Eurasia Press & News
Exclusive: Documents seen by Declassified reveal serious concerns within the UK government and MI5 about proscribing Palestine Action.
The UK government was secretly advised that Palestine Action is “highly unlikely” to advocate for violence while officials struggled to produce evidence the group posed a national security threat, it can be revealed.
Despite this, the activist group was banned earlier this month when Home Secretary Yvette Cooper proscribed it under terrorism legislation.
It is the first time in British history that a direct-action group has been branded a terrorist organisation.
Only 26 MPs voted against the ban, which provoked a wave of civil disobedience across Britain, with protesters holding placards saying: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action”.
Over 100 people have now been arrested under the Terrorism Act for allegedly showing support for the group, including an 83-year-old priest and a man holding a Private Eye cartoon.
Declassified has now seen documents which detail why, how, and when the decision to proscribe Palestine Action was made. They form part of the material relied upon in the group’s High Court challenge to the ban.
‘Novel and unprecedented’
The documents detail how the government’s Proscription Review Group (PRG) conceded in March 2025 that a ban on Palestine Action would be “novel and unprecedented”.
This was because “there was no known precedent of an organisation being proscribed… mainly due to its use or threat of action involving serious damage to property”.
The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), which is based within MI5, also concluded that “the majority of direct action by Palestine Action would not be classified as terrorism… but does often involve criminality”.
Cooper was nonetheless advised in March by PRG and JTAC that the threshold to ban the group had been met based on three out of a total of 385 incidents, involving “serious property damage” to arms factories.
Lawyers representing the group’s co-founder Huda Ammori argued in court that these activities were not intended to “influence the government” and therefore could not satisfy the statutory test for terrorism.
While one incident involved several alleged assaults, moreover, UK officials broadly recognised that Palestine Action (PA) does not promote or encourage attacks on people.
The JTAC assessment notes how: “PA media channels highly likely will only share footage, or encourage, instances of property damage. PA branded media will highly unlikely explicitly advocate for violence against persons”.
The documents also indicate how national security concerns were not a central factor in the Home Office’s decision to proscribe. Indeed, they barely feature in the government’s open evidence.
Ammori’s lawyers argued in court that “no national security justification for the proscription” was articulated by the Home Office, such that Cooper “did not take into account any weighty national security consideration requiring immediate proscription”.
This appears to run contrary to Cooper’s statement to parliament on 23 June, in which she declared: “The UK’s defence enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this Government will not tolerate those who put that security at risk”.
Funding
Once the ban had been announced, Britain became engulfed in a media firestorm of allegations that Palestine Action might be funded by Iran.
On 23 June, the day of Cooper’s statement to parliament, the Times published a report saying “Iran could be funding Palestine Action, Home Office officials claimed”.
It added: “Officials are understood to be investigating its source of donations amid concerns that the Iranian regime, via proxies, is funding the group’s activities given that their objectives are aligned”.
Shortly afterwards, the Daily Mail asked: “Does Palestine Action’s cash trail lead all the way to Iran?”, with GB News, the Spectator, and the Telegraph also picking up on the story.
Yet the JTAC assessment of Palestine Action’s sources of funding makes no mention of Iran whatsoever, and nor does the Intelligence and Security Committee’s recent report on Iranian state threats to Britain.
The JTAC report, issued on 7 March 2025, simply notes that Palestine Action “is primarily funded by donations, which can be made directly through their website or via crowdfunding. Other forms of revenue include the sale of merchandise”.
The discrepancy between the Home Office press briefings and the official intelligence reports raises the prospect that a state-linked disinformation campaign was waged against Palestine Action in order to manufacture public consent for proscription.
Foreign policy concerns
The documents seen by Declassified also detail clear concerns within Britain’s Foreign Office about proscription.
“Palestine Action, despite engaging in disruptive tactics, is primarily seen by many countries as an activist group rather than an extremist one”, a Foreign Office report dated March 2025 notes.
“Concerns in this respect have been highlighted by posts in Italy, Belgium, the Occupied Palestinian Territories [OPTs] and the Netherlands”, it added. “It is highly unlikely that countries like Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium would take similar action”.
