Lift the Bans on Hamas and Hezbollah - SACC Appeal

resistance_right_2srakfd_wb.jpg

National march for Palestine, London, 15 February 2025

Updated 12 April 2025

SACC urges the UK Government to remove Hamas and Hezbollah from the list of organisations proscribed under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000. We call on organisations that support justice in Palestine to adopt a similar position.

Our call to lift the bans was one of five demands we presented in October 2024. We repeat it now with fresh urgency as Israel re-intensifies its genocide in Gaza.

SACC is opposed to the whole system of proscription set out in the Terrorism Act 2000. But we think the problems created by the bans on Hamas and Hezbollah are particularly pressing and should concern everyone who supports the political rights of Palestinians.

Terrorism bans are imposed by the Home Secretary with minimum parliamentary debate and can be lifted just as easily.

Lifting the bans would be in line with the Government's claim to be seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Whether or not there is any realistic prospect of this happening, our movement needs to be clear that it opposes the bans. They are part of the toolkit through which police harass our demonstrations. Even more importantly, they are part of the vocabulary of genocide apologism.

It is not the first time that the UK's "banned list" has facilitated war crimes. The UK ban on the LTTE ("Tamil Tigers") was instrumental in securing international acquiescence in the mass slaughter of Tamils by the Sri Lankan government in January to May 2009 during the final phase of Sri Lanka's long civil war. Sri Lankan government forces encouraged civilians to move to so-called "no-fire zones" and then bombarded them there. UN estimates put the number of civilians killed between 40,000 and 70,000. The true figure may have been much higher.

In December 2013, the Rome-based Permanent Peoples' Tribunal unanimously found Sri Lanka guilty of the crime of genocide, with the US and UK held to be complicit. Sri Lanka has not so far been held accountable for its actions in any meaningful way.

Hezbollah was set up in 1982 to resist Israel’s occupation of Lebanon in pursuit of its war on the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). Hamas was set up in 1987 to resist the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Both organisations operate in territories where the internationally recognised right to armed resistance to occupation and colonisation is clearly applicable. Both stand accused – like the armies of some states – of acts of violence prohibited under the laws of war. Both have mass support in the territories where they operate and both are engaged in civil administrations and in civil society generally.

The bans on Hamas and Hezbollah are part of the UK’s framework of support for Israel. They are just as valuable to Israel as military cooperation and the supply of arms.

The UK’s ban on Hezbollah’s military wing was widened to cover the whole organisation in March 2019, a year after pro-Israel MP Sajid Javed became Home Secretary. Four years later Israeli Ambassador Tzipi Hotovely singled him out for special praise, saying “Your friendship is one of the greatest things that happened for the Israel-UK relationship.”

betrayer of the Palestinian people

The ban on the military wing of Hamas (Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades) was extended to cover the whole movement in November 2021, apparently as a result of representations made by Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson when they met at the UN Climate Conference in Glasgow the previous month. Israeli-British historian Avi Shlaim wrote that the ban would “further blacken Britain’s already dark record as the betrayer of the Palestinian people.” We in the Palestine solidarity movement should take care not to normalise the betrayal.

The UK ban on Hamas completed what appeared to many observers as the diplomatic isolation of Palestine after the signing of the Abraham Accords in September 2020. It set the scene for Hamas’s break-out on 7 October 2023 and gave the UK a device through which it could support Israel’s war of annihilation against Hamas and therefore, inevitably, against the people of Gaza.

Prior to the bans, the UK Government appears to have agreed with us that the door should be left open for diplomatic engagement with these organisations, not just for the "genuinely benign" meetings permitted according to the Home Office's non-statutory "explanatory notes" to the Terrorism Act. In doing so, it also left the door open for civil society to engage with Hamas and Hezbollah in the same ways as with any other foreign political party, and for all of us to have political discussions about them without having to avoid comments that might be deemed supportive.

It is an offence (Section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000) to belong to or profess to belong to a banned organisation or (Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000), to invite support for it, or to express an opinion or belief that is supportive of it and is "reckless as to whether a person to whom the expression is directed will be encouraged to support a proscribed organisation." Other Section 12 offences relate to organising a meeting to support a banned organisation, or to further its activities, or to be addressed by a member of the organisation. It is an offence (Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000) to wear an item of clothing or carry an article (for example, a flag or symbol) that arouses "reasonable suspicion" that you are member or supporter of a banned organisation, or to publish an image that arouses that suspicion.

