🔗 Share this article Consultants Cautioned Officials That Outlawing the Activist Group Could Enhance Its Public Profile Official briefings show that ministers enacted a ban on the activist network notwithstanding receiving counsel that such steps could “unintentionally boost” the group’s visibility, as shown in leaked internal documents. The Situation The assessment paper was written a quarter before the legal outlawing of the group, which was formed to take direct action designed to stop UK military equipment sales to Israel. The document was drafted last March by officials at the department of home affairs and the local governance ministry, assisted by national security specialists. Opinion Polling Under the headline “What would be the outlawing of the group be regarded by citizens”, one section of the briefing warned that a ban could prove to be a polarizing issue. The document characterized the network as a “limited specialized group with less traditional press attention” in contrast with other activist groups like other climate groups. However, it observed that the group’s protests, and detentions of its members, gained press coverage. The advisers said that research indicated “rising frustration with Israel’s defense operations in Gaza”. Leading up to its key argument, the briefing cited a poll finding that 60% of the UK public felt Israel had exceeded limits in the war in Gaza and that a similar number supported a prohibition on arms shipments. “These are stances upon which PAG builds its profile, acting purposefully to resist the Israeli arms industry in Britain,” it said. “If that Palestine Action is proscribed, their visibility may unintentionally be amplified, attracting sympathy among similarly minded members of the public who oppose the UK involvement in the the nation’s military exports.” Other Risks Officials said that the general populace were against appeals from the rightwing media for strict measures, such as a ban. Additional parts of the report referenced surveys saying the population had a “general lack of awareness” about the group. It stated that “much of the citizens are presumably presently ignorant of the network and would stay that way in the event of proscription or, should they learn, would remain largely unconcerned”. This proscription under terrorism laws has led to rallies where thousands have been arrested for displaying banners in open spaces declaring “I reject mass killings, I support the network”. The document, which was a social effects evaluation, said that a outlawing under security legislation could increase Muslim-Jewish frictions and be perceived as government favoritism in support of Israel. The briefing cautioned policymakers and senior officials that a ban could become “a trigger for substantial controversy and censure”. Post-Ban Developments Huda Ammori of the group, commented that the report’s predictions had come true: “Knowledge of the issues and support of the group have increased dramatically. This proscription has had the opposite effect.” The interior minister at the point, Yvette Cooper, revealed the ban in the summer, immediately after the group’s activists allegedly caused damage at a military base in the county. Officials asserted the destruction was extensive. The chronology of the report demonstrates the ban was under consideration well before it was made public. Policymakers were advised that a outlawing might be seen as an assault on civil liberties, with the experts saying that certain people in the administration as well as the broader population may see the measure as “an expansion of anti-terror laws into the domain of liberty and demonstration.” Authoritative Comments An interior ministry representative commented: “Palestine Action has conducted an increasingly aggressive series including property destruction to the UK’s key installations, harassment, and alleged violence. Such behavior puts the safety and security of the population at risk. “Judgments on proscription are carefully considered. These are based on a robust fact-driven system, with assistance from a diverse set of advisers from multiple agencies, the law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.” An anti-terror official commented: “Judgments relating to proscription are a responsibility for the administration. “Naturally, national security forces, together with a variety of other agencies, routinely provide material to the Home Office to support their operations.” The document also disclosed that the Cabinet Office had been funding regular surveys of social friction related to the Middle East conflict.