🔗 Share this article Advisers Alerted Officials That Outlawing the Activist Group Could Boost Its Public Profile Government briefings reveal that government officials proceeded with a proscription on Palestine Action despite being given warnings that such action could “accidentally amplify” the group’s profile, as shown in recently uncovered government briefings. Background This advisory report was prepared 90 days before the legal outlawing of the organization, which was formed to take direct action aimed at stop UK arms supplies to Israel. It was prepared in March by officials at the department of home affairs and the local governance ministry, with input from counter-terrorism advisers. Opinion Polling Following the subheading “What would be the banning of the organisation be regarded by British people”, a segment of the report alerted that a ban could prove to be a controversial topic. The document characterized the network as a “small focused group with reduced mainstream media exposure” in contrast with similar direct action movements like other climate groups. However, it observed that the group’s activities, and apprehensions of its activists, had attracted press coverage. The advisers noted that surveys suggested “increasing frustration with Israeli military tactics in Gaza”. Leading up to its key argument, the report cited a survey finding that 60% of the UK public believed Israel had exceeded limits in the conflict in Gaza and that a comparable proportion backed a ban on arms shipments. “These constitute positions around which PAG defines itself, organising explicitly to oppose the Israeli military exports in the UK,” it said. “Should that Palestine Action is outlawed, their visibility may unintentionally be enhanced, gaining backing among similarly minded individuals who oppose the British role in the Israeli arms industry.” Other Risks Officials said that the citizens opposed calls from the rightwing media for harsh steps, including a ban. Additional parts of the report referenced polling saying the public had a “limited knowledge” regarding Palestine Action. The document said that “a large portion of the citizens are likely at this time unaware of Palestine Action and would remain so in the event of proscription or, should they learn, would continue generally indifferent”. The outlawing under security statutes has resulted in demonstrations where thousands have been arrested for holding up placards in the streets saying “I am against atrocities, I support the group”. This briefing, which was a public reaction study, noted that a outlawing under security legislation could heighten religious strains and be seen as state favoritism in favour of Israel. The briefing warned policymakers and senior officials that outlawing could become “a trigger for substantial controversy and censure”. Aftermath One leader of Palestine Action, stated that the briefing’s advisories had proven accurate: “Awareness of the matters and backing of the group have increased dramatically. This proscription has been counterproductive.” The senior official at the point, Yvette Cooper, declared the proscription in last month, right after the group’s members reportedly vandalized property at RAF Brize Norton in the region. Authorities stated the damage was substantial. The timing of the document indicates the ban was in development long prior to it was revealed. Policymakers were informed that a outlawing might be perceived as an attack on civil liberties, with the experts stating that certain people in the cabinet as well as the broader population may consider the measure as “an expansion of terrorism powers into the realm of speech rights and demonstration.” Authoritative Comments An interior ministry representative said: “Palestine Action has carried out an increasingly aggressive series including vandalism to Britain’s critical defense sites, intimidation, and alleged violence. Such behavior endangers the safety and security of the citizens at risk. “Decisions on outlawing are carefully considered. They are guided by a robust evidence-based system, with contributions from a wide range of specialists from multiple agencies, the authorities and the intelligence agencies.” An anti-terror official commented: “Rulings relating to banning are a responsibility for the cabinet. “As the public would expect, anti-terror units, together with a selection of other agencies, regularly offer data to the department to aid their operations.” The document also revealed that the central government had been paying for monthly studies of community tensions associated with the Middle East conflict.