Andrew George MP frames his recent article on Lib Dem Voice (“Israel/Palestine: Complicity”) around laudable principles—respect for law, opposition to hatred, and concern for civilian life. However, those principles are undermined when language departs from legal definitions, evidence is selectively presented, and allegations of the gravest crimes in international law are asserted as settled fact when they are not.
This matters not only for accuracy, but because such rhetoric risks feeding narratives that blur into antisemitism under the guise of moral critique.
The most serious flaw in the article is the repeated assertion that Israel is committing “genocide.” Genocide is not a descriptive adjective; it is a specific crime defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention, requiring proof of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. As of today, no international court has ruled that Israel is committing genocide.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), often misrepresented in public debate, has not found Israel guilty of genocide. In its provisional measures rulings, the ICJ explicitly stated that it was not making a determination on the merits of the genocide claim. Provisional measures are procedural safeguards, not verdicts.
To describe Israel as having been “recognised” as committing genocide is therefore factually incorrect and legally false. Misusing the term genocide not only cheapens a grave legal concept but also contributes to the collective demonisation of the world’s only Jewish state—a pattern that, historically, has had direct consequences for Jewish communities far beyond the Middle East.
There is no question that Gaza has experienced an acute humanitarian crisis, including severe food insecurity. However, the claim that Israel is deliberately starving Gaza as a policy of war is not established fact. Independent monitoring mechanisms such as the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) reported famine-level risks in parts of Gaza in early 2024. Yet subsequent assessments in 2025 concluded that famine conditions were not present across Gaza, largely due to increased aid flows following ceasefires and humanitarian corridors.
Severe hunger persists, but that is not the same as proof of an intentional starvation policy. Israel has facilitated hundreds of thousands of tonnes of humanitarian aid into Gaza via multiple crossings and coordination mechanisms, even while fighting an armed group that embeds itself within civilian infrastructure.
Aid distribution failures, looting by Hamas and criminal groups, and breakdowns in internal logistics have all been documented contributors to shortages. None of this diminishes Palestinian suffering—but it does undermine claims of a clear, intentional starvation strategy meeting the legal threshold of a war crime.
Andrew George cites casualty figures and incidents such as the tragic World Central Kitchen strike to imply a pattern of deliberate targeting. Civilian deaths in Gaza are tragic and unacceptable—but civilian harm in war is not, in itself, evidence of genocide or intentional mass murder. Urban warfare against an adversary that operates from hospitals, schools, mosques, and aid routes dramatically increases civilian risk.
NATO and UK military doctrines recognise this reality. Israel’s civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios—while still tragic—are not anomalous when compared to other modern urban conflicts such as Mosul or Raqqa. Assertions that Israel uniquely targets civilians ignore both military context and available comparative data.
The article suggests that any UK military cooperation with Israel is unlawful because Israel is “accused of genocide.” This is a misunderstanding of UK and international law. Arms export decisions are based on credible risk, not allegations alone. The UK government’s partial suspension of some licences in 2024 reflects a precautionary approach, not a finding of guilt.
The F-35 programme exemption is frequently mischaracterised. The UK does not export finished jets to Israel; it supplies components to a multinational supply chain used by numerous allied states. Unilaterally withdrawing would undermine NATO interoperability without demonstrably reducing civilian harm.
Similarly, RAF surveillance flights were officially designated for hostage-recovery and regional monitoring. Claims that UK intelligence “enabled” specific Israeli strikes remain speculative and have not been substantiated by evidence or judicial findings.
Serving in a foreign military is not, in itself, illegal under UK law. Allegations that British citizens serving in the IDF have committed war crimes must meet evidentiary thresholds, not political suspicion. The UK already possesses legal mechanisms to investigate war crimes where credible evidence exists, and those mechanisms should be applied consistently—to all conflicts, not selectively to Israel.
Andrew George is right to condemn antisemitism—but his article illustrates how anti-Zionist rhetoric can slide into it. Denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, applying uniquely inflammatory standards to Israel, or invoking Holocaust-adjacent language (“genocide,” “collective punishment,” “extermination”) without legal findings are all recognised indicators within the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which the UK government and Liberal Democrats have endorsed.
