In recent developments within the UK government, more than 300 Foreign Office staff have raised concerns about the UK’s potential complicity in Israel’s conduct in Gaza, particularly over the continued sale of arms and what they describe as Israel’s disregard for international law. In response, the staff, who sent a letter to Foreign Secretary David Lammy last month, were told that if they profoundly disagreed with government policy, they could consider resigning. This response has sparked a significant outcry within the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), with some staff describing it as an effort to shut down dissent and limit meaningful dialogue about the UK’s role in the ongoing conflict.
The letter sent by Foreign Office officials in May questioned the UK’s continued arms sales to Israel and highlighted the country’s alleged violations of international humanitarian law. The officials, in their communication, voiced their concern over what they termed Israel’s “stark disregard” for international law, especially as it pertains to the war in Gaza. They also raised alarm over Israel’s actions, including the killing of humanitarian workers, the suspension of aid to Gaza, and the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza, which they believe could indicate the use of starvation as a weapon of war. The letter was signed by officials from a range of departments within the Foreign Office, including those working at embassies and missions both in London and overseas.
The UK government, for its part, has consistently defended its position on the matter, arguing that Israel operates within the confines of international law. The government has also emphasized its commitment to upholding international law in relation to the conflict. However, the response from the senior officials in the Foreign Office, Sir Oliver Robbins and Nick Dyer, to the staff letter in late May, has raised eyebrows. In their response, Robbins and Dyer told the signatories that if their disagreement with any aspect of government policy was profound, their “ultimate recourse” was to resign. This response, which was described as a blunt and dismissive way of dealing with staff concerns, was met with outrage by some of the signatories. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed deep frustration with the response, claiming that it represented a further shutting down of the space for challenge within the government.
The May 16 letter signed by the Foreign Office officials marked at least the fourth such letter sent to ministers and senior staff within the department since late 2023. These letters have repeatedly raised concerns about the UK’s role in the conflict in Gaza and have been critical of the government’s stance on Israel’s actions. The staff’s disquiet also stems from a belief that their concerns have not been adequately addressed, leaving them in a difficult position. As employees of the government, they are tasked with implementing policies they may not agree with, and they worry about the legal ramifications they could face if their actions are seen as enabling violations of international law in the future.
The latest letter, which was sent after the killing of 15 humanitarian workers by Israeli forces in March and the suspension of all aid to Gaza by Israel, underscores the growing sense of unease among Foreign Office staff. The letter also drew attention to the Israeli government’s plans for the forcible transfer of Gaza’s population, which it claims is being supported by the Trump administration. The letter stated that the UK’s position, which includes continued weapons exports to Israel and the hosting of Israel’s foreign minister in London in April, had contributed to the erosion of global norms regarding international law.
The response from Robbins and Dyer, while offering a recognition of the importance of “healthy challenge” within the Foreign Office, also seemed to minimize the concerns raised by the staff. They emphasized the mechanisms available for staff to raise issues, including a “bespoke Challenge Board” and regular listening sessions. However, the suggestion that resignation was the only “honourable” course for those with profound disagreements with government policy was seen as a stark warning to those who questioned the government’s stance. This response has led to allegations of obfuscation, with some critics arguing that it provided the government with “plausible deniability” while enabling violations of international law to continue.
This move echoes concerns that the government is failing to learn from the lessons of the past. The 2016 Chilcot Report, which followed the inquiry into the Iraq war, criticized the UK government for its handling of intelligence and policy decisions regarding the invasion of Iraq. One of the key recommendations of the Chilcot Report was the need for a more robust system of challenge within the civil service to prevent groupthink and ensure that officials could raise concerns about government actions. However, critics argue that the current response to dissent within the Foreign Office represents a failure to implement these lessons, with staff feeling increasingly shut out of the policy-making process.
Mark Smith, a former official at the Foreign Office who resigned last year in protest over arms sales to Israel, spoke out about the difficulties of raising concerns within the government. In an interview with the BBC’s World at One, Smith stated that although there were “proper pathways and procedures” for raising concerns, these channels had ultimately been ineffective in addressing his objections. “The reality is that I went through every single one of those procedures and was completely ignored, completely shunned,” he said. Smith emphasized that while civil servants have a duty to respect democratically elected representatives, they also have a responsibility to hold the government accountable and speak out when policies are unlawful or morally wrong.
The UK government’s stance on Israel and its actions in Gaza has been a subject of intense debate, both within the country and internationally. In September 2023, Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced the suspension of around 30 arms export licenses to Israel, citing a “clear risk” that these weapons could be used in violations of international humanitarian law. This move came ahead of the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and other Israeli officials in relation to war crimes in Gaza. Despite this, Israel has consistently denied any wrongdoing, rejecting allegations of war crimes and accusing the ICC of being biased against the country.
The UK’s position on the matter remains a contentious issue. While the government has emphasized its commitment to international law, the ongoing sale of arms to Israel and its handling of the conflict in Gaza continue to raise questions about the UK’s complicity in the situation. Palestinian rights groups and international legal bodies have repeatedly challenged Israel’s actions in Gaza, bringing evidence of potential violations to various international courts.
On May 19, 2023, the UK government issued a joint statement with France and Canada, threatening “concrete actions” against Israel if it did not cease its renewed military offensive in Gaza and lift its restrictions on aid. This statement signaled a potential shift in the UK’s approach, but whether it will lead to meaningful change remains to be seen.
In conclusion, the ongoing concerns within the Foreign Office about the UK’s role in Gaza and its complicity in Israel’s actions highlight the growing frustration among civil servants who feel their voices are being ignored. The response from senior officials in the department, which suggested resignation as the only recourse for those with profound disagreements, has further deepened the sense of disillusionment. As the UK government continues to navigate its foreign policy on Israel and Gaza, it faces increasing pressure to address both the legal and ethical implications of its actions. The challenge for the government will be to strike a balance between its diplomatic and political priorities and its responsibility to uphold international law and human rights.
