🔗 Share this article

This week, a United Nations panel found that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The finding was widely anticipated, given that rarely have nations in history have been this overt about their intentions.

Consider these instances: Months ago, the Israeli finance minister declared that “Gaza is to be entirely destroyed”; shortly after, the country’s premier asserted that its forces are “destroying more and more houses in Gaza,” leaving Palestinians with no home to go back to.

Official Position

At the beginning of this month, David Lammy sent a communication to the leader of a parliamentary body, stating that “ministers has thoroughly reviewed the risk of genocide” and has not determined that Israel is acting with genocidal motives. How can two bodies reach such different endpoints?

The British government refrains from reaching a verdict on genocide because if it was to, it would need to confront its role.

International Partnerships

In terms of diplomatic and defense strategy, ministers supports the US, Tel Aviv’s key partner. Britain still supply Israel with key parts for fighter aircraft bombing the strip and its residents.

Aircraft involved in aerial attacks have been allowed to land in the UK. The UK government continues to exchange data with Israel. Officials conduct relentless surveillance flights over the territory.

And rather than impose broad penalties, UK officials promote commerce with Israel worth £6bn a year.

Hypocrisy

Whereas Isaac Herzog – whose genocidal utterances about broad blame on Palestinians – is given the privilege of a state trip, many peaceful protesters holding banners opposing genocide face incarceration as though they are radical elements.

Each step directed at Israel has been superficial, in order to reduce demands for intervention from the public. In fact, most British people feel it’s probable Israel has committed war crimes, a majority backs an arms embargo, a small fraction view Israel’s operations in Gaza is justified, and more than 50% endorse holding officials accountable for alleged atrocities.

Personal Stories

Well-being of those living in Gaza are considered of lower priority than preserving ties with Israel and, through association, the US. On an individual basis, this approach plays out in the cruelest of ways.

One individual, a resident of a senior politician, interacted with her on several occasions. He hosted her at his business in 2019 and appeared together, declaring “solidarity with Gaza”. He joined her on a visit to government buildings.

Soon after the genocide beginning in late 2023, his parent, sibling, sister-in-law and two family members were killed by an bombing. Desperate to evacuate his loved ones – who had been injured in strikes repeatedly – he emailed the minister on two occasions requesting assistance.

He says he received no response. Months later, he went to a party gathering where he got to his feet, clutching images of his deceased parent, pleading for a end to hostilities and saying passionately, “I lost my family in Gaza”.

The distressing incident was filmed: he was escorted out from the gathering and on to the street. Rayner did nothing, merely commenting “thank you, you’ve made your point”. She then unfollowed him on social media.

Shortly after, she was questioned by a broadcaster, where the event was portrayed as an example of risks to public figures, comparing it to the murder of politicians. From that point, countless of his relatives have been slaughtered that the list cover extensive notes of a notebook.

Hypothetical Situations

Suppose an Israeli citizen had been forcibly removed from the event of a leader they knew well, after clutching pictures of their slaughtered family and appealing for the conflict to cease. In contrast to being labeled an example of dangerous abuse suffered by politicians, the resulting uproar would be splashed on newspapers and lead news bulletins.

Summary

The UK administration is avoiding hard facts. There is refusal to admit genocide, because acknowledging it would mean confessing their own complicity. Facts, ultimately, will emerge.