🔗 Share this article

Internal papers indicate that policymakers enacted a outlawing on the activist network despite obtaining counsel that such measures could “unintentionally boost” the group’s visibility, as shown in leaked internal records.

Background

The assessment document was prepared three months prior to the legal outlawing of the network, which was established to take direct action aimed at curb UK arms supplies to Israel.

It was prepared in March by staff at the interior ministry and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with input from counter-terrorism specialists.

Survey Findings

Following the subheading “How would the proscription of the organisation be regarded by the UK public”, a segment of the briefing alerted that a ban could turn into a controversial topic.

The document characterized Palestine Action as a “small focused organization with reduced mainstream media attention” relative to comparable protest movements including other climate groups. But it noted that the group’s direct actions, and arrests of its activists, had attracted media attention.

The advisers noted that research indicated “increasing frustration with Israel’s defense methods and actions in Gaza”.

Leading up to its central thesis, the document referenced a study indicating that a majority of British citizens felt Israel had gone too far in the hostilities in Gaza and that a like percentage supported a ban on military sales.

“These are viewpoints upon which Palestine Action group defines itself, campaigning directly to challenge the nation’s arms industry in Britain,” it said.

“Should that the group is banned, their profile may accidentally be boosted, finding support among like-thinking citizens who disagree with the UK involvement in the Israel’s weapons trade.”

Additional Warnings

Experts noted that the public disagreed with demands from the rightwing media for strict measures, such as a outlawing.

Further segments of the briefing mentioned research indicating the population had a “limited knowledge” regarding Palestine Action.

It stated that “a large portion of the citizens are presumably currently unaware of Palestine Action and would continue unaware if there is proscription or, if informed, would continue generally unconcerned”.

The ban under terrorism laws has resulted in protests where numerous people have been arrested for displaying signs in public saying “I reject atrocities, I back Palestine Action”.

This briefing, which was a community impact assessment, said that a proscription under anti-terror statutes could escalate Muslim-Jewish tensions and be seen as official partiality in favour of Israel.

Officials alerted officials and high-level staff that a ban could become “a trigger for substantial debate and criticism”.

Post-Ban Developments

One leader of the group, said that the document’s predictions had come true: “Awareness of the matters and backing of the organization have surged significantly. This proscription has had the opposite effect.”

The home secretary at the period, the minister, declared the outlawing in the summer, immediately after the network’s supporters supposedly committed acts at an air force station in the county. Officials claimed the destruction was substantial.

The chronology of the document demonstrates the ban was in development long prior to it was revealed.

Ministers were told that a ban might be seen as an undermining of personal freedoms, with the advisers noting that certain people in the administration as well as the wider public may see the decision as “an expansion of terrorism powers into the realm of free expression and activism.”

Government Statements

A Home Office official said: “The network has carried out an escalating campaign involving criminal damage to the UK’s key installations, coercion, and alleged violence. These actions endangers the safety and security of the public at peril.

“Decisions on proscription are carefully considered. These are based on a thorough data-supported process, with contributions from a broad spectrum of specialists from multiple agencies, the authorities and the Security Service.”

An anti-terror official stated: “Decisions relating to proscription are a matter for the government.

“In line with public expectations, counter-terrorism policing, in conjunction with a variety of additional bodies, routinely supply information to the Home Office to assist their operations.”

The report also revealed that the central government had been financing monthly polls of community tensions related to the Middle East conflict.