🔗 Share this article

Official briefings reveal that policymakers proceeded with a outlawing on the activist network even after being given warnings that such steps could “accidentally amplify” the organization’s profile, per recently uncovered government briefings.

Background

The briefing paper was prepared 90 days prior to the legal outlawing of the group, which was established to engage in activism aimed at halt UK arms supplies to Israel.

The document was drafted last March by officials at the department of home affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, aided by national security specialists.

Survey Findings

Beneath the subheading “What would be the banning of the organisation be perceived by the UK public”, a segment of the briefing cautioned that a proscription could turn into a controversial issue.

It described the group as a “modest single issue group with reduced traditional press exposure” compared to other direct action groups such as environmental activists. But it noted that the network’s activities, and arrests of its members, gained publicity.

The advisers stated that surveys suggested “increasing frustration with Israeli military tactics in Gaza”.

Prior to its central thesis, the briefing cited a study showing that 60% of Britons believed Israel had gone too far in the hostilities in Gaza and that a similar number supported a ban on arms shipments.

“These are stances upon which PAG forms its identity, acting purposefully to challenge Israel’s military exports in the UK,” officials wrote.

“Should that the group is proscribed, their visibility may accidentally be enhanced, attracting sympathy among like-thinking citizens who disagree with the UK involvement in the Israel’s weapons trade.”

Further Concerns

Officials said that the public disagreed with calls from the conservative press for strict measures, including a ban.

Further segments of the document mentioned polling indicating the public had a “general lack of awareness” regarding the group.

Officials wrote that “a significant segment of the citizens are probably presently unaware of the network and would remain so in the event of proscription or, if informed, would stay mostly untroubled”.

The ban under security statutes has sparked protests where thousands have been arrested for displaying banners in the streets saying “I am against genocide, I support the network”.

The document, which was a social effects evaluation, stated that a proscription under anti-terror statutes could increase Muslim-Jewish strains and be seen as official partiality in toward Israel.

Officials alerted policymakers and top advisers that a ban could become “a flashpoint for significant controversy and censure”.

Recent Events

One leader of the group, stated that the briefing’s advisories had proven accurate: “Awareness of the concerns and support of the group have surged significantly. This proscription has been counterproductive.”

The senior official at the time, the minister, announced the proscription in last month, immediately after the network’s members reportedly vandalized property at an air force station in Oxfordshire. Government representatives claimed the damage was extensive.

The chronology of the report indicates the ban was under consideration ahead of it was announced.

Officials were advised that a ban might be regarded as an attack on personal freedoms, with the experts saying that certain people in government as well as the general citizenry may view the action as “an expansion of terrorism powers into the realm of free expression and activism.”

Authoritative Comments

A Home Office spokesperson commented: “Palestine Action has engaged in an increasingly aggressive series including property destruction to Britain’s critical defense sites, coercion, and alleged violence. These actions places the protection of the citizens at risk.

“Rulings on proscription are carefully considered. These are guided by a robust evidence-based procedure, with input from a diverse set of advisers from various departments, the law enforcement and the Security Service.”

A counter-terrorism law enforcement representative said: “Rulings concerning outlawing are a prerogative for the cabinet.

“Naturally, anti-terror units, in conjunction with a range of other agencies, regularly supply information to the department to assist their operations.”

The document also disclosed that the executive branch had been funding monthly polls of community tensions related to Israel and Palestine.