Criticising Israeli government policy is legitimate. Portraying Israel as a uniquely criminal state engaged in “some of the worst crimes known to humanity,” absent judicial rulings, contributes to the stigmatisation of Jews globally—something UK Jewish communities have repeatedly warned against.
The article claims the Liberal Democrats have “recognised Israel’s genocide.” This is again a selective description of the Party’s position. In reality:
Liberal Democrats have affirmed Israel’s right to exist and defend itself.
The party has condemned Hamas terrorism, called for the release of hostages, and supported ICC accountability for Hamas leaders.
The Liberal Democrats have formally adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism and have suspended or disciplined members for antisemitic conduct.
The party’s commitment to a two-state solution is not anti-Israel; it is consistent with longstanding UK, US, and EU policy and with Israel’s own founding diplomatic framework.
* Gavin Stollar OBE is the Honorary Chair of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. He is a former Parish and District Councillor, Parliamentary Candidate and parliamentary aide to Rt. Hon Charles Kennedy during his first two years as Party Leader.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Daniel Walker
David Raw
Kira Collins
27 Comments
Thank you Gavin. Some of us have noticed that Hamas is still in power in Gaza and continues to brutally suppress Palestinians, that non -Muslims continue to be ethnically cleansed from the Middle East and now Africa, by groups related to Hamas, and that Christians continue to be harassed in the West Bank (where Hamas is popular) and not by Israel. Investigate away (but fairly) but if we ignore all that in fixation on holding to account those trying to defend liberal democracy against Hamas, we are wildly out of step with public opinion at large and we will find ourselves in a bubble facing the far right at the next election.
If Israel wasn’t committing crimes too distressing to see, it would welcome all western journalists into Gaza. Instead it’s buying time to try and hide the evidence of its crimes while continuing its assault on a whole people.
Israel’s banning of British MPs from entering the country show that it has departed from diplomatic and legal norms. To the mind of most impartial bystanders is that it has become a pariah state that needs to be forced to stop committing crimes against the indigenous people of Palestine.
The BBC reports “Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, UN commission of inquiry says”.
Of course the Israeli government would deny this.
This includes reference to a “2023 attack on Gaza’s largest fertility clinic …….destroying around 4,000 embryos and 1,000 sperm samples and unfertilised eggs”.
But, how can this be interpreted as anything other than an attempt to prevent the birth of future Palestinians?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8641wv0n4go
Having read both articles if find Andrew George’s arguments by far the more persuasive. Liberals are rightly appalled by the 70 000+ deaths of Palestinians in Gaza and the bullying and illegal treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank. The time for nit-picking arguments about legal definitions is when the killing and bullying have stopped and the perpetrators are in court.
Andrew George’s article is partisan and selective. As the child of a refugee from an actual genocide, I would like to add a couple of points to Gavin Stollar’s riposte. The 7 October attack, as with the recent Manchester and Bondi atrocities, was genocidal. The indiscriminate slaughter of people, merely because of their (assumed) race is genocide, whatever a legal definition may be. That is not what the IDF did in their invasion of Gaza. Secondly, it is unarguable that there was real hunger and hardship in Gaza in the wake of the invasion, but it is remarkable how well-fed the Hamas terrorists are who have emerged from tunnels following the ceasefire, and who are busy murdering Palestinians on the street who dare challenge the authority of Hamas. There was food and water available to Hamas throughout the conflict, but Hamas chose to reserve it for their fighters and to create powerful images to manipulate the international media. It is worth noting that the large Israeli-Arab population is massively anti-Hamas. They have a very realistic view of what life under such a regime would be.
The UK has unfortunate history here – the inter-war Mandate, Suez, Iran/Mossadeq, Iraq – and would be well advised to take a humble approach in supporting realistic peace initiatives and not to claim any moral high ground.
