Palestine Action (PA), which is pursuing a vandalism-led strategy to shut down an Israeli arms manufacturer in the UK, is exploiting a loophole to fund its activities.
But despite acknowledging a deliberate law-breaking strategy, which would land a registered company or charity in legal hot water, they are openly fundraising, often via foreign companies.
A barrister told The Epoch Times that injunctions could result in the closure of its funding pages.
Co-founded by Palestinian-Iraqi Huda Ammori and Extinction Rebellion’s Richard Barnard, the group says it is a “direct action network dismantling British complicity with Israeli apartheid.”
‘Zionist Militia’
The group uses radical methods and language to pursue its goals.“Despite the asymmetry in resources and military power, Palestinians are resisting and taking their land back,” it added.
Activists have been pictured waving Palestinian flags, throwing paint, and carrying flares onto different Elbit Systems sites as well as companies that supply parts to it in the UK.
Staff members have had to be evacuated with operations suspended in some cases as activists drive through gates to descend on buildings and cause damage.
On Thursday, hundreds of activists hit three sites in one day: Leicester’s UAV Tactical Systems and Howmet Fastening Systems, as well as Instro Precision in Kent.
The group has also recently claimed to have sprayed the office buildings of iO Associates earlier this month because they are “the sole recruiters” for the UK branch of Elbit.
In an email to The Epoch Times, iO Associates said it “holds a recruitment process outsourcing contract with Elbit Systems UK that concludes in November 2023.”
Funding
As well as fundraising directly on its site, PA use funding tools from countries abroad such as the U.S.-based Action Network.Action Network says it “encourages responsible activism, and do not support using the platform to take unlawful or other improper action.”
Deliberate Law-Breaking Strategy
PA acknowledges a deliberate law-breaking strategy. Some members have been convicted of “possession of items with intent to commit criminal damage” but not jailed.One woman was convicted in May for her role in a PA protest that caused £1.2 million in damage to a factory that made printed circuit boards in Wales.
However the group and its members could still face injunctions, despite its opaque set up.
Public law barrister Francis Hoar told The Epoch Times that PA appears to have “no individual legal identity.”
“However, the evidence of coordinated campaigns in its name and the use of its name in a fundraising campaign is evidence that it is an unincorporated association,” he said.
Mr. Hoar said that as a result, any individual or company targeted by it could seek an injunction against individuals representing the organisation that could prevent any persons from carrying out criminal or even any activity.
He noted that the High Court has imposed such injunctions against the organisers of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty in 2003, and of the Animal Liberation Front in 2006 and against many other protest groups.
“Moreover, those who donate to this organisation appear to do so fully aware that their funds are intended to pay for criminal activity—in particular criminal damage; as are any organisation allowing it to process its funds at least once it becomes aware of its public campaigns,” he said.
United States
The group is now focused on causing disruption in the United States.The imagery in the post contained blood drops and target signs aimed architecture companies that are near Elbit’s Cambridge location.
Ryan Mauro from The Capital Research Center, which examines how foundations, charities, and other nonprofits spend money, told The Epoch Times that there’s no transparency with unregistered organisations in the United States.
“In the U.S., you can have unregistered organisations that operate through another NGO that is a ‘fiscal sponsor,’” he said.
He explained that in this arrangement, donations to the unregistered organisation are handled through the fiscal sponsor, which redistributes the funds to the intended organisation.
“The unregistered organisation doesn’t have to make any filings, so there’s no transparency. It’s possible that the fiscal sponsor might disclose the amount given to the unregistered organisation they are helping, but it isn’t required,” he added.
The Epoch Times contacted Palestine Action and Elbit Systems for comment.