Ok I agree that de-banking is not a good thing overall from a political perspective.

But in this case, it seems fairly clear that A/I was providing services to organizations listed as Terrorist Organizations by the US, UK, and Canada. Seems like the best way around this is... don't do business with terrorists? I'd understand more if these were ONLY deemed by the US, but this is an international group.

> it seems fairly clear that A/I was providing services to organizations listed as Terrorist Organizations by the US, UK, and Canada

Let's take the UK as example. The organisation mentioned, Palestine Action, was indeed banned under terrorism laws. But on 13 February 2026, the UK High Court has ruled that the ban of Palestine Action under terrorism legislation is unlawful [1]. Why is that ‘fairly clear’ then?

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c8x90q9nyzyt

Reminds me of when Cloudflare used to provide DDOS protection for ISIS and Al-Qaeda linked websites, Matthew Prince used to defend it by saying providing services is not an endorsement https://www.theregister.com/off-prem/2015/11/18/cloudflare-c...

Because anything the US, UK, and Canada doesn’t like becomes terrorism, including (for Palestine Action in the UK) retroactively. It’s not something the US should be able to decide for the world.

Is Italy in that list?

> it seems fairly clear that A/I was providing services to organizations listed as Terrorist Organizations by the US, UK, and Canada.

It isn't fairly clear, there's no due process, there are no proofs or clues, only Trump's and Shideler's word on that.