🔗 Share this article

Internal briefings show that policymakers proceeded with a outlawing on the activist network notwithstanding receiving warnings that such measures could “unintentionally boost” the group’s standing, per recently uncovered internal records.

The Situation

The assessment document was drafted a quarter prior to the official proscription of the organization, which was established to engage in activism aimed at halt UK weapons exports to Israel.

It was prepared in March by personnel at the interior ministry and the housing and communities department, aided by national security specialists.

Survey Findings

Following the headline “In what way might the proscription of the network be viewed by citizens”, a segment of the document warned that a proscription could become a polarizing topic.

It described the group as a “small focused movement with reduced traditional press exposure” in contrast with other activist organizations such as Just Stop Oil. But it noted that the network’s protests, and detentions of its activists, received media attention.

Experts said that polling indicated “growing discontent with IDF methods and actions in Gaza”.

In the lead-up to its main point, the document referenced a study indicating that 60% of the UK public thought Israel had overstepped in the hostilities in Gaza and that a similar number supported a ban on military sales.

“These are positions upon which the organization builds its profile, campaigning directly to resist the Israeli arms industry in the United Kingdom,” officials wrote.

“In the event that PAG is proscribed, their public image may accidentally be boosted, gaining backing among sympathetic members of the public who disagree with the UK involvement in the the nation’s military exports.”

Additional Warnings

Experts noted that the citizens disagreed with demands from the certain outlets for tough action, such as a outlawing.

Further segments of the document mentioned surveys showing the citizens had a “general lack of awareness” concerning the group.

Officials wrote that “much of the UK population are likely currently unaware of the group and would remain so in the event of outlawing or, if informed, would continue generally unconcerned”.

This proscription under security statutes has resulted in protests where thousands have been arrested for holding up signs in public saying “I reject genocide, I back the group”.

The document, which was a social effects evaluation, stated that a ban under anti-terror statutes could heighten religious tensions and be seen as government favoritism in toward Israel.

The document alerted policymakers and senior officials that proscription could become “a trigger for significant dispute and criticism”.

Recent Events

One leader of the network, stated that the report’s predictions had materialized: “Knowledge of the issues and support of the group have grown exponentially. The ban has had the opposite effect.”

The senior official at the time, Yvette Cooper, revealed the outlawing in the summer, immediately after the group’s members allegedly caused damage at a military base in the county. Government representatives asserted the damage was significant.

The timing of the briefing shows the proscription was under consideration long prior to it was revealed.

Ministers were told that a ban might be regarded as an undermining of civil liberties, with the advisers stating that portions of the administration as well as the wider public may consider the decision as “a creep of anti-terror laws into the area of free expression and protest.”

Government Statements

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The network has conducted an increasingly aggressive series entailing property destruction to the nation’s critical defense sites, coercion, and reported assaults. Such behavior puts the protection of the citizens at peril.

“Rulings on proscription are carefully considered. Decisions are informed by a comprehensive data-supported procedure, with contributions from a broad spectrum of specialists from across government, the law enforcement and the intelligence agencies.”

An anti-terror policing spokesperson commented: “Rulings relating to proscription are a responsibility for the government.

“As the public would expect, anti-terror units, alongside a selection of additional bodies, regularly supply information to the department to support their work.”

The document also disclosed that the Cabinet Office had been funding monthly studies of social friction associated with the Middle East conflict.