Jewish anti-genocide activist Tony Greenstein will stand trial on January 5 for comments he made on social media condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza. Greenstein expressed his support for Palestinians’ right to armed resistance against occupation, a right that is enshrined under international law. His trial, however, is more than a legal matter—it is a reflection of the political pressures surrounding his case, emanating from the British pro-Israel lobby.
Greenstein is not one to quietly accept the charges against him. These charges have only fuelled his resolve to expose the extent of the Israel lobby’s interference in his case. The interference is quite significant. Attorney General Richard Hermer transferred the decision to prosecute Greenstein to then-Solicitor General Sarah Sackman, a former officer of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) with close ties to the Israel lobby.
Silencing support for Palestine
Sackman’s involvement raises critical questions about the fairness of the legal process, owing to her strong ties to pro-Israel UK-based organisations.
Greenstein’s case is not isolated. It speaks to the broader issue of leveraging political influence to sway legal outcomes, particularly when it comes to criticism of Israel. This is not just about Greenstein’s freedom of speech — it’s about the increasingly restrictive political climate where dissent against Israelis is criminalised.
In early December, Jersey peace activist Natalie Strecker was acquitted of charges for expressing support for proscribed armed resistance groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, despite government attempts to pressure judges to overlook international law. This landmark case, as well as Greenstein’s, highlight growing censorship of Palestine solidarity under legal pretenses.
Backstory: Hermer, Sackman, and political interference
A little background. Keir Starmer’s Attorney General, Richard Hermer, has been notably cautious when commenting on Israel. Despite speaking out against the UK’s potential ban on boycotting Israeli settlements, on the grounds of the legislation being “badly worded”, he has not publicly condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza. Skwawkbox was unable to find a record of Hermer voicing criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza, except a call early in the genocide to ‘abide by the laws of war’.
If anything, Hermer has expressed personal support for Israel, describing his relatives as serving in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), and has yet to publicly refer to Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.
Hermer’s involvement with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) further complicates his position. He has spoken at at least one JLM event, and his support for Israel is well documented. His office also played a role in facilitating communication between the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Israeli Embassy, with regards to the Filton 24 hunger strikers. This raises further concerns about potential political interference in Greenstein’s case.
Meanwhile, Sarah Sackman, as JLM Vice-Chair from 2015 to 2024, has been deeply involved in Zionist causes. She is on record as having stated that the events of October 7, 2024 (the date marking a significant escalation in Israel’s military campaign) were “the worst in her lifetime as a Jew.” In the same year, she spoke at the Limmud conference, arguing that argued that Starmer and his party had “broadly got it right on Israel”.
Her deep personal and political connections to Israel, including familial ties to individuals serving in the IDF, bring into question her ability to make an impartial legal decision regarding Greenstein’s case.
A conflict of interest?
Sackman has also opposed the International Criminal Court’s attempts to bring top Israeli war criminals to justice, telling the hard-right Jewish Chronicle that:
she had conveyed Jewish community’s concern over the decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Karim Khan to seek arrest warrants for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant to shadow foreign secretary David Lammy, who said last week he supported ICC process.
Greenstein, for his part, linked Sackman’s role in his prosecution to a broader pattern of political meddling.
Whereas Hermer has a record of being identified with human rights issues and opposed to the occupation of the West Bank, Sackman has never spoke [sic] out once against the Occupation, still less the genocide.
Sackman has been far more involved in things to do with Israel and Zionism as Vice Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement from 2015-24. She registered her position as JLM Vice-Chair in August 2014. It is not known exactly when she resigned but it’s possible that when she approved my prosecution she was still an office holder.
