🔗 Share this article

Official briefings reveal that government officials proceeded with a ban on Palestine Action notwithstanding being given counsel that such steps could “unintentionally boost” the group’s visibility, according to recently uncovered government documents.

Background

The briefing report was drafted a quarter before the formal banning of the group, which was formed to engage in activism intending to curb UK weapons exports to Israel.

It was written three months ago by personnel at the interior ministry and the local governance ministry, with input from counter-terrorism advisers.

Survey Findings

Beneath the subheading “What would be the banning of the organisation be perceived by British people”, a part of the document warned that a proscription could turn into a divisive topic.

It described Palestine Action as a “limited focused movement with lower general news attention” relative to similar activist organizations such as Just Stop Oil. Yet it highlighted that the group’s activities, and arrests of its activists, received media attention.

The advisers noted that polling showed “rising frustration with Israel’s defense tactics in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its central thesis, the document mentioned a poll indicating that three-fifths of British citizens believed Israel had overstepped in the hostilities in Gaza and that a comparable proportion supported a prohibition on weapons exports.

“These constitute viewpoints based on which Palestine Action group builds its profile, acting purposefully to oppose Israel’s arms industry in the United Kingdom,” officials wrote.

“Should that the group is proscribed, their public image may inadvertently be enhanced, attracting sympathy among similarly minded citizens who disagree with the UK involvement in the Israel’s weapons trade.”

Other Risks

Experts noted that the citizens disagreed with appeals from the certain outlets for strict measures, like a ban.

Additional parts of the document mentioned surveys saying the citizens had a “limited knowledge” regarding the network.

Officials wrote that “a significant segment of the citizens are probably presently ignorant of the group and would remain so should there be proscription or, upon being told, would continue generally unconcerned”.

This proscription under terrorism laws has resulted in protests where many individuals have been apprehended for holding up banners in the streets declaring “I am against mass killings, I back the network”.

The document, which was a social effects evaluation, said that a outlawing under terrorism laws could heighten inter-community tensions and be viewed as official partiality in favour of Israel.

The document cautioned officials and top advisers that a ban could become “a catalyst for major controversy and criticism”.

Aftermath

Huda Ammori of the network, commented that the briefing’s warnings had materialized: “Understanding of the matters and popularity of the group have increased dramatically. The outlawing has been counterproductive.”

The interior minister at the point, the secretary, declared the outlawing in June, shortly following the organization’s activists reportedly committed acts at an air force station in the county. Government representatives claimed the harm was substantial.

The chronology of the report demonstrates the proscription was under consideration ahead of it was revealed.

Ministers were advised that a ban might be seen as an attack on personal freedoms, with the advisers saying that some within the administration as well as the wider public may see the decision as “a creep of security authorities into the domain of speech rights and activism.”

Authoritative Comments

A Home Office official said: “Palestine Action has engaged in an growing wave including criminal damage to the UK’s critical defense sites, coercion, and alleged violence. Such behavior puts the safety and security of the public at peril.

“Decisions on proscription are not taken lightly. Decisions are guided by a comprehensive evidence-based system, with input from a wide range of advisers from multiple agencies, the police and the intelligence agencies.”

A national security official stated: “Judgments relating to banning are a matter for the administration.

“In line with public expectations, national security forces, together with a range of further organizations, consistently provide material to the department to assist their efforts.”

The report also showed that the central government had been paying for periodic studies of public strain related to the regional situation.