🔗 Share this article

Official briefings indicate that ministers proceeded with a ban on the activist network notwithstanding obtaining advice that such steps could “unintentionally boost” the organization’s profile, as shown in leaked official briefings.

Context

This advisory report was prepared three months before the legal outlawing of the organization, which was formed to engage in activism intending to stop UK military equipment sales to Israel.

This was prepared in March by staff at the interior ministry and the local governance ministry, with input from anti-terror policing experts.

Opinion Polling

Under the headline “What would be the banning of the group be viewed by British people”, one section of the report alerted that a outlawing could become a controversial matter.

It described the group as a “modest specialized group with lower mainstream media coverage” compared to other activist organizations like environmental activists. Yet it highlighted that the organisation’s activities, and detentions of its activists, received publicity.

Officials stated that polling suggested “increasing frustration with Israel’s defense tactics in Gaza”.

Prior to its central thesis, the document referenced a study indicating that three-fifths of the UK public thought Israel had gone too far in the war in Gaza and that a like percentage favored a ban on military sales.

“These represent stances based on which Palestine Action group defines itself, organising explicitly to oppose the nation’s arms industry in the UK,” the document stated.

“If that the group is banned, their profile may accidentally be enhanced, gaining backing among sympathetic members of the public who oppose the British footprint in the the nation’s military exports.”

Further Concerns

The advisers stated that the citizens disagreed with demands from the rightwing media for tough action, including a outlawing.

Other sections of the document mentioned surveys saying the population had a “limited knowledge” about Palestine Action.

Officials wrote that “a significant segment of the citizens are presumably currently uninformed of Palestine Action and would stay that way in the event of proscription or, upon being told, would stay mostly untroubled”.

The outlawing under security statutes has resulted in demonstrations where thousands have been apprehended for carrying banners in open spaces saying “I reject mass killings, I stand with the group”.

The document, which was a community impact assessment, said that a proscription under anti-terror statutes could increase Muslim-Jewish strains and be perceived as official bias in support of Israel.

Officials alerted policymakers and top advisers that proscription could become “a trigger for substantial controversy and censure”.

Post-Ban Developments

Huda Ammori of Palestine Action, said that the briefing’s advisories had materialized: “Knowledge of the concerns and backing of the organization have surged significantly. This proscription has backfired.”

The senior official at the time, Yvette Cooper, revealed the outlawing in June, right after the group’s activists allegedly vandalized property at an air force station in the county. Government representatives claimed the destruction was extensive.

The timing of the briefing indicates the proscription was in development well before it was made public.

Ministers were told that a outlawing might be perceived as an attack on civil liberties, with the advisers noting that some within the cabinet as well as the wider public may consider the measure as “a creep of anti-terror laws into the realm of speech rights and protest.”

Official Responses

A Home Office representative stated: “Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign involving property destruction to Britain’s national security infrastructure, intimidation, and alleged violence. Such behavior puts the safety and security of the population at danger.

“Decisions on banning are thoroughly evaluated. They are guided by a thorough fact-driven procedure, with assistance from a wide range of experts from various departments, the police and the MI5.”

A national security law enforcement representative said: “Decisions relating to outlawing are a responsibility for the cabinet.

“In line with public expectations, national security forces, in conjunction with a variety of other agencies, routinely offer data to the Home Office to support their efforts.”

This briefing also disclosed that the central government had been financing periodic polls of community tensions associated with the Middle East conflict.