And Greenstein considers the matter as much personal as legal. He also linked Sackman to the JLM’s campaign to expel him from the Labour party for opposing the JLM’s politically-driven ‘antisemitism scam’:
It is however clear that Sackman was personally involved in the JLM targeting me in the Labour Party for suspension and then expulsion in 2016. In the Leaked Labour Report that was issued in 2019 it was reported that Laura Murray from Corbyn’s office had emailed the head of the Governance & Legal Unit, John Stolliday, informing him of the JLM’s ‘frustration’ that mine and other cases had not been heard. The JLM had been pushing hard for our expulsion. As Vice-Chair Sackman could hardly have been unaware of this. The conflict of interest is blindingly obvious.
[She also] explicitly attacked me. It beggars belief that she did not disqualify herself from taking a quasi-judicial decision. She wrote, in an article on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party that:
A senior Labour peer has been appointed to investigate the activities of the Oxford Labour Club and other problematic figures such as Tony Greenstein have been suspended. These are welcome first steps and a reflection of how seriously party officials take the issue [of anti-Semitism].
Political football
Greenstein outlines how and why he believes Hermer palmed the decision off to Sackman:
The law is quite clear in respect of prosecutions under the Terrorism Act 2000. Under s.117(2A), in the event of a prosecution that relates to ‘a purpose wholly or partly connected with the affairs of a country other than the United Kingdom’ the consent of the Attorney General Lord Richard Hermer is required. In the event that he has a conflict of interest then he can hand the decision to the Solicitor General.
The Solicitor-General was Sarah Sackman, who was an officer of the Jewish Labour Movement, an ardently Zionist group, for 9 years. We don’t know for certain why Hermer passed the decision to Sackman but it would seem that it was his confession to the Jewish Chronicle that ‘I actively support a range of Jewish and Israeli organisations’ and that ‘I have dear family members currently serving in the IDF.’
He then links the decision to prosecute him to the wider Starmer regime ‘lawfare’ war on UK rights on Israel’s behalf:
Saying what the British State Doesn’t Want to Hear is Now ‘Terrorism’
Sackman is supposed to reach a decision on cases like mine on the basis of what is in Britain’s national interest. The reality, as she has readily admitted, is that her allegiance is first and foremost to the Apartheid state.
Sackman served as a law clerk in the Israeli Supreme Court. Her grandfather Solomon Seruya was an Israeli ambassador to the Philipenes (1976-8). By her own admission she visited Israel on a yearly basis.
She has a maternal aunt and three cousins who live in Jerusalem. They will all have served in the IDF and today they are likely to be reservists. My statements supporting October 7 and the right of the Palestinians to self-defence against an occupation that has gone on for over 58 years, are not likely to have endeared me to her.
Sackman is on record as saying that “The events of October 7 are the worst in my lifetime as a Jew,” To have her making the decision as to whether I or anyone else should be prosecuted is like putting Nick Griffin in charge of race relations or Harold Shipman in charge of the Geriatric Unit of a hospital.
Jewish anti-Zionists are the bête noir of people like Sackman. The JLM, despite pretending to be a progressive Zionist organisation, has not once expressed any reservations about the genocide in Gaza. Quite the contrary. She made it clear that she was opposed to the issuing by the International Criminal Court of warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant as war criminals.
Sackman is fully aware that Israel never prosecutes torturers or abusers – instead it prosecuted the Military Advocate General who leaked the video above. Sackman told the JC:
I trust the Israeli people to hold their leaders to account, and I think they will in due course. I think the request to issue warrants in the middle of a war was unjustified.
Such conflicts of interest are far from an exception. Starmer’s ‘independent’ reviewer of terrorism legislation exploited to ban anti-genocide activist group ‘Palestine Action’ as terrorists in July has close links to bullying ‘lawfare’ group ‘UK Lawyers for Israel’. He also takes holidays in the colony.
Tony Greenstein’s trial begins 5 January at Kingston Crown Court. He has asked well-wishers to join a protest outside the court, and has set up a crowdfund for his legal expenses.
Read Greenstein’s article on Hermer and Sackman in full here.
Featured image via Alamy/Mark Kerrison
By Skwawkbox
From Canary via This RSS Feed.