A number of people have been convicted for displaying images at Palestine protests that supposedly aroused reasonable suspicion of support for a banned organisation. Others are awaiting trial for remarks, at protests or online, that were allegedly supportive of a banned organisation. The law of contempt limits what can be said about these cases. What can certainly be said is that charges are being brought under legislation that should not exist.

self-censorship

The bans erode the internationally-recognised right of the Palestinian people to resist colonialism and occupation. They also criminalise ordinary political discourse.

We in SACC do not support any particular political party in the UK and think it still less appropriate to support any particular political party in Palestine. But we would like to be able to comment as we see fit, either supportively or critically, about any political party anywhere.

We do not give our support to any military action anywhere because some of us have a principled commitment to non-violent forms resistance. But all of us respect the internationally recognised right of the Palestinian people to resist colonisation and occupation, including the right to resist by armed force. We would like to be able to comment as we see fit, either supportively or critically, about any form of resistance.

The discussions that almost all of us in the movement self-censor (perhaps unconsciously) because of terrorism legislation are exactly the ones we need to have in order to arrive at an informed view of the situation in Palestine. The Government no doubt thinks that is none of our business. We disagree. The struggle for Palestinian liberation will not be won using the language of oppression.

The Section 11 offence of membership of a banned group has extra-territorial jurisdiction. Every Hamas member in Gaza and every Hezbollah member in Lebanon, whether civilian or military, is committing an offence under UK law and could be prosecuted if they manage to come to the UK, even if they terminate their membership before arrival here.

Israel routinely claims that its attacks on Gaza target Hamas. Nothing in UK law justifies execution as a punishment for Hamas membership, or reliance on inaccurate AI-powered databases for target selection, or reckless disregard for the safety of families, children and medical facilities, let alone practices that appear to use "recklessness" as cover for deliberate attempts to cause mass casualties. Nor does UK law change the fact that whatever Israel does in Gaza, it does as a power in illegal occupation of Palestinian land. But it is still an awkward fact that the people Israel claims to be targeting are people who, if the Israeli claims were proven, would be regarded as criminals under UK law.  Even if this remains the British Government's position, it should not be ours.

People detained by Israeli forces in Gaza are routinely said to be members of Hamas. Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, who for many of us was the voice of the Kamal Adwan Hospital, has been in Israeli custody since 27 December 2024. The Israeli military said initially that it suspected him of being a member of Hamas. A six-month detention order was recently upheld by an Israeli court on the unclear basis that he is a threat to "state security." His lawyer, Ghaid Qassem, says that the Israeli authorities have failed to file a case against him despite 45 days of continuous interrogation, including torture. It therefore appears probable that he is not a member of Hamas.

But what if he were? Or if other medics detained by Israel are Hamas members? Our response should be to say, so what? But it is difficult to take that position if we do not also oppose the UK's blanket criminalisation of Hamas.

Our silence may suit Mahmoud Abbas and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. But it has nothing to do with Palestinian liberation.

Israel may eventually gain full control over Gaza, and may even claim sovereignty. There would doubtless then be a round-up of any suspected Hamas members still alive. They would doubtless be subjected to procedures unacceptable to UK law, including detention without trial and torture. But the round-up would nevertheless be directed against people who would be considered criminals under UK law.

What if the round-up were to be conducted as if the whole of the UK law on proscribed organisations were applicable, not just the part to which the UK gives extra-territorial effect? Besides Hamas members, Israel could then convict anyone in Gaza who had waved a Hamas flag, or made approving comments about a Hamas speech, or arranged or helped arrange a meeting at which they knew a Hamas member would be speaking. The net could spread wider still if Israel applied Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (see note 7 below). It could then cover almost any involvement in the Gaza administration.

Our movement would of course be united in noting that Israel had no business doing anything at all in Gaza. But the round-up would surely be wrong in itself. It would be a betrayal to say otherwise. But how could we condemn it if we express no opposition to the same kind of blanket criminalisation when it is imposed under UK law?

