🔗 Share this article

On Tuesday, an international inquiry concluded that Israel has carried out acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip. This conclusion comes as no shock, given that seldom do countries in history have been so explicit about their aims.

For instance: Earlier this year, a top Israeli official stated that “Gaza will be entirely destroyed”; shortly after, Israel’s leader claimed that its forces are “razing more and more houses in Gaza,” leaving Palestinians with no place to go.

UK Response

At the beginning of this month, Labour’s deputy prime minister sent a communication to the chair of the international development committee, declaring that “the government has examined the possibility of genocide” and has not determined that Israel is acting with genocidal intent. What explains separate organizations reach opposite conclusions?

The British government refrains from reaching a verdict on genocide as should it, it would have to face up to its involvement.

Support for Israel

At the level of foreign and military policy, the British government supports the US, Israel’s strongest ally. Britain still provide Israeli forces with essential elements for military planes incinerating Gaza and its people.

Israeli planes engaged in aerial attacks have been authorized to arrive in the United Kingdom. Authorities continues to exchange data with Israeli officials. The UK runs relentless surveillance flights over the region.

And rather than impose comprehensive restrictions, British ministers promote commerce with Israeli entities worth £6bn a year.

Hypocrisy

Whereas Isaac Herzog – who has made inflammatory statements about broad blame on Palestinians – is given the privilege of a state trip, numerous demonstrators displaying banners condemning atrocities face incarceration as though they are security threats.

All measures taken against Israel has been symbolic, in order to dampen calls for intervention from the public. Ultimately, a large majority the public believe it’s likely Israel has committed war crimes, many backs an arms embargo, just 20% view Israel’s attack on Gaza is reasonable, and a majority advocate for holding officials accountable for suspected war crimes.

Individual Tragedies

Well-being of those residing in Gaza are seen as secondary than preserving ties with Israel and, indirectly, the US. In human terms, this stance is evident in the cruelest of ways.

A Palestinian refugee, a resident of former deputy prime minister, met her on multiple times. He hosted her at his establishment in 2019 and posed for pictures, declaring “support for Palestinian rights”. She took him on a visit to government buildings.

Soon after the conflict starting in late 2023, his parent, sibling, sister-in-law and two children were lost in an Israeli airstrike. Desperate to evacuate his wife and daughter – who had been buried under rubble repeatedly – he reached out to the official on two occasions to seek help.

He claims he was ignored. Months later, he attended a political event where he got to his feet, showing photos of his lost family, pleading for a halt in violence and emotionally declaring, “I have suffered greatly in Gaza”.

This entire tawdry episode was on camera: he was forcibly removed from the meeting and on to the street. The minister took no action, only stating “acknowledgement, you’ve made your point”. Subsequently unfollowed him on social media.

Not long after, she was questioned by media, where the incident was portrayed as an example of risks to public figures, comparing it to the deaths of MPs. Afterwards, countless of Neder’s relatives have been slaughtered that the victims fill extensive notes of a journal.

Imagined Scenarios

Consider an Israeli citizen had been expelled from the fundraiser of a leader they were acquainted with, after showing pictures of their slaughtered family and appealing for the violence to end. Rather than being described as an example of harassment faced by politicians, the response would be highlighted by media outlets and be widely reported.

Summary

The UK administration is shirking away from uncomfortable truths. There is refusal to admit genocide, because recognizing it would mean admitting their role. Reality, as they say, will out.