London: The British government has clarified its position on the ongoing conflict in Gaza, stating that Israel’s military campaign does not meet the legal threshold of genocide. In a letter addressed to a parliamentary committee on September 1, former Foreign Secretary David Lammy explained that the government had carefully reviewed the matter and concluded that the intent required under the Genocide Convention to deliberately destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group has not been demonstrated in Israel’s actions.
While rejecting the genocide classification, Lammy strongly condemned the humanitarian devastation in Gaza. He described the loss of life as “utterly appalling,” pointing to the nearly two-year conflict that has killed more than 64,000 Palestinians. The senior Labour leader, who was recently appointed Deputy Prime Minister after a cabinet reshuffle, stressed that Britain expects Israel to take greater steps to ease civilian suffering and allow humanitarian aid to reach those in desperate need.
Lammy also emphasized that genocide determinations should be made by judicial bodies, not by governments, a principle long held by the UK. His remarks come at a politically sensitive time, as Britain navigates strained relations with Israel. London has recently moved to recognize a Palestinian state and has restricted Israeli officials from participating in a major defence trade exhibition.
The diplomatic backdrop adds weight to the timing of Lammy’s statement, as Israeli President Isaac Herzog is expected to meet with Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London this week. Britain’s first direct acknowledgement that Israel’s actions do not amount to genocide marks a shift from its earlier stance of deferring such judgments entirely to the courts.
International voices, however, remain divided. The UN’s human rights chief, Volker Türk, recently denounced “mass killings” and deliberate restrictions on aid delivery in Gaza, warning that such actions could amount to war crimes. Yet, like Britain, he stopped short of applying the genocide label, instead pointing to the International Court of Justice as the proper venue for such determinations.
Britain’s position thus attempts to strike a balance between legal caution and moral responsibility. While rejecting the charge of genocide, the UK continues to spotlight the severe humanitarian toll of the conflict and call for urgent steps to protect civilians, framing its stance as both principled and pragmatic in the face of one of the world’s most contentious crises.