At least 1,195 people were brutally killed in the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel three years ago.

Ahead of marches set to take place in London, Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner James Harmam said the force could not ban the marches altogether.

“We cannot ban protests and can only ask the Home Secretary to do so if the risk of serious disorder is so high that it can’t be managed by conditions.

“That high bar is not met here,” he insisted.

Despite this, the Met had sought out student organisers to urge them to hold their event on an alternative date.

“We, the Met, have attempted to find and contact the student organisers to ask them to very carefully consider the impact their event will have, and to ask them to hold this event on a different day,” he said.

GMP and Police Scotland did not make a similar attempt to have demonstrators reschedule their plans.

In Manchester, GB News understands the force deemed an intervention too significant a step, given the smaller scale of expected protests.

A gathering is planned for Albert Square, central Manchester, at 6pm this evening.

Police Scotland confirmed it was aware of planned protest activity in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen but said only that “appropriate resources” would be deployed.

“We are aware of planned protest activity due to take place in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen on Wednesday, 7 October, 2026,” the force told GB News.

“We will have appropriate resources in place to ensure the safety of those in attendance and mitigate disruption to the wider community.”

Pro-Palestinian demonstrations are planned in Edinburgh and Glasgow today, marking the third anniversary of the October 7 attacks on Israel.

Campaigners are due to protest outside Barclays on Princes Street in Edinburgh and at an Armed Forces Careers Office in Glasgow, while a Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign meeting is scheduled for this evening in Edinburgh.

Jewish community organisations have condemned the decision to stage protests on this particular date, describing the timing as a deliberate provocation against a community in mourning.

A spokesman for Campaign Against Antisemitism told The Telegraph: “Because we have focused our scrutiny on the Met, other forces are apparently doing nothing at all, because policing these days only seems to happen when there’s a public outcry.

“These marches are nothing to do with Palestine and everything to do with Israel: the Jews cannot even be left to mourn their dead in peace.”

Police Forces Refused to Stop Pro-Palestinian Activists Holding October 7 Massacre Marches

The handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations marking the anniversary of the October 7 attacks has reignited debate across Britain over freedom of speech, public order and the responsibilities of the police. The decision by police forces not to stop certain demonstrations has raised questions about where authorities should draw the line between protecting the right to protest and preventing public events from causing fear, distress or tension within local communities.

October 7 remains one of the most painful dates in recent Jewish history. In 2023, Hamas-led attackers launched an assault on southern Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking around 250 hostages, according to Israeli figures. The attack included the killing of civilians at homes and at the Nova music festival. The events triggered a major Israeli military campaign in Gaza, resulting in extensive destruction and a severe humanitarian crisis for Palestinians.

Since then, demonstrations connected to the conflict have become a recurring feature of political life in Britain and other countries. While many participants describe their activities as expressions of solidarity with Palestinians and opposition to Israeli government policy, Jewish organisations and other critics have raised concerns about antisemitism, the glorification of violence and the potential impact of demonstrations held on the anniversary of the attacks.

The controversy over whether police should prevent such marches illustrates the difficult decisions facing law enforcement in a democratic society.

Why October 7 Demonstrations Are So Controversial

For many Jewish people, the anniversary of the October 7 attacks is a day of mourning and remembrance. Families continue to remember relatives and friends who were killed, while the fate and experiences of those taken hostage remain central to the collective memory of the attacks.

Against this background, demonstrations organised around the same date can be particularly distressing, especially when slogans or symbols appear to celebrate the violence or dismiss the suffering of Israeli civilians.

Jewish community representatives have repeatedly called for authorities to take antisemitism seriously and ensure that public demonstrations do not become occasions for intimidation. They argue that the right to political expression should not be used as a justification for celebrating attacks on civilians or targeting people because of their religion or identity.

At the same time, organisers of pro-Palestinian demonstrations often say that their purpose is to draw attention to Palestinian civilian casualties, demand a ceasefire or call for changes to British foreign policy. They may argue that the anniversary provides an opportunity to highlight the wider consequences of the conflict and the continuing suffering of people in Gaza.