Update 12 April. SACC welcomes the application for the deproscription of Hamas under Section 4 of the Terrorism Act 2000 submitted by Riverway Law to the Home Secretary on 9 April and we wish it success. This is is separate process from our call for the Home Secretary to make an order under Section 3 of the Act for Hamas and Hezbollah to be removed from the UK's list of proscribed organisations. The Act gives the Home Secretary very wide lattitude to use her political judgment in both adding and removing organisations from the list. It is on this that we rely.

Photo: National March for Palestine, London, 15 February 2025 © Karl Black / Alamy Stock Photo

Further reading

How to Make a Genocide and How to Resist it, Richard Haley, The Long View, Vol 6 Issue 1, 1 February 2014

 Additional Information

1. "Banned organisation" in this statement means an organisation listed as a proscribed terrorist organisation under Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Other listings or designations can can have an effect in the UK, for example an asset freeze as a result of UN Al Qa’ida listing. The offences described here only apply in relations to organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.
2. The Home Secretary may add an organisation to Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by order (Section 3 (3) (a) ) if they believe that it is "concerned in terrorism" (Section 3 (4)). This gives the Home Secretary very wide discretion.
3. The Home Secretary may remove an organisation from Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 by order (Section 3 (3) (b) ). An organisation may also be removed if the organisation, or a person affected by the organisation's proscription, makes a deproscription application under Section 4 of the Act. If refused, the decision can be appealed as provided for in Section 5 and 6. SACC's main focus is on building political pressure on the Home Secretary to use the Section 3 power to remove Hamas and Hezbollah from the list of proscribed organisations.
4. Campaigning for the removal of an organisation from the proscribed list cannot in itself be interpreted as showing support for the organisation. Such an interpretation would be contrary to the basic principles of democracy and the rule of law. This point should not be confused with the immunity given under Section 10 of the Act in connection with evidence provided as part of a deproscription application or appeal under Sections 4, 5 and 6.
5. Riverway Law, in line with the principle of open justice, has published the files submitted in their deproscription application at hamascase.com. We encourage anyone interested in the case to visit the website, on the understanding that none of the contents can be understood as supporting, or expressing support for proscribed terrorist organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000. Material provided as evidence in a deproscription application is immune from prosecution. Immunity may not necessarily extend to people not involved in or mentioned in the application, or to material published outside the context of the application. We recommend caution in sharing material obtained from the website. If in doubt, consult a lawyer experienced in these matters.
6. The offence (Section 12(1A) ) of expressing "an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation" and in doing so being "reckless" was not part of the Terrorism Act 2000 as originally enacted. It was inserted by the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, enacted by Theresa May's government in February 2019. The change dramatically narrowed the limits of legally permissible commentary about proscribed organisations.
7. Section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a further way that people associated with a proscribed organisation can be prosecuted. It makes it an offence to "direct, at any level, the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism." The phrase "direct, at any level" is capable of much wider interpretation than would ordinarily be associated with the idea of "directing" something and can cover quite mundane activity. Section 56 can be used to target people whose membership of a banned organisation cannot be established.
8. The organisation Islamic Jihad operates alongside Hamas in Gaza and is proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. SACC does not believe it (or any other organisation) should be banned under those powers, but we do not focus on it in this appeal because it does not appear to have anything like the level of mass support, or the civil society and administrative footprints, of Hamas and Hezbollah.
9. SACC was set up in early 2003, in response to the use of counter-terrorism powers to carry out racist repression in the UK linked to the UK's involvement in the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We were particularly concerned about the arrest of a number of Muslim men in Scotland on false and politically-motivated terrorism charges that were dropped a year later. We followed in the footsteps of our London based sister organisation, the Campaign Against Criminalising Communities, which was set up in March 2001 in response to the banning of 21 organisations under powers of the Terrorism Act 2000. Read CAMPACC's Campaign Statement.
10. SACC is an affilate of the Gaza Genocide Emergency Committee and the Edinburgh Gaza Genocide Emergency Committee
11. Nothing in this statement should be interpreted as legal advice. The legislation discussed here is subject to wide interpretation. If in any doubt over whether something (activity, speech, placard/clothing/poster, publication) is legal we strongly recommend that you consult a lawyer experienced in these matters.