🔗 Share this article

Internal papers show that policymakers proceeded with a ban on the activist network notwithstanding being given counsel that such measures could “inadvertently enhance” the group’s visibility, as shown in leaked government documents.

Context

The briefing paper was drafted 90 days ahead of the formal banning of the network, which was established to conduct protests intending to curb UK arms supplies to Israel.

The document was prepared in March by personnel at the interior ministry and the housing and communities department, with input from counter-terrorism advisers.

Opinion Polling

Beneath the subheading “What would be the proscription of the organisation be viewed by British people”, a segment of the report warned that a outlawing could prove to be a controversial issue.

It described Palestine Action as a “limited specialized group with reduced general news attention” compared to other activist organizations like Just Stop Oil. However, it observed that the organisation’s activities, and arrests of its activists, had attracted media attention.

Officials noted that polling showed “growing dissatisfaction with IDF operations in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its central thesis, the document cited a poll indicating that three-fifths of the UK public felt Israel had gone too far in the conflict in Gaza and that a like percentage supported a restriction on military sales.

“These are stances based on which Palestine Action group defines itself, campaigning directly to challenge the Israeli arms industry in the United Kingdom,” it said.

“Should that PAG is outlawed, their profile may accidentally be boosted, attracting sympathy among similarly minded individuals who disagree with the UK involvement in the Israel’s weapons trade.”

Additional Warnings

Officials stated that the citizens were against appeals from the certain outlets for strict measures, including a proscription.

Further segments of the briefing cited surveys showing the public had a “widespread unfamiliarity” regarding Palestine Action.

The document said that “a significant segment of the British public are probably presently uninformed of the group and would remain so if there is outlawing or, should they learn, would stay mostly indifferent”.

The outlawing under terrorism laws has sparked protests where thousands have been detained for displaying signs in open spaces stating “I reject atrocities, I support the group”.

This briefing, which was a public reaction study, stated that a proscription under security legislation could increase inter-community frictions and be viewed as government partiality in toward Israel.

The briefing warned policymakers and senior officials that a ban could become “a flashpoint for substantial debate and objections”.

Aftermath

A co-founder of the network, said that the document’s predictions had materialized: “Awareness of the issues and support of the organization have surged significantly. The ban has had the opposite effect.”

The home secretary at the time, Yvette Cooper, announced the ban in the summer, right after the group’s supporters reportedly committed acts at RAF Brize Norton in the region. Authorities claimed the destruction was significant.

The schedule of the report shows the ban was being planned well before it was revealed.

Officials were informed that a ban might be seen as an attack on civil liberties, with the experts noting that portions of the cabinet as well as the general citizenry may see the decision as “a gradual extension of anti-terror laws into the realm of speech rights and protest.”

Authoritative Comments

A departmental spokesperson said: “Palestine Action has carried out an escalating campaign including criminal damage to the UK’s national security infrastructure, harassment, and reported assaults. These actions puts the safety and security of the population at danger.

“Rulings on banning are carefully considered. They are informed by a comprehensive data-supported process, with assistance from a wide range of specialists from multiple agencies, the law enforcement and the MI5.”

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

“Naturally, national security forces, alongside a variety of other agencies, regularly supply information to the interior ministry to aid their efforts.”

The report also disclosed that the Cabinet Office had been financing regular polls of public strain connected to the regional situation.