🔗 Share this article

Government papers show that government officials enacted a ban on Palestine Action even after obtaining warnings that such action could “unintentionally boost” the group’s standing, as shown in recently uncovered official briefings.

Context

This advisory paper was drafted a quarter ahead of the official proscription of the organization, which was formed to conduct protests intending to curb UK arms supplies to Israel.

It was written three months ago by staff at the interior ministry and the housing and communities department, aided by counter-terrorism policing experts.

Survey Findings

Beneath the subheading “What would be the outlawing of the network be regarded by British people”, a segment of the briefing warned that a proscription could turn into a polarizing issue.

The document characterized the network as a “modest specialized group with lower traditional press coverage” relative to comparable protest organizations like Just Stop Oil. However, it observed that the network’s direct actions, and apprehensions of its activists, had attracted press coverage.

Experts said that surveys indicated “increasing frustration with Israel’s defense tactics in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its central thesis, the briefing mentioned a poll finding that 60% of Britons thought Israel had gone too far in the conflict in Gaza and that a comparable proportion supported a prohibition on military sales.

“These constitute viewpoints based on which Palestine Action group forms its identity, organising explicitly to challenge the nation’s military exports in Britain,” officials wrote.

“Should that the group is banned, their profile may accidentally be boosted, attracting sympathy among sympathetic citizens who disagree with the UK involvement in the the nation’s military exports.”

Additional Warnings

Experts stated that the public opposed demands from the rightwing media for tough action, such as a ban.

Other sections of the document referenced surveys saying the population had a “widespread unfamiliarity” about the network.

It stated that “a significant segment of the British public are presumably at this time unaware of the group and would continue unaware should there be outlawing or, if informed, would continue generally indifferent”.

The ban under security statutes has resulted in demonstrations where many individuals have been detained for carrying signs in the streets stating “I am against genocide, I back the network”.

The document, which was a community impact assessment, noted that a outlawing under terrorism laws could heighten Muslim-Jewish strains and be seen as government favoritism in toward Israel.

Officials warned policymakers and high-level staff that outlawing could become “a trigger for major debate and criticism”.

Aftermath

Huda Ammori of the group, stated that the report’s warnings had proven accurate: “Awareness of the issues and popularity of the group have surged significantly. The ban has had the opposite effect.”

The interior minister at the period, the secretary, revealed the proscription in June, immediately after the organization’s activists supposedly caused damage at RAF Brize Norton in the region. Officials stated the destruction was extensive.

The chronology of the report indicates the outlawing was being planned well before it was made public.

Policymakers were advised that a outlawing might be regarded as an attack on personal freedoms, with the advisers noting that certain people in the cabinet as well as the wider public may see the action as “a gradual extension of anti-terror laws into the area of free expression and activism.”

Official Responses

A departmental official stated: “The group has engaged in an growing wave involving property destruction to Britain’s national security infrastructure, harassment, and claimed attacks. That activity puts the wellbeing of the citizens at peril.

“Rulings on proscription are thoroughly evaluated. These are based on a comprehensive evidence-based process, with contributions from a wide range of advisers from multiple agencies, the police and the intelligence agencies.”

A counter-terrorism policing spokesperson stated: “Judgments regarding outlawing are a prerogative for the government.

“In line with public expectations, anti-terror units, alongside a range of additional bodies, regularly supply information to the department to assist their operations.”

This briefing also showed that the central government had been financing periodic surveys of public strain associated with Israel and Palestine.