��������

LONDON: Campaigners have condemned a claim by the UK’s outgoing foreign secretary that there does not appear to be a genocide taking place in Gaza.

David Lammy was responding to Sarah Champion MP, chair of the international development committee, who had asked him how the UK’s policy on supplying F-35 fighter jet parts complies with a duty to prevent genocide, given that the planes are used by the Israeli military.

In a letter, Lammy replied: “As per the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide occurs only 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.”

He said the war has been “utterly appalling,” but the government has “carefully considered” the question of whether genocide is taking place.

Lammy condemned the actions of the Israeli military, and said it “must do much more to prevent and alleviate the suffering that this conflict is causing.”

His reply prompted an outcry from campaigners and experts. Ben Jamal, director of the Palestine Solidarity campaign, told Arab News: “At the heart of the government’s statement is something really quite grotesque. It’s effectively saying until this is definitively shown to be a genocide — which they know will take years — we don’t have to act on the basis of seeking to prevent the genocide.” 

Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, called the wording of Lammy’s letter “a spurious piece of legalese.”

He told Arab News that “the wording is very important here,” saying Lammy had stopped short of stating definitively that no genocide is taking place, which is “quite important because it allows them that wiggle room” to place the burden on courts to make a final determination.

In May, Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer told MPs: “It is the UK government’s long-standing position that any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent court, not for governments or non-judicial bodies.”

Lammy added to Falconer’s statement: “This government is not an international court. We have not — and could not — arbitrate on whether or not Israel has breached international humanitarian law.”

However, Doyle said: “The evidence is overwhelming. Starvation, denial of food, drink, water, power, and the military actions (by Israel) in Gaza … It’s really an appalling position from the government.”

Lammy’s letter marks the first time that the government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has publicly suggested that it may not consider the war in Gaza to constitute genocide.

Jamal said this could harm Starmer’s credibility on the issue of Gaza. “He’s a former international human rights lawyer who gave evidence to the ICJ (International Court of Justice) trying to get them to accept the reality of another genocide (committed by Serbia against Croatia in the 1990s). So one must presume he does indeed know what the definition of genocide is,” Jamal added.

“It’s not ignorance on Keir Starmer’s part. One has to assume he knows full well what the Genocide Convection says, how it operates.

“But it’s akin to his grotesque remarks as a former human rights lawyer in the first week after Oct. 7 — when Israel had declared a full siege on Gaza — that Israel did have the right to cut off food, water and essential supplies to the people of Gaza.

“He knew damn well they didn’t have that right under international law, but at that moment his political imperative was not to have any sense of accusation that he wasn’t wholly, fully gung-ho in his support for Israel.”

Doyle warned that Lammy’s claim will have further implications for the domestic debate around Gaza.

“It’s going to wind up public opinion, MPs, and many others who see this as evidence that the government isn’t being serious about what’s going on in Gaza,” he said.