Encrypted but Unbroken: Palestine Action Continues Resistance Campaign Despite Terrorist Ban
Executive Summary
Despite its recent designation as a terrorist organization by the UK government, Palestine Action remains operational, organizing protests and recruiting participants through encrypted communications and secure platforms. New materials show that activists are preparing coordinated sign-holding actions across multiple cities, while openly defying the legislation through detailed briefings and strategic messaging.
Analysis
Palestine Action’s formal proscription on July 5, 2025, marked a historic escalation: the first time a UK-based direct action protest group has been banned under terrorism legislation. Yet just days later, the group appears not only unfazed but mobilized. Encrypted briefings, digital coordination documents, and anonymous channels continue to circulate, calling on supporters to resist the ban through carefully designed, nonviolent public demonstrations.
A key rallying point for this ongoing campaign is the Defend Our Juries initiative, which is actively organizing protests in London, Bristol, and Manchester, with guidelines encouraging local replication across the UK. Protesters are instructed to coordinate via secure platforms such as Signal and CryptPad, and to maintain strict operational discipline. The goal: silent mass sign-holding actions that force the police into a dilemma—either arrest large numbers for peaceful protest or expose the overreach of the ban.
A document circulating through encrypted platforms and Telegram channels outlines the operational structure for upcoming actions. It includes briefing protocols, pre-written letters to local authorities, bust card distribution plans, designated legal counsel, and guidelines for press engagement. The language is open and defiant: supporters are urged not to be intimidated by the threat of arrest under anti-terror laws.
The design of the action is deliberately confrontational in its simplicity. Protesters are told to carry identical signs stating, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” They are to remain silent, avoid police engagement, and not resist arrest. Roles are divided into high- and low-risk categories to protect non-arrestable supporters, and media strategy is built in from the outset.
This campaign marks a shift from disruptive physical sabotage—like the reported £7 million in damages at RAF Brize Norton—to strategic, symbolic confrontation. The decentralized structure and encrypted communications allow for wide replication without requiring formal affiliation, creating legal ambiguity around enforcement and complicating state response.
Notably, Palestine Action’s supporters see the terror designation not as a deterrent, but as a legitimizing moment—a badge of impact. Framing the state’s actions as proof of their effectiveness, organizers lean into the logic that repression breeds resistance. The rapid arrest and release of 29 peaceful sign-holders in Parliament Square shortly after the ban only reinforced this message, drawing criticism toward the Met Police and generating sympathetic media coverage.
The implications are significant. The state’s ability to enforce proscription laws on a decentralized, digitally savvy protest movement remains unproven. Meanwhile, the legal and political risks for those engaging in even symbolic acts of dissent have never been higher. The lines between civil disobedience, political activism, and terrorism are being actively redrawn in public view.
