Government Experts Alerted Officials That Outlawing the Activist Group Could Boost Its Popularity
Government papers reveal that government officials enacted a outlawing on the activist network even after obtaining advice that such action could “unintentionally boost” the group’s visibility, according to newly obtained official documents.
Context
The assessment document was written a quarter ahead of the formal banning of the network, which was established to take direct action intending to curb UK military equipment sales to Israel.
The document was written three months ago by officials at the Home Office and the housing and communities department, assisted by counter-terrorism advisers.
Public Perception
Under the headline “How would the outlawing of the group be viewed by British people”, one section of the document warned that a ban could become a polarizing topic.
It described the group as a “small focused group with reduced general news attention” relative to similar protest movements like Just Stop Oil. Yet it highlighted that the group’s direct actions, and arrests of its supporters, had attracted press coverage.
The advisers stated that polling suggested “growing frustration with Israeli military methods and actions in Gaza”.
In the lead-up to its central thesis, the briefing mentioned a survey finding that three-fifths of British citizens felt Israel had overstepped in the war in Gaza and that a like percentage backed a ban on weapons exports.
“These represent stances around which PAG defines itself, organising explicitly to resist the nation’s arms industry in Britain,” the document stated.
“If that Palestine Action is banned, their visibility may inadvertently be enhanced, gaining backing among similarly minded members of the public who oppose the British footprint in the Israeli arms industry.”
Other Risks
The advisers said that the citizens opposed appeals from the rightwing media for tough action, like a ban.
Further segments of the document cited polling saying the public had a “general lack of awareness” about Palestine Action.
It stated that “a significant segment of the citizens are likely at this time uninformed of the network and would stay that way should there be proscription or, should they learn, would continue generally indifferent”.
The outlawing under terrorism laws has led to demonstrations where numerous people have been arrested for holding up banners in the streets declaring “I am against genocide, I stand with Palestine Action”.
The report, which was a public reaction study, stated that a proscription under terrorism laws could escalate religious strains and be viewed as government bias in toward Israel.
The briefing warned ministers and top advisers that proscription could become “a trigger for significant dispute and criticism”.
Post-Ban Developments
Huda Ammori of Palestine Action, commented that the report’s advisories had materialized: “Awareness of the issues and backing of the group have grown exponentially. The ban has backfired.”
The senior official at the point, the minister, announced the ban in the summer, shortly following the network’s supporters supposedly caused damage at RAF Brize Norton in the region. Authorities stated the destruction was substantial.
The chronology of the document demonstrates the outlawing was under consideration well before it was revealed.
Ministers were informed that a ban might be regarded as an undermining of personal freedoms, with the advisers saying that certain people in the cabinet as well as the broader population may consider the action as “an expansion of security authorities into the area of liberty and protest.”
Government Statements
A Home Office official said: “Palestine Action has engaged in an growing wave entailing vandalism to the UK’s national security infrastructure, harassment, and reported assaults. These actions puts the safety and security of the public at peril.
“Rulings on banning are thoroughly evaluated. Decisions are based on a thorough data-supported procedure, with contributions from a broad spectrum of specialists from multiple agencies, the police and the MI5.”
A national security official stated: “Rulings concerning proscription are a prerogative for the government.
“As the public would expect, anti-terror units, together with a variety of additional bodies, consistently supply information to the interior ministry to support their work.”
The report also showed that the Cabinet Office had been paying for regular studies of social friction related to the Middle East conflict.
