🔗 Share this article

Internal papers show that government officials enacted a outlawing on Palestine Action despite being given warnings that such action could “unintentionally boost” the group’s profile, per recently uncovered internal documents.

Context

The briefing paper was drafted 90 days before the legal outlawing of the group, which was formed to engage in activism aimed at halt UK military equipment sales to Israel.

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

Public Perception

Following the headline “How would the banning of the organisation be viewed by British people”, a segment of the document warned that a outlawing could turn into a polarizing topic.

It described Palestine Action as a “modest focused organization with lower traditional press attention” relative to other activist movements including other climate groups. However, it observed that the network’s activities, and apprehensions of its supporters, received media attention.

The advisers noted that polling showed “growing discontent with Israeli military tactics in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its key argument, the document cited a poll indicating that 60% of the UK public felt Israel had exceeded limits in the conflict in Gaza and that a similar number supported a ban on military sales.

“These constitute positions around which the organization builds its profile, organising explicitly to challenge the nation’s arms industry in the United Kingdom,” the document stated.

“In the event that Palestine Action is proscribed, their public image may accidentally be amplified, attracting sympathy among sympathetic citizens who oppose the UK involvement in the Israeli arms industry.”

Other Risks

Officials stated that the general populace opposed appeals from the certain outlets for strict measures, including a proscription.

Additional parts of the document referenced surveys showing the public had a “general lack of awareness” regarding the group.

Officials wrote that “much of the British public are likely currently unaware of the group and would stay that way if there is outlawing or, if informed, would continue generally untroubled”.

This proscription under anti-terror legislation has sparked rallies where many individuals have been detained for carrying placards in open spaces saying “I oppose mass killings, I stand with the network”.

The document, which was a social effects evaluation, said that a outlawing under anti-terror statutes could escalate inter-community frictions and be seen as government partiality in favour of Israel.

The document cautioned officials and senior officials that outlawing could become “a catalyst for major dispute and objections”.

Post-Ban Developments

Huda Ammori of Palestine Action, stated that the document’s advisories had come true: “Awareness of the concerns and backing of the organization have grown exponentially. The ban has backfired.”

The interior minister at the time, the secretary, revealed the outlawing in June, right after the organization’s members allegedly committed acts at RAF Brize Norton in the region. Government representatives asserted the harm was extensive.

The schedule of the briefing demonstrates the outlawing was being planned long prior to it was revealed.

Ministers were told that a proscription might be regarded as an attack on personal freedoms, with the experts noting that portions of the administration as well as the wider public may see the measure as “a gradual extension of security authorities into the realm of free expression and activism.”

Official Responses

A departmental representative stated: “Palestine Action has engaged in an increasingly aggressive series involving property destruction to Britain’s key installations, coercion, and alleged violence. These actions endangers the protection of the citizens at peril.

“Decisions on banning are thoroughly evaluated. They are informed by a robust fact-driven procedure, with assistance from a diverse set of specialists from multiple agencies, the police and the intelligence agencies.”

An anti-terror law enforcement representative stated: “Decisions regarding banning are a responsibility for the administration.

“In line with public expectations, counter-terrorism policing, together with a range of additional bodies, regularly offer data to the department to assist their efforts.”

The report also revealed that the central government had been paying for regular surveys of community tensions related to the regional situation.