🔗 Share this article

On Tuesday, a United Nations panel concluded that Israeli forces is perpetrating acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip. This verdict is unsurprising, given that few states in history have been so explicit about their intentions.

To take just two examples: Earlier this year, a top Israeli official declared that “Gaza is to be entirely destroyed”; shortly after, the country’s premier boasted that the state is “destroying more and more houses across Gaza,” leaving civilians with no home to go back to.

Government’s Stance

Recently, David Lammy issued a communication to the leader of the international development committee, declaring that “the government has thoroughly reviewed the possibility of genocide” and does not believe that Israel is acting with genocidal intent. How can separate organizations reach opposite conclusions?

UK authorities avoids making a conclusion on genocide because should it, it would be compelled to admit its role.

Alignment with Allies

At the level of diplomatic and defense strategy, ministers works in alignment with the US, Israel’s strongest ally. Britain still supply Israeli forces with essential elements for military planes attacking the strip and its residents.

Military jets carrying out this bombing have been permitted to touch down in the Britain. The UK government continues to share intelligence with Israel. Britain operates constant monitoring operations over the territory.

And rather than impose sweeping sanctions, British ministers promote commerce with Israel worth billions a year.

Hypocrisy

Whereas the nation’s leader – whose inflammatory statements about collective Palestinian guilt – is awarded the privilege of a state trip, many activists carrying placards opposing genocide are detained as though they are dangerous extremists.

All measures regarding Israel has been performative, aimed to dampen calls for action from the public. After all, most the public think it’s likely Israel has breached humanitarian standards, many supports an military restrictions, only a fifth view Israel’s operations in Gaza is reasonable, and a majority endorse legal action against the leader for alleged war crimes.

Human Cost

Well-being of those from Gaza are deemed of lower priority than upholding partnerships with Israel and, through association, the US. On an individual basis, this approach plays out in the cruelest of ways.

One individual, a constituent of a senior politician, interacted with her on a few instances. She visited his business in 2019 and appeared together, declaring “solidarity with Gaza”. He joined her on a trip to Westminster.

Within weeks the violence erupting in late 2023, his mother, brother, sister-in-law and two young nieces were killed by an Israeli airstrike. Seeking to rescue his wife and daughter – who had been trapped in debris three times – he emailed the minister repeatedly asking for support.

He reports he got no reply. Earlier this year, he went to a political event where he stood up, clutching images of his dead mother, begging for a halt in violence and stating tearfully, “My relatives were killed in Gaza”.

The unfortunate event was on camera: he was forcibly removed from the gathering and into public view. She did nothing, except to say “acknowledgement, you’ve made your point”. Subsequently unfollowed him on digital channels.

Not long after, she was featured by a news outlet, where the event was portrayed as an example of security concerns for leaders, associating it with the murder of politicians. Since then, numerous of Neder’s relatives have been lost that the victims take up extensive notes of a notebook.

Contrasting Treatment

Suppose an individual from Israel had been forcibly removed from the event of a official they were acquainted with, after showing images of their dead relatives and begging for the conflict to cease. In contrast to being described as an example of harassment faced by politicians, the resulting uproar would be splashed on newspapers and be widely reported.

Conclusion

Our government is shirking away from difficult realities. There is refusal to admit genocide, as recognizing it would mean accepting their involvement. The truth, in the end, will emerge.