By
A Labour Party members’ poll in August found that 71% disagreed with the ban. Photo by Press Eye
The UK government was warned that banning Palestine Action could heighten Muslim-Jewish tensions, be seen as evidence of bias towards Israel, and inadvertently raise the group’s public profile - months before the decision was made to outlaw it.
The document cautioned that the move risked becoming “a flashpoint for significant controversy and criticism” of the government.
The Community Impact Assessment was produced in March by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Home Office, and the National Police Chiefs Council. A declassified version of the report was seen by The Detail.
It was one of the pieces of evidence that the proscription review group considered before supporting the Home Secretary in deciding to ban Palestine Action. The group was banned in July.
Flashpoint
The report described Palestine Action as “a small, single-issue group with lower mainstream media exposure than more widely recognised direct action groups, including Just Stop Oil and others.”
It noted a “general lack of awareness” among the public, adding that “much of the British public are likely currently unaware of Palestine Action (PAG) and would remain so in the event of prescription or, if informed, would remain largely unconcerned.”
However it warned that if the ban on Palestine Action was linked to debates surrounding Israel’s war against Gaza, the proscription could become "a flashpoint for significant controversy and criticism of HMG.
“Debate will also likely concern whether using terrorsim powers to counter criminal but non-violent direct action groups is a proportionate response."
Cabinet Office polling cited in the document showed declining public sympathy for Israel and growing support for the Palestinian cause. Another survey found majority support for ending UK arms exports - an issue central to Palestine Action’s campaigns against Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems.
Officials warned that “in the event that PAG is proscribed, their profile may be inadvertently be enhanced, finding support amongst similarly minded members of the public who oppose the British footprint in the Israeli arms industry.”
Since the ban, protests have taken place across the UK, with thousands risking arrest under terror laws. The Metropolitan Police say they have detained more than 2,000 people in London alone. A Labour Party members’ poll in August found that 71% disagreed with the ban.
A government spokesperson said that “Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign involving criminal damage to Britain’s national security infrastructure, intimidation, and alleged violence. That activity puts the safety and security of the public at risk.
“Decisions on proscription are not taken lightly. They are informed by a robust evidence-based process, with contributions from a wide range of experts from across government, the police and the Security Service.”
Community tensions
Officials anticipated that reactions within different communities would be sharply divided.
“Many British Jewish people are likely to view PAG negatively, seeing it as a part of a movement hostile to Israel that may legitimize or promote antisemetic views and activities,” the report said. “However, these teams expect opinions on proscription to be mixed...it remains unclear how widespread [support for proscription] is within wider Jewish communities.”
By contrast, it said, “British Muslim communities are highly likely to view PAG positively, perceiving it as supporting Palestinian rights, and its actions directed solely against the state of Israel.”
The report warned that banning the group could “exacerbate polarisation and tensions between Muslim and Jewish communities in the UK” and recommended avoiding key religious or cultural holidays when announcing the decision.
It also advised ministers to develop “clear and consistent messaging” and to engage directly with community and faith leaders to explain the government’s rationale.
Civil liberties concerns were also highlighted, with officials warning that some within government and the wider public might see the decision as “a creep of terrorism powers into the realm of free expression and protest.”
The report concluded that proscribing Palestine Action “would almost certainly be perceived as evidence of bias against the British Muslim community and in favour of British Jews and Israel more broadly.”
It added that such a move “would likely reinforce past allegations of anti-Palestine HMG bias”.
Officials referred to earlier claims reported by The Guardian, including that Home Office ministers had attempted to influence police and prosecutors after meetings with Israeli arms Elbit Systems, and that Israeli embassy officials had sought to persuade the attorney general’s office to intervene in court cases.
“In the context of such reports, proscription could provide fertile ground for actors attempting to substantiate a pattern of basis,” the document warned.
MPs raised concerns in September following media reports that the Ministry of Defence was considering awarding a £2 billion contract to Elbit Systems UK, a subsidiary of Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer. The company describes its drones as “the backbone of the Israel Defense Forces.”
Before its proscription, Palestine Action had led a direct-action campaign targeting Elbit’s UK facilities, which intensified after Israel’s assault on Gaza. One of the company’s sites was later closed following repeated protests.
A separate declassified intelligence assessment appeared to question the strength of the case for proscription, stating that “the majority of the group’s activity would not be classified as terrorism.”