UK Government response to Israel 'gravely inadequate', 15 human rights groups say
Global Justice Now, Amnesty International, Christian Aid and Muslim Aid are among the organisations that have written to Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy, criticising the UK Government's response to Israel's attacks on Gaza and the blockade of humanitarian aid.
Last week, the Labour Government announced it had suspended talks over a new trade deal with Israel and placed sanctions on three individuals, two illegal settler outposts and two organisations supporting violence against the Palestinian community.
The UK Government also announced it would review its 2030 Road Map for bilateral relations with Israel.
READ MORE: Why the UK media 180 on Gaza is too little, too late
However, it was revealed that the UK Government sent a spy plane to surveil Gaza just hours after Lammy announced that Labour had ended talks towards a free trade deal with the country.
The organisations behind the letter also argue that the UK Government's 'actions' do not 'materially deter Israel's atrocities in Gaza or address the state-sanctioned structural drivers of settlement activity'.
Those who have signed the letter have called for the UK to urgently enact the following 'concrete actions to save lives and prevent further atrocities', including:
A suspension of all arms transfers to Israel. While the UK Government has suspended some arms licenses to Israel which it says could be used in Gaza, the vast majority remain in place.
Suspension of the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement (TPA). The text of the UK-Israel TPA, which provides privileged trade terms between the two countries, identifies 'respect for human rights and democratic principles' as an 'essential element' of the agreement. On May 21, the European Union, whose agreement with Israel contains an identical human rights clause, announced it would review its own trade agreement with Israel on this basis, and the signatories argue the UK must follow suit. Suspending the agreement would halt the privileged trade terms established by the TPA, with trade between the countries then conducted via WTO rules.
A ban on trade and investment in Israel's illegal settlements. While the UK Government's position is not to encourage trade with or investment in Israel's illegal settlements on the West Bank, it has so far refused to ban such economic relations.
The letter adds that 'these measures should be conditional not only on an end to Israel's blockade of Gaza, but on Israel's full compliance with international law across the occupied Palestinian territory'.
It comes as the Israeli military continues its ground assault in northern and southern Gaza, and amid warnings from the UN human rights chief that Israel's bombing and forced displacement of Palestinians amounts to ethnic cleansing.
Tim Bierley, campaigner at Global Justice Now, said actions speak louder than words and for as long as the UK Government keeps trading with Israel, it is complicit in the country's actions.
He said: 'For all its rhetoric, the UK's response to Israel's latest escalations and deliberate starvation of Palestinians in Gaza amounts to little more than a performative slap on the wrist.
'Actions speak louder than words, and as long as the UK continues to arm Israel and trade with it as normal, our government is deeply complicit in Israel's actions. The UK must enact a full arms embargo and apply real economic pressure until Israel complies fully with international law.'
Kristyan Benedict, Amnesty International UK's crisis response manager, has called on the UK Government to use 'all' the diplomatic tools at its disposal to ensure that international law is central to all agreements made with Israel.
He said: 'The UK Government is still failing to challenge the root causes of this decades-long crisis and ongoing genocide, namely Israel's system of apartheid, the illegal occupation and a toxic climate of impunity.
'Now is the time for the UK Government to use all economic, political and diplomatic tools at its disposal to ensure that international law is central to all bilateral and multilateral agreements with Israel so these do not contribute to genocide or other crimes under international law.'
Charles Lawley, director of communications and advocacy at Action For Humanity, added that the solution for Starmer's government is clear: end all arms transfers and suspend all trade ties with Israel.
He said: 'The UK's latest measures do nothing to ease the suffering in Gaza and offer only the illusion of action while lives are lost. This pattern of half measures is not new, but it must end.
"In the face of famine and mass bombardment, symbolic gestures are not just inadequate; they are a betrayal of the UK's legal and moral obligations.
'The solutions are clear: end arms transfers to Israel and suspend all trade tied to the occupation. The Government's refusal to act decisively, despite knowing what's required, is a wilful evasion of responsibility – one that signals an awareness of complicity in atrocity.'
A spokesperson for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said: 'We stand firmly against Israel's resumption of military action in Gaza, its inadequate plan for aid delivery, and we continue to demand that a full and unhindered resumption in the flow of aid into Gaza takes place immediately.
