Extremism Masquerading As Activism

Authored by Aaron Pomerantz via RealClearPolitics,

Earlier this month, the UK Parliament voted 385-26 to ban Palestine Action after members infiltrated an air force base and vandalized equipment. Under the UK’s Terrorism Act of 2000, it is now illegal to fund, support, or even publicly approve of the organization. Arrests have already begun, sparking backlash from critics, who describe cracking down on pro-Palestine Action protests as “dystopian.”

Now, Palestine Action’s U.S. wing, “Unity of Fields” (UoF) faces similar scrutiny for similar behavior, including calling for police to be set on fire, cheering the murder of Israeli-Americans, traveling to Iran and publicly supporting them against the U.S., and advocating for “direct action” tactics including vandalism, violence, and full-blown terrorism. The question is: Should the U.S. follow the UK’s lead and formally ban UoF and similar extremist groups?

That decision rests with lawmakers. Before discussing the decision’s finer details, we must face a more basic truth: Organizations like Unity of Fields aren’t just saying outrageous things. They incite violence, empower extremism, and undermine the legitimate pro-Palestine movement.

Incitement, Not Free Speech

UoF frequently uses far-left, Marxist rhetoric, similar to Iran and Hamas, to disguise their extremist, authoritarian agendas. This dissembling has effectively led many American progressives to embrace organizations like UoF as ideological allies. However, UoF’s rhetoric crosses from critique to incitement – speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” – which the First Amendment does not protect. Among other things, UoF has:

• Stormed Columbia’s library, distributing pamphlets praising terrorists
• Called for violence during the LA riots
• Celebrated the murder of Israeli-Americans as a “legitimate act of resistance” and called for the release of the murderer

UoF claims to lead the pro-Palestinian movement, yet it follows the playbook of online radicalization, prioritizing violence over progress. Consequently, UoF and similar organizations aren’t simply exercising speech; they’re deliberately manufacturing the conditions for violence, which has already paid off in a wave of antisemitism and skyrocketing political violence.

Empowering Anti-Palestinian Extremism

By mainstreaming violent, incendiary rhetoric, groups like UoF empower extremism on the ideological right just as much as they actively appeal to it on the left.

Like post-9/11 civil liberties rollbacks, the right now exploits antisemitism fears to justify extremism –  e.g., Heritage Foundation’s “Project Esther.” This initiative, created without the input or support of any major Jewish organizations and which notably avoids any discussion of right-wing antisemitism, calls for massively expanding federal power, and it justifies this goal by pointing to extremists like UoF. President Trump has likewise exploited fears about antisemitism to further his agenda. In the name of “protecting Jews” from extremist groups like UoF, Trump has chilled academic speech, dismantled civil rights protections (even those benefiting Jewish students), and furthered his anti-immigration and surveillance agendas. When Trump does speak about Palestinians, he either demonizes them or suggests ethnically cleansing them from Gaza.

So while UoF claims to be fighting for the Palestinian cause, all their violent, hateful behavior not only fails to “Free Palestine,” but actively harms the democratic norms necessary to facilitate meaningful change for Palestinians while empowering anti-Palestinian causes.

Directly Harming Palestinians

Whatever their claims to the contrary, UoF is not interested in positive outcomes for Palestinians. All they offer is violent destruction, thereby making meaningful change impossible.

And let’s be clear: Meaningful change is possible. It’s seen as Gazans and Israelis alike hold up pictures of each other’s children, highlighting the innocent who have suffered in this war. It’s heard from dissident voices like Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, Hamza Howidy, and John Aziz – each a Palestinian who has spoken out against Hamas and violent extremism in favor of coexistence and reform. And yet, these men are also accused of being “traitors,” not from fellow Palestinians, but by “activists” like UoF who are unable to accept any solution not dripping in rage or blood.

Meanwhile, as Palestinians rise up to protest Hamas and demand an end to the war, as Hamas tortures, murders, and starves them, “activists” like UoF issue nothing but deafening silence. If UoF cared about the Palestinian cause, it would stand with those pursuing meaningful change, rather than obstructing peace by calling for nothing but more death and destruction.

Embracing Meaningful Activism

Banning UoF – and similar organizations inciting violence under the guise of activism – is a no-brainer. The UK did, and the U.S. should follow suit. But this isn’t a solution, only triage.

The deeper problem is that groups like UoF, along with rhetoric like “globalize the intifada” or “by any means necessary,” have been tolerated not only by institutions but by some progressives.

Real change demands a cultural shift: rejecting violence and embracing peace-building. That’s what defines democracy, and that’s what we threaten by tolerating organizations like Unity of Fields. We must purge our movements of violent rhetoric, or risk perpetuating cycles of extremism. Otherwise, the next crisis will replay this cycle – louder, bloodier, and irreversible.

Dr. Aaron Pomerantz is a social psychologist and research director at Rice University, where he studies both destructive leadership and strategies for developing more ethical, effective, and systems-oriented leaders.