🔗 Share this article

Internal briefings show that government officials enacted a proscription on Palestine Action despite being given warnings that such measures could “unintentionally boost” the organization’s standing, as shown in newly obtained government documents.

Context

The briefing report was prepared a quarter ahead of the formal banning of the network, which was established to conduct protests aimed at stop UK weapons exports to Israel.

It was drafted last March by staff at the Home Office and the local governance ministry, with input from anti-terror policing experts.

Public Perception

Following the headline “How would the outlawing of the organisation be viewed by British people”, a part of the report cautioned that a proscription could become a controversial issue.

The document characterized Palestine Action as a “limited specialized organization with lower mainstream media coverage” compared to similar protest groups including environmental activists. Yet it highlighted that the network’s direct actions, and apprehensions of its members, gained media attention.

The advisers said that surveys indicated “increasing dissatisfaction with Israeli military methods and actions in Gaza”.

Prior to its main point, the briefing referenced a survey finding that a majority of Britons believed Israel had overstepped in the conflict in Gaza and that a like percentage supported a restriction on weapons exports.

“These are viewpoints upon which Palestine Action group defines itself, organising explicitly to oppose Israel’s arms industry in the United Kingdom,” it said.

“If that the group is proscribed, their visibility may accidentally be amplified, gaining backing among like-thinking citizens who oppose the British footprint in the the nation’s military exports.”

Other Risks

Officials said that the citizens were against demands from the rightwing media for strict measures, like a ban.

Other sections of the document mentioned surveys showing the citizens had a “widespread unfamiliarity” regarding Palestine Action.

The document said that “much of the citizens are likely at this time unaware of the network and would continue unaware should there be outlawing or, if informed, would stay mostly untroubled”.

The outlawing under anti-terror legislation has sparked demonstrations where thousands have been apprehended for carrying banners in open spaces stating “I am against atrocities, I stand with the group”.

The report, which was a public reaction study, stated that a ban under anti-terror statutes could escalate inter-community strains and be perceived as government partiality in toward Israel.

Officials cautioned policymakers and top advisers that outlawing could become “a catalyst for substantial dispute and objections”.

Recent Events

Huda Ammori of the network, stated that the report’s predictions had materialized: “Understanding of the issues and backing of the organization have surged significantly. The outlawing has had the opposite effect.”

The home secretary at the time, the minister, announced the outlawing in the summer, immediately after the organization’s members supposedly caused damage at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Authorities stated the damage was significant.

The timing of the briefing demonstrates the proscription was under consideration well before it was made public.

Policymakers were told that a outlawing might be seen as an attack on civil liberties, with the experts noting that some within government as well as the wider public may see the measure as “a gradual extension of anti-terror laws into the realm of liberty and demonstration.”

Government Statements

An interior ministry spokesperson stated: “The group has carried out an growing wave including vandalism to the UK’s critical defense sites, harassment, and claimed attacks. That activity places the wellbeing of the population at risk.

“Judgments on proscription are thoroughly evaluated. These are based on a comprehensive data-supported system, with input from a diverse set of specialists from multiple agencies, the law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.”

A counter-terrorism official said: “Rulings regarding outlawing are a matter for the government.

“As the public would expect, counter-terrorism policing, alongside a range of additional bodies, consistently offer data to the interior ministry to support their work.”

The report also showed that the executive branch had been financing monthly studies of public strain related to the regional situation.