In the British parliament, lawmakers jeered, booed and stormed out of the House of Commons to protest the speaker’s handling of a vote calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Outside, a crowd of pro-Palestinian protesters projected the slogan “From the River to the Sea” onto the facade of Big Ben, drawing criticism from those who see it as a rallying cry for the eradication of Israel.

The chaotic scenes in London last week showed how Israel’s war in Gaza is reverberating far beyond the Middle East. From the United States to Europe, the brutal October 7 attack by Hamas militants and Israel’s devastating response have inflamed passions, upended politics and heightened tensions within the Muslim and Jewish communities.

The fighting is not just about intractable issues such as war, peace and moral justice. In Britain, political parties and the public are not actually that divided over how to respond to Gaza; a strong majority a ceasefire back. Instead, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has also become a club for opponents to swing against each other.

The ruling Conservative Party seized on the anti-Israel comments of a Labor Party parliamentary candidate to accuse Labor of failing to eradicate a legacy of anti-Semitism in its ranks. Labor pointed to disparaging comments by a Tory MP about London’s Muslim mayor as evidence of simmering Islamophobia among Conservatives.

Both parties maneuvered furiously in Parliament over the ceasefire resolution, not because they differed much on the substance, but because the Conservatives saw an opportunity to stoke divisions within Labor over Britain’s initial support for Israel to bring to light.

“It’s an example of how a really serious issue has been distorted through the prism of party politics in Britain,” said Steven Fielding, emeritus professor of political history at the University of Nottingham.

In the United States, anger among some Democrats over President Biden’s robust support for Israel has been fueled a protest voice during Michigan’s primaries this week, raising questions about whether the war could change the outcome of a closely fought presidential election.

In France, President Emmanuel Macron was forced to do this throw away of his pro-Israel stance under pressure from France’s large Muslim population. In Germany, with its responsibility for the Holocaust, support for Israel has remained a fundamental principle, although Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has recently begun to emphasize the importance of the ‘survival of the Palestinians’.

The conflict has also awakened ghosts in British politics: when Lee Anderson, the blunt Conservative lawmaker, said that “Islamists” were “in control” of Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, he was trading in the kind of anti-Muslim sentiment that twenty flared up years ago after London was hit by terrorist attacks by Islamic militants.

When Labor candidate Azhar Ali claimed that Israel had ‘allowed’ Hamas’ surprise attack, he evoked the anti-Semitism that infected the Labor Party under its previous leader, Jeremy Corbyn. The current leader, Keir Starmer, has purged Corbyn as part of a campaign to root out anti-Jewish prejudice. He also withdrew the party’s support for Mr Ali’s candidacy.

“Because of the Corbyn era, Israel has become part of a culture war in this country in a way that didn’t happen 20 years ago,” said Daniel Levy, head of the US/Middle East Project, a research group based in London. and New York.

Mr. Levy acknowledged that many lawmakers acted out of conviction on Gaza. But the anger of the past two weeks, he argued, was not so much about the rising death toll or how best to deal with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but about the complicated history and politics surrounding Jewish and Muslim issues in Britain envelop.

For the Labor Party, the next tricky moment in this drama could come on Thursday, when voters in Rochdale, north of Manchester, will elect a new MP to replace a Labor MP who died in January. Although the party has disowned Mr Ali, he remains on the ballot paper and could still win the seat.

But Mr Ali’s messy late suspension has opened the door for a rebel candidate, George Galloway, a former Labor lawmaker who is now running as leader of Britain’s left-wing fringe Labor Party. He appeals to Rochdale’s sizeable Muslim population with a militantly pro-Palestinian message, arguing that many Britons are “revolting” against Labour’s support for Israel.

“If George Galloway does well enough,” Mr Levy said, “it will encourage a whole range of Labor leaders to take up this issue.”

That could cause further headaches for Mr Starmer as he prepares for the general election against the Conservatives later this year. But with Labor leading the Tories by 20 percentage points or more in the polls, analysts said the conflict in Gaza was unlikely to tip the election outcome.

In recent weeks, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government has also changed its position on the conflict enough to blur differences with the opposition. During a trip to the Falkland Islands last week, his foreign secretary, David Cameron, called for a ceasefire, saying the fighting must stop “right now.”

“David Cameron and Keir Starmer have the same position on Israel-Gaza, and both have the same position as two-thirds of the public,” said Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, a research institute focused on immigration, race and racism. and identity.

But if Mr Starmer were to win the general election, Israel could pose a lingering problem for him in government. In 2006, Britain’s last Labor Prime Minister, Tony Blair, strongly supported Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s invasion of Lebanon. The war was going badly and Mr Blair was affected by the collateral damage at home.

