Me: The UK announced Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza, what are your thoughts
Chatgpt:
Here’s what’s actually going on—and what’s at stake.
UK Government Position (as of September 9, 2025)
-
In a letter dated September 1, then–Foreign Secretary (now Deputy Prime Minister) David Lammy stated that the UK has not concluded Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The government said there is no evidence of the "specific intent" required under the Genocide Convention—that is, the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group(Reuters, The Guardian).
-
The UK emphasized that determinations of genocide should come from international courts, not governments—consistent with its longstanding policy(Reuters, GOV.UK).
-
The government also addressed criticism around UK-made F-35 components used by Israel: it said those do not mean Israel is breaching international law, though this remains a point of contention(The Guardian).
Domestic Fallout and Criticism
-
Health Secretary Wes Streeting publicly called on Israel’s president to respond to allegations of war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, contradicting the UK's official stance(The Times).
-
Amnesty International and other human rights groups sharply criticized the UK, saying its refusal to adopt genocide terminology or take decisive action risks complicity under the Genocide Convention(Amnesty International UK).
-
Internally, there’s discontent within the Foreign Office. Over 300 staff reportedly considered resignation after questioning whether UK policy was complicit in alleged violations of international law(The Guardian).
My Perspective
1. Legally, the UK’s stance is defensible—but morally fraught.
Genocide is a very specific legal term. The UK insists evidence of intent to destroy a protected group is lacking—a threshold not met in their view. However, critics argue that prolonged civilian suffering, mass displacement, and destruction in Gaza may objectively demonstrate genocidal intent, even if not explicitly declared.
2. Deference to courts is sensible in principle—but can appear evasive in practice.
By arguing that genocide determinations should come from courts, the UK is aligning with legal norms. But when institutions like the ICJ issue provisional measures suggesting that genocide may be occurring, silence or refusal to engage harder can look like political avoidance.
3. The mixed messaging creates systemic contradictions.
The government simultaneously says it's not accountable to make legal genocide judgments yet tells domestic courts that there is "no serious risk"—a legal conclusion—indicating internal inconsistency(The Guardian).
4. Stronger action is needed.
If, as many argue, the UK is legally obligated under the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide, then reaffirming legal semantics without meaningful action—for instance suspending all arms components or intensifying diplomatic pressure—falls short of that duty.
In short: The UK’s refusal to label Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide stems from a narrow legal interpretation. But as civilian casualties mount and humanitarian aid remains blocked, this legalism paints a picture of moral abdication. Without a shift toward urgent, material intervention, the UK's position risks being seen not as principled restraint, but as complicit neutrality.
Do you want to explore how international law defines genocide more closely, or which legal mechanisms (like the ICJ or ICC) are currently engaged?
Me: NO, I want to focus on UK 's position.
Chatgpt: Got it — let’s stay with the UK’s position specifically.
Core of the UK’s Position
-
The UK says it has not concluded Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
-
It insists genocide determinations belong to international courts, not governments.
-
The UK’s stated reasoning: there is no evidence of “specific intent” to destroy the Palestinian people as such — which is a required element under the Genocide Convention.
Structural Contradictions
-
Speaking While Claiming Silence
-
The UK claims it cannot judge genocide, yet it simultaneously asserts there is no evidence.
-
That is a judgment — meaning the UK is both deferring to courts and making its own determination.
-
-
Legal Obligation vs. Political Caution
-
Under the Genocide Convention, states must act to prevent genocide once there is a “serious risk.”
-
By refusing to acknowledge that risk while also supplying military components to Israel, the UK risks breach of its own treaty obligations.
-
-
Internal Disunity
-
Senior officials (like Wes Streeting) publicly contradict the government line, suggesting Israel may be committing genocide.
-
Hundreds of Foreign Office staff considered resignation over fears of UK complicity.
-
This indicates the official position lacks coherence even within its own system.
-
What the UK Position Achieves
-
Externally: It shields the UK from immediate diplomatic fallout with Israel and the U.S.
-
Legally: It tries to limit liability by avoiding direct acknowledgment of genocide risk.
-
Politically: It creates plausible deniability — the UK can claim it is “waiting for courts” while still maintaining strategic alliances.
