Tony Greenstein’s Closing Speech
August 22, 2026
By Satish Sekar © Satish Sekar (August 22nd 2026)
This Law’s an Ass
“I am not a terrorist,” prominent anti-Zionist activist and author of Zionism During The Holocaust: The Weaponisation of Memory in the Service of State and Nation, Tony Greensein, 72, said on the steps of Kingston Crown Court shortly after he was unanimously acquitted of inviting support for Hamas, an organisation proscribed as terrorist by former Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper. The jury quickly agreed, reaching their verdict less than three hours after retiring to consider their verdict.
The case against Greenstein was weak – a colossal waste of time and resources. It centred on three tweets Mr Greenstein made on October 7th 2023. He made it clear that he did not support Hamas the organisation, but supported resistance to Israel. Mr Greenstein argued that he supports acts by the Palestinian resistance but not necessarily organisations involved in that resistance.
In his closing address to the jury Mr Greenstein said as follows: “I would probably support the devil against the Israeli army. That doesn’t mean I support the devil in itself.
And if the devil exists it exists amongst those who prohibit anaesthetics entering Gaza so that children have to endure amputations without the benefit of pain relief. The devil exists amongst those who deliberately starve children to death because they rationalise that those children will only grow up to be terrorists. It exists among those who bomb tent encampments and literally burn children and their parents alive. It exists amongst those who call Palestinians ‘human animals’ the same phrase used by Himmler, the head of the SS about Jewish children in a speech on October 4, 1943 to senior SS Generals.
“In a situation where there is a conflict, you support the oppressed rather than the oppressor. That is not support for an organisation. That is a moral position – one, I might add, with a rather long Jewish pedigree.”
Mr Greenstein’s opposition to Hamas is well known – even the judge, Her Honour Judge [Sarah] Plaschkes KC and prosecuting barrister, Kate Temple-Mabe accepted that, but refused him permission to demonstrate the full extent of that opposition. Mr Greenstein wanted the jury to have access to a 63-pages long document detailing his opposition to Hamas. The jury was allowed just 6 pages. Apparently, that ‘flavour’ of his opposition was enough.
Mr Greenstein broke with tradition by sacking his barrister Lawrence McNulty in order to deliver his closing speech himself. He gave a strong speech in which he reminded the jury of the jury’s right to reach a verdict according to their conscience. That stems from the famous resistance of a 17th Century jury in the trial of Quakers, Wiliam Penn and William Mead, which led to the jailing of members of that jury without food and water and more in a blatant attempt to force the jury to deliver the verdict that the State wanted. Edward Bushell, the foreman of that jury is commemorated in a plaque at the Old Bailey.
Judge Plaschkes had threatened contempt of court of proceedings, but decided against it when the jury returned to deliver their verdict. She described his closing speech as ‘rambling’. Judge for yourself: https://fittedin.org/fittedinwp/2026/08/22/tony-greensteins-closing-speech/
This right of a jury is a fundamental right and it remains grotesque that the Old Bailey commemorates Bushell and the jury of 1670 that refused to convict Quakers William Penn and William Mead while trying to prevent juries knowing of his resistance – Rajiv Menon KC faces contempt of court proceedings for mentioning Bushell’s resistance during a recent trial of four of the Filton 25 – they were later sentenced as terrorists despite never being charged with such offences.
Former Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, David Lammy’s attempts to remove jury trial was denounced by Mr Greenstein on the steps of the court. He had no doubt that he would have been convicted if Mr Lammy’s plans to abolish jury trials for some offences had allowed Judge Plaschkes to sit without a jury.
The day posting opposition to a genocide, even if that support is of a controversial act or acts, becomes unlawful is a dark day for any so-called democracy. The Terrorism Act (2000) should not be used to label dissent as terrorist. Mr Greenstin’s tweets and posts make his position of support for Palestinian resistance and opposition to Hamas as an organisation was, or should have been clear from start to finish.
This prosecution, which caused undue stress to Mr Greenstein for the best part of three years should never have been brought. Furthermore, it was a colossal waste of public resources that could and should have been put to better use. The law should never be a tool of oppressive suppression of dissent – tolerance of dissent, after all, is the test of a true democracy, and also a just and fair criminal justice system.
