terrorist atrocities of that day Grossman remains committed to negotiations and a move to a two state solution as the only viable route to a lasting peace.
Beyond this however Mr Grossman provides an insight into some of the psychological and other fears which shape Jewish thinking. Fears which certainly cannot be dismissed as irrational and which have an equal right to be addressed and must be part of any comprehensive solution in Palestine.
First among these fears is the pervasive view of the provisional nature of the State of Israel. Interestingly, this is not just seen as something driven by the hostile military objectives in the Hamas Charter of 1988 unabated in the eyes of Israel by the substantial revisions to that Charter in 2017, nor in chants about a Palestinian state from the Mountains to the Sea.
But more subtly than these attacks are the seemingly positive comments of supporters like the oft repeated formula by American Presidents that the US supports “Israel’s right to exist”. This phrase, although it challenges the opposite, subliminally concedes the possibility that such a right is not a given.
Another related but distinct issue is the attacks on Israel by its enemies. The objective of their campaigns against Israel is not simply to win a war against the Israeli state it is to abolish the state altogether. As Mr Grossman puts it “…Israel is the only country in the world whose elimination can be openly called for.” At the extreme end of this view is the antisemitic desire to eradicate the Jewish nation and people not just its state.
Mr Grossman asks the fundamental question, “Why is Israel – of the planet’s 195 countries – alone in being conditional, as if its existence depended on the goodwill of the other nations of the world.”
Mr Grossman also rejects the “intolerable”attempt to “…force the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a colonialist discourse.” Arguing that colonialism can only be carried out by external nation states, and that as Israel does not have a state elsewhere it cannot be engaged in colonialism.
You can see why a people who have been persecuted and discriminated against in countries across Europe and beyond, and been subject to the most extreme attempt at industrial genocide the world has ever seen, would be extremely nervous about losing the safe haven of a nation state. This nervousness may at times become an existential panic resulting in a violent and disproportionate response to any form of challenge, perceived or real.
There are elements of Mr Grossman’s position that could be challenged. Being by far the most powerful military force in the region, the only one with a nuclear weapon capacity, and having the might of the United States foursquare behind it should allay some of the fears of its “provisional” nature. It is also the case that the vast majority of the nations on the planet recognise Israel as a legitimate member of the community of independent states.
Some of that sense of provisionality may stem from the manner in which the State was first established. One might argue this was by, “…the goodwill of the other nations of the world…” first in the actions of the League of Nations and secondly in the United Nations. Obviously, there were a range of other forces in play, not least the manouverings of declining imperial powers, notably France and Great Britain. Whatever its origins the world must, and in the vast majority do accept, the legitimacy of the State of Israel.
I fear the rejection of the colonialist model as applied to the actions of the Israeli State depends on an essentialist definition of colonialism relying on the preexistence of a colonialist state elsewhere as the aggressor. Whilst this might be a part of the definition there are key elements of the colonialist model, in the eviction of a preexisting peoples from their home lands and the repopulating of those lands by people from elsewhere which prima facie looks like it could be applied to the actions of the State of Israel.
Whilst there are parts of Mr Grossman’s argument which could be open to challenge, the tone and thrust of the book is exceptional. His analysis of the direction being followed by the current administration under PM Netanyahu is well-informed and trenchant. Despite the brutality of 10/7, Mr Grossman still argues for a negotiated settlement and a two state solution. In the end it is probably only this which will end the constant fear of the Israeli people about the provisional nature of the State of Israel. It is a book which everyone concerned about the current tragedy of Palestine should read.
The Thinking Heart. David Grossman. Johnathan Cape London 2024.
northerncomment 