Revelation of UK collaboration with Israeli regime in suppressing Pro-Palestinian activists

Official documents indicate that the UK government shared information obtained from the police and counter-terrorism prosecutors during investigations into a protest at a weapons factory with the Israeli embassy in London. This has raised significant concerns in the UK regarding foreign interference.

According to The Guardian, on September 9, 2024 (19 Shahrivar 1403), the UK Attorney General’s Office (AGO) sent an email titled “CPS/SO15 Contact Details [Crown Prosecution Service/Counter-Terrorism Police]” to the deputy Israeli ambassador in the UK.

In August 2024, ten pro-Palestinian activists were arrested under counter-terrorism laws following a protest at a weapons factory. In November, eight others were detained in connection with the same incident under similar allegations.

The email was sent by Nicola Smith, head of the AGO’s international law division, 11 days after her meeting with the deputy Israeli ambassador in London.

A lawyer from Kellys Solicitors, a UK law firm specializing in political and protest cases and representing some of the pro-Palestinian activists, stated that the disclosed information raises questions and requires further scrutiny. The lawyer asked, for instance, why the AGO provided contact details of the Crown Prosecution Service, an independent body, to the Israelis. What further exchanges took place, and were there discussions regarding ongoing criminal prosecutions?

An academic and international lawyer expressed concerns about evidence suggesting foreign influence.

The text of the email from the August 28 meeting is heavily redacted. However, previous revelations indicate that the Israeli embassy in London made explicit requests to the AGO for intervention in cases involving unspecified individuals (due to redactions) and held meetings between representatives of an Israeli defense contractor, the AGO, and the Home Office.

Prior disclosures revealed that since 2023, multiple meetings have taken place between the AGO’s Director General and the deputy Israeli ambassador in London.

A pro-Palestinian activist stated that the timing of this correspondence coincides with ongoing investigations into Palestine Action activists accused of disrupting the site of Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer. The activist suggested that the AGO appears to have facilitated foreign interference in this case and potentially other ongoing criminal cases.

In November of the previous year, four UN special rapporteurs wrote to the UK government, expressing concern over the seemingly unjustified use of terrorism laws against protesters. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, individuals can be detained for up to 14 days without charge.

The letter from human rights experts noted that those arrested in August were initially held for 36 hours without access to a lawyer and were then detained for an additional seven days under counter-terrorism powers.

The letter stated: “It appears that counter-terrorism laws, including the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Terrorism Act 2006, are increasingly being used in the context of domestic support for Palestinian self-determination and political activity against the UK’s foreign policy regarding the conflict in occupied Gaza.”

Members of Palestine Action, a grassroots movement organizing direct actions against Israeli weapons factories in the UK, have been arrested under counter-terrorism laws for behavior that appears to constitute ordinary criminal offenses and, according to international standards, is not genuinely terrorist in nature.

No one has been charged with terrorism-related offenses in connection with these protests.

A UK government source stated that it has been standard practice across successive governments for the AGO to assist embassies solely to facilitate contact with relevant authorities for information exchange.

The Israeli embassy did not respond to requests for comment. In a separate case, a spokesperson for the embassy claimed it respects the independence of the UK judicial system and would not interfere in UK legal processes under any circumstances.