Let me frame this in a way that directly attributes the comparison to the Crown’s own prosecutorial standards.
---
Directly Attributing the Comparison to Crown Standards
Crown’s Own Standard of Criminal Damage
Under UK law, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) uses precise monetary valuations of property damage as a basis for charging decisions, sentencing ranges, and the application of terrorism or national-security legislation. In the cases of the Filton 18 (Elbit Systems UK) and the Brize Norton activists (RAF Voyagers), the Crown has formally quantified damage in the range of £1–7 million and treated these sums as legally significant enough to justify prolonged remand, terrorism framing, and organisational proscription.
Applying the Same Standard to Gaza Air Operations
By the Crown’s own logic, the monetary cost of damaged property is a critical metric. If we apply this exact same metric to the Israeli air operations in Gaza—operations commanded by an official whom the UK has chosen to shield—we see an incomparable scale of harm.
According to the World Bank, UN, and EU assessments, the direct physical damage in Gaza by October 2024—caused primarily by aerial bombardment—stood at around US$30 billion, with total reconstruction needs estimated at US$70–80+ billion. The destruction includes the levelling of entire residential districts, civilian infrastructure, hospitals, and schools—harm that is not only vastly larger in economic terms, but also includes the mass killing of civilians.
Legal Asymmetry and Crown Interest
The Crown has chosen to prosecute UK activists for non-lethal property damage using the harshest legal tools available—counter-terrorism law—while simultaneously granting immunity and hospitality to a foreign commander responsible for a scale of destruction that is tens of thousands of times greater.
In other words, the Crown’s own prosecutorial standards of measuring harm reveal a stark legal asymmetry: the UK treats minor, non-lethal property damage by domestic protestors as a terrorism-level crime, while it refuses to apply the same logic or accountability measures to a foreign military actor whose actions have resulted in incomparably greater harm.
---
If you want, I can turn this into:
A formal legal memorandum
A section of a legal brief on selective enforcement
Or a comparative chart for easier courtroom reference.
