Middle East Eye • July 1, 2026 13:39

Palestine Action case reveals the limits of terrorism discourse

Political Leaning Analysis

Left Center Right

Score: -0.32 • Leans Left

Submitted by
Amina Shareef
on
Thu, 06/25/2026 - 20:24

Court battle casts a spotlight on the flawed assumptions linking terrorism to the racialised image of the Muslim threat

An elderly man in a wheelchair is escorted away by police as protesters gather in support of Palestine Action in central London, on 11 April 2026 (Carlos Jasso/AFP)
Off
Crowds gathered outside the UK Court of Appeal draped in keffiyehs and waving Palestinian flags. Placards read: “It’s not a crime to act against genocide” and “Stop arming Israel”. 

Some protesters lay on the ground, while others were carried away by police, with more than 100 arrests made.

The demonstration last week followed a Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the government’s proscription of Palestine Action, overturning an earlier High Court judgment that had found the ban unlawful.

Many will interpret the ruling as a defeat for Palestine solidarity activism. Yet its significance lies elsewhere: the controversy over Palestine Action has exposed growing cracks in the framework through which terrorism is understood in Britain. 

Rather than reaffirming the legitimacy of that framework, the state’s response has revealed some of its deepest contradictions.

For decades, terrorism has functioned as one of the most powerful languages through which political violence is interpreted. It determines which acts are recognised as legitimate resistance, and which are condemned as ideologically driven. It identifies who may appear as a political actor, and who may appear only as a security threat.

The Palestine Action case has revealed that this language is neither neutral nor objective. Rather, it rests upon a particular form of racial knowledge that has long structured anti-Muslim racism and authorised extraordinary forms of state violence.

Colonial histories 

Terrorism is commonly understood as a form of violence. But it is also a way of seeing.

Its contemporary meaning emerged through colonial histories, in which resistance to empire increasingly came to be represented not as politics, but as pathology. 

Palestine occupied a central place in this process. From the 1970s onwards, the figure of the Palestinian “terrorist” became a defining image within international security discourse. Anti-colonial resistance was detached from the realities of military occupation and dispossession, and reimagined as an expression of irrational violence.

After 9/11, these assumptions became deeply embedded within public life. Terrorism was increasingly presented as the product of extremism, fanaticism and hatred, rather than a phenomenon rooted in histories of occupation, dispossession and war. 

The task now is not simply to oppose a proscription order. It is to continue challenging the knowledge system that makes such orders appear reasonable in the first place

An entire industry of terrorism expertise emerged to explain how individuals become terrorists, producing theories of radicalisation, extremism and terrorist psychology. What united these approaches was a common assumption: terrorism was understood primarily as a problem of defective minds, rather than political conditions.

The colonial logic is difficult to miss. The terrorist appears as a figure incapable of reason, driven by instinct rather than politics, hatred rather than history. The violence of the terrorist is represented as irrational, excessive and barbaric. By contrast, the violence of the state appears necessary, restrained and legitimate.

This is why terrorism functions as a form of racial knowledge. Like race itself, it classifies populations and differentiates forms of humanity. Certain forms of violence become intelligible as political action, while others are rendered inherently pathological and beyond comprehension.

Once these distinctions are established, extraordinary violence becomes easier to justify. Detention without charge, torture, mass surveillance, denationalisation, targeted killing and military occupation can all be represented as security measures, rather than forms of racial violence.

As author Achille Mbembe has argued, race operates by determining who may be exposed to death. Terrorism discourse performs a similar function: it identifies populations whose suffering can be rendered necessary, intelligible, or even desirable in the name of public safety.

Imperial hierarchy

There is a useful historical parallel here. During the 18th and 19th centuries, European empires increasingly relied upon scientific racism to justify conquest, enslavement and colonial rule. Through skull measurements, physiognomy and intelligence testing, scientists claimed to discover objective biological differences between human groups.

These theories transformed political domination into scientific fact. Imperial hierarchy appeared natural, because science supposedly demonstrated that some populations were inherently more civilised, rational and capable than others.

Today, these theories are increasingly recognised as pseudoscience. The categories they produced did not reveal truths about humanity. They provided intellectual legitimacy for systems of domination that already existed.

Terrorism discourse operates in a remarkably similar fashion. Like scientific racism, it presents itself as objective knowledge. Through theories of radicalisation, extremism and terrorist psychology, it claims to identify measurable characteristics of dangerous populations. Yet these categories repeatedly reproduce older distinctions between civilisation and barbarism, reason and irrationality, humanity and threat.

