🔗 Share this article

Official briefings indicate that ministers proceeded with a proscription on the activist network even after obtaining advice that such action could “unintentionally boost” the organization’s visibility, as shown in leaked internal records.

Context

The assessment report was drafted three months prior to the formal banning of the network, which was established to take direct action designed to curb UK weapons exports to Israel.

The document was prepared in March by personnel at the department of home affairs and the housing and communities department, with input from national security policing experts.

Survey Findings

Beneath the title “In what way might the banning of the network be regarded by British people”, one section of the document cautioned that a ban could become a controversial issue.

Officials portrayed the group as a “modest focused group with less mainstream media coverage” relative to similar direct action movements such as Just Stop Oil. Yet it highlighted that the organisation’s activities, and apprehensions of its activists, gained press coverage.

Officials said that polling indicated “growing discontent with IDF tactics in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its main point, the report referenced a survey finding that three-fifths of the UK public thought Israel had overstepped in the hostilities in Gaza and that a like percentage supported a restriction on weapons exports.

“These represent viewpoints based on which PAG builds its profile, acting purposefully to resist the nation’s arms industry in the UK,” the document stated.

“If that Palestine Action is proscribed, their visibility may accidentally be boosted, finding support among sympathetic citizens who disagree with the British footprint in the Israel’s weapons trade.”

Other Risks

Officials noted that the public opposed calls from the conservative press for tough action, including a outlawing.

Additional parts of the document referenced polling saying the population had a “general lack of awareness” concerning the group.

The document said that “much of the British public are presumably at this time unaware of the network and would stay that way in the event of proscription or, upon being told, would remain largely unconcerned”.

The ban under anti-terror legislation has led to rallies where numerous people have been arrested for carrying banners in the streets saying “I oppose mass killings, I back Palestine Action”.

This briefing, which was a social effects evaluation, said that a ban under terrorism laws could escalate Muslim-Jewish frictions and be viewed as government partiality in favour of Israel.

Officials alerted policymakers and high-level staff that proscription could become “a catalyst for significant dispute and criticism”.

Recent Events

One leader of the group, commented that the document’s advisories had proven accurate: “Understanding of the concerns and popularity of the group have increased dramatically. The outlawing has backfired.”

The home secretary at the time, the secretary, announced the ban in the summer, immediately after the organization’s supporters supposedly vandalized property at a military base in the region. Authorities claimed the damage was significant.

The chronology of the report demonstrates the outlawing was in development well before it was made public.

Officials were advised that a ban might be seen as an undermining of personal freedoms, with the experts noting that portions of the administration as well as the broader population may view the measure as “an expansion of anti-terror laws into the area of free expression and demonstration.”

Official Responses

An interior ministry official commented: “Palestine Action has carried out an growing wave entailing property destruction to the UK’s national security infrastructure, harassment, and alleged violence. Such behavior puts the safety and security of the public at danger.

“Decisions on banning are not taken lightly. Decisions are based on a robust evidence-based procedure, with contributions from a wide range of experts from various departments, the law enforcement and the MI5.”

A counter-terrorism policing spokesperson commented: “Decisions relating to proscription are a prerogative for the administration.

“Naturally, anti-terror units, in conjunction with a selection of further organizations, consistently offer data to the Home Office to support their work.”

This briefing also revealed that the central government had been paying for periodic studies of social friction related to the regional situation.