🔗 Share this article

Official documents indicate that ministers proceeded with a outlawing on Palestine Action despite being given warnings that such steps could “unintentionally boost” the group’s visibility, according to leaked official briefings.

Context

The briefing paper was drafted three months ahead of the official proscription of the group, which came into being to take direct action aimed at halt UK arms supplies to Israel.

This was prepared in March by officials at the department of home affairs and the local governance ministry, aided by anti-terror specialists.

Opinion Polling

Beneath the title “In what way might the outlawing of the organisation be regarded by British people”, a segment of the report cautioned that a proscription could become a divisive matter.

Officials portrayed Palestine Action as a “small single issue group with reduced general news attention” compared to other protest groups like other climate groups. However, it observed that the network’s activities, and apprehensions of its supporters, received publicity.

Officials said that surveys indicated “increasing frustration with IDF tactics in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its key argument, the document referenced a survey indicating that 60% of British citizens felt Israel had gone too far in the war in Gaza and that a like percentage backed a restriction on military sales.

“These represent positions based on which Palestine Action group defines itself, organising explicitly to challenge the Israeli weapons trade in the UK,” the document stated.

“In the event that PAG is proscribed, their public image may inadvertently be enhanced, finding support among like-thinking citizens who disagree with the UK involvement in the Israeli arms industry.”

Additional Warnings

Officials noted that the citizens opposed appeals from the conservative press for strict measures, such as a ban.

Further segments of the document cited surveys indicating the citizens had a “widespread unfamiliarity” about the group.

It stated that “much of the UK population are probably at this time unaware of the group and would continue unaware should there be proscription or, upon being told, would continue generally unconcerned”.

The outlawing under security statutes has led to rallies where thousands have been arrested for holding up signs in open spaces saying “I reject mass killings, I stand with the network”.

The report, which was a public reaction study, stated that a ban under anti-terror statutes could heighten religious tensions and be perceived as government bias in favour of Israel.

Officials alerted policymakers and top advisers that outlawing could become “a catalyst for major dispute and objections”.

Recent Events

A co-founder of the network, said that the briefing’s predictions had proven accurate: “Awareness of the issues and popularity of the network have surged significantly. This proscription has had the opposite effect.”

The home secretary at the point, the secretary, declared the ban in the summer, shortly following the organization’s activists reportedly committed acts at a military base in the region. Government representatives claimed the damage was significant.

The chronology of the briefing demonstrates the outlawing was under consideration long prior to it was made public.

Officials were informed that a proscription might be perceived as an undermining of civil liberties, with the experts saying that some within government as well as the broader population may see the decision as “a creep of security authorities into the domain of liberty and demonstration.”

Official Responses

A departmental spokesperson said: “The group has carried out an escalating campaign including criminal damage to the nation’s critical defense sites, intimidation, and reported assaults. That activity endangers the protection of the population at peril.

“Rulings on banning are carefully considered. They are guided by a comprehensive fact-driven process, with contributions from a broad spectrum of advisers from various departments, the authorities and the Security Service.”

A counter-terrorism official said: “Rulings regarding banning are a responsibility for the administration.

“Naturally, counter-terrorism policing, in conjunction with a variety of other agencies, consistently offer data to the Home Office to assist their operations.”

The document also disclosed that the central government had been paying for periodic polls of community tensions related to the Middle East conflict.