🔗 Share this article

Internal briefings reveal that ministers implemented a ban on Palestine Action despite being given counsel that such action could “accidentally amplify” the group’s profile, as shown in newly obtained internal documents.

Context

The assessment report was drafted 90 days before the official proscription of the network, which was established to conduct protests intending to curb UK weapons exports to Israel.

This was prepared in March by personnel at the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with input from national security specialists.

Public Perception

Under the subheading “What would be the banning of the network be viewed by the UK public”, one section of the report cautioned that a ban could turn into a polarizing matter.

The document characterized the group as a “small specialized movement with reduced traditional press coverage” relative to similar activist organizations like environmental activists. Yet it highlighted that the network’s protests, and arrests of its supporters, had attracted press coverage.

Officials said that polling showed “growing dissatisfaction with Israel’s defense tactics in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its key argument, the document cited a study indicating that a majority of Britons thought Israel had exceeded limits in the conflict in Gaza and that a like percentage backed a restriction on weapons exports.

“These constitute positions upon which Palestine Action group forms its identity, acting purposefully to oppose Israel’s arms industry in the United Kingdom,” it said.

“If that PAG is proscribed, their visibility may inadvertently be enhanced, attracting sympathy among like-thinking citizens who oppose the UK involvement in the Israel’s weapons trade.”

Further Concerns

The advisers stated that the general populace disagreed with calls from the certain outlets for harsh steps, such as a proscription.

Additional parts of the document cited research showing the public had a “limited knowledge” regarding Palestine Action.

Officials wrote that “a significant segment of the citizens are probably presently ignorant of the group and would continue unaware in the event of proscription or, upon being told, would continue generally unconcerned”.

This proscription under security statutes has led to demonstrations where numerous people have been detained for carrying banners in open spaces declaring “I oppose atrocities, I support the group”.

The report, which was a social effects evaluation, said that a outlawing under terrorism laws could escalate religious strains and be perceived as government favoritism in toward Israel.

The document cautioned officials and senior officials that outlawing could become “a flashpoint for major controversy and criticism”.

Aftermath

Huda Ammori of the network, commented that the briefing’s advisories had proven accurate: “Awareness of the issues and support of the organization have increased dramatically. This proscription has been counterproductive.”

The senior official at the period, the minister, announced the proscription in June, right after the group’s activists reportedly vandalized property at a military base in the region. Authorities asserted the damage was substantial.

The chronology of the document shows the proscription was in development well before it was announced.

Ministers were advised that a ban might be seen as an assault on civil liberties, with the advisers stating that certain people in the cabinet as well as the general citizenry may see the action as “a creep of anti-terror laws into the area of free expression and activism.”

Authoritative Comments

An interior ministry official said: “The group has conducted an growing wave involving vandalism to the nation’s critical defense sites, intimidation, and claimed attacks. These actions puts the wellbeing of the public at danger.

“Rulings on outlawing are thoroughly evaluated. Decisions are informed by a thorough fact-driven system, with contributions from a broad spectrum of advisers from various departments, the police and the MI5.”

A counter-terrorism law enforcement representative said: “Decisions concerning outlawing are a responsibility for the administration.

“As the public would expect, counter-terrorism policing, in conjunction with a range of additional bodies, regularly supply information to the interior ministry to support their operations.”

The report also revealed that the executive branch had been funding periodic studies of community tensions connected to the regional situation.