- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A British judge has sentenced four Palestine Action protesters as terrorists, handing them custodial sentences ranging from four to eight years.
The unprecedented ruling came despite jurors convicting them of criminal charges not connected to terrorism during the prosecution.
On Friday, the presiding judge, Justice Jeremy Johnson, added a “terrorism connection” to their offences.
In a preliminary ruling in March 2025, Johnson found an “appearance” of a terrorism connection in the case, as he said the activists were attempting to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons. This information was withheld from the jury who convicted them.
What I find morally dubious is why Ukrainians are put in the position to collaborate with industries complicit in genocide.
Russia is not the only barbarian in town.
“What I find morally dubious is why [literally any NATO country] is put in the position to collaborate with industries complicit in school shootings”, since they’re using AR16 rifles, 5.56 or 9mm ammo, Glock or CZ pistols, etc.
The industry makes the tools, the governments (or, well, individuals) decide how to use them. If the tools are well made and have high capabilities, I want Ukraine to have access to them regardless of the fact that some traitorous, murderous, corrupt dictators are also using them elsewhere.
You make an argument that chooses a priority: “regardless of the fact that”. Guess what, other people make their own priority arguments where they make their own “regardless of the fact that” calculations. If you get to call other people “morally dubious” for not following your absolute priority, so do they get to call you “morally dubious” for not following theirs. Then the conversation becomes “which genocide matters more, Putin’s or Netanyahu’s”. Is that the conversation you really want to be having though?
Here’s what I say instead and you should be able to see the pragmatism in this point of view:
Ukraine should have the tools to fight for its freedom which is why it should not be put by its allies in the position to have to navigate suppliers that are politically toxic and a source of uncertainty and division in its support base (the conflicting moral priority arguments in my first paragraph).
The cold hard logic is that Elbit is a politically toxic, politically compromised supplier that comes with unnecessary uncertainty and risk. The fact that there are large sections of western populations that hold very legitimate grievances against them is very much an opening for Russian propaganda and manipulation. The UK should not expose Ukraine to any of that.
So if you really care about Ukraine having a shot, you should simply demand the exclusion of Israeli linked suppliers. They are a strategic liability for Ukraine. It’s just not worth the drama and uncertainty from the point of view of Ukraine focusing on what matters to them and for sure nobody needs to be giving Putin any more talking points about western hypocrisy.
You missed my point.
There are no “suppliers not ‘complicit’ in genocide” due to the variety of equipment Israel is using. One way or another, every major military industrial complex member from the West is there.
I’m saying that just as you wouldn’t say that Ikea is complicit in murder because someone used one of their knives, you shouldn’t say that the ammunition or hardware industry is complicit in genocide because someone is using their gear.
The arms industry is far from black and white. It’s a spectrum of shitty grey. Some part of that spectrum is made up of actual Israeli companies like Elbit. That’s not some neutral “IKEA” that “happens” to sell something that someone “happens” to use to do something bad. It’s a company that’s literally part of the military-industrial complex of a genocidal apartheid state. That’s a part of the shitty spectrum of the arms industry that Ukraine should not be put in a position to depend on.
Or to put it differently: if Ukraine is made to depend on those motherfuckers, don’t clutch your pearls if the consequences (political blowback and uncertainty due to direct action from pro-palestinian activism and movements in the west) of that really bad decision end up affecting Ukrainian capacity. Don’t blame the activists trying to grind the gears of Israel’s genocide to a halt. They were going to do that anyway AND THEY ARE MORALLY CORRECT TO TRY TO DO THAT. If that inadvertently ends up hurting the Ukrainian war effort, blame Ukraine’s allies for exposing Ukraine to that strategic liability. Do you understand what I’m saying?
Or if you want it all the way down to brass tacks: Palestinians don’t have an obligation to die for Ukrainans. Palestine solidarity actions in the West don’t have an obligation to Ukraine to facilitate the industry that actively participates in Palestinian genocide. If the West’s Ukraine armament strategy depends on such a fucked up moral catastrophe and also depends on their citizens going along with that moral catastrophe, the West’s armaments strategy is just plain fucking stupid because it will keep producing friction and uncertainty and they should fucking do better.
Yes, but I fundamentally disagree.
Your first point, about being dependent on “complicit” military industrial complex elements - should the rest of the world now be dropping out of any relationship with the US MIL because Trump bombed a school? Should we just agree that having our military infrastructure and operations hindered by activists is OK, because they have the moral high ground?
War is a dirty, fundamentally amoral thing, always, but the company making the tools of war is - in my opinion - as “complicit” as Ikea is in the murder committed with one of their knives.
Go after the CEO! Put the entire management in prison, please! Let’s FINALLY see some elites taking responsibility for their actions! But sabotaging a facility that has nothing to do with the cause “for the cause” is just not the way to do it. And, if nothing else, only because the elites gain on this. Because they just got a shitload of money off of insurance, and the Palestinian cause just got another label of “violent criminals who don’t care who they hit”.
Your second point, about “moral correctness” - OK, Elbit sucks and should die. But does that mean we get to sabotage any and all Elbit facilities? Or attack their employees? Even though their systems barely had anything to do with Gaza? They do UAVs, and those were not used for any form of attacks by Israel, only for reconnaissance. But if that’s the case, where do we stop? Many of their systems used Nikon/Canon/other lenses - should we now also attack those companies?
I don’t believe in collective responsibility. I don’t believe that a dude putting together a recon drone should be punished for something that - maybe! - the CEO of the company has done.
I mean, shit, after war-torn Ukraine sent its grain to help starving Palestinians, you’d think there’s some obligation to at least not get in their way, no? Especially considering, again, Elbit’s systems were, in the vast majority, used for recon, not payload delivery. Especially considering that this specific facility was fully committed to the Ukrainian war effort and had nothing to do with what is going on in Palestine.