Thread by @fahadansari

Thread: Is Priti Patel's decision to proscribe Hamas lawful?

In order to be lawful, she must first actually believe that the organisation is concerned in terrorism. The belief must be honestly held on reasonable grounds. Mere suspicion is not enough.

dailysabah.com/world/mid-east…

She must then consider 5 factors in deciding whether or not to ban the group.
(i) the nature & scale of its activities
Hamas is the democratically elected representative of the Palestinians & the civil admin authority in Gaza. She must show how its activities constitute terrorism

(ii) the specific threat it poses to the UK

Hamas is a single-issue group, created to resist Israeli military occupation in Palestine. To date, it's never been suggested that either Hamas or the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades (its military wing) have posed any threat to the UK.

Patel has repeated Israel's accusation that Hamas is 'rabidly antisemitic' and said the ban will make Jewish communities feel safer. But this belies the dearth of evidence of any antisemitic rhetoric or action on the part of Hamas for many years.

In 2017, the party published a revised policy distinguishing their struggle as being against ‘occupying Zionist aggressors’ and not ‘Jews.’ It has publicly condemned terror attacks on synagogues in the US (2018) ynetnews.com/articles/0,734… and Germany (2019) ynetnews.com/articles/0,734…

(iii) the specific threat it poses to British nationals overseas

Again, it is difficult to understand how the civilian government of the Gaza Strip poses any specific threat to British nationals overseas. There is barely a British presence in Gaza.

It could be argued that there is a threat to British citizens who join the Israeli Occupation Forces and are engaged in combat. Leaving aside the ethics of joining an army that upholds apartheid, any threat to them would not be specific & would come from the military wing.

(iv) the extent of the group's presence in the UK

The group has no formal presence in the UK. The FCO has previously said that its presence in the UK is in the form of charitable organisations that raise and remit funds for welfare projects.

To the extent that there are individuals associated with the group in the UK, the following question must be asked: In over two decades of the War on Terror, how many individuals associated with Hamas have been convicted of terrorism in the UK?

(v) the need to support other members of the intl community in the global fight against terrorism

This most likely forms the basis of the decision. Israel considers Hamas to be a terrorist group but should the UK blindly follow suit, considering Israel's abuse of the term?

In October this year, Israel designated 6 Palestinian NGOs as terrorist organisations. These include groups that support children, aid women, help peasant families and offer legal support to prisoners. The move was condemned by 7 UN Special Rapporteurs.

un.org/unispal/docume…

It was only last year that Home Office Minister James Brokenshire said in parliament that there was a "clear distinction" between the political and military wings of Hamas. Patel now claims the distinction is 'artificial'. Based on what?
questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questi…

The problem with Patel is that there is enough evidence of her personal relationship with the Israeli government that whether the decision was taken in good faith should be questioned.
theguardian.com/politics/2017/…

Her 14 secret meetings with senior Israeli politicians incl the then Prime Minister, director-general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, & Minister for Strategic Affairs, Public Diplomacy & Public Security, cannot be discounted. Oh, and Lord Polak was involved. ft.com/content/383e5c…

Prior to this between 2013 and 2016, Patel was a member of the Political Council of the Henry Jackson Society during which time two of its US directors were also involved in charities with close ties to the Israeli military.

bylinetimes.com/2021/06/01/rev…

So it is highly questionable why Patel actually decided to ban Hamas as it neither tackles antisemitism nor protects national security. It does serve to criminalise showing solidarity with & supporting the Palestinian people in their struggle against apartheid and persecution.

CAGE has called for an investigation into the existence of any conflict of interest Patel may have, citing the growing number of case studies that show that the govt is mired in corrupt practices, from contracts for COVID vaccines to lobbying malpractice.
cage.ngo/cage-position-…

If Patel is abusing her power to proscribe, she would be replicating a pattern of criminalising legitimate non-violent civil society organisations as has happened in Israel, UAE, Egypt, France, India and elsewhere.

In fact, one group that you would assume she would have banned by now is ISKP, responsible for countless terrorist atrocities in Afghanistan. In late Aug 2021, the government unconvincingly explained why it hadn't proscribed it. Draw your own conclusions.
committees.parliament.uk/publications/5…

Even after the Home Secretary has considered all the above factors, she must consider whether the interference which would result from the proscription is necessary, justified, and proportionate. If it is not, it is potentially unlawful.

Patel would need to have considered the impact on the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, community relations, the failed peace process, the stifling of freedom of expression & assembly, and the criminalisation of most Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Last year, Patel's refusal to lift the ban on the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) was found by a specialist tribunal to be have been unlawful. There appear to be ample grounds for Hamas to successfully challenge her most recent decision.