Sorry, but Israel stands with Myanmar and China on the Rohingya and the Uigher genocides on similar actions with “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group”. The ICJ are due to examine the case for declaring whether there is the formal qualification of genocide on Israel and Myanmar, taking considerable time to examine evidence.
Stating the ICJ “has not found Israel guilty of genocide’ falsely implies the ICJ has rejected the charge. The ICJ has yet to fully consider the growing number of western countries supporting the case that Israel is committing genocide and rule upon a final verdict. The ICJ therefore warned Israel to mind their actions in the Gaza war.
It took the ICJ diligence 57 years to reach the landmark ruling in July 2024 that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is against International Law, and should stop settlement activity in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 didn’t end Israel’s occupation there because it still exercises effective control over it.
A few days ago, Belgium became the 2nd of UK’s closest neighbours to declare support for South Africa’s case calling Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide.
The Libdems support Israels right to exist as a Nation not as an Empire, whether current Israeli policy is Genocide or merely a vicious form of Imperialism/Ethnic Cleansing is an argument at the edges. We Oppose Land-grabbing when Russia & China do it, we must oppose Israel when they do it.
@ Jonathan Gale: Where is your evidence that Christians are harassed in the West Bank in any other way than from the extremist Zionist Jewish settler movement? I would be interested to know of your evidence and its sources that point to it being from other Palestinians.
There’s no record either of Hamas targeting Christian Palestinians- just the regular Israeli propaganda- like the Mayor of Jerusalem who falsely claimed that Christians didn’t exist in Gaza.- having to be challenged by Nick Ferrari, formerly strong Friend of Israel’ supporter.
Israeli forces have continued to kill innocent Palestinian citizens including children every day since the so called ceasefire was agreed. Israel is continuing to develop illegal settlements on the West Bank, Israeli soldiers interfered in the Bethlehem Christmas Celebrations. Illegal Israeli settlers continue to destroy Palestinian West Bank olive farms. All these actions are carried out with the tacit approval of the Israeli
Government. Hamas is a terrorist organisation and should be disarmed BUT the Israeli Government is in breach of numerous UN Resolutions. If the U.K.
Government really does believe in International
Law then surely our relationship with the current Israeli
Government must be questioned?
As the son of a German Jewish refugee, who lost countless relatives in the holocaust, I cannot agree with Gavin or Daniel. I have struggled with this whole conflict for years wanting Israel to survive as a state and loathing the appalling treatement of Palestinians, both in Gaza and the West Bank. I find it incomprehensible that people who suffered the consequences of the holocaust, should somehow think it’s right to murder innocent men, women and children on the pretext that they might, possibly, maybe be supporters of Hamas. Making excuses for the actions of Netenyahu and his cabinet is not what a Liberals should be doing.
I equally condemn Hamas for doing likewise. Liberals should not be making excuses for murderous thugs, who kill, rape and kidnap the innocent .
Andrew George has come to the conclusion that Israeil’s action ammount to genocide. Reluctantly, ever so reluctantly I am forced to agree with his conclusions.
The Israeli Government wants to destroy Hamas and Hamas want to destroy Israel. Hatred is endemic on both sides. Until people face up to that dynamic and stop giving unquestiuoning support to Israel there will never be peace.
The ICJ has not yet ruled the IDF’s actions as genocide, but nothing will change for the tens of thousands of civilians who have been killed or injured if the ruling does eventually go against Israel. The purpose of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the mass killing of civilians, or failing that, to stop it once it has started. The acceptance by the ICJ that a viable case existed was a warning shot across the bows of the Israeli state, and ought to have been heeded. Being accused of such a serious war crime would make most states realise they might be doing something wrong, but Israel is handicapped by its belief that antisemitism is behind every criticism of its actions, which allows it to ignore the advice of the ICJ and most of its allies.
Those who want to help Israel could give it the sound advice that hiding behind accusations of antisemitism is allowing a far-right government to lead it down the wrong path, rather than using arguments which many will regard as sophistry: what Israel is doing is either genocide or it is not. If the ruling is made in 2027 it won’t be a genocide from that date, it will have been a genocide since it started, in 2023. The usual reason for such a case to fail is the lack of evidence of intent, but the case against Israel is a strong one: the Israeli government’s intent has been put on record, many times.
