🔗 Share this article

Official briefings indicate that ministers enacted a outlawing on the activist network despite being given counsel that such steps could “inadvertently enhance” the organization’s profile, according to leaked official documents.

Background

The assessment report was written three months ahead of the legal outlawing of the organization, which came into being to take direct action intending to halt UK military equipment sales to Israel.

This was drafted last March by officials at the department of home affairs and the housing and communities department, aided by anti-terror specialists.

Survey Findings

Under the title “How would the proscription of the group be regarded by citizens”, one section of the report cautioned that a ban could turn into a polarizing issue.

It described the group as a “small focused organization with lower traditional press coverage” in contrast with other protest movements including environmental activists. Yet it highlighted that the group’s protests, and apprehensions of its activists, had attracted media attention.

Experts noted that research showed “rising discontent with Israeli military operations in Gaza”.

Prior to its key argument, the briefing mentioned a poll showing that a majority of British citizens felt Israel had gone too far in the hostilities in Gaza and that a similar number favored a restriction on military sales.

“These are viewpoints around which the organization builds its profile, acting purposefully to oppose the nation’s weapons trade in the UK,” officials wrote.

“In the event that PAG is proscribed, their visibility may unintentionally be amplified, finding support among like-thinking citizens who reject the British footprint in the Israel’s weapons trade.”

Additional Warnings

The advisers said that the public were against demands from the rightwing media for strict measures, including a ban.

Additional parts of the document mentioned research indicating the citizens had a “widespread unfamiliarity” concerning the group.

Officials wrote that “a significant segment of the citizens are presumably presently ignorant of Palestine Action and would remain so if there is proscription or, should they learn, would continue generally indifferent”.

This proscription under anti-terror legislation has led to protests where thousands have been apprehended for holding up placards in open spaces stating “I am against genocide, I back the network”.

This briefing, which was a social effects evaluation, stated that a ban under anti-terror statutes could increase Muslim-Jewish frictions and be viewed as government partiality in favour of Israel.

The briefing alerted policymakers and high-level staff that a ban could become “a flashpoint for significant debate and censure”.

Post-Ban Developments

Huda Ammori of Palestine Action, said that the briefing’s predictions had come true: “Knowledge of the issues and popularity of the group have surged significantly. The outlawing has backfired.”

The interior minister at the period, the minister, announced the outlawing in the summer, right after the group’s members supposedly committed acts at an air force station in the region. Government representatives asserted the destruction was extensive.

The chronology of the document shows the proscription was being planned well before it was revealed.

Ministers were told that a ban might be seen as an assault on individual rights, with the experts stating that portions of government as well as the broader population may view the decision as “a creep of anti-terror laws into the domain of free expression and demonstration.”

Authoritative Comments

A Home Office official commented: “The group has carried out an escalating campaign entailing criminal damage to the nation’s key installations, intimidation, and alleged violence. These actions places the protection of the public at risk.

“Rulings on outlawing are carefully considered. These are guided by a thorough data-supported process, with assistance from a broad spectrum of experts from across government, the authorities and the Security Service.”

A national security law enforcement representative stated: “Judgments relating to banning are a prerogative for the administration.

“In line with public expectations, counter-terrorism policing, in conjunction with a selection of additional bodies, routinely offer data to the interior ministry to assist their operations.”

The document also showed that the central government had been paying for monthly polls of community tensions related to the Middle East conflict.