🔗 Share this article

This week, a UN commission determined that Israel is perpetrating systematic destruction in Gaza. This verdict was widely anticipated, given that few states in history have been so brazen about their aims.

To take just two examples: Months ago, a top Israeli official stated that “the strip must be entirely destroyed”; shortly after, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted that Israel is “demolishing more and more houses in Gaza,” leaving Palestinians with no place to go.

Official Position

At the beginning of this month, Labour’s deputy prime minister issued a statement to the chair of a parliamentary body, asserting that “ministers has thoroughly reviewed the risk of genocide” and has not concluded that Israeli authorities is acting with genocidal motives. How can different entities reach such different endpoints?

The British government has not come to a conclusion on genocide because should it, it would need to confront its complicity.

Alignment with Allies

At the level of foreign and military policy, the UK coordinates closely with the United States, a major backer of Israel. The UK continues to supply Israeli forces with essential elements for military planes incinerating Gaza and its people.

Israeli planes involved in aerial attacks have been permitted to touch down in the United Kingdom. Authorities continues to provide information with Israel. Officials conduct relentless surveillance flights over the territory.

In place of implementing sweeping sanctions, government representatives facilitate trade with Israeli entities worth £6bn a year.

Hypocrisy

Whereas Israeli president – whose genocidal utterances about group accountability – is awarded the recognition through diplomacy, numerous peaceful protesters carrying signs denouncing violence are detained as though they are security threats.

Every action directed at Israel has been superficial, aimed to quiet appeals for action from the people. Ultimately, a large majority British people think it’s possible Israel has violated international law, a majority backs an arms embargo, a small fraction view Israel’s assault on Gaza is justified, and over half endorse Netanyahu’s arrest for alleged violations.

Personal Stories

Well-being of those from Gaza are deemed of lower priority than upholding partnerships with Israel and, through association, the US. At the personal level, this stance plays out in the harshest of ways.

A Palestinian refugee, a voter of a senior politician, got to know her on several occasions. They met at his establishment in 2019 and appeared together, saying “solidarity with Gaza”. He joined her on a tour of parliament.

Not long after the violence erupting in last year, his mother, sibling, sister-in-law and two young nieces were lost in an bombing. Desperate to save his family – who had been buried under rubble repeatedly – he emailed Rayner repeatedly asking for support.

He claims he got no reply. Earlier this year, he attended a political event where he spoke out, showing photos of his lost family, pleading for a end to hostilities and emotionally declaring, “My relatives were killed in Gaza”.

This entire tawdry episode was filmed: he was aggressively ejected from the gathering and on to the street. She took no action, only stating “acknowledgement, you’ve made your point”. Later unfollowed him on digital channels.

Days later, she was featured by a broadcaster, where the event was described as an example of risks to public figures, linking it to the killings of elected officials. Afterwards, numerous of Neder’s loved ones have been lost that their names take up three pages of a journal.

Imagined Scenarios

Suppose an Jewish resident had been forcibly removed from the gathering of a politician they had met previously, after showing images of their lost loved ones and begging for the conflict to cease. In contrast to being labeled an example of dangerous abuse experienced by politicians, the resulting uproar would be highlighted by media outlets and dominate headlines.

Summary

The UK administration is shirking away from hard facts. It denies genocide, because acknowledging it would mean confessing their own complicity. Facts, ultimately, will out.