@TomasH-J it is the fashion to blame extremist Zionist settlers for everything but that ignores the complex power arrangement that exists in the West Bank. In fact the Christian population is dwindling everywhere in the middle east except in Israel and the Israeli-controlled areas of the West Bank where it has grown recently. It is all very well for politicians in Europe to focus with tunnel vision on the tiny country of Israel and all its faults, but outside of this cosy leftwing bubble, people, including to be fair many Arabs themselves in places like Egypt, Oman and the UAE, are concerned about the violent neo-Imperialist factions, including the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is an offshoot), Isis, and Boko Haram, which are long-term proving somewhat successful in their quest for a monoculture throughout the Islamic world. Egypt used to be home to a vibrant Coptic Christian community, and the voices of other minorities, such as the Kurds, Druze and Yasidi, are being ignored. The Right, as usual, want to make this into a culture war, but I do think that we in the Centre should not blind ourselves to the wider picture in our eagerness to be critical of the only country in the region which rejoices in its (not only ethnic but also religious and social) diversity.
I support Andrew George’s article. I am honoured to join the thousands who demonstrate monthly in London against the actions of the Israeli government and would urge members to join the Libdem Friends of Palestine on these peaceful marches under banners demanding peace and justice. You will notice many Jewish supporters who are as
horrified as anyone about what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank.
The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 prohibits British subjects from enlisting in the army of any “foreign state at war with any foreign state at peace with His Majesty”. Presumably that means British people should not be serving in the IDF?
Just because a court has not YET made a decision about Israeli genocide does not mean the issue cannot be discussed. Dozens of scholars HAVE come to that conclusion.
I have to agree with Peter Wrigley, above, that Andrew George’s arguments appear much more persuasive. As early as September 17, The Guardian reported that ‘A UN commission has found that Israel is committing genocide, citing of thousands of civilian deaths and massive destruction.’ The head of that independent international commission of inquiry, called Navi Pillay, is quoted as saying,”When clear signs and evidence of genocide emerge, the absence of action to stop it amounts to complicity. All states are under a legal obligation to use all measures that are reasonably available to them to stop the genocide in Gaza.” It could not be stopped by the UN, for which the Israeli government of Netanyahu seemed to have only defiance and contempt.
For ordinary bystanders, seeing the pictures of starving children in Gaza, understanding that the US/Israeli set-up to feed them was inadequate to replace the barred International aid trucks and led to further deaths of some Palestinians who queued from the earliest hours to try to collect the limited supplies, and knowing that no independent journalists were being allowed in to record the situation, it did indeed seem as if death of Gaza civilians was then as much an Israeli aim as had been the Hamas aim to kill Israeli civilians on October 7. Such a policy would also, in the view of a non-political friend of mine, be leading to further recruitment of young fighters by Hamas, perpetuating the struggle.
What an excellent article by Gavin Stollar who has forensically addressed Andrew George’s contentions both about Israel and our own Government. There has been no finding of genocide by any international Court and people should be careful about asserting genocide to be a fact as Andrew George has done.
Making assertions as though they are proven, for instance repeating blood libels such as Israel’s alleged deliberate destruction of Palestinian embryos to inhibit population growth, or seeking to criminalise British Jews, feed into narratives that are proving fatal.
Words have real life consequences as we see with the Bondi murders, the Manchester killings on Yom Kippur and, the foiled attack against the Manchester Jewish community where a massacre was planned.
British Jews are building higher and stronger walls around their communal buildings and schools, many avoid wearing outward signs of their faith, Jewish students ponder the safest university, and Israelis I know who have lived in London for decades take care not to reveal their background. But why should we have to do this?
