🔗 Share this article

Official papers reveal that policymakers proceeded with a proscription on the activist network notwithstanding receiving warnings that such measures could “accidentally amplify” the group’s standing, per recently uncovered internal briefings.

Context

This advisory document was drafted 90 days ahead of the official proscription of the network, which was formed to engage in activism intending to stop UK weapons exports to Israel.

It was prepared in March by officials at the department of home affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, aided by anti-terror specialists.

Survey Findings

Following the headline “How would the proscription of the network be regarded by the UK public”, a part of the briefing cautioned that a proscription could prove to be a controversial topic.

It described Palestine Action as a “small single issue group with reduced mainstream media coverage” relative to similar activist groups including Just Stop Oil. But it noted that the network’s activities, and apprehensions of its supporters, had attracted publicity.

The advisers said that surveys showed “rising discontent with IDF operations in Gaza”.

Prior to its main point, the document referenced a poll indicating that a majority of the UK public felt Israel had exceeded limits in the hostilities in Gaza and that a comparable proportion backed a restriction on arms shipments.

“These represent positions around which PAG defines itself, acting purposefully to resist Israel’s arms industry in the United Kingdom,” officials wrote.

“Should that the group is outlawed, their profile may unintentionally be amplified, attracting sympathy among sympathetic individuals who disagree with the British role in the the nation’s military exports.”

Additional Warnings

Officials said that the general populace were against appeals from the rightwing media for strict measures, like a proscription.

Additional parts of the briefing mentioned polling indicating the population had a “widespread unfamiliarity” about Palestine Action.

Officials wrote that “a large portion of the UK population are likely currently ignorant of Palestine Action and would continue unaware should there be outlawing or, if informed, would remain largely untroubled”.

The ban under terrorism laws has resulted in rallies where numerous people have been arrested for holding up placards in the streets declaring “I am against atrocities, I back the network”.

This briefing, which was a social effects evaluation, noted that a proscription under anti-terror statutes could heighten Muslim-Jewish tensions and be perceived as official partiality in toward Israel.

The briefing alerted ministers and top advisers that outlawing could become “a catalyst for substantial debate and criticism”.

Post-Ban Developments

One leader of the network, said that the briefing’s predictions had proven accurate: “Understanding of the issues and popularity of the network have grown exponentially. The outlawing has been counterproductive.”

The interior minister at the time, the minister, revealed the outlawing in June, shortly following the group’s activists reportedly committed acts at RAF Brize Norton in the county. Government representatives stated the destruction was extensive.

The timing of the briefing indicates the outlawing was being planned well before it was announced.

Policymakers were told that a ban might be seen as an undermining of personal freedoms, with the officials stating that some within the administration as well as the general citizenry may view the decision as “a gradual extension of anti-terror laws into the area of speech rights and activism.”

Authoritative Comments

A Home Office official stated: “The network has carried out an escalating campaign involving criminal damage to Britain’s national security infrastructure, harassment, and alleged violence. These actions places the protection of the citizens at danger.

“Decisions on outlawing are carefully considered. These are guided by a robust data-supported procedure, with input from a diverse set of experts from multiple agencies, the law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.”

An anti-terror policing spokesperson commented: “Judgments concerning outlawing are a responsibility for the administration.

“As the public would expect, counter-terrorism policing, in conjunction with a selection of additional bodies, regularly supply information to the Home Office to support their work.”

The document also disclosed that the executive branch had been financing periodic polls of community tensions related to the regional situation.