🔗 Share this article

Internal documents reveal that ministers proceeded with a proscription on the activist network even after receiving counsel that such action could “accidentally amplify” the organization’s visibility, per newly obtained official documents.

The Situation

The briefing paper was written three months prior to the legal outlawing of the group, which was established to take direct action designed to halt UK weapons exports to Israel.

This was prepared in March by personnel at the Home Office and the local governance ministry, with input from anti-terror policing experts.

Survey Findings

Under the title “How would the proscription of the organisation be perceived by British people”, one section of the briefing alerted that a proscription could prove to be a polarizing issue.

It described Palestine Action as a “small single issue group with lower mainstream media attention” in contrast with other protest groups such as Just Stop Oil. However, it observed that the group’s protests, and apprehensions of its members, gained media attention.

Experts noted that surveys indicated “growing frustration with IDF methods and actions in Gaza”.

Leading up to its key argument, the briefing cited a survey indicating that a majority of the UK public felt Israel had gone too far in the conflict in Gaza and that a like percentage supported a prohibition on military sales.

“These are positions upon which Palestine Action group forms its identity, organising explicitly to resist the Israeli weapons trade in the UK,” it said.

“If that Palestine Action is proscribed, their public image may inadvertently be enhanced, attracting sympathy among similarly minded citizens who disagree with the UK involvement in the the nation’s military exports.”

Additional Warnings

The advisers stated that the public were against demands from the rightwing media for harsh steps, such as a ban.

Other sections of the document mentioned surveys showing the public had a “limited knowledge” about the group.

It stated that “much of the UK population are likely currently uninformed of the network and would stay that way in the event of proscription or, should they learn, would remain largely unconcerned”.

The ban under terrorism laws has sparked rallies where many individuals have been detained for displaying banners in the streets stating “I oppose atrocities, I back the group”.

The report, which was a social effects evaluation, stated that a proscription under anti-terror statutes could heighten religious frictions and be seen as government favoritism in favour of Israel.

Officials warned ministers and senior officials that a ban could become “a trigger for major controversy and censure”.

Aftermath

Huda Ammori of the network, said that the document’s predictions had materialized: “Knowledge of the matters and popularity of the organization have surged significantly. The outlawing has backfired.”

The senior official at the time, Yvette Cooper, announced the ban in last month, immediately after the organization’s supporters reportedly vandalized property at a military base in the region. Authorities asserted the destruction was substantial.

The schedule of the report indicates the ban was in development well before it was announced.

Ministers were told that a outlawing might be regarded as an attack on personal freedoms, with the experts noting that some within government as well as the general citizenry may consider the decision as “a gradual extension of terrorism powers into the domain of liberty and demonstration.”

Authoritative Comments

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The group has conducted an growing wave entailing vandalism to the nation’s national security infrastructure, coercion, and reported assaults. That activity places the safety and security of the public at danger.

“Judgments on proscription are not taken lightly. These are informed by a thorough data-supported procedure, with assistance from a wide range of experts from across government, the law enforcement and the Security Service.”

An anti-terror policing spokesperson commented: “Judgments relating to banning are a prerogative for the administration.

“As the public would expect, national security forces, in conjunction with a range of additional bodies, regularly provide material to the department to support their efforts.”

This briefing also showed that the central government had been funding regular studies of community tensions associated with the regional situation.