Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What kind of equipment has been damaged in previous Palestine Action protests?
Executive summary
Palestine Action campaigns have repeatedly targeted components of the UK and international defence and surveillance infrastructure, using vandalism, paint attacks, break‑ins, and mechanical sabotage to disable or draw attention to equipment linked to arms suppliers. Documented incidents include damage to RAF tanker aircraft engines in June 2025, forcible entry and smashing of equipment at an Elbit Systems UK site in August 2024, and recurring spray‑painting, window smashing, and destruction of cameras, air‑conditioning units and external pipes at company premises [1] [2] [3] [4]. These actions and the group's stated aims have prompted arrests, legal scrutiny and contrasting portrayals by media and authorities, producing a contested record of what equipment was targeted and why [5] [6].
1. High‑profile aircraft sabotage that escalated attention and arrests
In June 2025 activists attacked two Royal Air Force Airbus Voyager/air refuelling aircraft at RAF Brize Norton by spraying red paint into turbine intakes and using tools to inflict further mechanical damage, rendering the planes out of service and prompting criminal investigations; this aircraft damage represents one of the clearest examples of equipment-targeted sabotage cited by investigative reports and government briefings [2] [3]. Reporting places those incidents squarely in the narrative that Palestine Action moved from symbolic protest to physically disabling hardware, a shift that catalysed wider police operations and policy responses. Authorities framed the actions as criminal damage to military assets; activists argued they were disrupting systems they say contribute to harm overseas. Coverage from mid‑2025 documents the arrests and the operational impact on RAF logistics and base security [2] [3].
2. Forcible breaches and wrecking of factory machinery at Elbit and others
Police and journalists recorded an August 2024 incident where alleged supporters breached Elbit Systems UK premises in Bristol, using a repurposed prison van to get past fencing and employing crowbars and a sledgehammer to smash internal equipment, according to reporting and subsequent prosecutions [1]. Parallel incidents at factories and offices of defence contractors show a pattern: activists targeted manufacturing equipment, model displays and operational hardware with the intent to disrupt production and symbolically mark links to Israeli military supply chains. Media narratives emphasise heavy property destruction, while solidarity voices describe deliberate direct action against firms they say facilitate violence. These break‑ins generated significant legal fallout and informed official moves to restrict the group’s activities [1] [5].
3. Recurrent use of paint, vandalism and disabling of peripheral systems
Across multiple actions, Palestine Action has repeatedly used red paint as a visual and operational tool, throwing or spraying paint onto buildings, portraits and vehicles, and targeting non‑military equipment like CCTV cameras, external pipes and air conditioning units to degrade surveillance and operations, as shown in contemporaneous reporting [5] [6]. Incidents at trade shows and company HQs featured paint thrown at surfaces and individuals, and activists cut internet and power to certain facilities in at least one reported case, claiming to neutralise communications and production capacity [7] [5]. These tactics combine symbolic messaging with practical disruption, drawing public attention while provoking criticism for risks to safety and accusations of criminality by corporate and government actors [6] [7].
4. Smaller scale damage: cameras, portraits, windows and perimeter infrastructure
Beyond aircraft and heavy machinery, recorded actions include smashing windows, vandalising portraits (for example a portrait of Arthur Balfour), and damaging external security infrastructure such as CCTV cameras and gates; activists framed these acts as targeting the public face and surveillance capability of institutions linked to arms or diplomatic policy [5] [4]. These measures typically aimed to impede immediate monitoring and to create visible protest imagery. Coverage in 2024–2025 highlights that such damage often preceded larger incursions or followed coordinated campaigns against multiple facilities, indicating an ecosystem of tactics from low‑level vandalism to high‑impact mechanical sabotage [3] [5]. Corporate statements and police accounts consistently emphasised the cost, operational disruption and legal consequences resulting from these actions.
5. How different actors interpret the same damage — motive, law and media framing
Government and law‑enforcement sources characterise the incidents as criminal damage and threats to national security, focusing on the tangible impairment of defence assets and safety risks; this framing informed arrests and legal measures against the group [3] [1]. Activists and sympathetic outlets portray the same acts as targeted civil disobedience against firms they say profit from war, stressing moral justification and political intent rather than wanton destruction [4] [5]. News outlets diverge on emphasis: some foregrounded the operational impact on military readiness and industry losses, while others highlighted the political grievance and the precedent of campus and corporate protests. The mix of methods — paint, vandalism, property destruction, and mechanical sabotage — produces a contested record that is consistently documented across multiple sources [2] [5].