“Undoubtedly that was even a bigger political problem for Tony than the war in Iraq,” said Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff.

For the Tories, the conflict in Gaza presents a different set of challenges. Like the Republican Party in the United States, it has taken a strong position in favor of Israel, a position that has provoked little internal disagreement. But the Tories are now dealing with the fallout from anti-Muslim statements from right-wing figures such as Anderson and Suella Braverman, a former home secretary.

After the debate in Parliament on a ceasefire, which turned ugly amid a fight over the speaker’s handling of it, Lindsay Hoyle, Ms Braverman wrote in the Daily Telegraph that “the Islamists, the extremists and the anti-Semites is now in charge.” The police, she said, gave the protesters free rein. In such a feverish atmosphere, there are growing concerns about the threat of violence against MPs.

Mr Anderson has refused to apologize, saying Mr Khan had “given away our capital to his friends”. Islamists, he told the right-wing GB News channel, “are in control of Khan and they are in control of London.”

Mr. Khan the comments mentioned ‘racist, Islamophobic and anti-Muslim’, and Mr Sunak, under pressure from prominent Muslim conservatives, suspended Mr Anderson from the party. But now Sunak is facing criticism from the party’s right wing for punishing a figure popular with some voters in England’s ‘red wall’, which was crucial to the party’s victory in the 2019 general election.

Given the Tories’ dire position in the polls, some analysts said there was considerable posturing in the fury over Gaza, part of a wider battle for party leadership or visibility after an expected election defeat.

“There are a lot of Tory MPs who are going to lose their seats, so they are looking for media opportunities,” said Ben Ansell, professor of comparative democratic institutions at the University of Oxford.

But the appeal to anti-Muslim sentiment also reflects something else: a last-ditch attempt by the Conservatives to derail Labour’s momentum.

“If you look at what the Conservatives are using against Labor it is that you cannot trust them because they will be controlled by others,” Mr Katwala said. “Right now they’re switching from ‘woke leftists’ to ‘the Islamists.’”

In a forest on the outskirts of Atlanta, hundreds of demonstrators gathered again last March to try to stop the construction of a new police and fire training center.

For Timothy Bilodeau, a 26-year-old who flew in from Boston, the fight that began in 2021 had taken on new urgency after state troopers killed a protester weeks earlier in a shootout in the woods that also wounded an officer.

The day Mr. Bilodeau entered, there was another fiery confrontation. A crowd marched to the development site, where some protesters threw fireworks and Molotov cocktails and set fire to equipment. Police arrested nearly two dozen protesters, including Mr. Bilodeau.

As Mr. Bilodeau saw it, he was taking a principled stand against the destruction of the forest. But prosecutors took a darker view: They charged Mr. Bilodeau and 22 others with domestic terrorism.

A total of 42 people involved in the demonstrations against the training center have been charged under Georgia’s domestic terrorism law. This is one of the largest cases of its kind in the country, on a charge that is rarely prosecuted.

As several states have added or expanded terrorism laws or are considering doing so, Georgia’s case is at the center of the debate over the need for these measures, the dangers they pose and, more fundamentally, what constitutes terrorism. (One proposal in New York has suggested that blocking traffic, a tactic occasionally used at demonstrations, could be considered domestic terrorism.)

Georgia expanded its definition in 2017 to include attempts to seriously harm or kill people, or to disable or destroy “critical infrastructure,” with the aim of forcing a policy change. This charge carries a maximum prison sentence of 35 years.

Officials in Georgia have argued that the defendants were involved in sowing disorder and destruction — actions that required a quick and strong response.

“We will not waver when it comes to protecting people, enforcing the rule of law and ensuring that those who engage in criminal activity are vigorously prosecuted and aggressively prosecuted,” said Christopher M. Carr, the attorney general of Georgia, in a statement.

Critics say the charges in Georgia vindicate their worst fears about domestic terrorism laws: that they could label activism as terrorism and allow prosecutors to impose even harsher penalties for “property crimes that were already illegal simply because of the associated political speech.” who are critical of the government. policy,” as the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia said in a recent statement.

The result, critics argue, is that freedom of speech is suppressed.

“It’s chilling,” said Mr. Bilodeau, an engineering consultant. “It is a devastating threat to all people who are advocates or activists for the well-being of our planet, climate or communities.”

Legal experts have also expressed concern that many people are being prosecuted for serious crimes because of the actions of a few.

Mr. Bilodeau’s attorney, Amanda Clark Palmer, argued in a motion for bail that his arrest warrant “did not contain any specific allegation that Mr. Bilodeau himself possessed or threw a rock, fireworks or Molotov cocktail.”

