🔗 Share this article

Government documents reveal that government officials implemented a ban on Palestine Action even after obtaining advice that such steps could “inadvertently enhance” the organization’s standing, as shown in recently uncovered internal records.

Context

The briefing document was written 90 days prior to the formal banning of the group, which was formed to engage in activism designed to stop UK arms supplies to Israel.

This was prepared in March by staff at the interior ministry and the housing and communities department, assisted by anti-terror policing experts.

Survey Findings

Beneath the title “How would the banning of the network be regarded by citizens”, one section of the report cautioned that a outlawing could turn into a controversial topic.

Officials portrayed the network as a “limited specialized organization with lower mainstream media coverage” compared to other direct action movements including other climate groups. However, it observed that the organisation’s direct actions, and apprehensions of its activists, had attracted publicity.

The advisers noted that surveys showed “increasing dissatisfaction with Israeli military tactics in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its central thesis, the document cited a survey showing that three-fifths of the UK public believed Israel had gone too far in the hostilities in Gaza and that a similar number supported a prohibition on military sales.

“These constitute stances around which the organization defines itself, organising explicitly to challenge the nation’s arms industry in the UK,” the document stated.

“Should that the group is outlawed, their profile may unintentionally be amplified, finding support among sympathetic members of the public who reject the British role in the the nation’s military exports.”

Further Concerns

The advisers stated that the citizens opposed calls from the certain outlets for tough action, like a ban.

Other sections of the briefing cited surveys saying the public had a “general lack of awareness” regarding the network.

The document said that “a large portion of the citizens are probably presently uninformed of the group and would continue unaware in the event of proscription or, should they learn, would stay mostly unconcerned”.

The ban under anti-terror legislation has sparked demonstrations where numerous people have been detained for displaying banners in public declaring “I oppose mass killings, I back the group”.

This briefing, which was a community impact assessment, noted that a outlawing under terrorism laws could escalate religious frictions and be perceived as state partiality in support of Israel.

The briefing warned policymakers and senior officials that a ban could become “a trigger for major dispute and criticism”.

Recent Events

Huda Ammori of the group, commented that the report’s advisories had come true: “Understanding of the issues and backing of the group have increased dramatically. The ban has been counterproductive.”

The interior minister at the point, the secretary, announced the proscription in the summer, right after the group’s supporters allegedly caused damage at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. Authorities claimed the harm was substantial.

The schedule of the briefing indicates the outlawing was under consideration well before it was revealed.

Policymakers were advised that a proscription might be regarded as an undermining of civil liberties, with the advisers noting that portions of the cabinet as well as the wider public may view the decision as “a gradual extension of terrorism powers into the area of speech rights and protest.”

Authoritative Comments

An interior ministry spokesperson commented: “Palestine Action has engaged in an increasingly aggressive series including criminal damage to the nation’s key installations, harassment, and claimed attacks. That activity endangers the wellbeing of the citizens at peril.

“Judgments on banning are carefully considered. They are based on a thorough fact-driven process, with assistance from a wide range of advisers from across government, the police and the Security Service.”

An anti-terror law enforcement representative said: “Judgments concerning banning are a matter for the government.

“Naturally, national security forces, together with a variety of other agencies, consistently supply information to the Home Office to assist their work.”

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