🔗 Share this article

Official documents indicate that policymakers proceeded with a proscription on Palestine Action despite obtaining warnings that such measures could “unintentionally boost” the organization’s profile, as shown in newly obtained internal records.

Context

The briefing report was written 90 days before the official proscription of the group, which came into being to take direct action designed to curb UK arms supplies to Israel.

This was prepared in March by officials at the department of home affairs and the local governance ministry, with input from national security advisers.

Opinion Polling

Under the title “What would be the proscription of the network be perceived by British people”, a part of the briefing alerted that a ban could turn into a polarizing topic.

The document characterized the network as a “small specialized movement with reduced general news coverage” in contrast with comparable direct action movements such as environmental activists. However, it observed that the organisation’s activities, and detentions of its supporters, had attracted media attention.

The advisers noted that polling suggested “rising dissatisfaction with Israeli military methods and actions in Gaza”.

Prior to its main point, the briefing referenced a study indicating that three-fifths of British citizens thought Israel had exceeded limits in the war in Gaza and that a like percentage supported a restriction on weapons exports.

“These represent positions upon which the organization forms its identity, acting purposefully to challenge Israel’s arms industry in the United Kingdom,” officials wrote.

“If that PAG is banned, their profile may inadvertently be enhanced, gaining backing among like-thinking citizens who disagree with the British footprint in the Israeli arms industry.”

Other Risks

The advisers said that the public disagreed with calls from the rightwing media for tough action, such as a proscription.

Additional parts of the document mentioned surveys showing the citizens had a “widespread unfamiliarity” regarding the network.

Officials wrote that “a significant segment of the UK population are likely presently uninformed of Palestine Action and would stay that way if there is a ban or, upon being told, would continue generally indifferent”.

The ban under anti-terror legislation has led to demonstrations where thousands have been arrested for displaying placards in public stating “I reject mass killings, I stand with Palestine Action”.

The document, which was a social effects evaluation, stated that a proscription under anti-terror statutes could increase Muslim-Jewish frictions and be seen as government partiality in toward Israel.

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

Recent Events

One leader of the group, commented that the document’s warnings had come true: “Awareness of the matters and popularity of the network have increased dramatically. The ban has had the opposite effect.”

The senior official at the time, Yvette Cooper, revealed the ban in June, shortly following the network’s supporters reportedly committed acts at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Authorities stated the harm was significant.

The timing of the briefing shows the proscription was under consideration ahead of it was made public.

Ministers were informed that a ban might be perceived as an assault on civil liberties, with the advisers noting that some within the administration as well as the general citizenry may see the decision as “a gradual extension of terrorism powers into the domain of liberty and protest.”

Official Responses

An interior ministry spokesperson stated: “Palestine Action has engaged in an growing wave including vandalism to Britain’s key installations, coercion, and alleged violence. These actions places the protection of the public at risk.

“Judgments on proscription are carefully considered. They are informed by a robust fact-driven procedure, with assistance from a diverse set of experts from across government, the authorities and the intelligence agencies.”

A counter-terrorism official stated: “Decisions concerning banning are a matter for the cabinet.

“As the public would expect, counter-terrorism policing, together with a selection of additional bodies, routinely provide material to the department to assist their efforts.”

The report also revealed that the central government had been financing periodic polls of social friction connected to the Middle East conflict.