“The only specific allegation,” she added, “is this: the suspect was observed wearing muddy clothing as he crossed the embankment. The suspect was also in possession of a shield.”

Officials in Georgia have insisted the charges were justified, with Atlanta police calling the suspects “violent agitators,” mostly from out of state, who committed violence “under the cover of a peaceful protest.”

The charges have not yet resulted in charges, in part because the local district attorney withdrew from the case, citing a “fundamental difference in prosecutorial philosophy” with Mr. Carr, the Republican attorney general.

But the allegations also formed the basis for a broader case that Mr. Carr’s office is pursuing under the state’s racketeering law — a powerful tool that prosecutors have used to target street gangs, officials accused of corruption and even former President Donald J. Trump. who is accused of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Mr. Bilodeau and 60 others now face racketeering charges, with prosecutors describing them as part of “an anarchist, anti-police, anti-business extremist organization” that conspired to block the training center. The first trial in the racketeering case could begin in the coming weeks.

The Atlanta City Council voted to authorize in 2021 the training facility, officially called the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center and derided by protesters as “Cop City.”

The project mobilized a diverse coalition of opponents: environmentalists who objected to the development of a rare expanse of forest in a rapidly developing metropolitan area; social justice activists who believed the facility would train officers to become community police officers with militarized tactics; and local residents opposed a potentially disruptive new neighbor.

Opposition increased in 2022 when officers began sweeping the site. Protesters had set up camp in trees and set up barricades to block officers and construction crews. Some protesters threw Molotov cocktails and set off fireworks, police said. Officers responded with tear gas and rubber bullets, and in January 2023, a 26-year-old activist, Manuel Esteban Paez Terán, known as Tortuguita, was fatally shot by state forces.

Officials have said the activist fired first, wounding a soldier, but protesters remained skeptical, in part because the soldiers were not wearing body cameras.

Since then, more construction and police vehicles have been torched at the site. including recently as at the end of January. Construction companies in Georgia and beyond — including at least one falsely linked to the training center — have had equipment destroyed or burned, authorities said.

Last month, city officials said the destruction had increased the cost of the facility, estimated at $90 million, by nearly $20 million.

“These individuals are operating in fear,” says Georgia’s John F. King insurance and safety fire commissionersaid at a recent news conference announcing rewards of up to $200,000 for help finding and convicting arson suspects.

When Georgia lawmakers tightened the state’s domestic terrorism laws, it was partly in response to the 2015 racist massacre at a black church in Charleston, SC. domestic terrorists. Georgia lawmakers are currently considering a new measure to further strengthen the law.

Like Georgia, other states have taken steps to expand terrorism-related laws, reflecting an increasingly fractured political climate and fears of rising extremism. A bill in West Virginia would clarify the definitions of terrorism and create mandatory sentencing rules.

Last year, Oregon — where authorities have clashed with armed militias on public property, and where far-right protesters breached the state Capitol in 2021 — became the latest state to enact a domestic terrorism law.

Officials in Georgia have used the sweeping law to crack down on left-wing activism that, they allege, took a violent turn in Atlanta around the time of the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests.

One of the demands in the nationwide protests that followed the killing of George Floyd was to defund police departments and repurpose those resources. Cop City protesters see Atlanta doing the opposite with the training center, which officials are hailing as an investment in a police force struggling with depleted ranks and morale.

“We don’t need more police and a surveillance state,” said Ayla King, 19, a recent high school graduate from Worcester, Massachusetts, who traveled to Atlanta last March after following developments on social media. MX. King, who uses the pronoun they, faces both domestic terrorism and racketeering charges.

Mr. Bilodeau, who spent 17 days in jail after the confrontation last March, declined to talk about what he did in the woods in March, citing his upcoming trial. In charging documents, prosecutors accused him of criminal trespass and joining “an organized gang designed to overwhelm police,” occupy the forest and cause property damage.

He returned to a life in Boston turned upside down. His bank closed his accounts, he said. The youth arts and music program where he was a regular volunteer told him he was no longer welcome. His concerns about police seeped into his dreams, and he is wary of participating in any more protests.

“This has been a crushing emotional and legal process, and we are not really through it yet,” Mr. Bilodeau said.

MX. King had to put plans for the university aside.

“This is terrifying,” says Mx. King said this in an interview in December, before a gag order was issued in their case. “But it’s very important to stay strong and know that the fact that the state says I’m a domestic terrorist doesn’t really mean anything. It’s such a bloated load.’

Yet Mx. King has no illusions about the seriousness of the situation. In fact, they recently received a stark reminder of the stakes: They turned down a plea bargain offer of a 10-year sentence, including three years in prison.