🔗 Share this article

This week, an international inquiry determined that the Israeli military has carried out genocide in Gaza. This conclusion is unsurprising, given that seldom do countries in history have been so brazen about their intentions.

Consider these instances: Months ago, Bezalel Smotrich announced that “Gaza will be entirely destroyed”; soon afterwards, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted that the state is “razing more and more houses across Gaza,” leaving civilians with no home to go back to.

UK Response

Recently, David Lammy issued a statement to the chair of a parliamentary body, asserting that “officials has thoroughly reviewed the possibility of genocide” and has not concluded that Israeli authorities is acting with genocidal motives. What explains different entities reach such different endpoints?

Ministers refrains from reaching a decision on genocide as if it was to, it would have to face up to its complicity.

Support for Israel

At the level of international relations, the British government supports the United States, a major backer of Israel. Officials persist in furnish Israel with key parts for F-35 jets incinerating Palestinian communities.

Aircraft engaged in aerial attacks have been permitted to touch down in the Britain. The UK government continues to share intelligence with Israel. The UK runs ongoing reconnaissance missions over Gaza.

Instead of enacting broad penalties, UK officials enable business with Israeli entities worth £6bn a year.

Contradictions

While Israeli president – whose inflammatory statements about collective Palestinian guilt – is awarded the recognition through diplomacy, many demonstrators displaying signs denouncing violence face incarceration as though they are security threats.

Every action taken against Israel has been symbolic, aimed to quiet appeals for action from the citizens. In fact, most British people believe it’s likely Israel has violated international law, a majority favors an arms embargo, just 20% consider Israel’s operations in Gaza is justified, and more than 50% support Netanyahu’s arrest for possible war crimes.

Individual Tragedies

Safety of those living in Gaza are deemed secondary than maintaining relations with Israel and, indirectly, the US. At the personal level, this stance unfolds in the cruelest of ways.

One individual, a constituent of a senior politician, got to know her on multiple times. They met at his takeaway shop in 2019 and posed for pictures, stating “Palestine must be free”. He joined her on a visit to government buildings.

Not long after the violence erupting in last year, his parent, sibling, relative and two family members were lost in an bombing. Attempting to evacuate his wife and daughter – who had been trapped in debris repeatedly – he reached out to the official on two occasions requesting assistance.

He says he was ignored. Months later, he attended a Labour fundraiser where he spoke out, holding pictures of his dead mother, pleading for a halt in violence and saying passionately, “I have suffered greatly in Gaza”.

The unfortunate event was recorded: he was aggressively ejected from the meeting and outside. She did nothing, except to say “thank you, you’ve made your point”. She then distanced herself on online platforms.

Not long after, she was interviewed by a broadcaster, where the confrontation was portrayed as an example of risks to public figures, linking it to the killings of elected officials. Afterwards, so many of Neder’s family members have been killed that their names fill multiple sheets of a notebook.

Hypothetical Situations

Consider an individual from Israel had been aggressively ejected from the fundraiser of a official they had met previously, after clutching pictures of their lost loved ones and pleading for the conflict to cease. In contrast to being framed as an example of dangerous abuse experienced by politicians, the response would be splashed on the press and lead news bulletins.

Conclusion

Ministers is shirking away from hard facts. Officials reject genocide, as admitting it would mean admitting their own complicity. Facts, as they say, cannot be hidden.