Assessing the UK’s pro-Palestine movement

Attending the latest mass protest in solidarity with Palestine, coinciding with the commemoration of the Nakba, has led me down a path of reflection on the effectiveness of such actions in driving real political change. Despite the substantial turnout and the courage shown in the face of police crackdowns and the targeted repression of movement leaders, the central issue remains clear: there has been no meaningful political outcome. 

The situation in Palestine, and particularly Gaza, remains unchanged. The genocide continues. While some shifts can be observed within UK political discourse, these are neither significant enough to alter the course of events on the ground nor are they necessarily the result of these protests. More plausibly, they reflect broader geopolitical currents, including fractures in the transatlantic alliance and a new direction of travel in European foreign policy that began during the Trump administration.



When I speak of political outcomes, I do not mean registering moral opposition to genocide, taking a principled stance, or even shifting public opinion. These are not in themselves tangible political achievements unless they can be transformed into real leverage. 

READ: At least 153 Palestinians killed as Israel intensifies air strikes across Gaza

Some leverage was arguably created, as evidenced by the shift away from Labour in support of pro-Gaza independants in some constituencies. But this remains insufficient. It has not changed the material reality on the ground for Palestinians in Gaza. It has not produced a significant shift in the UK government’s demands towards Israel, let alone weakened the UK-Israel alliance or led to the imposition of an arms embargo that would harm Israeli interests or image. Nor has it fundamentally shifted the mainstream media narrative, which remains largely sympathetic to Israel or at least continues to justify its actions.


Critiques of the protest movement often highlight two core limitations: controlled routes and restricted narratives. Demonstrations that march along police-designated paths rarely pose a direct threat to state interests. Such protests fail to meaningfully occupy public space in ways that drain resources or force authorities into concession. The resultant state-sanctioned demonstrations, though visually powerful, ultimately limit political imagination and actions. They become pressure valves, offering an outlet for public anger without translating it into meaningful policy change or deeper systemic challenges.

Moreover, the static narrative around demands, such as persistent calls for a ceasefire without escalating demands in response to the intensifying war on Gaza, underscores the protests’ constrained imagination. The movement’s inability or unwillingness to shift towards more impactful demands like an arms embargo until very recently exemplifies this limitation. 

This critique unifies disparate perspectives, from proponents of direct action who see protests as a diversion from more material impactful methods that cause real harm to corporations enabling genocide, to establishment figures who argue that genuine political change requires long-term institution-building within corridors of power and knowledge creation to influence policy. Surprisingly, both ends of the political spectrum arrive at similar conclusions regarding the inefficacy of these movement protests.

READ: UK Labour approved more weapons to Israel in three months than Tories did in four years

However, such critiques overlook critical aspects of mass demonstrations. Firstly, for many participants, protesting represents their maximum capacity for political engagement and risk-taking. The choice facing most demonstrators is not between attending a protest and engaging in direct actions or institution-building activities. Instead, it is between active participation in a collective demonstration of dissent and passive disillusionment, staying home angry at the news without meaningful outlet or expression.

Protests serve numerous essential purposes beyond political strategising: they offer moral and emotional solidarity, educational moments for younger generations, and local and national coalition-building opportunities. Demonstrations provide a sense of community and reassurance, making individuals feel connected and heard, crucial emotional and psychological benefits often undervalued by critics focused solely on direct political outcomes.

Secondly, mass protests offer consistent, highly visible demonstrations of public sentiment. This visibility is politically valuable and dynamically enables narrative shifts when groups invest organisationally within these protests. For instance, when the “Mask of Maersk” campaign started by the Palestinian Youth Movement exposed UK arms exports to Israel, it successfully shifted protest narratives towards demanding an arms embargo. Similarly, activists from groups like Palestine Action actively leaflet during protests, effectively recruiting participants towards direct-action initiatives. Thus, protests constitute dynamic arenas capable of narrative evolution and mobilisation.

Lastly, these critical perspectives underestimate the immense organisational labour required to sustain mass movements. The current protests build upon decades of dedicated work and sacrifice, harnessing the organisational legacy of earlier movements such as the anti-Iraq War protests and the socialist movement that once controlled the labour party, centred around figures like Jeremy Corbyn. 

Successfully coordinating diverse coalitions, including Jewish groups, Muslim communities, trade unions, and broader anti-racist networks demands profound commitment and sustained trust-building efforts. Newer activist groups calling for immediate escalation or tactical shifts must acknowledge and respect these foundations. Attempting to generate mass mobilisation without appreciating this history significantly underestimates the realities of community organising.

Charles Tripp’s exploration of public space reinforces these points, emphasising how protests reclaim public space and assert citizens’ rights through collective action. Protests symbolically and practically challenge dominant power structures by visibly occupying spaces typically controlled by the state. Furthermore, as Kaveh Ehsani argues, public spaces do not inherently embody democratic potential; they become politically significant precisely through collective, deliberate actions like mass protests.While state sanctioned protests alone might seem inadequate for creating immediate political shifts, they undeniably constitute crucial foundations upon which more radical or sustained political engagements can build.

Mass demonstrations, despite valid critiques regarding their direct political effectiveness, offer critical avenues for emotional solidarity, narrative evolution, and foundational organisational infrastructure. Recognising their dynamic potential, activists across tactical and ideological spectrums should appreciate these protests as essential, though not exhaustive, elements in the broader struggle for meaningful political change.

OPINION: Don’t let the compass drift: Gaza must remain the focus

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.