🔗 Share this article

Government papers show that ministers implemented a proscription on Palestine Action notwithstanding obtaining counsel that such steps could “accidentally amplify” the organization’s profile, according to leaked government records.

Context

This advisory paper was prepared 90 days prior to the official proscription of the group, which was formed to take direct action designed to halt UK weapons exports to Israel.

It was prepared in March by officials at the interior ministry and the housing and communities department, with input from anti-terror specialists.

Opinion Polling

Under the title “In what way might the proscription of the group be perceived by British people”, a segment of the document warned that a outlawing could turn into a controversial topic.

It described Palestine Action as a “modest single issue group with lower traditional press coverage” in contrast with other protest groups like environmental activists. But it noted that the group’s protests, and detentions of its members, had attracted press coverage.

Experts stated that surveys suggested “rising dissatisfaction with IDF methods and actions in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its central thesis, the briefing cited a study showing that three-fifths of Britons believed Israel had gone too far in the conflict in Gaza and that a like percentage backed a restriction on weapons exports.

“These represent viewpoints upon which Palestine Action group defines itself, acting purposefully to resist Israel’s military exports in Britain,” officials wrote.

“Should that the group is outlawed, their profile may inadvertently be amplified, gaining backing among similarly minded citizens who reject the British footprint in the Israeli arms industry.”

Additional Warnings

The advisers stated that the public disagreed with demands from the conservative press for harsh steps, like a proscription.

Other sections of the document referenced polling indicating the public had a “limited knowledge” about the network.

The document said that “much of the citizens are presumably presently unaware of Palestine Action and would remain so in the event of outlawing or, should they learn, would stay mostly indifferent”.

This proscription under security statutes has resulted in protests where numerous people have been detained for holding up placards in open spaces saying “I reject mass killings, I support the group”.

The report, which was a public reaction study, said that a ban under security legislation could escalate inter-community frictions and be viewed as government bias in toward Israel.

The document alerted policymakers and high-level staff that proscription could become “a trigger for substantial debate and objections”.

Recent Events

A co-founder of the group, commented that the document’s warnings had proven accurate: “Knowledge of the matters and support of the organization have surged significantly. The ban has backfired.”

The interior minister at the point, the secretary, revealed the outlawing in June, immediately after the group’s activists allegedly caused damage at RAF Brize Norton in the county. Government representatives stated the harm was significant.

The timing of the report shows the outlawing was being planned ahead of it was made public.

Officials were informed that a outlawing might be seen as an undermining of individual rights, with the officials stating that portions of the administration as well as the broader population may see the decision as “an expansion of security authorities into the domain of liberty and demonstration.”

Government Statements

An interior ministry spokesperson stated: “The group has conducted an escalating campaign including vandalism to Britain’s critical defense sites, intimidation, and alleged violence. That activity endangers the wellbeing of the citizens at risk.

“Rulings on proscription are carefully considered. They are based on a thorough fact-driven procedure, with input from a diverse set of specialists from various departments, the police and the intelligence agencies.”

A counter-terrorism law enforcement representative stated: “Decisions regarding banning are a matter for the government.

“As the public would expect, national security forces, together with a variety of additional bodies, routinely supply information to the Home Office to aid their operations.”

The document also showed that the Cabinet Office had been financing regular studies of public strain connected to the regional situation.