🔗 Share this article

Official documents reveal that ministers enacted a proscription on the activist network despite being given counsel that such action could “inadvertently enhance” the organization’s profile, as shown in recently uncovered government briefings.

The Situation

This advisory document was prepared a quarter before the legal outlawing of the organization, which came into being to conduct protests aimed at stop UK military equipment sales to Israel.

It was written three months ago by personnel at the interior ministry and the housing and communities department, assisted by anti-terror policing experts.

Survey Findings

Beneath the subheading “What would be the banning of the network be perceived by citizens”, a segment of the document warned that a outlawing could prove to be a divisive issue.

It described the group as a “small focused organization with lower traditional press exposure” in contrast with similar direct action organizations like Just Stop Oil. Yet it highlighted that the organisation’s direct actions, and detentions of its members, gained publicity.

Officials stated that surveys showed “rising frustration with Israeli military operations in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its key argument, the report cited a survey indicating that 60% of the UK public thought Israel had overstepped in the war in Gaza and that a similar number supported a ban on arms shipments.

“These are viewpoints based on which Palestine Action group defines itself, organising explicitly to resist the nation’s military exports in Britain,” officials wrote.

“If that PAG is outlawed, their public image may accidentally be amplified, attracting sympathy among sympathetic individuals who disagree with the UK involvement in the the nation’s military exports.”

Other Risks

Officials stated that the citizens disagreed with demands from the rightwing media for strict measures, such as a ban.

Additional parts of the briefing cited polling showing the population had a “widespread unfamiliarity” about Palestine Action.

The document said that “much of the UK population are likely currently uninformed of the network and would stay that way if there is outlawing or, if informed, would remain largely unconcerned”.

The ban under security statutes has sparked demonstrations where thousands have been detained for carrying placards in open spaces declaring “I reject atrocities, I back the network”.

The report, which was a public reaction study, stated that a ban under terrorism laws could heighten Muslim-Jewish strains and be seen as official favoritism in favour of Israel.

The briefing cautioned policymakers and top advisers that a ban could become “a catalyst for significant debate and criticism”.

Post-Ban Developments

One leader of the network, stated that the briefing’s predictions had proven accurate: “Awareness of the matters and support of the organization have surged significantly. The outlawing has backfired.”

The senior official at the time, the secretary, revealed the outlawing in last month, right after the organization’s members reportedly caused damage at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Authorities stated the harm was significant.

The timing of the document demonstrates the ban was in development long prior to it was announced.

Officials were told that a outlawing might be perceived as an attack on personal freedoms, with the experts noting that portions of the administration as well as the wider public may view the measure as “a creep of terrorism powers into the realm of liberty and demonstration.”

Government Statements

An interior ministry official said: “The group has carried out an increasingly aggressive series including property destruction to the nation’s critical defense sites, intimidation, and reported assaults. These actions puts the wellbeing of the population at risk.

“Decisions on banning are thoroughly evaluated. Decisions are informed by a comprehensive fact-driven procedure, with contributions from a broad spectrum of advisers from across government, the authorities and the MI5.”

A counter-terrorism official stated: “Judgments relating to banning are a prerogative for the administration.

“Naturally, anti-terror units, alongside a range of further organizations, regularly provide material to the department to support their operations.”

The report also showed that the central government had been paying for regular studies of public strain connected to Israel and Palestine.