Pro-Palestinian Backlash Against Gaza War Sparks Fear Among British Lawmakers

Pro-Palestinian Backlash Against Gaza War Sparks Fear Among British Lawmakers

Edited by:  Fern Sidman

The war in Gaza has not only ignited intense debates and discussions across the globe but has also reverberated through the halls of British politics, leading to a climate of fear and intimidation among lawmakers, as was reported in the Wall Street Journal.  Recent incidents, including protests outside lawmakers’ homes and acts of vandalism, have raised concerns about the erosion of democratic principles and the safety of elected officials.

Conservative Party lawmaker Tobias Ellwood experienced firsthand the intensity of the backlash when around 80 pro-Palestinian protesters gathered outside his house, chanting slogans accusing him of complicity in genocide, according to the information provided in the WSJ report. Similarly, Jo Stevens, a Labour Party lawmaker who didn’t support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, found her office vandalized with red paint and posters, leading her to express her concerns about the intimidating nature of such acts.

“If you have someone write murder across your door, it is intimidating,” Stevens remarked, according to the WSJ, highlighting the distress caused by these incidents.

The British government has condemned these actions, labeling them as attempts to subvert the democratic process and instill fear among lawmakers. The report in the WSJ indicated that UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak emphasized the need to address the escalating situation, warning against the exploitation of human angst for divisive ideological agendas.

“What started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats, and planned acts of violence,” Sunak stated, underscoring the urgency of the issue, as per the information in the WSJ.

Conservative Party lawmaker Mike Freer, representing a constituency with a sizable Jewish community, announced his decision to retire from politics following an arson attack on his office and threats against his life. The WSJ reported that despite the perpetrator claiming the attack was unrelated to politics, Freer has cited years of threats as contributing factors to his decision. He now wears protective vests to public events, reflecting the heightened security concerns among lawmakers.

While pro-Palestinian demonstrations advocating for a tougher stance against Israel have drawn large crowds in London, concerns have been raised about the presence of individuals openly promoting anti-Semitic slogans, as was noted in the WSJ report. The use of pro-Hamas slogans such “From the river to the sea,” projected onto the Houses of Parliament during a vote on Gaza, has sparked outrage among Jewish communities, who view it as a call for the destruction of Israel.

As the tensions surrounding the conflict continue to escalate, the British government faces mounting pressure to address the rising threats and ensure the safety and integrity of its democratic institutions, the report added.

As preparations are underway for a march in central London ending at the U.S. Embassy, protesters have emphasized the peaceful nature of their demonstrations. However, the WSJ report said that concerns have been raised about the increasing polarization and intimidation tactics employed in British politics, mirroring the turbulent landscape seen in the United States.

John Woodcock, a member of Britain’s House of Lords, expressed apprehension about the growing trend of abuse directed at lawmakers, warning that such practices aim to “grind people into submission.” The WSJ said that he emphasized the urgent need to address these polarizing tactics and reset the narrative to uphold democratic values.

The specter of political violence looms large in Britain, with tragic incidents such as the killings of Labour lawmaker Jo Cox and Tory lawmaker David Amess serving as stark reminders of the dangers posed by radical Islamic ideologies. These events have heightened anxieties among lawmakers and the public, prompting calls for greater vigilance and measures to combat extremism.

Across Europe, governments have adopted varying approaches to control pro-Palestinian marches, with some countries imposing outright bans on demonstrations. As was noted in the WSJ report, in Britain, the government has thus far refrained from such measures, sparking a contentious debate about the balance between freedom of expression and the need to counter extremism.

Robin Simcox, the U.K.’s counter-extremism czar, underscored the importance of challenging groups that propagate extremist narratives while remaining below the terrorism threshold. The report in the WSJ said that he emphasized the necessity of preventing London from becoming a “no-go zone” for Jews, highlighting the imperative to safeguard public safety and social cohesion.

Amidst growing concerns over potential violence, parliamentary proceedings have been disrupted, with Speaker of the House Lindsay Hoyle making unprecedented decisions to ensure the safety of lawmakers, according to the information in the WSJ report. During a debate on a ceasefire in Gaza, Hoyle intervened to allow opposition lawmakers to abstain from voting, citing concerns about their safety.

The majority of the U.K. population aligns with the call for a ceasefire in Gaza, reflecting a nuanced shift in the positions of both major political parties—the Conservatives and Labour. The WSJ also reported that recent months have witnessed a transition from unequivocal support for Israel’s right to self-defense to calls for a humanitarian pause or ceasefire, underscoring the evolving nature of the discourse surrounding the conflict.

Labour leader Keir Starmer, poised to contend in the upcoming election for prime minister, faces internal pressure to adopt a more robust stance on Gaza. The internal dynamics of the Labour Party are underscored by the recent special election in Rochdale, where independent candidate George Galloway secured victory on an anti-Israel platform, as was pointed out in the WSJ report. Galloway’s electoral win, marked by symbolism tied to the Palestinian cause, highlights the challenges faced by mainstream political figures in navigating the nuanced landscape of public opinion.

During his recent engagement with law enforcement, Rishi Sunak urged stronger action against protesters displaying banners supportive of Hamas, a designated terror organization in the U.K, the WSJ said.  Sunak’s call for proactive measures against potential threats targeting lawmakers’ residences underscores the government’s commitment to maintaining public safety amid heightened tensions.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), a prominent organizer of demonstrations in the U.K., has emphasized its commitment to non-violence. While the campaign rejects violence, it contends that chanting “From the river to the sea” represents a call for freedom rather than an incitement to violence, the report added. The PSC’s stance reflects the complexity of interpreting slogans and symbols within the broader context of political activism.

Sunder Katwala, Director of British Future, a think tank focused on race and immigration, underscored the fundamental need for all Londoners to feel safe. “I think it’s a real problem,” he remarked, as was noted in the WSJ report, encapsulating the growing apprehensions surrounding public demonstrations and their potential impact on community well-being.

According to David Mead, Professor of U.K. Human Rights Law at the University of East Anglia, the British police possess an array of legal tools to manage protests effectively. “This is largely a matter of police discretion,” he stated in the WSJ report, highlighting the critical role of law enforcement agencies in enforcing existing laws while acknowledging the challenge of resource constraints.

London Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley’s recent remarks underscore the multifaceted nature of criticism facing law enforcement. Rowley acknowledged the delicate balance between upholding the right to protest and ensuring public safety, navigating between accusations of both excessive suppression and inadequate intervention.

In response to mounting concerns, the government is exploring avenues to refine its definition of “extremism” and delineate stricter parameters for engagement with extremist groups, the report added. John Woodcock’s review proposes restricting interactions between such groups and lawmakers, signaling a shift towards a more stringent approach to curbing extremist influence. As per the WSJ report, Woodcock argued against enabling groups like the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), emphasizing the need to safeguard democratic processes from external disruptions.

Toby Young, founder of the Free Speech Union, advocated for measured restrictions on protests, advocating for uniform criteria applied across various groups. The WSJ said that Young opposes broadening the definition of extremism, cautioning against encroachments on free speech rights in the pursuit of preventing extremism. He argued that targeting specific expressions, such as slogans or flags, may prove ineffective in addressing underlying radicalization.