🔗 Share this article

On Tuesday, a UN commission found that Israel is perpetrating genocide in Gaza. The finding is unsurprising, given that few states in history have been so brazen about their aims.

To take just two examples: In May, a top Israeli official declared that “Gaza is to be entirely destroyed”; a week later, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted that its forces are “destroying more and more houses in Gaza,” leaving civilians with no place to go.

Official Position

Recently, a senior UK minister sent a letter to the chair of a government committee, asserting that “ministers has examined the potential of genocide” and has not determined that Israel is acting with genocidal intent. How can two bodies reach such different endpoints?

The British government refrains from reaching a conclusion on genocide as were it to, it would be compelled to admit its complicity.

International Partnerships

In terms of foreign and military policy, the UK coordinates closely with the US, Tel Aviv’s key partner. The UK continues to furnish Israel with crucial components for military planes bombing the strip and its residents.

Military jets carrying out aerial attacks have been authorized to arrive in the UK. Authorities continues to provide information with Israel. The UK runs ongoing reconnaissance missions over the region.

In place of implementing broad penalties, UK officials promote commerce with Israel worth £6bn a year.

Hypocrisy

Whereas Isaac Herzog – noted for extreme comments about group accountability – is awarded the recognition through diplomacy, numerous activists holding banners condemning atrocities are detained as though they are dangerous extremists.

Each step directed at Israel has been superficial, in order to dampen calls for action from the citizens. Ultimately, a large majority British people believe it’s probable Israel has committed war crimes, a majority favors an arms embargo, a small fraction think Israel’s operations in Gaza is reasonable, and a majority support Netanyahu’s arrest for suspected violations.

Individual Tragedies

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

A Palestinian refugee, a resident of a senior politician, met her on a few instances. They met at his takeaway shop in 2019 and appeared together, saying “Palestine must be free”. They toured on a tour of parliament.

Not long after the conflict starting in October 2023, his parent, sibling, relative and two young nieces were killed by an Israeli airstrike. Seeking to save his family – who had been trapped in debris three times – he emailed the official twice to seek help.

He says he was ignored. Earlier this year, he was present at a political event where he got to his feet, showing pictures of his deceased parent, begging for a ce ceasefire and stating tearfully, “I lost my family in Gaza”.

The unfortunate event was recorded: he was escorted out from the event and on to the street. Rayner took no action, merely commenting “thank you, you’ve made your point”. Later cut ties on social media.

Not long after, she was featured by a broadcaster, where the confrontation was framed as an example of security concerns for leaders, linking it to the murder of politicians. From that point, countless of Neder’s relatives have been killed that the victims take up multiple sheets of a record.

Contrasting Treatment

Suppose an individual from Israel had been aggressively ejected from the event of a leader they were acquainted with, after displaying images of their slaughtered family and appealing for the violence to end. In contrast to being labeled an example of threats suffered by politicians, the outcry would be featured in media outlets and be widely reported.

Conclusion

Our government is avoiding difficult realities. Officials reject genocide, because admitting it would mean admitting their role. Facts, ultimately, will emerge.