🔗 Share this article

Internal documents reveal that ministers proceeded with a ban on the activist network notwithstanding obtaining advice that such measures could “inadvertently enhance” the group’s profile, per leaked government documents.

Context

The assessment paper was drafted 90 days ahead of the official proscription of the group, which came into being to engage in activism aimed at curb UK military equipment sales to Israel.

It was prepared in March by staff at the interior ministry and the local governance ministry, assisted by anti-terror advisers.

Public Perception

Following the subheading “In what way might the outlawing of the network be perceived by British people”, a segment of the briefing alerted that a proscription could prove to be a controversial issue.

Officials portrayed the group as a “modest focused movement with less traditional press exposure” relative to similar direct action movements like Just Stop Oil. But it noted that the group’s protests, and detentions of its supporters, had attracted press coverage.

The advisers said that polling showed “growing dissatisfaction with Israel’s defense tactics in Gaza”.

Prior to its main point, the report cited a poll showing that three-fifths of Britons thought Israel had exceeded limits in the conflict in Gaza and that a comparable proportion favored a restriction on military sales.

“These constitute viewpoints around which Palestine Action group defines itself, campaigning directly to challenge Israel’s weapons trade in the UK,” officials wrote.

“If that PAG is banned, their public image may inadvertently be boosted, gaining backing among similarly minded individuals who reject the British footprint in the Israel’s weapons trade.”

Further Concerns

Experts said that the general populace disagreed with appeals from the rightwing media for strict measures, such as a proscription.

Further segments of the briefing referenced surveys indicating the public had a “limited knowledge” about the network.

The document said that “a large portion of the UK population are likely at this time uninformed of Palestine Action and would continue unaware if there is a ban or, upon being told, would continue generally untroubled”.

The outlawing under terrorism laws has resulted in protests where numerous people have been apprehended for holding up placards in the streets stating “I reject atrocities, I stand with Palestine Action”.

The document, which was a social effects evaluation, stated that a proscription under security legislation could increase Muslim-Jewish strains and be seen as official bias in favour of Israel.

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

Recent Events

A co-founder of the network, said that the document’s advisories had materialized: “Understanding of the matters and backing of the organization have grown exponentially. This proscription has backfired.”

The home secretary at the point, the minister, revealed the ban in the summer, immediately after the organization’s supporters allegedly caused damage at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Government representatives claimed the destruction was extensive.

The schedule of the briefing shows the outlawing was being planned long prior to it was revealed.

Officials were told that a outlawing might be seen as an undermining of personal freedoms, with the officials noting that some within the administration as well as the wider public may consider the measure as “an expansion of security authorities into the realm of speech rights and demonstration.”

Official Responses

A departmental representative stated: “The group has engaged in an escalating campaign including property destruction to Britain’s national security infrastructure, intimidation, and reported assaults. That activity puts the protection of the population at danger.

“Rulings on proscription are carefully considered. These are based on a thorough fact-driven system, with input from a broad spectrum of experts from across government, the law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.”

A counter-terrorism law enforcement representative stated: “Judgments relating to banning are a matter for the administration.

“Naturally, counter-terrorism policing, together with a selection of other agencies, routinely supply information to the Home Office to aid their efforts.”

The document also showed that the executive branch had been paying for regular surveys of community tensions associated with Israel and Palestine.