🔗 Share this article

Internal papers reveal that government officials implemented a ban on Palestine Action despite obtaining warnings that such measures could “inadvertently enhance” the organization’s profile, per recently uncovered government documents.

The Situation

The assessment report was prepared 90 days before the formal banning of the network, which was established to conduct protests intending to halt UK weapons exports to Israel.

It was drafted last March by staff at the interior ministry and the housing and communities department, assisted by counter-terrorism policing experts.

Opinion Polling

Beneath the headline “In what way might the outlawing of the network be regarded by citizens”, one section of the briefing warned that a ban could become a polarizing issue.

The document characterized the group as a “small focused group with reduced general news coverage” in contrast with similar protest groups including other climate groups. Yet it highlighted that the group’s protests, and arrests of its members, had attracted press coverage.

Experts stated that research indicated “rising discontent with IDF tactics in Gaza”.

Prior to its central thesis, the report cited a study showing that a majority of the UK public believed Israel had gone too far in the conflict in Gaza and that a like percentage favored a restriction on military sales.

“These constitute stances based on which Palestine Action group defines itself, acting purposefully to resist 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 enhanced, gaining backing among like-thinking individuals who reject the British role in the the nation’s military exports.”

Additional Warnings

The advisers noted that the public opposed demands from the certain outlets for tough action, such as a proscription.

Other sections of the report mentioned polling showing the population had a “limited knowledge” regarding the group.

The document said that “a large portion of the citizens are presumably at this time uninformed of the network and would remain so in the event of a ban or, upon being told, would remain largely indifferent”.

The outlawing under security statutes has resulted in demonstrations where thousands have been detained for displaying banners in public declaring “I oppose genocide, I stand with the network”.

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

Officials alerted ministers and top advisers that a ban could become “a catalyst for substantial controversy and censure”.

Aftermath

One leader of Palestine Action, stated that the document’s predictions had materialized: “Knowledge of the concerns and popularity of the network have grown exponentially. The ban has had the opposite effect.”

The interior minister at the period, the secretary, announced the proscription in last month, shortly following the group’s supporters supposedly committed acts at RAF Brize Norton in the county. Government representatives asserted the damage was significant.

The chronology of the briefing shows the ban was being planned long prior to it was announced.

Policymakers were informed that a ban might be regarded as an assault on civil liberties, with the experts stating that certain people in government as well as the general citizenry may see the action as “a gradual extension of security authorities into the domain of liberty and demonstration.”

Government Statements

A departmental spokesperson said: “The network has carried out an increasingly aggressive series involving property destruction to Britain’s key installations, harassment, and claimed attacks. That activity places the protection of the population at peril.

“Decisions on proscription are carefully considered. Decisions are based on a comprehensive fact-driven process, with contributions from a diverse set of specialists from across government, the police and the MI5.”

A national security official stated: “Rulings concerning proscription are a matter for the government.

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

The document also showed that the executive branch had been funding monthly polls of social friction associated with the regional situation.