Genuine solidarity with the British Jewish community, the overwhelming majority of whom are Zionist of one persuasion or another, means that a couple of sympathetic sentences are unsufficient. Rather, think hard about words before writing and speaking on emotive subjects. Language can be incredibly inflammatory, contributing to a climate of hatred, demonisation and worse. It can also turn down the dial of hatred. I always thought Lib Dems were in favour of that.
Gavin Stollers argument seems to be overly legalistic. For example we have the phrases:
“when language departs from legal definitions”, ” Genocide is not a descriptive adjective; it is a specific crime defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention”, and “The International Court of Justice (ICJ), often misrepresented in public debate, has not found Israel guilty of genocide”.
Legal definitions don’t appear independently of terms used in everyday language. The term ‘genocide’ was coined in the early 1940’s by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer. It therefore predates any legal definition that may have been arrived at in 1948.
So can we say that, because no-one had been found guilty of genocide in the early 1940s, therefore it didn’t exist? Can we use the same arguments, in support of the Ottomans against a charge of genocide against Armenian people during WW1?
International Courts play only a part in legally holding to account those who may have committed war crimes. There is the international court of public opinion too.
Unless the Israeli occupying power, that is certainly ethnically cleansing those living in its occupied territory, is forced to allow independent reporting and inspection, it can only be assumed that it is hiding something rather terrible. There should be much more pressure on Israel to allow independent reporting.
I also know that the Palestinian Christians living under that occupation and oppression suffer as greatly from the restrictions and dispossessioss as their Muslim neighbours do. There is plenty of evidence to support that. The Christian areas of the West Bank are slowly being erased with many families leaving. There are many examples that can be given including the Armenians in East Jerusalem, the attacks on Taybeh, the restrictions and slow strangulation of Bethlehem and much more. I was there last November and am returning shortly and can give first-hand accounts.
There have now been comments both for and against Gavin’s arguments about legal definitions, and what has, or has not, been established beyond doubt. But surely even the most fervent supporter of Israel would have to admit that the weight of evidence is too great to be ignored. Not only have there been far, far too many killings of civilians in extremely dubious circumstances – even if they haven’t been actually adjudicated in a court of law – but the rhetoric from some of the leading figures in Israel has explicitly called for the removal, by any means, of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, land erroneously claimed to be Israel’s by (divine) right.
@Sandra Fayle, no-one would deny those who love Israel the right to defend it. My own wish, and I’ve written about this before in the LDV, is that we could all try to understand the reasons why Israel has got itself into the mess it is in, perhaps because antisemitism from people of my nationality in the past has played a part.
But conflating modern day criticism of Israel with the “blood libel” is not helpful. It suggests an unwillingness to confront the terrible reality of what is happening today. We are not promoting (or resorting to) medieval superstitions when we say Israel has done wrong. Please accept this advice in the spirit in which it is meant, and have what we all must wish for all the people in Israel and Palestine, a happy new year.
Andrew George presented a powerful moral argument for the UK Government to strengthen its position against the campaigns of the Israeli Government in Gaza and the West Bank. In contrast, this response by the Lib Dem Friends of Israel (the clue is in the name) sounds like a defence barrister desperately trying to get their client off on legal technicalities.
If someone breaks into my house and takes my property away, the crime of burglary has been committed. I do not need to wait until individuals have been convicted to reach that conclusion. Similarly, the actions collectively of the Israeli Government, its Ministers and military officers have amounted to the destruction, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
I do not know (beyond reasonable doubt) if the Israeli Government or particular Ministers or military officers have had the specific intention to cause that destruction – although some Ministers have made statements that appear to incriminate themselves to this.
However, the continuation of the destruction of Gaza after any reasonable military objective had been achieved, in the certain knowledge that the destruction is continuing, seems to me to be morally (if not legally) equivalent to having a specific intention.
I therefore conclude that genocide has been committed against the Palestinians in Gaza. I will leave it to the ICJ to determine if there is sufficient evidence to convict any specific Israeli State bodies or individuals of having committed that genocide.
“Making assertions as though they are proven, for instance repeating blood libels such as Israel’s alleged deliberate destruction of Palestinian embryos to inhibit population growth, or seeking to criminalise British Jews, feed into narratives that are proving fatal.”
