🔗 Share this article

Government documents show that ministers implemented a outlawing on the activist network notwithstanding obtaining advice that such steps could “unintentionally boost” the group’s profile, according to recently uncovered official briefings.

Background

This advisory document was prepared three months before the formal banning of the group, which came into being to take direct action designed to curb UK arms supplies to Israel.

This was prepared in March by staff at the interior ministry and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, assisted by national security advisers.

Opinion Polling

Under the subheading “In what way might the outlawing of the network be perceived by British people”, a part of the document cautioned that a proscription could become a divisive issue.

Officials portrayed the network as a “limited specialized organization with lower general news exposure” in contrast with similar activist organizations including other climate groups. But it noted that the network’s direct actions, and arrests of its members, gained press coverage.

The advisers stated that surveys showed “growing dissatisfaction with Israeli military tactics in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its main point, the document mentioned a study indicating that a majority of Britons thought Israel had overstepped in the hostilities in Gaza and that a similar number supported a prohibition on weapons exports.

“These represent positions upon which Palestine Action group defines itself, acting purposefully to oppose Israel’s weapons trade in Britain,” officials wrote.

“In the event that Palestine Action is proscribed, their profile may accidentally be boosted, gaining backing among like-thinking members of the public who oppose the British footprint in the Israeli arms industry.”

Other Risks

The advisers stated that the public were against demands from the certain outlets for tough action, such as a ban.

Further segments of the briefing cited surveys indicating the citizens had a “general lack of awareness” regarding Palestine Action.

Officials wrote that “a large portion of the UK population are probably currently ignorant of Palestine Action and would continue unaware in the event of proscription or, upon being told, would continue generally unconcerned”.

This proscription under terrorism laws has led to protests where numerous people have been apprehended for displaying placards in public declaring “I reject genocide, I stand with the network”.

The document, which was a community impact assessment, said that a ban under terrorism laws could increase inter-community frictions and be perceived as government partiality in toward Israel.

The briefing warned officials and senior officials that outlawing could become “a trigger for major debate and criticism”.

Aftermath

Huda Ammori of the group, stated that the document’s predictions had come true: “Knowledge of the concerns and popularity of the organization have surged significantly. The outlawing has had the opposite effect.”

The senior official at the period, Yvette Cooper, announced the outlawing in the summer, right after the organization’s activists allegedly caused damage at RAF Brize Norton in the county. Government representatives asserted the damage was extensive.

The timing of the briefing shows the proscription was under consideration long prior to it was announced.

Officials were informed that a proscription might be seen as an assault on personal freedoms, with the advisers saying that some within government as well as the broader population may see the action as “an expansion of anti-terror laws into the domain of free expression and demonstration.”

Official Responses

A Home Office official stated: “The group has carried out an growing wave entailing property destruction to Britain’s key installations, intimidation, and claimed attacks. These actions endangers the wellbeing of the citizens at risk.

“Judgments on outlawing are carefully considered. Decisions are guided by a comprehensive fact-driven process, with contributions from a diverse set of advisers from across government, the law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.”

A counter-terrorism official stated: “Judgments regarding outlawing are a responsibility for the cabinet.

“In line with public expectations, national security forces, in conjunction with a range of additional bodies, consistently offer data to the interior ministry to aid their operations.”

This briefing also revealed that the Cabinet Office had been paying for periodic polls of public strain related to the Middle East conflict.