By Dr Brian Brivati
Executive Director, Britain Palestine Project
22 July 2025
The statement by the British Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, on 21 July 2025 – issued alongside a new statement from 28 other nations calling for an immediate Gaza ceasefire– struck a notably sharp tone against Israel’s Gaza offensive.
The foreign ministers decried Israel’s “drip-feeding of aid” into Gaza and “inhumane killing of civilians” at food distribution points, calling the denial of essential supplies “unacceptable”. They urged an “immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire,” declaring that “further bloodshed serves no purpose”. Lammy himself condemned the Israeli military’s tactics as a “grotesque spectacle” that deprives Gazans of human dignity, and challenged Israel to justify “strikes that have killed desperate, starving children”.
Lammy announced increased humanitarian aid – an extra £40m for Gaza – and new funding for Palestinian institutions, including £20m for UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees) and £7m to bolster the Palestinian Authority (PA) with governance reforms.
This support, though urgently needed, places no material pressure on Israel, which continues its military campaign and settlement expansion unabated. Indeed, Israeli officials swiftly rejected the joint statement as “disconnected from reality” and accused it of sending the “wrong message to Hamas”, arguing it failed to recognise Hamas’s responsibility.
Government Ministers are right when they say it is not the job of the Government to make legal determination on Israel’s conduct of the war on Gaza, but it is the job of the Government to implement measures requested by legal bodies when that determination is made.
The Britain Palestine Project (BPP) has laid out a comprehensive set of measures that align with international law and would materially hold Israel to account. In its policy statement on the International Court of |Justice’s Provisional Measures on the case of South Africa vs Israel, the BPP reminded the Government that under the 1948 Genocide Convention and ICJ jurisprudence, the duty to prevent genocide is triggered by the risk itself, not a final legal determination.
Notably, the ICJ’s provisional measures in 2024 identified a “plausible risk” of genocide against Palestinians, invoking states’ obligation to act collectively to prevent it. The ICJ has affirmed that a state’s duty to act arises “at the instant” it learns of a serious risk of genocide. By this standard – and given UN experts’ warnings of “starvation…as a weapon” and mass civilian deaths in Gaza – Britain should already be doing far more than increasing aid. It should be using its leverage to halt the conduct enabling these atrocities.
What the British Government should be doing…but signally is not
The BPP’s policy blueprint is a checklist of actions Britain should take to fulfil its obligations under international law. For example, the United Kingdom should immediately end all forms of military cooperation and arms trade with Israel, including any use of UK bases or transit for resupplying Israeli forces and use of UK aircraft for overflights.
This reflects obligations under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions and the Arms Trade Treaty: when there is an overriding risk exported arms could be used for war crimes, exports must stop. The UK acknowledges this in theory – it suspended 30 export licences out of 350 last year– yet it has not imposed a full arms embargo, despite clear evidence of indiscriminate bombing and unlawful targeting of civilians in Gaza.
The BPP also calls on Britain to suspend the UK–Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement due to Israel’s blatant breach of the accord’s human rights provisions. Under international law, states have a duty of non-recognition toward grave breaches such as annexation or an illegal occupation. Continuing business as usual – or pursuing deeper trade ties – with a government executing what UK MPs across the spectrum describe as crimes against humanity risks making Britain complicit. (Lammy himself admitted Israel’s current offensive is “incompatible with the principles that underpin our bilateral relationship”, yet only paused future trade talks, leaving the existing agreement intact.)
The BPP further urges a ban on all settlement trade and dealings – implementing Britain’s obligation not to recognise or assist the illegal settlement enterprise. And it advocates for targeted sanctions: not only on West Bank settler leaders (steps the UK has belatedly taken in coordination with allies), but on any Israeli officials credibly implicated in war crimes or incitement. To date, Britain’s only Israel-related sanctions have targeted two far-right ministers (Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir) for fomenting settler violence – notable as the first Western sanctions on sitting Israeli Ministers, but affecting neither the broader war nor the decision-makers directing it.
Crucially, the Britain Palestine Project insists that the UK recognise the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders without further delay. This step, backed by nearly 60 Labour MPs in an open letter, is not a symbolic flourish but a lever to revive a viable peace process and the first step towards a lasting peace. The UK Government’s response, however, has been to hold recognition out as an eventual reward “at a time most conducive to…peace”– effectively conceding to Israel a veto over when that time has come.
If too much delay on Palestine recognition…nothing left to recognise
But the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee Chair, Emily Thornberry, a senior Labour MP, warned Lammy that with settlement expansion and annexation threats, if the UK continues to delay the decision to recognise Palestine, “there won’t be anything left to recognise”.
The UK Parliament goes into summer recess today, 21 July 2025. The French–Saudi international summit on the Israel–Palestine conflict, scheduled for July 28–29 2025 in New York, will be a meeting of Foreign Ministers rather than Heads of State. This gathering – co-convened by France and Saudi Arabia – is expected to bring together European, Arab and other leaders to sketch out a “roadmap” toward a two-state solution. It was planned before the 12 days’ war on Iran, and France hinted that it might recognise Palestine.
A draft agenda circulated by diplomats includes working groups on humanitarian relief, reconstruction, Palestinian governance reform and “promoting respect for international law”. The UK has agreed to co-lead the humanitarian track with Egypt, implicitly acknowledging Britain’s responsibility to help chart Gaza’s post-war future. But humanitarian aid, vital as it is, will not by itself resolve the conflict.
The more contentious discussions will revolve around political measures: ceasefire terms, steps to restrain Israeli settlement expansion and the timeline for recognising Palestinian statehood. France’s Foreign Minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, said on 15 July that the conference will “prepare the recognition of a Palestinian state by France and countries that will engage in this approach.”.
This puts Britain in an awkward position. Having so far refused to recognise Palestine “unilaterally,” the UK could soon find itself under coordinated pressure from allies – not just Arab partners and the Global South, but even Paris and potentially European Union institutions – to finally take that step.
The French–Saudi initiative is expected to demand at least a clear timeline or benchmarks toward Palestinian statehood, alongside an immediate and lasting Gaza ceasefire. If the UK demurs or dilutes these outcomes, it will be seen as undermining a multilateral peace effort at a moment when even Washington is quietly urging Israel to rein in the carnage (the White House recently termed the Gaza campaign “brutal”).
In short, Britain’s preference for “painstaking diplomacy” behind closed doors which has failed to impose any costs on Israel and therefore had no influence on Israel changing its policy, will be tested in a very public forum.