🔗 Share this article

Internal documents reveal that policymakers implemented a ban on the activist network even after receiving advice that such action could “inadvertently enhance” the organization’s standing, per newly obtained government briefings.

Background

This advisory report was prepared 90 days before the official proscription of the organization, which was established to take direct action aimed at curb UK military equipment sales to Israel.

This was written three months ago by officials at the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, assisted by counter-terrorism specialists.

Survey Findings

Following the subheading “How would the outlawing of the network be perceived by British people”, a part of the report alerted that a proscription could prove to be a polarizing issue.

It described the group as a “modest single issue organization with less mainstream media exposure” in contrast with similar activist movements such as environmental activists. However, it observed that the network’s protests, and arrests of its supporters, received press coverage.

The advisers stated that research showed “increasing frustration with IDF operations in Gaza”.

Leading up to its key argument, the document referenced a survey showing that three-fifths of Britons felt Israel had exceeded limits in the conflict in Gaza and that a similar number backed a restriction on weapons exports.

“These are positions upon which PAG builds its profile, acting purposefully to oppose the nation’s military exports in the UK,” the document stated.

“If that the group is proscribed, their profile may inadvertently be boosted, attracting sympathy among sympathetic members of the public who reject the British footprint in the Israeli arms industry.”

Further Concerns

Officials stated that the public opposed demands from the conservative press for harsh steps, like a ban.

Additional parts of the document cited surveys showing the citizens had a “general lack of awareness” regarding Palestine Action.

Officials wrote that “much of the UK population are likely at this time uninformed of the network and would remain so in the event of a ban or, should they learn, would remain largely untroubled”.

The outlawing under anti-terror legislation has led to protests where thousands have been detained for holding up placards in open spaces declaring “I reject atrocities, I back the network”.

This briefing, which was a community impact assessment, said that a ban under anti-terror statutes could heighten religious tensions and be viewed as official favoritism in favour of Israel.

Officials cautioned ministers and top advisers that proscription could become “a trigger for substantial controversy and censure”.

Recent Events

One leader of the network, commented that the briefing’s predictions had proven accurate: “Understanding of the concerns and backing of the group have surged significantly. The ban has backfired.”

The senior official at the point, the secretary, revealed the proscription in June, shortly following the organization’s members allegedly committed acts at an air force station in Oxfordshire. Government representatives asserted the damage was substantial.

The schedule of the briefing demonstrates the outlawing was in development well before it was made public.

Ministers were told that a proscription might be perceived as an assault on individual rights, with the advisers saying that certain people in government as well as the general citizenry may consider the decision as “an expansion of anti-terror laws into the domain of liberty and protest.”

Government Statements

A departmental official stated: “The group has conducted an escalating campaign including vandalism to the nation’s critical defense sites, intimidation, and alleged violence. That activity puts the wellbeing of the citizens at risk.

“Rulings on outlawing are thoroughly evaluated. Decisions are guided by a comprehensive fact-driven procedure, with contributions from a broad spectrum of specialists from across government, the law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.”

An anti-terror policing spokesperson stated: “Rulings relating to outlawing are a matter for the cabinet.

“As the public would expect, anti-terror units, together with a variety of other agencies, regularly offer data to the interior ministry to support their work.”

The report also showed that the Cabinet Office had been funding monthly surveys of public strain associated with the regional situation.