As Liberal Democrats, we pride ourselves on internationalism grounded in law, evidence and moral seriousness. That is precisely why the increasingly casual use of the word “genocide” in debates about Israel and Gaza should concern us.
The 2024 provisional measures issued by the International Court of Justice did not determine that Israel has committed genocide. The Court found that there was a plausible risk requiring provisional steps to prevent escalation. That is not the same as a finding of genocidal intent – the specific legal threshold required under the Genocide Convention. No final judgment has been delivered.
To present provisional measures as proof of genocide is legally inaccurate and politically inflammatory. If we are a party that believes in international law, we must represent its rulings faithfully — not selectively.
None of this means Palestinian suffering is not real. It is devastating. Civilian casualties in Gaza have been tragic. Settlement expansion in the West Bank remains wrong and corrosive to the prospects of a viable Palestinian state. Rhetoric from Israeli ministers such as Bezalel Smotrich rejecting Palestinian statehood is damaging both morally and strategically.
But outrage cannot substitute for analysis.
The war did not begin in a vacuum. It followed the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust – an attack by Hamas that deliberately targeted civilians and sought to provoke exactly the kind of regional conflagration we are now witnessing. All hostages have now returned, many tragically murdered, but that does not erase the crime or Israel’s legitimate security concerns.
A sustainable two-state solution requires an Israel that is secure from armed groups committed to its destruction. That principle cannot be abandoned simply because it complicates the narrative.
Nor can we ignore Palestinian political failure.
The Palestinian Authority, dominated by Fatah, has for years been crippled by corruption, patronage networks and absolute democratic decay. President Mahmoud Abbas is now in the twentieth year of what was meant to be a four-year term. Elections have been repeatedly postponed. Dissent is suppressed. Critics and journalists have been harassed or detained. Security coordination is often designed less to build accountable governance and more to maintain elite control.
The PA’s “martyrs’ fund” – stipends on a sliding scale to families of those imprisoned for attacks against Israelis – the more Jews you kill the greater the stipend. This has long undermined trust and understandably fuelled Israeli scepticism about ‘peace’ intentions. Meanwhile, ordinary Palestinians face crippling economic stagnation while senior figures maintain privileged positions within a stagnant status quo.
This corruption and self-interest are not marginal issues; they are central obstacles to peace. A Palestinian state cannot be built on institutions that lack democratic legitimacy and public trust. Reform of Palestinian governance is as essential to two states as halting settlement expansion.
Yet much of the current rhetoric singles out Israel alone for sweeping punitive measures – sanctions on officials, suspension of trade agreements, termination of cooperation – while offering little scrutiny of Hamas’s authoritarian rule in Gaza or the Palestinian Authority’s democratic collapse in the West Bank.
Selective indignation is not liberal internationalism.
If we seek two states, our objective must be to strengthen moderates and reformers on both sides. Blanket economic disengagement from Israel risks entrenching hardliners who argue that international pressure proves compromise futile. Equally, uncritical diplomatic engagement with a sclerotic Palestinian leadership entrenches its failures.
Peace will not be achieved through party political signalling. It will come through rebuilding credible Palestinian institutions, marginalising violent rejectionism, ensuring Israeli security, and restoring the political horizon that has been absent for too long.
The founding of Israel 78 years ago followed a UN partition plan proposing two states. Jewish leaders accepted it; Arab leaders rejected it and chose war. The resulting tragedy displaced Palestinians and Jews alike across the region. History is complex and painful – but it does not justify narratives that treat Israel’s existence as illegitimate from birth. Liberal Democrats should reject any framing that slides from policy criticism into state delegitimisation.
We must also guard against rhetoric that isolates Israel as uniquely criminal while applying no equivalent standards elsewhere. Accountability for violations of international law must apply universally. War crimes allegations, if substantiated, should be pursued through proper judicial mechanisms – not declared as political slogans.
Being pro-Israel does not mean endorsing every action of its government. Being pro-Palestinian does not mean ignoring the abject failures of Palestinian leadership. Being pro-two states requires intellectual honesty about both.
Our party’s historic position remains the right one: support Israel’s right to exist in peace and security; support a viable, democratic Palestinian state alongside it; oppose settlement expansion; oppose terrorism; uphold international law.
But if we allow anger to override accuracy, or adopt language that pre-judges legal processes, we risk undermining the very rules-based order we claim to defend.
Peace requires courage from Israeli leaders willing to restrain settlement expansion and reject annexationist fantasies. It requires courage from Palestinian leaders willing to reform, democratise, and end the politics of grievance and incitement. And it requires Western liberals to speak with balance rather than maximalism.
If we truly want two states, we must hold all parties to account – not just the one that fits most easily into our preferred narrative.
