🔗 Share this article

Internal briefings indicate that ministers proceeded with a proscription on the activist network despite obtaining counsel that such steps could “unintentionally boost” the group’s standing, per recently uncovered official briefings.

The Situation

The briefing document was prepared a quarter ahead of the official proscription of the organization, which came into being to engage in activism designed to halt UK weapons exports to Israel.

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

Survey Findings

Under the headline “How would the outlawing of the group be perceived by British people”, a segment of the document warned that a proscription could prove to be a controversial topic.

It described the network as a “small focused organization with lower traditional press attention” in contrast with comparable protest groups such as environmental activists. But it noted that the organisation’s activities, and arrests of its members, gained press coverage.

Officials said that research showed “growing dissatisfaction with Israel’s defense methods and actions in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its central thesis, the report cited a study finding that a majority of Britons thought Israel had gone too far in the war in Gaza and that a similar number supported a restriction on weapons exports.

“These represent positions based on which Palestine Action group defines itself, acting purposefully to resist Israel’s weapons trade in Britain,” the document stated.

“Should that PAG is banned, their public image may unintentionally be enhanced, finding support among like-thinking members of the public who reject the British footprint in the Israeli arms industry.”

Further Concerns

Officials noted that the general populace opposed calls from the rightwing media for strict measures, like a ban.

Additional parts of the document mentioned polling indicating the citizens had a “limited knowledge” regarding the network.

The document said that “a large portion of the British public are likely at this time uninformed of the group and would continue unaware should there be outlawing or, should they learn, would stay mostly untroubled”.

The ban under security statutes has led to protests where thousands have been apprehended for displaying placards in public saying “I oppose mass killings, I support Palestine Action”.

The document, which was a community impact assessment, stated that a proscription under terrorism laws could heighten inter-community tensions and be perceived as official partiality in favour of Israel.

The document warned officials and top advisers that outlawing could become “a trigger for significant debate and objections”.

Recent Events

One leader of the network, said that the briefing’s advisories had materialized: “Awareness of the concerns and backing of the group have grown exponentially. This proscription has been counterproductive.”

The home secretary at the time, the secretary, declared the outlawing in the summer, right after the organization’s members allegedly vandalized property at an air force station in the county. Officials claimed the destruction was substantial.

The schedule of the briefing shows the outlawing was under consideration long prior to it was made public.

Officials were told that a outlawing might be seen as an undermining of personal freedoms, with the experts stating that certain people in government as well as the wider public may view the action as “a gradual extension of terrorism powers into the domain of speech rights and activism.”

Government Statements

A departmental spokesperson commented: “The group has carried out an growing wave including vandalism to the UK’s key installations, intimidation, and alleged violence. These actions places the protection of the public at risk.

“Rulings on banning are carefully considered. Decisions are informed by a robust data-supported process, with assistance from a diverse set of advisers from multiple agencies, the law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.”

A counter-terrorism policing spokesperson said: “Decisions regarding proscription are a responsibility for the government.

“In line with public expectations, counter-terrorism policing, together with a selection of further organizations, regularly offer data to the department to support their efforts.”

The report also showed that the central government had been financing monthly surveys of social friction connected to Israel and Palestine.