🔗 Share this article

Internal documents show that policymakers enacted a outlawing on the activist network notwithstanding obtaining counsel that such steps could “accidentally amplify” the group’s visibility, per recently uncovered government briefings.

Context

The briefing paper was prepared 90 days ahead of the formal banning of the organization, which came into being to engage in activism aimed at curb UK weapons exports to Israel.

It was drafted last March by personnel at the interior ministry and the housing and communities department, aided by counter-terrorism policing experts.

Opinion Polling

Beneath the subheading “In what way might the banning of the group be viewed by the UK public”, one section of the briefing alerted that a proscription could turn into a divisive matter.

Officials portrayed the network as a “limited single issue movement with less mainstream media exposure” relative to other direct action groups such as other climate groups. Yet it highlighted that the organisation’s direct actions, and detentions of its activists, had attracted publicity.

Officials said that research showed “rising dissatisfaction with Israeli military tactics in Gaza”.

Leading up to its key argument, the report mentioned a poll showing that three-fifths of the UK public believed Israel had gone too far in the hostilities in Gaza and that a similar number supported a prohibition on weapons exports.

“These constitute stances upon which Palestine Action group defines itself, campaigning directly to oppose the Israeli military exports in the United Kingdom,” the document stated.

“Should that the group is banned, their visibility may unintentionally be boosted, attracting sympathy among similarly minded individuals who disagree with the British footprint in the the nation’s military exports.”

Additional Warnings

Experts said that the public disagreed with calls from the certain outlets for tough action, including a proscription.

Other sections of the document referenced polling indicating the public had a “widespread unfamiliarity” concerning the group.

Officials wrote that “a large portion of the UK population are probably at this time uninformed of the network and would remain so should there be proscription or, upon being told, would continue generally indifferent”.

The outlawing under security statutes has sparked rallies where many individuals have been apprehended for holding up placards in open spaces stating “I oppose genocide, I stand with the group”.

The report, which was a social effects evaluation, said that a ban under terrorism laws could increase inter-community frictions and be seen as government partiality in favour of Israel.

Officials cautioned ministers and senior officials that a ban could become “a trigger for major debate and censure”.

Aftermath

Huda Ammori of Palestine Action, commented that the report’s advisories had proven accurate: “Awareness of the matters and backing of the network have surged significantly. This proscription has been counterproductive.”

The home secretary at the period, the minister, announced the ban in June, shortly following the organization’s members reportedly vandalized property at a military base in Oxfordshire. Government representatives asserted the damage was significant.

The timing of the report shows the ban was under consideration long prior to it was made public.

Ministers were told that a proscription might be regarded as an assault on civil liberties, with the experts saying that certain people in government as well as the wider public may see the action as “an expansion of anti-terror laws into the domain of free expression and demonstration.”

Authoritative Comments

An interior ministry representative commented: “The group has engaged in an increasingly aggressive series including criminal damage to Britain’s key installations, intimidation, and claimed attacks. That activity places the protection of the citizens at peril.

“Judgments on banning are thoroughly evaluated. These are informed by a thorough evidence-based system, with assistance from a diverse set of experts from across government, the law enforcement and the Security Service.”

An anti-terror official said: “Rulings concerning outlawing are a prerogative for the administration.

“As the public would expect, anti-terror units, in conjunction with a range of further organizations, regularly offer data to the department to aid their operations.”

The document also disclosed that the central government had been funding regular studies of community tensions connected to the Middle East conflict.