🔗 Share this article

Government papers indicate that policymakers proceeded with a proscription on Palestine Action notwithstanding obtaining warnings that such measures could “unintentionally boost” the group’s visibility, per leaked internal records.

Context

The assessment document was drafted a quarter prior to the official proscription of the group, which was established to conduct protests intending to curb UK arms supplies to Israel.

The document was written three months ago by staff at the interior ministry and the housing and communities department, assisted by counter-terrorism specialists.

Opinion Polling

Beneath the subheading “In what way might the banning of the network be regarded by British people”, a part of the report alerted that a outlawing could turn into a polarizing issue.

The document characterized the group as a “modest single issue movement with reduced general news attention” relative to similar protest movements such as environmental activists. Yet it highlighted that the group’s direct actions, and arrests of its members, received press coverage.

Experts said that surveys suggested “rising discontent with Israel’s defense methods and actions in Gaza”.

Prior to its main point, the report cited a survey showing that three-fifths of British citizens thought Israel had gone too far in the war in Gaza and that a like percentage favored a restriction on weapons exports.

“These represent positions upon which Palestine Action group defines itself, organising explicitly to challenge Israel’s arms industry in the UK,” the document stated.

“If that the group is proscribed, their public image may inadvertently be boosted, attracting sympathy among similarly minded citizens who disagree with the UK involvement in the Israel’s weapons trade.”

Further Concerns

Experts noted that the citizens were against appeals from the certain outlets for tough action, like a ban.

Other sections of the report cited polling saying the public had a “widespread unfamiliarity” about the network.

Officials wrote that “a significant segment of the British public are probably presently unaware of the group and would stay that way in the event of outlawing or, should they learn, would stay mostly untroubled”.

The outlawing under security statutes has led to protests where thousands have been apprehended for displaying placards in public declaring “I reject atrocities, I stand with Palestine Action”.

The document, which was a social effects evaluation, stated that a proscription under security legislation could escalate inter-community strains and be perceived as government partiality in favour of Israel.

The briefing cautioned ministers and senior officials that a ban could become “a trigger for significant dispute and censure”.

Aftermath

One leader of the group, commented that the report’s advisories had come true: “Understanding of the concerns and support of the group have grown exponentially. This proscription has backfired.”

The senior official at the time, the minister, revealed the proscription in the summer, right after the network’s activists reportedly vandalized property at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Government representatives asserted the damage was substantial.

The chronology of the document indicates the outlawing was in development ahead of it was revealed.

Officials were informed that a outlawing might be seen as an attack on personal freedoms, with the experts saying that portions of government as well as the wider public may see the measure as “an expansion of anti-terror laws into the area of free expression and demonstration.”

Official Responses

A departmental official stated: “The network has engaged in an growing wave including property destruction to Britain’s national security infrastructure, coercion, and reported assaults. These actions places the protection of the citizens at risk.

“Decisions on banning are not taken lightly. They are based on a comprehensive fact-driven system, with contributions from a broad spectrum of experts from multiple agencies, the police and the MI5.”

A national security policing spokesperson stated: “Decisions relating to proscription are a responsibility for the cabinet.

“Naturally, counter-terrorism policing, alongside a selection of further organizations, regularly provide material to the department to support their operations.”

This briefing also revealed that the Cabinet Office had been funding regular surveys of social friction connected to the regional situation.