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?