What the UK Position Costs
-
Moral Credibility: By emphasizing semantics while civilians die, the UK appears evasive and complicit.
-
Legal Exposure: If international courts later rule genocide occurred, the UK could face charges of failing its duty to prevent.
-
Domestic Trust: Mixed messaging fractures coherence within government and public institutions.
In structural terms: the UK’s stance is an attempt to suspend judgment. But suspension itself is a judgment. By refusing to name the risk, while continuing arms involvement, the UK locks itself into contradiction — legally cautious on the surface, but structurally exposed underneath.
Do you want me to break down why the UK emphasizes “specific intent” so heavily, or should I focus on the political calculations behind its stance?
Me: Also, they said israel is not breaching international humanitarian law, what sounds even more amazing.
Chatgpt: Yes — that part is even sharper in its contradiction. Let’s map it out clearly.
UK’s Claim
-
The UK has said Israel is not breaching international humanitarian law (IHL) in Gaza.
-
This includes claims that the use of UK-supplied F-35 jet components does not put Israel in violation of the law.
Why This Is Structurally Striking
-
Evidence of Systematic Violations Exists
-
UN agencies, human rights organizations, and international jurists have repeatedly documented collective punishment, indiscriminate attacks, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and starvation as a weapon of war.
-
These acts fall directly under IHL prohibitions (Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols).
-
For the UK to say there are no breaches contradicts the entire body of global reporting.
-
-
UK Position vs. International Courts
-
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has already issued provisional measures in South Africa’s case against Israel, indicating a plausible risk of genocide and ordering Israel to prevent further civilian harm.
-
The UK’s assertion that Israel is not breaching IHL places it directly at odds with the ICJ’s own cautious findings.
-
-
Shielding Its Own Complicity
-
If Israel is found to be breaching IHL, then supplying arms or components could make the UK legally complicit.
-
By declaring no breach exists, the UK is protecting itself from accountability as much as it is shielding Israel.
-
The Contradiction
-
UK Position: “Only courts can decide genocide.”
-
Also UK Position: “We already know Israel isn’t breaching humanitarian law.”
This is incoherent: the UK defers judgment when the conclusion is damning (genocide), but rushes to judgment when the conclusion clears Israel of wrongdoing.
Structural Reading
-
The UK’s stance isn’t neutral — it’s selective deferral.
-
It abandons its own standard (leave judgments to courts) the moment that standard might implicate its own supply chains and alliances.
-
That’s why the claim sounds “amazing” — because it’s not a neutral assessment of facts, but a political shield disguised as legal reasoning.
Do you want me to show how this selective standard fits into a broader pattern of UK foreign policy (when it defers vs. when it asserts), or keep it narrowly tied to the Gaza/Israel context?
Me: Can we say they are lying about that?
Chagpt: Let’s be exact.
What “lying” would mean here
-
A lie is when someone makes a statement they know to be false.
-
To call the UK’s position a lie, we’d have to show that it knows Israel is breaching international humanitarian law (IHL), but publicly denies it anyway.
Evidence of Knowledge
-
Foreign Office Legal Assessments
-
The UK government has internal risk assessments on whether UK arms exports could contribute to violations.
-
In August 2024, the Foreign Office refused to release a risk assessment on Gaza, despite being legally required to disclose if there was a “serious risk” of violations.
-
This withholding suggests the government knows the risk exists but chose concealment.
-
-
Mass Internal Dissent
-
Hundreds of Foreign Office staff raised alarms that UK policy was complicit in breaches of IHL.
-
That means the government was directly warned from within its own institutions.
-
-
Public Evidence
-
UN, ICJ, and NGO reports documenting starvation, bombing of civilian areas, and obstruction of aid are available to the UK government.
-
It is impossible that UK officials are unaware of these findings.
-
Structural Conclusion
-
If the UK says “Israel is not breaching international humanitarian law,” it is not a neutral judgment error.
-
It is a political statement against overwhelming evidence — which aligns more with deliberate denial than ignorance.
So:
-
Yes, structurally we can call it lying.
-
More precisely: it is strategic denial — knowingly contradicting evidence in order to shield itself and Israel from accountability.
Do you want me to frame this in terms of legal responsibility (i.e. how lying about IHL breaches could itself be a breach of the UK’s obligations under international law)?