She said: “For 16 years Gaza has been under blockade, and for the first time they are actively resisting, they are not on the defence, and this is truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience.”
She went on: “And everyone is, we are both in fear, but also in fear of what, how Israel will retaliate and how we’ve seen it retaliate overnight, and the missiles that it’s launched and the attacks, but also we are full of pride. We are really, really full of joy of what happened.”
Abu Qamar, who was the president of the Friends of Palestine society at Manchester University, claimed she was misinterpreted and that she was not expressing support for Hamas, but rather Palestinian resistance. She clarified that she did not condone violence against civilians.
The tribunal found that the Home Office’s decision reflected a “disproportionate interference with her protected right to free speech” under the European Convention on Human Rights.
It ruled that Abu Qamar’s comments could not be taken as support for Hamas or the October 7 attack, but rather were indicative of support for the Palestinian cause.
“There is a clearly recognised and fundamental distinction between supporting the Palestinian cause and supporting Hamas and their actions,” the judgment said. “Nowhere does the appellant express support for Hamas specifically, or their actions.”
Abu Qamar is “not an extremist”, the judgment said, adding that her description of Israel as an “apartheid” state was consistent with statements expressed by human rights organisations.
The judgment said that informed observers would recognise Abu Qamar’s language, which included statements like “actively resisting” and “broke free”, as relating to lawful acts of Palestinian resistance.
Several Jewish organisations have found the result of the tribunal troubling.
A spokesperson from the Community Security Trust (CST) described the judgment as “deeply puzzling and concerning”, while Jonathan Turner, the Chief Executive of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) said “many of those who heard Dana Abuqamar’s remarks on 8 October would have understood them as glorifying the atrocities of 7 October”.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) said the Home Office was right in revoking Abu Qamar’s visa, and encouraged it to appeal the “appalling” tribunal decision.
A spokesperson from CAA said: "The day after Hamas, an antisemitic genocidal terrorist group, carried out barbaric attacks murdering some 1,200 people, Dana Abu Qamar said: 'We are full of pride.' If this is not an expression of support for acts carried out by terrorists on the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust, what is?”
They added that judgments such as these make “British Jews despair”. “It is a privilege for this individual to be in the UK, and that privilege comes with conditions. It makes a mockery of the visa system if people can spout views like these with no consequence.”
Court documents show that it was Conservative leadership hopeful and former immigration minister Robert Jenrick who inquired about revoking Abu Qamar’s student visa with the Home Office in October.
Abu Qamar told the Guardian she had lost 22 relatives during the war and that she has family members trapped in Gaza living in “hell on Earth”.
Speaking to the newspaper, she expressed relief following the tribunal. “This ruling validates the right to voice support for human rights for the plight of Palestinians and the right to resist occupation.”
She emphasised that she did not condone harm to innocent civilians, adding: “It doesn’t align with who I am as a person, with my character and with my views.”
She said Jenrick’s intervention and the government’s decision to revoke her student visa “sends a chilling message to activists”.
“They were just so brutal in the crackdown,” she said. “I felt like I was losing everything in one second. And for what? For supporting my people’s right to resist a brutal occupation.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “It is longstanding government policy that we do not routinely comment on individual cases.”