'If Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in response.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
31 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Two activists convicted of harassing justice minister over Israel-Hamas conflict
Two pro-Palestinian activists who accused a Government minister of supporting genocide relating to the Israel-Hamas conflict have been convicted of harassment. Ayeshah Behit, 31, and Hiba Ahmed, 26, were found guilty of the charge against Alex Davies-Jones, the Labour MP for Pontypridd, following a trial at Cardiff Magistrates' Court on Monday. They had filmed a confrontation with Ms Davies-Jones, a justice minister, who had been campaigning in the village of Treforest, Rhondda Cynon Taf, in the lead-up to the general election, on June 26 last year. Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring found both defendants guilty of harassment and sentenced them to a conditional discharge and fine. Giving evidence during the trial, Ms Davies-Jones told the court she was 'terrified' after being confronted by the two activists. As she made her way to the campaign meeting place, she saw Behit and Ahmed with leaflets describing her as a 'full-blown supporter of this genocide' – referring to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Ms Davies-Jones said: 'They asked me about the ceasefire and why I had abstained. I clarified I hadn't abstained, I wasn't in the country, I was paired in that vote. 'It was escalating in terms of passion and intensity. We walked off in the opposite direction. We felt scared and intimidated, and we wanted to leave the situation. 'I had a number of young members with me. They already felt uncomfortable, I didn't want them to feel more at risk. 'They began to follow us. They were shouting and bellowing down the street at us – 'why do you support genocide, why are you murdering babies, Alex Davies-Jones, do you support genocide?'' Later in the day, Behit and Ahmed put posters on the Labour office in Pontypridd – the base of Ms Davies-Jones' campaign for the general election – that referred to politicians 'enabling genocide'. They also placed stickers in black capital letters reading 'Alex Davies-Jones how many murdered children is too many?' on the office and a poster reading 'Alex Davies-Jones supports genocide' on a bus stop, while a video of the confrontation was uploaded onto social media describing Ms Davies-Jones as racist. Asked about how their actions made her feel, the politician, who was first elected as MP for Pontypridd in 2019, told the court: 'I was terrified. 'I was worried because of the risk to my team and supporters, and my reputation given it was the general election and what that would mean.' Sentencing, Mr Goldspring told Ahmed and Behit: 'This was part of a deliberate and sustained campaign targeting the complainant. 'This course of conduct was clearly designed to cause alarm and distress to her and she did experience alarm and distress. She stopped canvassing. 'It was not reasonable and it was oppressive.' The judge said the defendants did have rights to freedom of speech but this case went 'beyond the boundaries' of this protection and was 'beyond robust scrutiny or political process'. He sentenced Ahmed, a final year architecture student at Cardiff University with no previous convictions, to a 12-month conditional discharge. Behit, who has a conviction relating to a protest in Cardiff last year, received an 18-month conditional discharge. They were both ordered to pay £650 costs and a £26 court surcharge, at a rate of £20 per month. Mr Goldspring added: 'I would love to say you are remorseful. I suspect you are not. 'I suspect your views will be held until something happens very differently in that area of the world.' Ahmed, giving evidence, said she and Behit lived in Treforest and had wanted to raise awareness of Ms Davies-Jones' actions on Palestine ahead of the election. She said the defendants, both of Treforest, had planned to hand out and post leaflets that afternoon when they saw their MP coming towards them. Ahmed said: 'I was genuinely really surprised when I saw her. I've lived in Treforest for a couple of years, I've never seen her. 'It was like seeing a celebrity almost, like a unicorn in the wild.' Ahmed said the action taken against Ms Davies-Jones 'wasn't really about her, it was about Palestine'. Behit told the court: 'She was running for MP and where I lived there were posters everywhere. It was constant, everywhere you looked was pro-Alex. 'My intention was to show a different perspective, to get people to do their own research. It was never about Alex as a person. 'Part of her job as an MP is having people look at her policies, her opinions and how she voted.'
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
John Healey says strategic defence review plans will make army '10 times more lethal'
The UK defence secretary said the government would create a 'new hybrid navy' by building new attack submarines, cutting-edge warships and autonomous vessels. He said there would be a new-generation RAF, including F-35s and upgraded typhoons
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on UK military strategy: prepare for a US retreat – or be left gravely exposed
With the prime minister's Churchillian claims that 'the front line is here', the public might expect a military posture that meets the drama of the moment. Yet the promised rise in defence spending – from 2.3% to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027 – suggests something less than full-scale mobilisation. The strategic defence review is systematic and detailed, but it remains an exercise in tightly bounded ambition. It speaks of daily cyber-attacks and undersea sabotage, but proposes no systemic institutional overhaul or acute surge in resilience. Given the developing dangers, it is surprising not to spell out a robust home-front framework. Instead, it is a cautious budget hike in the costume of crisis – signalling emergency while deferring real commitment for military financing. The review suggests that the more ambitious spending target of 3% of GDP, still shy of Nato's 3.5% goal, is delayed to the next parliament. The plan is not to revive Keynesianism in fatigues. It is a post-austerity military modernisation that is technocratic and geopolitically anxious. It borrows the urgency of the past without inheriting its economic boldness. The review marks a real shift: it warns of 'multiple, direct threats' for the first time since the cold war and vows to reverse the 'hollowing out' of Britain's armed forces. But in an age of climate emergencies and democratic drift, UK leadership should rest on multilateralism, not pure militarism. Declaring Russian 'nuclear coercion' the central challenge, and that the 'future of strategic arms control … does not look promising', while sinking £15bn into warheads, risks fuelling escalation instead of pursuing arms control. Given the war in Ukraine, there is an ominous warning about changing US 'security priorities'. This calls into question the wisdom of being overly reliant on America, which is now internally unstable and dismantling global public goods – such as the atmospheric data that drones rely on for navigation. Left unsaid but clearly underlying the report is the idea that the old defence model is no longer sufficient – for example, when maritime adversaries can weaponise infrastructure by sabotaging undersea cables, or where critical data systems are in commercial hands. It cannot be right that Ukraine's sovereignty depends on the goodwill of the world's richest man. But the private satellite network Starlink keeps Ukrainian hospitals, bases and drones online, leaving Kyiv hostage to the whims of its volatile owner, Elon Musk. The menace of hybrid warfare – including disinformation, cyber-attacks, economic pressure, deployment of irregular armed groups and use of regular forces – intensified in the last decade. This should see Britain forge deeper institutional ties with European partners, not just military but in infrastructure and information technologies. This would allow for a sovereign digital strategy for European nations to free them from dependency on mercurial actors. Though the review gestures toward greater societal involvement, it stops short of articulating a whole-of-society doctrine like Norway's. This, when some analysts say the third world war has already begun with a slow, global breakdown of the post-1945 institutional order. The defence review should be about more than missiles and missions. It must also be about whether the country can keep the lights on, the gas flowing, the internet up and the truth intact. This review sees the threats, but not yet the system needed to confront them. In that gap lies the peril.
