Civil servants told to consider quitting if they disagree with policy over Gaza
More than 300 Foreign Office staff who raised concerns about potential UK "complicity" in Israel's conduct in Gaza were told if they profoundly disagreed with government policy they could consider resigning.The staff letter, seen by the BBC, was sent to Foreign Secretary David Lammy last month.In it, officials questioned the UK's continued arms sales and what they called a "stark… disregard for international law" by Israel.The Foreign Office said it had systems for staff to raise concerns and added the government had "rigorously applied international law" in relation to the war in Gaza.
The reply to the staff letter was sent from Sir Oliver Robbins and Nick Dyer, the two most senior civil servants in the Foreign Office.They told the signatories: "[I]f your disagreement with any aspect of government policy or action is profound your ultimate recourse is to resign from the Civil Service. This is an honourable course."The response was met with "outrage" according to one official who signed the letter. "[There is] frustration and a deep sense of disappointment that the space for challenge is being further shut down," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.The officials' letter signed on 16 May was at least the fourth such document sent by concerned civil servants to ministers and Foreign Office managers since late 2023. The BBC understands the signatories represent a wide range of expertise across Foreign Office departments, embassies and missions including in London and overseas.The letters have reflected the scale of the civilian death toll in Gaza, Israel's restrictions on aid supply and Israeli settlement expansion and settler violence in the occupied West Bank, among other issues. Staff are also said to feel disquiet that many of their warnings have not been acted on, and those whose jobs it is to implement decisions could be liable in any future legal proceedings against the UK government.The 16 May letter said: "In July 2024, staff expressed concern about Israel's violations of international humanitarian law and potential UK government complicity. In the intervening period, the reality of Israel's disregard for international law has become more stark."It went on to list the killing by Israeli forces of 15 humanitarian workers in March and Israel's suspension of all aid to Gaza in the same month "leading many experts and humanitarian organisations to accuse Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war". It said the UK government's position had contributed to "the erosion of global norms", citing continued weapons exports and the visit to London in April by Israel's foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar "despite concerns about violations of international law". It added that, "supported by the Trump administration, the Israeli government has made explicit plans for the forcible transfer of Gaza's population".
In their response on 29 May, Sir Oliver and Mr Dyer told the staff the department wanted to see "healthy challenge" as part of the policy-making process and had already set up a "bespoke Challenge Board" and regular listening sessions with employees to hear concerns in this policy area. They wrote that officials were entitled to their personal views, but added it "might be helpful" to "remind" them of mechanisms available to those uncomfortable with policy. It went on to list a series of ways staff could raise issues, before adding that resignation was an "ultimate recourse" and "honourable course" for those with profound disagreements over government policy. "[T]he bargain at the heart of the British Civil Service is that we sign up to deliver the policies of the Government of the day wholeheartedly, within the limits imposed by the law and the Civil Service Code," it said.A former official who saw the correspondence described the response as "obfuscation"."This… simply provides the government with supposed 'plausible deniability' for enabling breaches of international law," said the former official who also spoke on condition of anonymity.They said that the FCDO and broader civil service seemed unable to learn the lessons of the past, referring to the 2016 Chilcot Report recommendations following the inquiry into the Iraq war. Chilcot criticised the emergence of an "ingrained belief" within senior levels of the UK policy community over the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His recommendations led to civil service reforms designed to challenge "groupthink" and empowering officials to speak out about policy concerns.
The UK government's position is that Israel is "at risk" of breaching humanitarian law. Israel has previously said it operates according to international law. Palestinian rights groups have rejected this, taking evidence to several legal cases brought internationally.In September, Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced the suspension of around 30 arms export licenses to Israel, out of a total of about 350, citing a "clear risk" they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law. It came weeks before the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant as well as the military commander of Hamas. Israel's government has consistently rejected allegations it has committed war crimes in Gaza, calling the ICC's decision "antisemitic", while the US Department of State last week announced sanctions against four ICC judges for "transgressions against the United States and Israel".In a statement, the FCDO said the job of civil servants was to deliver on government policies and provide professional, impartial advice as set out in the Civil Service Code. "There are systems in place which allow them to raise concerns if they have them," said the spokesperson. They added: "Since day one, this government has rigorously applied international law in relation to the war in Gaza. One of our first acts in government was to suspend export licences that could be used by the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza… "We have suspended direct exports of F-35 parts for use by Israel, and we categorically do not export any bombs or ammunition which could be used in Gaza," added the spokesperson.On 19 May the UK issued a joint statement with France and Canada threatening "concrete actions" against Israel if it did not stop its renewed military offensive and lift aid restrictions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
Greta Thunberg denounces Gaza ‘war crimes' after being deported from Israel
Climate campaigner Greta Thunberg was flown home on Tuesday after being deported from Israel where the navy prevented her and fellow pro-Palestinian activists from sailing to Gaza with aid. 'We did nothing wrong,' the 22-year-old told reporters after landing in Paris, accusing Israel of kidnapping her. 'We were 12 peaceful volunteers sailing on a civilian ship carrying humanitarian aid on international waters,' she said, speaking of war crimes 'that Israel is systematically committing against Palestinians by not letting aid come to starving people.' Forces seized their small aid ship, Madleen, which was seeking to break the longstanding naval blockade of Gaza. Four of those on board, including Thunberg, agreed to immediate deportation, while eight others contested the repatriation order. They have been detained near Tel Aviv airport awaiting a court hearing on their legal status; among them are Rima Hassan, a French member of the European parliament. "We were well aware of the risks of this mission,' Ms Thunberg added. 'The aim was to get to Gaza and to be able to distribute the aid.' Israel has imposed a rigid land, air and sea blockade on Gaza, saying the shutdown is needed to prevent arms from reaching Hamas militants. It lets in limited supplies of food that are mainly distributed by a private group it backs. Israel has dismissed the sea mission as a publicity stunt. 'Greta and her friends brought in a tiny amount of aid on their celebrity yacht. It did not help the people of Gaza. This was nothing but a ridiculous gimmick,' foreign minister Gideon Saar said. He said the supplies aboard the yacht would be transferred to Gaza through 'real humanitarian channels.' Thunberg defended the aid effort, organised by a pro-Palestinian group called the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, saying a larger boat that could carry a bigger cargo was disabled last month in the Mediterranean by drones allegedly operated by Israel. She also laughed off criticism from Donald Trump, who had described her overnight as an 'angry' and 'strange' person, saying: 'I think the world needs a lot more young angry women to be honest, especially with everything going on right now.' Thunberg, who headed onwards to Sweden, travels mostly by train and has long shunned airplanes because of their hefty carbon emissions. In 2019, she crossed the Atlantic by boat to attend a climate summit. In March, Israel imposed a total blockade of all supplies reaching Gaza, which experts say has driven the population of more than two million to the brink of famine. Over the past two weeks Israel has allowed in limited food supplies largely distributed by a new Israeli-backed group. Israel says the step is necessary to prevent Hamas from diverting aid. Hamas has denied stealing aid.
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Miliband has got his nuclear plans wrong. Here's what we should do
Yesterday, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband announced a new 'golden age ' of nuclear energy. But with the wrong technology, unfit regulation and no real delivery plan, his golden age already looks tarnished. He's pinning his hopes on an already out-dated large-scale nuclear technology that has been plagued by construction problems in Finland, France and the UK and whose developer EDF is already moving on to a newer version. And while his commitment to small modular reactors (SMRs) is commendable, they are at best a decade away with no examples in existence in the West. While it is tempting to think you could simply hoist a submarine reactor onto a dock and call it a power station, this is unrealistic. Military reactors are designed for stealth, speed and war, not for civilian safety, grid connectivity or cost-efficiency. So Rolls Royce has had to develop an entirely new concept. In fact the current market leaders in Western SMR-design are GE-Hitachi whose small boiling water reactors recently began construction in Canada. However, given the imminent retirement of all but one of our existing large nuclear reactors, bigger is better for the nuclear ambition, and in this, Miliband's plan is woefully inadequate. Luckily, there is a solution ready and waiting: the Korean APR1400 design which has been successfully completed in both South Korea and UAE with eight units now in operation, built in an average of 8.5 years, at an average cost of $5-6 billion. Far cheaper than the £40 billion some analysts expect Sizewell C to cost. Around £6 billion is thought to have been spent already. The Korean design has been approved by both US and European regulators and should be a no-brainer for the UK: build what works. But to do this we need to take an axe to our overgrown thicket of nuclear regulation. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) bizarrely reports to the Department for Work and Pensions, not the Energy Secretary, and sits beyond any meaningful strategic oversight. This well-intentioned separation has resulted in a regulatory regime akin to requiring 57 seat belts in your car – technically thorough, but practically unhinged. One requirement is that each new reactor design must expose workers to even less radiation than its predecessor. That might sound like progress, until you realise that radiation levels inside a modern nuclear plant are already so low they're hard to detect at all. The plant manager at one of our old Advanced Gas Cooled reactors (AGRs) once told me that the only time his radiation detector registered anything other than zero was when he left it on his desk and the sun shone on it. Nuclear workers are typically exposed to more radiation on the street than inside the plant. At this point, further exposure reductions offer no safety benefit. They just add cost, complexity and delay. The environmental regulators are as bad. The Sizewell C design is exactly the same as Hinkley Point C and the site is almost identical to Sizewell A and B. So why on earth were 40,000 pages of environmental statements required? This regulatory excess is expensive and draws out the process of approving new reactors beyond what is remotely reasonable. Britain risks running out of electricity. We had a near miss blackout event in January that was likely a factor in the renewal of the controversial biomass subsidies. We are also likely to see further small extensions to our ageing AGRs which are nearing the ends of their lives. But with a third of our fleet of gas power stations dating back to the 1990s and expected to retire in the next five years, Britain can ill afford delays to new nuclear plants. Particularly not the sort of avoidable delays our overzealous regulators have created. If Miliband is serious both about his golden age of nuclear, and more particularly, keeping the lights on in a decarbonised world, he needs to be far more ambitious. A truly serious plan would involve a programme of 5-6 large-scale reactors, and since the Koreans have the best track record, we should sign them up. He needs to get tough on the regulators. Abolishing ONR altogether and creating a new regulator, as part of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, with staff who are experts in risk management as well as nuclear safety, and severely curtailing the power of environmental regulators. One of the biggest benefits of nuclear power is its high energy density: it uses very little land to create a lot of energy. That should be taken into account, with regulators forced to look at the national picture rather than taking a strictly site by site approach. And he needs to stop wasting time with incentives for investors. They are not interested in the risk of our shambolic regulatory landscape. He should face this reality, and commit public money for the construction of the first two new reactors, re-financing once construction is completed. This would be a profitable strategy: the Government can borrow more cheaply than the private sector, the Korean design (with suitable regulatory restraint) can be built faster than the Hinkley design, meaning lower financing costs, and nuclear reactors are very profitable to run so investors will be very interested once the risky construction phase is over. He could even offer shares to the public in a 21st Century version of 'Just tell Sid' which remains the most successful public share subscription in UK history, and would perfectly align with Chancellor Rachel Reeves' ambition for UK savers to deploy their capital in the interests of national infrastructure.
Sky News
40 minutes ago
- Sky News
Who are the two Israeli ministers who have been sanctioned by the UK?
The UK government has sanctioned two prominent Israeli ministers for "inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank". Britain has been joined by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway in imposing sanctions on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich - who are opposed to Palestinian statehood and are on the far right of Israeli politics. The ministers are being sanctioned in their personal capacities and are now subject to a freeze on UK assets and director disqualifications, as well as a ban on entering the country. Here we take a look at who they are and why they have been sanctioned. Itamar Ben-Gvir Mr Ben-Gvir is Israel's security minister and the leader of the Jewish Power (Otzma Yehudit) party - one of the members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling coalition. The 49-year-old has previously been convicted of supporting a Jewish terrorist organisation and has supported the removal of Palestinians from their lands - including calling for Gaza's people to be resettled from the territory. The minister has also called for the al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem to be replaced with a synagogue. The mosque - the third-holiest site in Islam - is built atop the Temple Mount - the holiest site in Judaism, and which was once home to two Jewish temples. Mr Smotrich is Israel's finance minister and leader of the National Religious Party-Religious Zionism - which is another part of Mr Netanyahu's coalition. He is in charge of Israel's administration of the West Bank - the occupation of which is illegal under international law. He has also approved an expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and called for aid not to be let into Gaza. Mr Smotrich has recently said not "a grain of wheat" should be allowed to enter Gaza, saying it will be "entirely destroyed" and its people should be encouraged to leave in great numbers to go to other countries. What has the UK and its allies said? In a joint statement with foreign ministers from the four other countries who have announced sanctions, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the two senior Israelis had incited "serious abuses of Palestinian human rights". The statement added: "These actions are not acceptable. This is why we have taken action now - to hold those responsible to account." Meanwhile, a Number 10 spokesman said the sanctions have been applied in the "personal capacities" of the two ministers and "not their ministries and departments". What has Israel said? Mr Smotrich, speaking at the inauguration of a new settlement in the Hebron Hills in the West Bank, spoke of "contempt" for Britain's move. "Britain has already tried once to prevent us from settling the cradle of our homeland, and we cannot do it again. We are determined, God willing, to continue building." Israel's foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar said it was "outrageous" that the UK had sanctioned the two ministers. He also said he had spoken with Mr Netanyahu and that an Israeli response would be decided at a "special government meeting early next week". The countries have used the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 to designate the ministers "involved persons". What can't they do?