Both scientific racism and terrorism discourse transform political relations into expert knowledge. Both produce hierarchies of humanity. Both make violence appear necessary by presenting domination as an objective response to an objectively identifiable threat.

This is why the Palestine Action controversy matters. The significance of the case is not simply that activists challenged the government’s decision in court. It is that the campaign exposed the fragility of terrorism discourse itself.

Revealing contradiction

For decades, the figure of the terrorist has been imagined through the racialised image of the Muslim threat. The terrorist is expected to look a certain way, come from certain communities, and embody particular anxieties about race, religion and national belonging.

Palestine Action unsettled those expectations. Many of those arrested under legislation associated with the proscription were ordinary activists, including large numbers of older white people publicly opposing Israel’s assault on Gaza and Britain’s role in supporting it. Their presence disrupted the racial assumptions through which terrorism is ordinarily recognised.

Images of pensioners, teachers, clergy members and community activists being associated with terrorism while protesting genocide created a dissonance that proved difficult to ignore. Suddenly, the category appeared less self-evident than it once had.

Palestine Action: History will judge Britain for these draconian sentences
Read More »

The contradiction was revealing. It exposed the extent to which terrorism has never functioned as a neutral description of violence. Its authority has always depended upon particular racial associations that link danger, irrationality and political violence to specific populations. When those associations become unsettled, the category itself begins to appear unstable.

This does not mean that terrorism discourse is disappearing. Scientific racism did not vanish when its intellectual foundations were challenged, nor were racial hierarchies dismantled when biological theories of race were discredited. But a reckoning occurred; claims that once appeared objective increasingly came to be recognised as ideological. Their authority weakened. Their contradictions became more visible.

The significance of the Palestine Action case lies in contributing to a similar process. The controversy has exposed the racial assumptions that underpin contemporary terrorism discourse, and revealed its claims to neutrality as increasingly difficult to sustain. In doing so, it has opened political space for a broader challenge to one of the central languages through which anti-Muslim racism and racialised violence continue to be organised.

The task now is not simply to oppose a proscription order. It is to continue challenging the knowledge system that makes such orders appear reasonable in the first place.

Only then can the knowledge foundations of permanent war, occupation and racialised death begin to be dismantled.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Palestine Action
Opinion

