X Close

The case for proscribing Palestine Action

Damaging property as a method of political coercion amounts to terrorism. Credit: Getty

Damaging property as a method of political coercion amounts to terrorism. Credit: Getty

July 3 2025 - 1:20pm

On Wednesday MPs voted by an overwhelming majority to ban Palestine Action (PA) as a terrorist organization. This will come into effect on Saturday. PA, for its part, has described the ban as “unlawful, dangerous and ill thought out”; it has also sought to temporarily stop the order, with a hearing scheduled to take place on Friday at the High Court. Should it be unsuccessful in this, belonging to or supporting PA will become a terrorist offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

I must confess that my first reaction to this was that the ban was overly draconian, primarily because PA doesn’t carry out acts of serious violence against civilians. It hasn’t, for example, beheaded film-makers or teachers or blown anything up. It hasn’t hijacked any planes or poisoned anyone or inspired any vehicle rammings and you won’t see any of its members brandishing large phallic guns in its official propaganda. In other words, PA isn’t very “terroristy” — or so, on the face of it, it seems.

But terrorism is not just about bullets and bombs, and increasingly, knives; it can also involve the deliberate destruction or sabotage of property with the aim of punishing or coercing a government or the wider civilian population. Indeed, UK terrorism legislation is very clear on the matter: terrorism is “the use or threat of action…designed to influence the government…or intimidate the public…for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause” and involves, among other things, “serious violence against a person” and “serious damage to property”.

Roughly speaking, there are two ways of making the case for proscribing PA as a terrorist group. The first is to insist that its members and those who support it are mad Leftists whose antics do not advance the cause of Palestinians one bit. Many of those who support the proscription of the group are in this camp, although they wouldn’t necessarily publicly express the matter this way. Needless to say, this isn’t a strong case, because whether someone is a terrorist or not isn’t or shouldn’t be determined by how stupid they or their ideas are.

The second case is to argue that Palestine Action’s actions have rendered it a terrorist group. Last month, for example, four PA activists broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and damaged the turbines of two Voyager aircraft by spraying them with paint, causing £7 million in damages. In 2022, the group staged an attack on a weapons equipment factory in Glasgow, scaling its roof from which they hurled smoke bombs; this resulted in more than £1 million of damage. The group is planning and even training for many more such actions.

Needless to say, this is a much stronger case and one which regards the actual substance of PA’s ideas or its speech rights as wholly irrelevant to whether it should be defined as a terrorist group or not. What matters, rather, is the group’s methods. If, for example, a far-Right group decided to protest against what it sees as the Islamisation of Britain by breaking into a mosque and covering its walls in red spray-paint, there would be an equally strong case for that group to be proscribed as a terrorist one, especially if it used this method as part of a sustained campaign of political coercion.

There is a broader point to bear in mind which seems to be lost on PA’s defenders. Damaging or destroying property is emphatically a form of violence and when that violence is motivated by an ideology and is sufficiently serious in its consequences it is rightly seen as a form of terrorism.

Even more broadly, it is salutary to remember that not all terrorism is catastrophic and that it exists on a wide spectrum which includes bloodthirsty executioners from west London and well-meaning “teachers, nurses, students and parents” who sabotage Government and civilian property.


Simon Cottee is a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Danube Institute


China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

July 1 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam