Foreign Secretary David Lammy criticised Israel’s newly launched operation—dubbed Gideon’s Chariots—which involves five divisions of the Israeli Defence Forces. Quoting Netanyahu directly, Lammy drew attention to Israel’s stated policy of allowing only “just enough to prevent hunger” into Gaza, describing the humanitarian blockade as “abominable” and “morally unjustifiable,” …. writes Arnav Raje
Eighteen months into Israel’s military operations in Gaza, the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, and Canada issued a joint statement this week, condemning Israel’s actions and threatening concrete action, reminding them of humanitarian law. This stance was reverberated in Parliament as Foreign Secretary David Lammy echoed his sentiments, laying out what now appears to be a repositioned, albeit delayed, policy stance on Gaza.
The trilateral statement, made public via 10 Downing Street, was unambiguous in tone: “The level of human suffering in Gaza is intolerable.” It denounced Israel’s expanded ground operations and condemned the restriction of humanitarian aid, warning that “if Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions.” While the statement also reaffirmed Israel’s right to self-defence, it drew a line at what it called “wholly disproportionate” actions and signalled growing international impatience with the Israeli government’s conduct.
The involvement of three influential G7 nations however, has deeper geopolitical connotations. While explicitly supporting the ceasefire efforts led by the United States, Qatar, and Egypt, the joint message could also be read as a quiet pushback against Washington D.C. – especially in light of recent signals from the Trump campaign, which has floated proposals suggesting permanent annexation of Gaza, including the release of a stylised AI video with a golden Trump statue in Gaza. Whether the statement aims to influence US positioning or merely assert some European agency remains to be seen.
In his address to the House of Commons, Foreign Secretary David Lammy elaborated on the UK’s position. He criticised Israel’s newly launched operation—dubbed Gideon’s Chariots—which involves five divisions of the Israeli Defence Forces. Quoting Netanyahu directly, Lammy drew attention to Israel’s stated policy of allowing only “just enough to prevent hunger” into Gaza, describing the humanitarian blockade as “abominable” and “morally unjustifiable.”
Among the policy actions announced, Lammy confirmed the suspension of negotiations on a new free trade agreement with Israel and the imposition of sanctions on three individuals and four organisations linked to settler violence, while announcing the decision of the Minister for Middle East to summon the Israeli ambassador. He also however, reiterated the UK’s support for a two-state solution and affirmed the government’s continued backing of international legal mechanisms.
The Commons debate revealed both consensus and discomfort. Former Home Secretary and Conservative MP Priti Patel focused on Hamas’ role, urging the government to clarify what it is doing to facilitate the release of hostages and asking bluntly whether the UK is “just criticising Israel or offering to work constructively to find solutions on aid delivery and securing a ceasefire.”
Martin Vickers, also a Conservative MP, pressed for a vote on recognising Palestine—an attempt that appeared to corner the government into a position it was not prepared to publicly affirm. Labour’s own MPs, including Naz Shah and Dawn Butler, were more forthright in calling out Israel’s tactics, with Shah questioning how many more children must die before concrete actions follow.
Jeremy Corbyn, speaking from the backbenches, raised the question of UK arms components supplied to Israel, including for F-35 jets. Lammy reaffirmed that arms exports likely to be used in Gaza had been suspended since September but defended the F-35 supply line, citing global security obligations.
While MPs across parties criticised Hamas and called for the release of hostages, a noticeable pattern emerged: for many Conservatives, the discomfort was not with Israel’s conduct but with the UK’s willingness to name it.
Lammy’s language – while critical of the Netanyahu government, still remained bounded by the careful choreography of foreign policy. He acknowledged October 7 repeatedly and framed the escalation as both a moral and strategic failure, yet avoided describing Israeli actions in Gaza as genocidal – something several MPs addressed.
In tone, he aligned closely with the joint statement issued the day before—firm, but not fiery. While he condemned Israel’s rhetoric and warned of its diplomatic isolation, he also reaffirmed Britain’s commitment to Israel’s long-term security and partnership – even referring to it as “a friend”. The balance, it seems, was carefully constructed.
With Lammy’s statement and Starmer’s participation in the joint declaration, Labour appears to have found its political line: a stance that allows moral concern to be voiced—but only once the humanitarian crisis reaches a tipping point. The party will speak up when the suffering becomes impossible to ignore, but it will not yet challenge the structures of power that sustain that suffering.
Emphasis is placed on food shortages, medical aid, and Israel’s excesses—but not on disempowering Israel, conditioning relations, or unsettling the wider status quo. The language of the party is resolutely moral but conspicuously cautious. It avoids terms like “genocide” or “Zionism,” and remains silent on occupation as a core issue, even as settler violence is condemned. The tragedy is narrated—but not politically named.
Labour though, may find walking this line is more difficult than it thinks. The party is not just shaping a new narrative—it is also running from its past. Over the last year, under Starmer’s leadership, the party has been criticised for attempting to suppress domestic dissent over Gaza. University students, pro-Palestine organisers, and even party members have faced police interventions, detentions, and threats of disciplinary action for public expressions of solidarity. In some cases, Labour-run councils have withdrawn support from Palestine-related events, and the leadership has been accused of encouraging crackdowns under the guise of public safety.
In this light, the current shift risks appearing less like a genuine moral awakening and more like damage control—an attempt to catch up to public sentiment before being overwhelmed by it. The party may have found the line it wants to hold—but whether the public, or history, will let it stay there comfortably is another matter entirely.