These competing perspectives help explain why the timing and character of demonstrations can become sources of intense disagreement.

However, a crucial distinction must be maintained. Supporting Palestinian rights, criticising the Israeli government and commemorating Palestinian victims are not inherently expressions of support for Hamas or the October 7 attacks. Equally, political advocacy does not excuse explicit praise for attacks on civilians, antisemitic abuse or threats against Jewish people.

The content and conduct of each demonstration therefore matter when authorities assess whether intervention is justified.

The Police Must Balance Protest Rights With Public Safety

British police forces operate within a legal framework that protects freedom of expression and peaceful assembly while also giving authorities powers to manage public events and respond to criminal conduct.

These principles can come into conflict when demonstrations involve highly emotional political issues. Officers must consider the nature of the event, the likelihood of disorder, the rights of participants and the potential risks to members of the public.

A controversial message is not automatically unlawful. In a democratic society, people may express opinions that others find offensive, upsetting or deeply objectionable. If police were able to prohibit every demonstration that caused distress, the right to peaceful protest would become vulnerable to arbitrary restrictions.

However, that does not mean authorities must tolerate every form of conduct at a demonstration. Depending on the circumstances and applicable law, police may intervene where there are threats, incitement to violence, certain forms of threatening or abusive behaviour, or other criminal acts. They may also impose lawful restrictions on the location, timing or conduct of an assembly when the relevant legal conditions are met.

The difficult task is determining when the evidence justifies such action.

Police must assess specific circumstances rather than relying solely on the political identity of demonstrators or the fact that an event is taking place on a sensitive anniversary. A march expressing opposition to the Israeli government’s actions is not legally equivalent to an event explicitly celebrating the killing of civilians.

Similarly, the description of a demonstration as a celebration of a massacre should be supported by evidence about its organisers, statements, slogans and conduct rather than accepted automatically from a headline.

If a police force decides that a demonstration can proceed, the public should be able to understand the legal reasoning behind that decision. If restrictions are imposed, authorities should explain the evidence and legal powers supporting them.

Transparency can help reduce suspicion and demonstrate that the same standards apply across different political causes.

Freedom of Speech Does Not Remove the Responsibility to Prevent Antisemitism

The debate also highlights the distinction between protecting political speech and responding to antisemitism.

Antisemitism can take many forms, including threats against Jewish individuals, conspiracy theories targeting Jewish communities, discriminatory abuse and expressions of approval for violence against Jews because they are Jewish.

When such behaviour occurs at demonstrations, it can have consequences far beyond the immediate event. Jewish residents may feel less safe travelling through public spaces, attending religious services or displaying visible signs of their identity.

Police forces therefore have a responsibility to take credible reports of antisemitic incidents seriously, investigate potential offences and communicate clearly with affected communities.

But accurate distinctions are essential. Criticism of Israeli military operations, opposition to Zionism or advocacy for Palestinian statehood should not automatically be treated as antisemitic. Context, language and conduct are important in determining the meaning and legal significance of particular statements.

Likewise, the presence of Palestinian flags or expressions of solidarity with Palestinians does not, by itself, demonstrate support for Hamas.

Maintaining these distinctions protects both Jewish communities from genuine antisemitism and the legitimate political rights of people advocating for Palestinian rights.

A consistent approach also strengthens public confidence that police decisions are based on evidence and law rather than political pressure.

The Wider Conflict Continues to Shape Britain’s Streets

The demonstrations cannot be understood separately from the wider conflict in the Middle East.

The October 7 attacks caused profound trauma in Israel, while the subsequent war in Gaza has resulted in extensive civilian suffering, displacement and damage to essential infrastructure. The conflict has also generated international disputes over humanitarian access, military conduct, hostage negotiations and the prospects for a lasting political settlement.

For British demonstrators, these events are not merely distant geopolitical developments. They are connected to questions about the UK’s diplomatic position, arms exports, international law and the responsibilities of the government.

