🔗 Share this article

Government documents show that policymakers implemented a proscription on Palestine Action even after receiving counsel that such action could “unintentionally boost” the group’s standing, per recently uncovered internal records.

Background

The assessment document was prepared a quarter ahead of the official proscription of the organization, which was formed to conduct protests designed to curb UK weapons exports to Israel.

The document was drafted last March by officials at the interior ministry and the housing and communities department, with input from anti-terror policing experts.

Opinion Polling

Under the subheading “In what way might the banning of the group be regarded by citizens”, a part of the report warned that a ban could become a controversial topic.

The document characterized the network as a “small specialized group with reduced mainstream media exposure” compared to comparable protest organizations including Just Stop Oil. However, it observed that the organisation’s activities, and apprehensions of its supporters, had attracted media attention.

The advisers said that surveys indicated “growing discontent with Israeli military methods and actions in Gaza”.

Leading up to its main point, the report cited a survey showing that a majority of Britons felt Israel had gone too far in the hostilities in Gaza and that a comparable proportion favored a prohibition on weapons exports.

“These constitute positions upon which the organization forms its identity, campaigning directly to challenge the Israeli arms industry in the UK,” it said.

“Should that Palestine Action is proscribed, their visibility may unintentionally be amplified, finding support among sympathetic members of the public who reject the British role in the Israel’s weapons trade.”

Other Risks

Officials said that the citizens were against calls from the certain outlets for harsh steps, including a proscription.

Further segments of the briefing cited polling showing the public had a “general lack of awareness” about the network.

Officials wrote that “much of the UK population are likely at this time unaware of the group and would remain so if there is outlawing or, upon being told, would remain largely indifferent”.

This proscription under terrorism laws has led to rallies where thousands have been arrested for holding up banners in the streets declaring “I am against atrocities, I support the network”.

The document, which was a social effects evaluation, stated that a outlawing under security legislation could escalate religious strains and be perceived as government bias in toward Israel.

Officials cautioned officials and top advisers that outlawing could become “a catalyst for major controversy and criticism”.

Post-Ban Developments

A co-founder of the group, said that the report’s warnings had proven accurate: “Understanding of the concerns and popularity of the network have increased dramatically. The ban has had the opposite effect.”

The senior official at the period, the secretary, revealed the proscription in the summer, immediately after the organization’s activists reportedly caused damage at an air force station in the county. Government representatives stated the destruction was significant.

The timing of the briefing indicates the outlawing was under consideration well before it was revealed.

Officials were informed that a ban might be seen as an undermining of personal freedoms, with the experts stating that some within the cabinet as well as the general citizenry may see the decision as “a creep of terrorism powers into the domain of speech rights and demonstration.”

Official Responses

An interior ministry representative stated: “Palestine Action has conducted an increasingly aggressive series entailing criminal damage to Britain’s critical defense sites, harassment, and claimed attacks. Such behavior places the safety and security of the public at danger.

“Rulings on outlawing are carefully considered. Decisions are guided by a thorough fact-driven process, with input from a diverse set of advisers from various departments, the authorities and the intelligence agencies.”

A national security policing spokesperson said: “Decisions regarding banning are a responsibility for the administration.

“Naturally, counter-terrorism policing, together with a range of further organizations, regularly supply information to the interior ministry to assist their work.”

The document also disclosed that the Cabinet Office had been financing regular surveys of public strain associated with the regional situation.