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.

Iran should have the exact same nuclear capacity as Israel. Preferrably zero for both, but if that’s off the table then non-zero. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

And somehow it’s Piker and Uygur that get banned from the UK.

Lol no, I’m not following you up Stupid Mountain.

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.

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.

I’m not “arguing” anything in front of any court and I’m not saying the judge did not follow the letter of the law. Top UK lawyers are making the case that as tried this case poses grave constitutional threats. And they’re going to litigate this as far as it goes.

What I am saying is that what you’re presenting as a slam dunk …isn’t. This is unprecedented (the law is from 2020 and it’s the first time it’s used in such a case in such a way) and serious people are raising serious issues.

EDIT: oh and by the way, at the end of the day, legal schmegal, the Palestine Action people are actually morally squarely on the right. They are not terrorists. They are activists putting their lives between Elbit’s butcher machines and Palestinian genocide victims. The cop who got injured should not have been in that Elbit factory because Elbit should not be allowed to build genocide machines period. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter really does apply here, and these are indeed freedom fighters. History will vindicate them. One day, everyone will have always been against this, but these folks will actually have the receipts. Tiocfaidh ár lá.

Yea, no, it most definitely is not that simple. Top UK lawyers are not bullshiters:

• https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/top-lawyer-palestine-action-terror-sentencing-5HjdbTp_2/
• https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/10/four-palestine-action-protesters-terrorists-constitutional-threat

“It’s a recategorising the offence without a trial,” he said. “It’s particularly insidious for the obvious reason that they weren’t allowed to explain their motivation to a jury – that was denied them. And yet the state says ‘we’re actually going to elevate what the offences are’ when a jury might well not have convicted had they known they were going to be treated as terrorists.

“The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged.”

Either give them a trial as terrorists or don’t.

It’s literally a disinhibitive ruling. Someone somewhere will inevitably think “well if I’m going to be called a terrorist anyway for some property damage, why not shoot at the cop that’s coming to stop me? In for a penny in for a pound.”

The double negative is breaking my brain.

So, taking into account that:

Judge Jeremy Johnson kept secret from the jury that the defendants would be sentenced as terrorists under Section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020, presenting that they were only charged for criminal damage.

All defences on the charge of criminal damage were banned by the Judge before he heard the evidence, meaning the defendants weren’t allowed to argue that their actions were legally justified as they acted to save lives and prevent a greater crime. He also barred the defendants from telling the jury about their motivations for taking action, their emotional reactions to the massacres of Palestinians or the illegality of Israel’s actions.

It seems that in this case the intent didn’t matter when it came to allowing the defendants to fully make their case in front of a fully informed jury but it mattered when it came to sentencing them after a conviction had been secured.

Can’t have it both ways mate.

EDIT: Turns out the leading UK lawyers are saying the exact same things:

• https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/top-lawyer-palestine-action-terror-sentencing-5HjdbTp_2/
• https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/10/four-palestine-action-protesters-terrorists-constitutional-threat

“It’s a recategorising the offence without a trial,” he said. “It’s particularly insidious for the obvious reason that they weren’t allowed to explain their motivation to a jury – that was denied them. And yet the state says ‘we’re actually going to elevate what the offences are’ when a jury might well not have convicted had they known they were going to be treated as terrorists.

“The fundamental principle is you should not be convicted on any statutory offence for which you have not been charged.”

Can’t have it both ways mate.

Only a jury of their peers didn’t convict them of terrorism. The judge arbitrarily chose to sentence them as terrorists. Your entire edifice is based on a faulty premise.

“They” didn’t hurt that policewoman. One of them did and he should should receive appropriate consequences.

Your tirade about violence is quite silly actually, because it’s far too indiscriminate. The modus operandi of Palestine Action was property damage(*). Placing them in the same category as motherfucking ISIS is simply making a mockery of the principle of proportionality, which is a cornerstone of any liberal democracy.

(*) The incident with the policewoman is not indicative of their modus operandi. They did not hope to affect political change by injuring police officers, the same way that, say ISIS used murder as a political tool of terror. It’s the difference between murder and manslaughter.

That’s because the Middle East Eye is directly run by Qatar’s embassy in London.

Citation needed.

Also, please elaborate on exactly why, even if it were true, that would be so fucking scary.

Free the Palestine Action prisoners!

Remove the shameful judge!

To prepare mentally for if and when Iranians target US civilian infrastructure, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDhuDBjZIkg

Excellent questions, with an absolutely ridiculous expectation to be substantially answered in this thread. Maybe you can go study Education and figure them out then come back and let me know, here’s a great Canadian university https://www.mcgill.ca/education/programs Have a great life.

EDIT: Lol, before you bring out the “you didn’t answer” routine:

Those are implementation questions, not objections to the principle. You scaffold this stuff across years, and you can stagger the depth at which different topics are taught. Not everything needs to be a deep dive. Intro courses exist. For testing, just normal education stuff (essays, source analysis, argument reconstruction, debate, projects, exams). And about the politics: curricula should be criticizable from many perspectives, and then ministries, school boards, teachers, and curriculum committees can make decisions. Not every objection gets a veto.

Sure. Some Plato is fine. Also Aristotle, basic propositional logic, informal fallacies, media literacy, source evaluation, the scientific method, how statistics can mislead, how historical claims are argued, and how to distinguish evidence from assertion. Boring stuff that you somehow will now paint as a leftist atheist indoctrination.

If you want a concrete answer: I want the version of critical thinking taught in introductory logic. The kind that gives teenagers the vocabulary to look at your responses and immediately identify:

• A strawman: turning civic education into “indoctrination.”
• An impossible standard: demanding absolute, universal neutrality before any high school curriculum can exist.
• Smuggled premises: assuming I represent some “you folks” and some “modern liberal/leftist” bogeyman.
• Bad-faith questioning: endlessly demanding an answer while ignoring the answer already given.

You’re right that there are many schools of thought. But the baseline ability to distinguish an argument from a rhetorical trap is not some exotic ideological doctrine. It is exactly the kind of thing public education should teach.

Have a good one.

Because you’re trolling, bud. We’re talking about high school education and you’re making manifestos on relativism. Studies in Education have a mainstream, and teaching teenagers basic critical thinking skills really isn’t the ideological battlefield you’re making it out to be. You have an axe to grind against “modern liberal/leftism atheism”, go grind on your own, I’m done here. Cheers.