🔗 Share this article

Official briefings show that government officials proceeded with a ban on the activist network despite receiving warnings that such steps could “unintentionally boost” the organization’s profile, according to newly obtained official briefings.

Background

The assessment document was prepared three months before the formal banning of the network, which came into being to conduct protests aimed at curb UK weapons exports to Israel.

The document was drafted last March by officials at the department of home affairs and the housing and communities department, assisted by anti-terror advisers.

Opinion Polling

Under the title “How would the proscription of the organisation be viewed by the UK public”, a part of the briefing warned that a ban could become a polarizing issue.

Officials portrayed the network as a “modest single issue group with reduced traditional press exposure” relative to comparable protest movements like other climate groups. But it noted that the network’s direct actions, and arrests of its members, had attracted press coverage.

The advisers stated that research indicated “growing frustration with IDF methods and actions in Gaza”.

Prior to its key argument, the report referenced a survey finding that a majority of Britons believed Israel had exceeded limits in the conflict in Gaza and that a comparable proportion backed a restriction on weapons exports.

“These represent stances upon which Palestine Action group defines itself, organising explicitly to challenge the nation’s arms industry in Britain,” it said.

“In the event that the group is banned, their visibility may inadvertently be boosted, finding support among sympathetic citizens who reject the British footprint in the Israel’s weapons trade.”

Other Risks

The advisers said that the public disagreed with calls from the conservative press for harsh steps, including a proscription.

Further segments of the report cited surveys saying the population had a “general lack of awareness” about Palestine Action.

The document said that “a large portion of the British public are probably currently uninformed of the group and would stay that way in the event of a ban or, should they learn, would continue generally indifferent”.

The outlawing under terrorism laws has led to demonstrations where many individuals have been apprehended for displaying banners in the streets declaring “I reject genocide, I support Palestine Action”.

The report, which was a public reaction study, said that a ban under terrorism laws could increase inter-community tensions and be seen as government partiality in favour of Israel.

The briefing warned policymakers and senior officials that a ban could become “a trigger for significant controversy and censure”.

Aftermath

One leader of the network, stated that the report’s warnings had proven accurate: “Awareness of the concerns and support of the group have surged significantly. The outlawing has backfired.”

The home secretary at the time, the secretary, declared the proscription in last month, right after the network’s members reportedly vandalized property at an air force station in the region. Government representatives asserted the damage was significant.

The chronology of the document demonstrates the proscription was under consideration ahead of it was made public.

Policymakers were informed that a proscription might be seen as an attack on personal freedoms, with the advisers stating that some within government as well as the broader population may consider the action as “a creep of anti-terror laws into the area of speech rights and activism.”

Government Statements

A departmental representative stated: “The group has carried out an increasingly aggressive series entailing criminal damage to the nation’s key installations, coercion, and claimed attacks. These actions puts the wellbeing of the population at peril.

“Judgments on outlawing are thoroughly evaluated. They are based on a robust evidence-based system, with assistance from a wide range of specialists from across government, the police and the MI5.”

An anti-terror law enforcement representative said: “Decisions regarding banning are a responsibility for the cabinet.

“In line with public expectations, counter-terrorism policing, in conjunction with a range of additional bodies, regularly provide material to the Home Office to aid their work.”

The report also showed that the executive branch had been funding monthly polls of community tensions related to the Middle East conflict.