On 31 October, Private Eye ran a short column detailing the potential origins of a rumour – breathlessly printed by the Times – that Palestine Action was under investigation for receiving funding from Iran. The Eye alleges that a boss at CMS Strategic, once a lobby group for Israeli arms firm Elbit, is taking credit for planting the story in the press.
This is significant given the fact that the Times article came out very shortly before our government, in its infinite and measured wisdom, decided to declare Palestine Action a terrorist organisation. Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori tweeted yesterday:
BREAKING: Private Eye exposes Elbit's lobby group, CMS Strategic, which planted a story in The Times falsely claiming Palestine Action was under investigation for Iranian funding.
The fabricated story came out days before Parliament voted to proscribe Palestine Action.
— Huda Ammori (@HudaAmmori) November 2, 2025
The Palestine Action smear was true enough for the Times
The Private Eye article stated that:
CMS Strategic has acted as Elbit’s UK PR firm for some years. A witness known by the Eye heard Georgia Pickering, CMS’s managing director and owner, claiming credit for getting a story into newspapers about Palestine Action, the “direct action” group that damaged Elbit factories and other premises the group says are linked to the war in Gaza.
The story, which first appeared in the Times in June, claimed that the Home Office was investigating Palestine Action over possible Iranian funding. This story, timed to appear as the Home Office proscribed Palestine Action as a terrorist group, was picked up by the Mail and GB News. However, when the Eye approached the Home Office at the time, it said it did not recognise that claim.
For its part, CMS has categorically denied the claim that it had anything to do with the Times article. The piece in question, dated 23 June, stated that:
Officials are understood to be investigating [Palestine Action’s] source of donations amid concerns that the Iranian regime, via proxies, is funding the group’s activities given that their objectives are aligned.
Of course, the Times didn’t bother to include any quotes from Home Office officials regarding the investigation into Palestine Action. That’s just as well, given that this entire line of the story has turned out to be completely fictional. However, it did deign to include a helpful bit of info from a civil organisation watchdog:
NGO Monitor, a research institute that holds campaign groups to account and promotes transparency, has said Palestine Action’s lack of public financial information “reflects a lack of transparency and accountability”.
Impeccable sources, as always
Well, that settles that then, doesn’t it? Except, NGO Monitor – which claims to be a “globally recognized research institute promoting democratic values and good governance” – is far from an unbiased source.
Other dire organisations which have drawn NGO Monitor’s criticisms include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and… Doctors Without Borders. Amnesty, according to NGO Monitor, “disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation”. Likewise, Human Rights Watch harbors “a deep-seated ideological bias against Israel”. And then, Doctors Without Borders – you know, that horrible organisation which treats sick people in other countries – also:
abuses its status as a humanitarian organization to launch venomous anti-Israel political campaigns.
If you’re noticing a bit of a trend here, don’t be too alarmed. It makes a lot more sense taken with the fact that NGO Monitor was founded in Israel in 2002 for the purposes of monitoring civil organisations which it sees as acting counter to Israeli interests. Not exactly an unbiased source on a group like Palestine Action, but hey – this is the Times we’re talking about.
On that note, there’s something of a disconnect going on here. The Times is claiming that it got its Palestine Action story from anonymous Home Office officials. Declassified UK, in its snooping, wasn’t able to verify where exactly these allegations originated. Now, per Private Eye, CMS is bragging about getting the story in the papers.
It would be absolutely thrilling, in the name of journalistic curiosity, to know exactly who the Times’ sources for its June story were. What trajectory did these ‘Iranian backing’ smears follow between Pickering, the Home Office and the Times? In the meantime, we shan’t hold our breath waiting on a retraction, let alone an apology.
Featured image via the Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.