🔗 Share this article

Official papers show that policymakers proceeded with a outlawing on Palestine Action despite receiving advice that such measures could “unintentionally boost” the organization’s standing, as shown in recently uncovered official briefings.

Context

This advisory document was prepared 90 days prior to the official proscription of the organization, which was established to engage in activism aimed at stop UK weapons exports to Israel.

The document was drafted last March by personnel at the interior ministry and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, aided by anti-terror policing experts.

Public Perception

Under the subheading “In what way might the proscription of the group be viewed by citizens”, a segment of the document warned that a proscription could become a polarizing matter.

It described Palestine Action as a “modest specialized group with lower general news exposure” compared to other direct action movements such as other climate groups. However, it observed that the organisation’s activities, and apprehensions of its supporters, had attracted publicity.

The advisers noted that research suggested “increasing frustration with Israeli military operations in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its key argument, the briefing cited a study indicating that 60% of the UK public believed Israel had overstepped in the hostilities in Gaza and that a like percentage supported a prohibition on arms shipments.

“These are positions upon which Palestine Action group defines itself, campaigning directly to oppose the nation’s arms industry in the United Kingdom,” the document stated.

“In the event that the group is outlawed, their visibility may unintentionally be amplified, gaining backing among similarly minded citizens who oppose the UK involvement in the Israeli arms industry.”

Other Risks

Experts said that the public were against appeals from the rightwing media for strict measures, including a ban.

Additional parts of the document mentioned polling indicating the public had a “general lack of awareness” about the network.

Officials wrote that “a large portion of the citizens are probably at this time uninformed of the network and would continue unaware if there is proscription or, upon being told, would remain largely untroubled”.

The ban under anti-terror legislation has led to rallies where thousands have been arrested for holding up banners in open spaces stating “I oppose atrocities, I stand with Palestine Action”.

The document, which was a public reaction study, stated that a proscription under terrorism laws could increase Muslim-Jewish strains and be perceived as official partiality in support of Israel.

The briefing alerted officials and senior officials that outlawing could become “a catalyst for major controversy and objections”.

Aftermath

A co-founder of the group, commented that the briefing’s predictions had proven accurate: “Knowledge of the matters and popularity of the network have grown exponentially. The outlawing has had the opposite effect.”

The home secretary at the period, the minister, revealed the ban in the summer, right after the organization’s members supposedly committed acts at RAF Brize Norton in the region. Government representatives asserted the destruction was substantial.

The chronology of the document demonstrates the ban was in development well before it was made public.

Policymakers were informed that a proscription might be seen as an attack on personal freedoms, with the advisers saying that some within the cabinet as well as the general citizenry may see the decision as “an expansion of security authorities into the area of free expression and activism.”

Authoritative Comments

An interior ministry spokesperson said: “The network has engaged in an growing wave entailing criminal damage to the UK’s national security infrastructure, coercion, and reported assaults. Such behavior endangers the safety and security of the public at risk.

“Decisions on banning are thoroughly evaluated. These are based on a comprehensive fact-driven process, with contributions from a diverse set of specialists from across government, the police and the Security Service.”

An anti-terror policing spokesperson said: “Decisions regarding proscription are a matter for the cabinet.

“As the public would expect, anti-terror units, together with a selection of additional bodies, regularly provide material to the Home Office to assist their work.”

The report also showed that the Cabinet Office had been funding monthly polls of public strain connected to the Middle East conflict.