🔗 Share this article

Internal papers show that government officials proceeded with a proscription on Palestine Action even after obtaining warnings that such measures could “unintentionally boost” the organization’s standing, according to recently uncovered official briefings.

The Situation

The briefing report was prepared three months prior to the formal banning of the group, which was established to engage in activism aimed at halt UK weapons exports to Israel.

The document was drafted last March by staff at the interior ministry and the housing and communities department, with input from counter-terrorism advisers.

Opinion Polling

Beneath the headline “In what way might the banning of the group be regarded by the UK public”, a part of the document alerted that a outlawing could turn into a divisive issue.

The document characterized the group as a “limited specialized organization with less traditional press exposure” compared to other activist groups such as Just Stop Oil. But it noted that the organisation’s direct actions, and detentions of its activists, gained press coverage.

The advisers stated that polling indicated “rising frustration with Israel’s defense tactics in Gaza”.

Prior to its central thesis, the briefing cited a study indicating that three-fifths of the UK public thought Israel had gone too far in the war in Gaza and that a similar number favored a ban on weapons exports.

“These constitute positions around which Palestine Action group builds its profile, campaigning directly to challenge the Israeli arms industry in the United Kingdom,” officials wrote.

“Should that the group is outlawed, their public image may accidentally be amplified, gaining backing among similarly minded individuals who reject the UK involvement in the the nation’s military exports.”

Additional Warnings

The advisers said that the public disagreed with appeals from the rightwing media for tough action, such as a proscription.

Other sections of the report cited research showing the population had a “limited knowledge” regarding the network.

Officials wrote that “much of the British public are likely at this time uninformed of Palestine Action and would remain so if there is proscription or, upon being told, would stay mostly indifferent”.

The ban under terrorism laws has sparked rallies where many individuals have been apprehended for holding up banners in public stating “I reject genocide, I stand with the group”.

The report, which was a public reaction study, said that a ban under terrorism laws could increase Muslim-Jewish frictions and be perceived as government favoritism in support of Israel.

Officials cautioned policymakers and high-level staff that a ban could become “a catalyst for major debate and objections”.

Post-Ban Developments

One leader of the group, commented that the briefing’s predictions had come true: “Knowledge of the concerns and support of the group have increased dramatically. The outlawing has had the opposite effect.”

The senior official at the period, the minister, declared the proscription in June, immediately after the group’s activists reportedly caused damage at RAF Brize Norton in the region. Authorities asserted the damage was significant.

The schedule of the report shows the outlawing was in development well before it was made public.

Ministers were advised that a proscription might be seen as an attack on personal freedoms, with the experts stating that portions of government as well as the wider public may consider the measure as “an expansion of terrorism powers into the area of liberty and protest.”

Authoritative Comments

An interior ministry representative commented: “The network has conducted an growing wave involving criminal damage to the UK’s critical defense sites, harassment, and reported assaults. These actions endangers the protection of the public at danger.

“Judgments on proscription are carefully considered. Decisions are based on a thorough data-supported system, with assistance from a wide range of specialists from multiple agencies, the authorities and the MI5.”

A national security law enforcement representative commented: “Judgments concerning banning are a prerogative for the administration.

“In line with public expectations, national security forces, in conjunction with a range of additional bodies, regularly offer data to the department to aid their operations.”

The document also showed that the executive branch had been financing regular studies of community tensions related to Israel and Palestine.