Three activists linked to Palestine Action have ended a prolonged hunger strike while on remand, following a Ministry of Defence decision to award a £2 billion army training contract to Raytheon UK rather than to Elbit Systems, whose UK subsidiary had been among the bidders. The protest, which began on 2 November 2025, centred on the activists’ treatment in custody and on wider opposition to Elbit, an Israeli defence firm that has been a frequent target of Palestine Action demonstrations and direct action in Britain.
The three activists are facing charges connected to alleged break-ins at an Elbit-linked site and at an RAF base. Since their arrest, supporters have argued that they were being held unnecessarily far from their families, that their correspondence was being delayed or blocked, and that prison authorities had failed to engage meaningfully with concerns over their welfare during the hunger strike. As days without food turned into weeks, campaigners warned of the escalating medical risks and accused the state of indifference.
News of the MoD contract decision was therefore greeted with jubilation by supporters, who portrayed it as a significant political and moral victory. For them, the choice of Raytheon over Elbit symbolised growing discomfort within the British state about doing business with companies linked to Israel’s military actions in Gaza and the occupied territories. Social media channels associated with Palestine Action framed the outcome as evidence that sustained pressure — inside and outside prison walls — could force powerful institutions to change course.
Alongside the contract announcement, supporters pointed to a series of more immediate gains that helped persuade the activists to end their hunger strike. One of them, Muraisi, was transferred to a prison closer to his family, easing travel burdens and enabling more regular visits. Mail that had been held back was released, and campaigners confirmed that a meeting had taken place between prisoner representatives and senior prison healthcare staff to discuss treatment, monitoring and future communication. The activists have now begun a period of supervised refeeding under medical guidance, a crucial step intended to prevent potentially fatal complications after long-term starvation.
From the activists’ perspective, the decision to resume eating was presented not as a retreat but as a tactical pause following tangible concessions. Statements circulated by supporters emphasised that hunger strikes are a last resort, not an end in themselves, and that safeguarding life and health was paramount once key demands had been met. The tone was defiant rather than conciliatory, with promises that the wider campaign against Elbit’s presence in the UK would continue.
However, scepticism about any link between the hunger strike and the MoD’s procurement decision has been swift and pointed. An MoD insider described the Raytheon award as the outcome of a standard competitive tender, insisting that Elbit simply failed to offer the strongest overall proposal. According to this view, the timing was coincidental and the process insulated from political pressure or activist campaigns. Defence procurement, the source stressed, is governed by strict rules on value for money, capability and risk, leaving little room for external influence.
Raytheon UK, a major player in defence and aerospace, has long-standing relationships with the British armed forces and is already embedded in training, technology and support programmes. Awarding the contract to Raytheon, critics of the protest argue, fits a broader pattern of continuity rather than signalling any ethical shift. They warn against reading too much symbolism into a decision that may have hinged on costings, technical specifications or delivery timelines invisible to the public.
This tension between perception and process lies at the heart of the dispute. For Palestine Action and its allies, politics is inseparable from procurement: choosing who supplies the military is inherently a moral decision, especially when companies are accused of complicity in alleged war crimes abroad. For the MoD, procurement is framed as a technocratic exercise, detached from activism and focused narrowly on operational needs.
What is undeniable is that the hunger strike succeeded in drawing attention — both public and media — to the activists’ conditions and to the broader controversy around Elbit’s role in the UK. Hunger strikes have a long and fraught history in British political life, from suffragettes to Irish republicans, precisely because they force institutions to confront the human cost of incarceration and protest. Even when authorities deny any causal link to concessions, the optics of simultaneous outcomes can be powerful.
As the three activists recover under medical supervision, their legal cases continue to move through the courts. They remain on remand, and the charges they face could carry serious consequences if proven. Meanwhile, the debate over arms companies, ethical procurement and the legitimacy of direct action shows no sign of abating. Whether the MoD contract decision was influenced by protest or not, it has been absorbed into a narrative of resistance and claimed as a win — a reminder that, in political struggles, meaning is often contested as fiercely as facts.
