🔗 Share this article

Internal documents show that policymakers proceeded with a outlawing on the activist network notwithstanding being given advice that such action could “inadvertently enhance” the organization’s profile, per leaked official records.

The Situation

This advisory report was prepared 90 days before the legal outlawing of the group, which was formed to engage in activism designed to curb UK arms supplies to Israel.

The document was written three months ago by staff at the Home Office and the housing and communities department, assisted by counter-terrorism specialists.

Public Perception

Beneath the title “What would be the proscription of the group be viewed by citizens”, a segment of the report alerted that a proscription could prove to be a controversial matter.

Officials portrayed Palestine Action as a “modest specialized group with less general news exposure” compared to similar direct action groups like other climate groups. However, it observed that the group’s protests, and detentions of its activists, had attracted publicity.

Officials noted that surveys indicated “growing dissatisfaction with IDF operations in Gaza”.

Leading up to its key argument, the document referenced a poll indicating that three-fifths of British citizens believed Israel had exceeded limits in the conflict in Gaza and that a similar number backed a ban on arms shipments.

“These represent stances based on which PAG builds its profile, organising explicitly to challenge the nation’s arms industry in the United Kingdom,” the document stated.

“If that PAG is banned, their visibility may inadvertently be boosted, attracting sympathy among sympathetic citizens who oppose the British role in the Israeli arms industry.”

Other Risks

The advisers said that the citizens were against calls from the rightwing media for strict measures, including a outlawing.

Additional parts of the report cited polling indicating the population had a “limited knowledge” about the network.

It stated that “much of the British public are presumably currently ignorant of the network and would stay that way in the event of proscription or, upon being told, would stay mostly untroubled”.

The ban under anti-terror legislation has led to demonstrations where numerous people have been detained for displaying signs in open spaces stating “I am against mass killings, I support Palestine Action”.

This briefing, which was a public reaction study, noted that a ban under security legislation could heighten inter-community tensions and be viewed as state partiality in support of Israel.

The briefing warned ministers and top advisers that proscription could become “a flashpoint for substantial debate and criticism”.

Aftermath

One leader of the group, commented that the briefing’s advisories had materialized: “Knowledge of the concerns and backing of the organization have increased dramatically. This proscription has had the opposite effect.”

The senior official at the period, the minister, announced the proscription in last month, shortly following the group’s supporters supposedly caused damage at a military base in the region. Officials stated the damage was substantial.

The timing of the briefing indicates the proscription was being planned long prior to it was announced.

Policymakers were advised that a outlawing might be regarded as an attack on personal freedoms, with the advisers saying that some within the administration as well as the general citizenry may see the measure as “a creep of security authorities into the area of free expression and demonstration.”

Government Statements

An interior ministry spokesperson stated: “The group has carried out an increasingly aggressive series including vandalism to the nation’s critical defense sites, intimidation, and claimed attacks. That activity endangers the safety and security of the population at danger.

“Rulings on proscription are not taken lightly. These are informed by a robust fact-driven system, with input from a broad spectrum of advisers from various departments, the law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.”

A counter-terrorism policing spokesperson said: “Judgments regarding banning are a matter for the administration.

“As the public would expect, national security forces, in conjunction with a range of further organizations, routinely supply information to the interior ministry to support their work.”

This briefing also showed that the Cabinet Office had been funding regular studies of community tensions associated with the regional situation.