🔗 Share this article

Official papers reveal that ministers enacted a outlawing on the activist network despite obtaining counsel that such action could “inadvertently enhance” the group’s profile, per recently uncovered internal documents.

Background

The assessment paper was drafted a quarter ahead of the formal banning of the organization, which came into being to take direct action intending to stop UK weapons exports to Israel.

The document was drafted last March by personnel at the interior ministry and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, assisted by national security specialists.

Survey Findings

Following the title “What would be the banning of the organisation be regarded by British people”, one section of the report warned that a ban could become a controversial topic.

It described Palestine Action as a “modest focused organization with less mainstream media coverage” compared to comparable direct action organizations like Just Stop Oil. However, it observed that the network’s direct actions, and arrests of its supporters, received media attention.

The advisers stated that surveys showed “growing discontent with Israel’s defense tactics in Gaza”.

Leading up to its main point, the report referenced a survey showing that a majority of the UK public thought Israel had overstepped in the hostilities in Gaza and that a comparable proportion supported a restriction on weapons exports.

“These are viewpoints around which Palestine Action group defines itself, campaigning directly to resist Israel’s military exports in the United Kingdom,” it said.

“Should that Palestine Action is outlawed, their public image may accidentally be enhanced, attracting sympathy among sympathetic members of the public who oppose the British role in the the nation’s military exports.”

Additional Warnings

Officials stated that the public disagreed with appeals from the conservative press for tough action, such as a ban.

Additional parts of the document cited polling showing the citizens had a “general lack of awareness” regarding the group.

Officials wrote that “a large portion of the British public are probably at this time uninformed of the group and would remain so should there be outlawing or, if informed, would remain largely unconcerned”.

The ban under security statutes has led to rallies where numerous people have been arrested for carrying signs in public stating “I oppose mass killings, I stand with the group”.

The report, which was a social effects evaluation, stated that a proscription under anti-terror statutes could increase religious tensions and be perceived as state favoritism in support of Israel.

Officials warned officials and senior officials that outlawing could become “a trigger for significant debate and objections”.

Aftermath

One leader of the network, commented that the report’s advisories had proven accurate: “Knowledge of the concerns and backing of the network have surged significantly. This proscription has had the opposite effect.”

The senior official at the point, the secretary, announced the outlawing in June, right after the organization’s members allegedly vandalized property at a military base in the county. Government representatives asserted the destruction was significant.

The chronology of the briefing indicates the proscription was under consideration long prior to it was announced.

Officials were advised that a ban might be seen as an undermining of civil liberties, with the advisers stating that certain people in government as well as the wider public may view the action as “a creep of anti-terror laws into the area of liberty and demonstration.”

Authoritative Comments

An interior ministry representative commented: “Palestine Action has carried out an increasingly aggressive series including criminal damage to Britain’s key installations, harassment, and reported assaults. Such behavior puts the wellbeing of the public at peril.

“Decisions on proscription are carefully considered. Decisions are informed by a comprehensive evidence-based process, with contributions from a diverse set of advisers from across government, the police and the MI5.”

An anti-terror official stated: “Rulings relating to banning are a matter for the administration.

“Naturally, counter-terrorism policing, alongside a variety of other agencies, consistently supply information to the Home Office to assist their work.”

The document also showed that the central government had been paying for monthly surveys of social friction associated with Israel and Palestine.