Post Date Override
0

Update Date
Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29

Update Date Override
0

Palestine Action case reveals the limits of terrorism discourse Submitted by Amina Shareef on Thu, 06/25/2026 - 20:24 Court battle casts a spotlight on the flawed assumptions linking terrorism to the racialised image of the Muslim threat An elderly man in a wheelchair is escorted away by police as protesters gather in support of Palestine Action in central London, on 11 April 2026 (Carlos Jasso/AFP) Off Crowds gathered outside the UK Court of Appeal draped in keffiyehs and waving Palestinian flags. Placards read: “It’s not a crime to act against genocide” and “Stop arming Israel”.  Some protesters lay on the ground, while others were carried away by police, with more than 100 arrests made. The demonstration last week followed a Court of Appeal ruling that upheld the government’s proscription of Palestine Action, overturning an earlier High Court judgment that had found the ban unlawful. Many will interpret the ruling as a defeat for Palestine solidarity activism. Yet its significance lies elsewhere: the controversy over Palestine Action has exposed growing cracks in the framework through which terrorism is understood in Britain.  Rather than reaffirming the legitimacy of that framework, the state’s response has revealed some of its deepest contradictions. For decades, terrorism has functioned as one of the most powerful languages through which political violence is interpreted. It determines which acts are recognised as legitimate resistance, and which are condemned as ideologically driven. It identifies who may appear as a political actor, and who may appear only as a security threat. The Palestine Action case has revealed that this language is neither neutral nor objective. Rather, it rests upon a particular form of racial knowledge that has long structured anti-Muslim racism and authorised extraordinary forms of state violence. Colonial histories  Terrorism is commonly understood as a form of violence. But it is also a way of seeing. Its contemporary meaning emerged through colonial histories, in which resistance to empire increasingly came to be represented not as politics, but as pathology.  Palestine occupied a central place in this process. From the 1970s onwards, the figure of the Palestinian “terrorist” became a defining image within international security discourse. Anti-colonial resistance was detached from the realities of military occupation and dispossession, and reimagined as an expression of irrational violence. After 9/11, these assumptions became deeply embedded within public life. Terrorism was increasingly presented as the product of extremism, fanaticism and hatred, rather than a phenomenon rooted in histories of occupation, dispossession and war.  The task now is not simply to oppose a proscription order. It is to continue challenging the knowledge system that makes such orders appear reasonable in the first place An entire industry of terrorism expertise emerged to explain how individuals become terrorists, producing theories of radicalisation, extremism and terrorist psychology. What united these approaches was a common assumption: terrorism was understood primarily as a problem of defective minds, rather than political conditions. The colonial logic is difficult to miss. The terrorist appears as a figure incapable of reason, driven by instinct rather than politics, hatred rather than history. The violence of the terrorist is represented as irrational, excessive and barbaric. By contrast, the violence of the state appears necessary, restrained and legitimate. This is why terrorism functions as a form of racial knowledge. Like race itself, it classifies populations and differentiates forms of humanity. Certain forms of violence become intelligible as political action, while others are rendered inherently pathological and beyond comprehension. Once these distinctions are established, extraordinary violence becomes easier to justify. Detention without charge, torture, mass surveillance, denationalisation, targeted killing and military occupation can all be represented as security measures, rather than forms of racial violence. As author Achille Mbembe has argued, race operates by determining who may be exposed to death. Terrorism discourse performs a similar function: it identifies populations whose suffering can be rendered necessary, intelligible, or even desirable in the name of public safety. Imperial hierarchy There is a useful historical parallel here. During the 18th and 19th centuries, European empires increasingly relied upon scientific racism to justify conquest, enslavement and colonial rule. Through skull measurements, physiognomy and intelligence testing, scientists claimed to discover objective biological differences between human groups. These theories transformed political domination into scientific fact. Imperial hierarchy appeared natural, because science supposedly demonstrated that some populations were inherently more civilised, rational and capable than others. Today, these theories are increasingly recognised as pseudoscience. The categories they produced did not reveal truths about humanity. They provided intellectual legitimacy for systems of domination that already existed. Terrorism discourse operates in a remarkably similar fashion. Like scientific racism, it presents itself as objective knowledge. Through theories of radicalisation, extremism and terrorist psychology, it claims to identify measurable characteristics of dangerous populations. Yet these categories repeatedly reproduce older distinctions between civilisation and barbarism, reason and irrationality, humanity and threat. Both scientific racism and terrorism discourse transform political relations into expert knowledge. Both produce hierarchies of humanity. Both make violence appear necessary by presenting domination as an objective response to an objectively identifiable threat. This is why the Palestine Action controversy matters. The significance of the case is not simply that activists challenged the government’s decision in court. It is that the campaign exposed the fragility of terrorism discourse itself. Revealing contradiction For decades, the figure of the terrorist has been imagined through the racialised image of the Muslim threat. The terrorist is expected to look a certain way, come from certain communities, and embody particular anxieties about race, religion and national belonging. Palestine Action unsettled those expectations. Many of those arrested under legislation associated with the proscription were ordinary activists, including large numbers of older white people publicly opposing Israel’s assault on Gaza and Britain’s role in supporting it. Their presence disrupted the racial assumptions through which terrorism is ordinarily recognised. Images of pensioners, teachers, clergy members and community activists being associated with terrorism while protesting genocide created a dissonance that proved difficult to ignore. Suddenly, the category appeared less self-evident than it once had. Palestine Action: History will judge Britain for these draconian sentences Read More » The contradiction was revealing. It exposed the extent to which terrorism has never functioned as a neutral description of violence. Its authority has always depended upon particular racial associations that link danger, irrationality and political violence to specific populations. When those associations become unsettled, the category itself begins to appear unstable. This does not mean that terrorism discourse is disappearing. Scientific racism did not vanish when its intellectual foundations were challenged, nor were racial hierarchies dismantled when biological theories of race were discredited. But a reckoning occurred; claims that once appeared objective increasingly came to be recognised as ideological. Their authority weakened. Their contradictions became more visible. The significance of the Palestine Action case lies in contributing to a similar process. The controversy has exposed the racial assumptions that underpin contemporary terrorism discourse, and revealed its claims to neutrality as increasingly difficult to sustain. In doing so, it has opened political space for a broader challenge to one of the central languages through which anti-Muslim racism and racialised violence continue to be organised. The task now is not simply to oppose a proscription order. It is to continue challenging the knowledge system that makes such orders appear reasonable in the first place. Only then can the knowledge foundations of permanent war, occupation and racialised death begin to be dismantled. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. Palestine Action Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0

Story Timeline

Wed 13:39 - Middle East Eye

Palestine Action case reveals the limits of terrorism discourse