@Sandra Fayle – your comment made me re-read Andrew George’s article. He did not assert or even imply any of those things.
@ Lee_Thacker,
I think Sandra Fayle’s ‘blood libel’ comment was directed at me rather than Andrew George.
To be clear: This refers to a medieval misbelief that Jews often used the blood of Christian children in religious rituals. I’d made the point that the BBC had reported on a “2023 attack on Gaza’s largest fertility clinic …….destroying around 4,000 embryos and 1,000 sperm samples and unfertilised eggs”.
Of course the Israeli government claims this was an accidental consequence of war whereas the Palestinian side claims it to have been deliberate and evidence of genocidal intent.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the use of the term ‘blood libel’ and the comparison to a medieval superstition does seem rather bizarre, and indicative of a level of desperation.
This comment is posted on behalf of Chris Bowers who has had trouble doing it himself
The sentence that most alarms me in Gavin Stollar’s piece comes in the second paragraph: “such rhetoric risks feeding narratives that blur into antisemitism under the guise of moral critique.” Could that not be reversed, in the sense that accusations of anti-Semitism are often used to blur legitimate moral critique of the actions of the government of Israel? My grandfather was a Jew, who fled Nazi Germany after spending 12 days in a concentration camp, so I have both a family and an instinctive belief in Israel’s right to exist. But the 2500-year-old project to create a Jewish homeland was not completed in 1948, and it still isn’t – it won’t be completed until Israel is able to live at peace with its neighbours, something it has spent 77 years undermining, starting with the Nakba in the late 1940s and continuing to this day with new illegal settlements. If we really want to help Israel – and I suspect prevent more innocent Jews being killed by warped minds that conflate them with Israeli actions – we must strive to make a clear distinction between anti-Semitism, which is never acceptable, and legitimate criticism of the actions of a sovereign state, whichever that state happens to be. It’s sometimes a difficult distinction to make, but we must attempt to eradicate the conflation if we are to work towards peace in the Middle East.
Well said Caron. My mother fled from the Sudetenland in 1938 along with some of her family and was always horrified at what was being done to innocent Palestinians in her name as a Jew. The greatest antisemitism is to equate the actions of Israel with Judaism, and those who do so, including the Chief Rabbi, cause the greatest danger to innocent Jews globally.
More shocking than the Israeli government in it’s out-of-control behaviour, is the reluctance of so many nations including the UK to stop it. That makes the UK complicit. At minimum we should insist on independent access to Gaza, full trade embargoes and sanctions. The latest attempt to destroy the remnants of civilization in Gaza by banning well known and respected aid agencies is yet another red line crossed by Israel following so many others. What does it take for our government to say enough is enough and take REAL action?
Very little has been published in the LDV in support of Israel’s actions during the war in Gaza, and perhaps Gavin Stollar should be applauded for attempting it. However, claiming some of the accusations are invalid because they haven’t yet been upheld in a court has simply reminded us all of the extreme violence with which Netanyahu’s government responded to the Hamas attack.
But the Lib Dem Friends of Israel might draw some comfort from the way people have taken the time to contribute, some with thoughts about how Israel might look for a better way forward than by trying to annihilate its enemies by military force.
The Hamas October 2023 attack was ill-judged, and included some acts of great barbarity, but it wouldn’t have happened if the Palestinians hadn’t been oppressed by Israel for many decades, and the timing was probably due to Hamas realising the international community was not going to prevent the illegal annexation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, and that annexation was becoming imminent.
Netanyahu has always met Palestinian resistance with increasing levels of violence, but that policy having led to the accusation of Genocide, it is time for the Israeli people to realise there has to be another way. Difficult though it might be to contemplate, the other way is to recognise that the Palestinians have a right to exist equal to that of Israeli Jews, and that Israel will have to agree to the recognition of the state of Palestine.
@ Peter Martin
Thanks for clarifying that. The comment now makes a bit more sense.