Some campaigners believe public demonstrations are necessary to maintain pressure on ministers and prevent the suffering in Gaza from disappearing from political debate. Others argue that certain protests have created an atmosphere in which Jewish concerns are dismissed or Jewish people are unfairly held responsible for the actions of the Israeli state.

Both the freedom to protest and the safety of minority communities are important democratic considerations. Protecting one should not require abandoning the other.

The police cannot resolve the underlying conflict or eliminate the political disagreements it generates. Their role is narrower: to enforce the law impartially, protect public safety and preserve the rights of people who participate in or are affected by demonstrations.

That responsibility becomes especially demanding when emotions are running high.

Should Police Have the Power to Ban Such Marches?

Calls to ban demonstrations associated with October 7 raise a fundamental question: should the date or political subject of an event be sufficient grounds for prohibition?

A blanket ban based solely on the anniversary would risk treating different demonstrations as though they were identical. A peaceful vigil for Palestinian civilians, a march demanding a change in British foreign policy and an event explicitly praising the killing of Israeli civilians would have different purposes and potentially different legal implications.

The decision should therefore depend on the actual circumstances and the law.

Where there is credible evidence of planned criminal conduct or a serious risk of disorder, police may have grounds to impose restrictions or take other lawful measures. Where a demonstration is peaceful and does not meet the legal threshold for prohibition, its controversial message alone may not justify stopping it.

This approach does not require authorities to approve of a protest’s message. It requires them to distinguish between conduct that is lawful and conduct that crosses a legal boundary.

The alternative—allowing public pressure alone to determine which political demonstrations may proceed—could establish a precedent that affects many causes, including those supported by people who currently demand restrictions.

The same principles should apply whether a demonstration concerns Israel and Palestine, immigration, climate policy, racial justice or another divisive subject.

Public Confidence Depends on Consistent Enforcement

One of the greatest challenges facing police forces is the perception that different groups are treated differently.

When authorities permit one demonstration but restrict another, people may interpret the decision as evidence of political bias. Such suspicions can grow when explanations are brief, inconsistent or difficult to understand.

The best response is to provide clear information about the legal basis for decisions, the intelligence and evidence considered where disclosure is appropriate, and the standards officers apply to demonstrators.

Police should also communicate with community representatives before major events, identify potential risks and explain how reports of criminal conduct will be handled.

Where offences occur, investigations should follow the evidence. Where allegations prove unfounded, that should also be made clear.

Accountability is particularly important when an event takes place on a date associated with mass violence and grief. The authorities must recognise the impact such events can have on vulnerable communities without allowing the sensitivities of any single group to automatically determine the rights of everyone else.

Conclusion: The Law Must Protect Both Freedom and Dignity

The controversy surrounding pro-Palestinian demonstrations on the anniversary of the October 7 attacks reflects a wider struggle over the limits of protest in a divided society.

For Jewish communities, the date carries the memory of civilians murdered, families shattered and people taken hostage. For many pro-Palestinian campaigners, demonstrations are intended to highlight the suffering in Gaza and demand political change. These realities can coexist, even when the emotions surrounding them produce intense disagreement.

Police forces must make difficult decisions within the law. They should not permit criminal behaviour simply because it occurs during a political demonstration, but neither should they prohibit peaceful expression merely because its message is unpopular or deeply upsetting.

The decisive questions are what demonstrators actually say and do, what risks can reasonably be established, and what legal powers are available to the authorities.

If a particular march involved explicit praise for the massacre, credible threats or criminal conduct, those details would be relevant to assessing whether police action was warranted. If it involved peaceful advocacy for Palestinian rights, the legal considerations could be very different.

Ultimately, public confidence depends on evidence-based decisions, consistent enforcement and clear explanations. Britain must be able to protect the right to peaceful protest while ensuring that antisemitism, threats and the glorification of violence are addressed under the law.

A democratic society is tested not only by how it protects popular opinions, but also by how carefully it safeguards the rights and dignity of people on opposing sides of its most painful political disputes.