* 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
Lib Dems are reviewing policy and strategy says PoliticsHome
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Anthony Acton
Kira Collins
Tom Bailey
Simon Robinson
Tom Arms
9 Comments
This whole article appears to be an attempt at obfuscation.
1 Few genocides have ever gone before a court that had the ability to determine that it was a genocide, not even the holocaust. You also don’t need a court to call a spade a spade, the evidence is out in the open.
2 Lack of democracy and corruption are not and never have been criteria for recognising a state and have no baring on the legality of the occupation.
3 The Martyrs fund does not make payments for the number of Jews killed, if someone is in prison for longer their family will inevitably receive more. It’s also not just for militants and can go to civilians killed by the Israel during peaceful protests.
Israel also pays its soldiers and the families of those killed in action, which inevitably includes those who commit war crimes. If the PA had the ability to imprisson Israeli soldiers that murder civilians, it’s likely Israel would also make payments to their families.
But this is irrelevant either way, it does not affect the legal and moral case for Palestinian self determination.
4 “Our objective must be to strengthen moderates and reformers on both sides.” In the decades since the Oslo accords the world increasingly has shown Israel that there will be no consequences whatsoever it does, now the only Jewish party that supports a two state solution is hovering around 10% in the polls. South Africa had to be forced into changing and this is now the only viable path with Israel.
Fine, we we will call it Mass Murder done on an Ethnic basis, is that better ?
No one on here is likely to oppose a Two-State Solution but The Israeli Establishment no longer think in terms of Nations, they are building an Empire. Their policy for Decades has been to make any peaceful Solution impossible, they want Total Victory & like many before them, think they can get it. Why stop fighting as long as you are “Winning” ?
I think a “2 state solution” is a way of avoiding the issue. It’s clearly one state, with a large population denied citizenship. Ofc, the Israelis don’t want the Palestinians to be citizens because there are more of them. It’s surprising that people keep calling Israel a democracy, when only a minority of the population get to vote or participate in normal politics.
Like many people I believe it is a genocide and I hope that the perpetrators will be brought to justice.
It did not start with the October Hamas attack. It is up to the Palestinian people to decide how they are governing and one should not blame victims for the crimes of governments.
On David Grice’s third point it is worth noting that payments are based on sentence length rather than body count; the point is that longer sentences generally correspond to more serious attacks, so the structure still financially incentivizes violence. Comparing this to Israel compensating soldiers or bereaved families isn’t equivalent: states paying members of their armed forces is not the same as providing stipends tied to convictions for attacks on civilians. And while Palestinian self-determination is a separate legal question, policies that reward or appear to reward violence are directly relevant to the credibility, governance standards, and moral claims of any aspiring state.
I agree with much in this article. However one important thing I think Gavin Stollar is mistaken about is “Peace requires courage from Israeli leaders willing to restrain settlement expansion and reject annexationist fantasies.” Restraining settlement expansion is not enough. Many is not all settlements will have to be removed for any prospect of peace to be credible.
I find Gavin Stollar’s comments thoughtful, cogent and important. Two nations are struggling to find a safe and prosperous future in the lands of Israel and Palestine. To do so requires continued building of trust and confidence between peoples and leaders alike.
Some of the commenters above find it easy to blythely refer to Israel as the villain, ignoring the painful cost and strain of trying to secure peace for all of its citizens (whom – regardless of race, religion etc. do have full and equal rights to vote, stand for Parliament, act as court judges etc. unlike Jenny Barnes’s misleading comment above).
The recent war, triggered by Hamas’s massacre of civilians, has disrupted progress towards a hopeful future for all sides and pushed citizens in the region towards more extreme positions – an understandable survival instinct. However, I agree with the author’s comments that this is a situation that “requires Western liberals to speak with balance rather than maximalism.”
I am sorry, Mrs Wilson, but it is not important whether you or others “believe that it is a genocide.” It is important to brush biases away and consider evidence, not accusations. Because, if you base your next steps on what you simply “believe”, those actions will not be well chosen.
I congratulate Gavin Stollar for the moderate and reasoned tone of his article. I believe the basic points he makes are ones that sensible people within the Lib Dems should be able to rally behind.
Just saying you think there is a genocide does not make it so. Shouting it on marches or on campuses does not make it so. Repeating it in these columns does not make it so.
The only body with the authority to rule on genocide is the International Court of Justice and until it issues its ruling, the rest of us are expressing opinions, not facts.
” all of its citizens (whom – regardless of race, religion etc. do have full and equal rights to vote, stand for Parliament, act as court judges etc. unlike Jenny Barnes’s misleading comment above).”
That turns out not to be the case for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who are – despite any 2 state rhetoric – still within the boundaries and control of Israel. Israel claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within those boundaries: basic definition of a state.