The Foreign Office also expected criticism from the OPTs, while Arab states were seen as “highly likely to question our decision”.
In addition, public disapproval was expected from “some in global civil society organisations who claim the UK is stifling freedom of expression by suppressing Palestinian voices at the expense of supporting Israel”.
The Foreign Office cited a letter sent by UN experts to Keir Starmer in November 2024 which argued that the use of counter-terror legislation against Palestine Action was “unjustified”.
“The letter raised concerns about potential infringements of the fundamental rights of political prisoners and the treatment of activists within Palestine Action”, the Foreign Office noted.
Remarkably, the Foreign Office specifically advised against proscription in March “in response to the breakdown of the ceasefire [in Gaza] and the interaction with Ramadan”.
It noted that proscription at this time risked being “received poorly both domestically and abroad by our partners where it could be perceived as pro-Israel bias after the resumption of their military operations”.
To this end, Cooper repeatedly delayed approving the proscription order until June 2025 citing the Foreign Office’s advice, as well as considerations relating to local elections and forthcoming Palestine Action trials.
The incident at RAF Brize Norton, when Palestine Action activists sprayed paint into Voyager aircraft, was therefore the trigger but not the cause of the proscription order, which had been approved months prior.
Even then, the Home Office did not seem to be altogether confident in the ban.
It included in the proscription order two other organisations, the Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement, with the apparent goal of lumping Palestine Action together with neo-Nazi groups and making it difficult for MPs to vote against.
Donald Trump’s response
The Foreign Office was nonetheless satisfied that the US government would respond positively to the proscription, the documents show.
On 11 March, an internal Foreign Office report concluded that the US was “likely to be the most supportive of our Five Eyes partners regarding a UK proscription given the new Administration’s position on the OPTs”.
This is despite the UK government openly opposing Trump’s position on the OPTs.
In February, Trump shocked the world by suggesting that the US could “take over” and “own” Gaza, resettling the entire population in the process, in a clear violation of international law.
UK foreign secretary David Lammy responded to these comments shortly after, saying Britain does “not support forced displacement of Palestinians or any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip. Palestinians must be able to live and prosper in the OPTs”.
There is evidence, moreover, to suggest that Trump may have weighed in on the issue of Palestine Action’s proscription.
On 8 March 2025, Palestine Action activists vandalised the Trump-owned Turnberry golf resort in Scotland, painting the words “Gaza is not 4 sale” on the grass and graffitting the clubhouse.
Trump took to his Truth Social media platform shortly afterwards to call Palestine Action “terrorists”.
He added: “I was just informed by Prime Minister Starmer of the United Kingdom, that they caught the terrorists who attacked the beautiful Turnberry, in Scotland. They did serious damage, and will hopefully be treated harshly”.
A Downing Street source told Declassified that Palestine Action was not discussed during either of the prime minister’s phone calls with Trump on 10 March and 30 March, though separate discussions may have taken place.
Pro-Israel lobby
The UK government was also concerned that a ban on Palestine Action might give credence to claims that the pro-Israel lobby exerts influence over decision-making.
These concerns are detailed in a Community Impact Assessment produced by the Ministry of Housing, RICU (Research, Information and Communications Unit), and NPCC (National Police Chiefs’ Council).
“News reporting has previously alleged that Home Office ministers attempted to influence the police and prosecutors in targeting Palestine Action activists, following meetings with Elbit Systems”, the report notes.
Declassified recently revealed that Elbit Systems pushed for a retrial after charges against Palestine Action’s co-founders were dismissed.
“Other reports documented Israeli embassy officials purportedly attempting to get 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 bias,” the report continues.
Emphasis was also placed on the impact of proscription on the reputation of Lord Walney, the government’s former “independent” adviser on political violence, who has accepted funding from pro-Israel and arms trade lobbyists.
Any ban “could be seen as the partial realisation of Lord Walney’s efforts, which dissenting actors could argue were coloured by pro-Israel bias”, the report says, while acknowledging that he opposed going so far as to ban the group.
Additionally, it was privately noted that Palestine Action’s proscription “could energise further calls from pro-Israel advocates to ban more moderate pro-Palestinian groups, emboldened by the precedent set”.
