The UK isn’t a dispassionate arbiter of justice in prosecuting anti-genocide activists. It has been aggressively colluding in Israeli crimes. That huge conflict of interest is the elephant in the room
The British government manipulated the trial of Tony Greenstein, a secular Jewish socialist and peace campaigner, aiming to imprison him for up to 14 years on charges of “inviting support for Hamas”.
Worried that the judge might penalize his lawyer for presenting a robust defense in the closing arguments, Greenstein chose to address the jury himself.
For thirty minutes, he critically dissected false accusations tied to three social media posts and a blog he wrote opposing Israel’s genocide in Gaza. This exposed the trial as a politically motivated spectacle—one among many rising in number—meant to silence critics of both Israel’s actions in Gaza and the UK’s complicity in those crimes.
As she concluded, Judge Sarah Plaschkes admitted she had considered charging Greenstein with contempt of court. Yet she dismissed his articulate and damning comments to the jury as simply “a rambling speech delivered by an old man.” At that point, she likely underestimated how his words would influence the jury.
The jury delivered a unanimous acquittal after only two hours of discussion, delivering a sharp rebuke to the judge. In reality, it was British justice that was on trial, not Greenstein.
Given the full picture—not just the government’s selective narrative—the jury accepted Greenstein’s points, including his claim that the judiciary is complicit in the UK state’s increasing authoritarianism tied to its involvement in genocide.
This significant win for Greenstein, with its profound implications for free expression and the right to challenge the British government’s alliance with Israeli actions, was largely ignored by mainstream media.
If the verdict had gone the other way, that same media would have amplified the case widely, warning the public against supporting Palestinians or risking the same consequences as Greenstein.
His acquittal and the corresponding embarrassment for the British state proved a narrative neither the government nor the billionaire-owned press wished to highlight.
Greenstein’s final statement introduced crucial background that the authorities and judiciary have endeavored to erase from these show trials targeting anti-genocide activists.
He chose to deliver the closing statement himself because his lawyer might have faced the same fate as Rajiv Menon KC, another respected attorney.
One of my most popular articles ever included a long extract from a powerful closing speech by barrister Rajiv Menon during a Palestine Action trial in January. In the end, the jury refused to convict the six defendants.
Menon is now on trial for that closing speech – for… pic.twitter.com/QGjbZt2MSA
— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) May 8, 2026
Menon currently faces contempt of court charges because of his masterful closing argument in the trial against six Palestine Action activists accused of multiple serious offenses involving efforts to sabotage lethal drones at an Israeli arms factory in Bristol run by Elbit Systems.
As a result of Menon’s speech—you can read key excerpts here—the jury declined to convict the defendants of any charges.
The presiding judge, Jeremy Johnson, was determined to punish Menon and deter other defense lawyers from providing strong representation to Palestine solidarity activists. To achieve this, he misused the formal legal mechanism created for contempt referrals.
The Court of Appeal had to overturn Johnson’s ruling but allowed him to reapply for contempt charges using proper procedures. Johnson did so.
Judges like Johnson and Plaschkes serve the British state rather than true justice. They understand no jury will convict activists opposing genocide if the issue is openly presented. Thus, these judges manipulate trials to keep jurors unaware of the context: the government punishing peace advocates for embarrassing its collusion in genocide.
This fact was starkly apparent in Greenstein’s case.
Throughout the trial, Plaschkes was frustrated by Greenstein’s attempts to present critical context. To secure a guilty verdict, she needed the jury to ignore the wider circumstances around Greenstein’s alleged “Hamas-supporting” remark about a “ghetto uprising” in Gaza, including:
- The fact that the October 7, 2023, breakout from Gaza was a direct reaction to Israel’s 16-year blockade, which deprived 2.3 million residents of basic necessities, effectively turning the area into a concentration camp (essentials of life).
- That following this breakout, Israel immediately launched a genocidal assault targeting Gaza’s infrastructure and civilians.
- Greenstein’s long-standing secular socialist criticism of Hamas, supported by articles he had authored over more than a decade, which he presented to the jury.
- His personal background as the child of Holocaust survivors fueling his opposition to one group oppressing another—especially as Jewish Zionists exploit their historical victimhood to justify Israel’s present-day crimes against Palestinians.
- International law’s recognition of an occupied people’s right to resist oppression, including through violent means.
- Greenstein never mentioned Hamas in the social media posts under scrutiny nor expressed any support for it—he only advocated Palestinians’ lawful right to oppose Israeli abuses.
- The UK government only banned Hamas’s political wing under terrorism legislation in 2021, not due to new acts of terror, especially since Hamas had revised its charter four years earlier, showing readiness to compromise with Israel. The ban served Israel’s aim of suppressing solidarity with Gaza internationally.
- The British administration’s prosecution of Greenstein undermines free speech to protect the interests of the clearly genocidal Israeli state.
- That the UK government is not an impartial overseer in these cases but actively collaborating in Israel’s crimes—its profound conflict of interest remains blatantly obvious.
Greenstein addressed the jury:
Your [verdict] will not stay in this room. If these three posts are terrorism, then the word has a new meaning for everyone in this country. Every student who shares an article. Every pensioner who retweets the wrong opinion. Every writer, every blogger, every one of your neighbours with a social media account and a view about a war.
Can it really be the law of England that any of them – that any of you – will be condemned to 14 years of prison for a tweet? You have the power, today, to answer that question. Whatever your answer is, it will be remembered long after this trial is forgotten.
This speech serves as a powerful example of speaking beyond a complicit bench, challenging those who still hold to their moral convictions. The full version is well worth the read here.
The UK government aimed to make an example of a Jewish activist to demonstrate that no one is safe from its repressive reach. It failed—a victory to celebrate for all opponents of authoritarianism.
These courtroom defeats are compelling officials to devise new tactics to circumvent the ancient right to trial by jury.
Keir Starmer’s administration sought to abolish jury trials. Although his successor, Andy Burnham, has shown some hesitation, commitments made during his leadership bids have yet to prove enduring.
Meanwhile, judges like Johnson are circumventing juries’ reluctance to convict anti-genocide activists by reinterpreting verdicts and altering charges post-trial.
When jurors find defendants guilty of minor offenses like criminal damage—expecting short sentences—judges then append contrived “terrorism connections” to inflate penalties drastically, destroying lives permanently.
This reveals a judicial system no longer concerned with evidence, fairness, or jury decisions. Its priority is public punishment and spreading fear within the courtroom.
There is hope. Juries seem increasingly wary of the politicized trials the UK state orchestrates to whitewash its role in crimes and imprison dissenters. As judges abuse the legal system to enforce harsh sentences demanded by the government, juries may become less willing to legitimize state repression.
This fight transcends the survival of the Palestinian people. It is a battle for all of us—to preserve our voices, influence over how societies are governed, and to resist creeping darkness.
An outcome none of us can afford to lose.
Original article: www.jonathan-cook.net
About the Author
