UK ministers told parliament they have not concluded Israel is committing genocide in Gaza or that British-made F-35 jet parts breached humanitarian law.
Aside from rejecting proposals for an impartial audit of UK arms sales, ministers acknowledged that the complexity of the combat terrain made it impossible to determine whether Israel's assault in Gaza had resulted in any violations of humanitarian law.
In order to make it easier to prosecute foreign nationals in UK courts for war crimes, such as deprivation of aid or the killing of aid workers, they rejected a proposal to amend the crime and policing bill for England and Wales. This change would make it easier to arrest Israeli government leaders if they traveled to the UK.
Isaac Herzog, the president of Israel, is scheduled to visit No. 10 and deliver a speech in London on Wednesday.
David Lammy, the foreign secretary until last week, wrote to Sarah Champion, the chair of the international development select committee, outlining the UK government's stance. The committee's suggestions in a report on safeguarding humanitarian workers prompted the letter.
The government stated that it was still researching how a provisional ruling by the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Israel's occupation of Palestine was illegal might affect British government policy.
In June 2024, the court released the conclusions and called on countries to take appropriate action. The non-binding verdict is currently being studied "with seriousness and rigor," according to ministers.
Within the Labour party, the government's inability to reach a consensus regarding the existence of a genocide is probably going to cause controversy. Ministers have taken a variety of stances, at times asserting that only the ICJ can decide whether a genocide is taking place, and at other times revealing in UK domestic courts that a genocide is not taking place and that women and children are not being targeted.
Citing the UK's duties to prevent and punish genocide under the 1948 genocide convention, 61 lawmakers wrote to Keir Starmer on Tuesday to voice their reservations about Herzog's visit.
“At a time when more than 64,000 Palestinians have been killed, the overwhelming majority women and children, such a visit risks suggesting that the UK is indifferent to its international legal responsibilities,”
the letter said.
Signatories include the MPs Andy McDonald, Diane Abbott and Kim Johnson, and the peers Baroness Christine Blower and Bryn Davies.
Lammy’s letter to Champion says:
“The high civilian casualties including women and children and the extensive destruction in Gaza are utterly appalling. As per the genocide convention, the crime of genocide only occurs where there is ‘specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group’. The government has not concluded that Israel is acting with that intent.”
The phrase "ministers have carefully considered the risk of a genocide" implies that the government is taking on the burden of deciding whether a genocide is taking place, as opposed to merely sending the matter to the International Court of Justice for a final ruling in a few years.
Along with several other foreign and Palestinian organizations that had labeled the war genocidal, two prominent Israeli human rights organizations, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, said in July that Israel was committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Hundreds of workers at the United Nations' top human rights organization supported an internal letter last month calling on the organization's leadership to declare Israel's offensive to be a genocide.
Israel claims that the war in Gaza is being waged in self-defense and denies that it is committing genocide.
According to Lammy's letter, the conclusion that Israel is not acting with the intent to commit a genocide releases ministers from the 1948 genocide convention's obligation to take action to stop one.
Only "when the UK learns, or should normally have learned, of the existence of a serious risk of genocide" does that obligation become active, according to Lammy's letter.
Ministers told the select committee that they "cannot provide a running commentary on possible breaches of international humanitarian law in situations of conflict," which helps the government avoid voicing an opinion on many of the alleged individual atrocities that have occurred in Gaza.
The statement continued:
“Determining whether violations of international humanitarian law have occurred in the conduct of hostilities, for example, depends upon detailed knowledge of the facts of the specific military operation, including the precise nature of the target, the methods used to attack, the attacking party’s knowledge at the time and the anticipated military advantage in launching that attack. This is information to which the Foreign Office does not readily have access.
Harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure is a tragic aspect of armed conflict, but does not in itself mean that [international humanitarian law] has been violated or that war crimes have been committed, particularly in circumstances where parties to a conflict are embedded among the civilian population and in civilian infrastructure.”
How might this UK stance impact future arms sales to Israel?
The UK has so far suspended nearly 30 of approximately 350
arms export licenses connected to any Gaza hostilities, from components for
fighter jets, helicopters, and drones. This tiny degree of suspension indicates
an increase in caution, but does not apply a formal embargo.
The UK recognises there is a “clear risk” that arms supplied from the UK will be used to breach international humanitarian law, but continues to supply it because the parts are attached to the F-35, which is important for UK and NATO security. This exception has brought significance to human rights groups and campaigners.
Officials say despite their support of Israel as a “staunch ally” regarding one aspect of Israel’s ongoing security, they are legally compliant by considering licensing and suspending licenses associated with uses that could be unlawful.