Ali and Aya, brother and sister, were treated by Dr Nick Maynard in Al Aqsa Hospital last year. They were the sole remaining members of their family after their parents and siblings were all killed in an attack on the so-called ‘safe zone’ of al-Mawasi. Dr Maynard operated on them both, recollecting that, ‘I still hear their screams as we treated them without any anaesthetic’.
Dr Nick Maynard has spent 15 years treating patients in Gaza, recently volunteering in Nasser hospital. Dr Maynard laid out in devastating detail the extent of the horrors in Gaza’s medical facilities. No water, no sterile gloves, no pain killers. Profound malnutrition, caused by the Israeli blockade alone, rendered much of the treatment futile. Their bodies were too weak to heal.
‘Gaza has been failed by our government’, he continued. Despite Maynard and several other healthcare workers providing detailed photographic evidence of human rights abuses, the British government has continued to ignore them. His testimony was not just a story of medical collapse. It was an accusation of complicity against the British government. Maynard’s words were harrowing, but his testimony was just the beginning.
The Charge Sheet
Bringing together witnesses, whistleblowers, survivors and international law experts, the two-day tribunal sought to uncover the role of the British state in one of the greatest crimes of our time. The process came out of Jeremy Corbyn’s pursuit of the Gaza (Independent Public Inquiry) Bill, which the government consequently blocked.
This obstruction, Corbyn said, was highly predictable. It was befitting of a set of institutions that had proven themselves to be allergic to accountability. Corbyn made sure the attendees knew the significance of our setting: the Gaza Tribunal was held in Church House, the same building in which Corbyn had previously apologised for Labour’s catastrophic invasion of Iraq. ‘Just like Iraq, the government is doing everything it can to protect itself from scrutiny,’ stated Corbyn. ‘Just like Iraq, it will not succeed in its attempts to suffocate the truth.’
At first, witnesses went into detail describing the situation on the ground in Gaza. The destruction and prevention of civil life by Israel was a constant theme throughout, particularly the accusation of starvation as a policy of the Israeli government. Paula Bentancur, Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons at the UN, outlined how those who live in the overcrowded remnants of Gaza are forced to seek aid under heinous conditions. Since May 2025, at least 2,000 civilians have been killed seeking food or water. ‘Killing the hungry while destroying the lifelines meant to keep them alive can only be one thing: a systematic attempt to dismantle civilian life.’
The tribunal also uncovered the silencing and targeting of journalists. Abubaker Abed is a 22-year-old journalist who was evacuated from Gaza a few months ago to Ireland due to severe malnutrition and persistent and direct threats to his life on social media. Abubaker’s fears are not unfounded. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that 189 Palestinian journalists and media workers have been killed by Israel since the start of the war in October 2023, compared to 18 killed so far in the Russia-Ukraine War.
What followed was an in-depth examination of the history of the conflict from a legal perspective. UN’s Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese outlined the extent of the violations of international law, claiming that ‘Palestine today is a crime scene’. Dr Ralph Wilde, expert in international law at University College London, questioned not just the legality of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, but the very legality of Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). If these were the crimes, the question remained: who enabled them?
The Defendant
The testimonies we heard were not just accusations of the British government. The tribunal was a trial of the British state. A primary focus was on examining Britain’s role in Gaza and whether it had fulfilled its legal obligations to prevent genocide enshrined in the Genocide Convention and the rulings of the ICJ. Witness after witness exposed the scale of participation of the British state in facilitating the destruction of Gaza and its people.
Katie Fallon, Advocacy Manager at the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, summarised the supply of British-made weapons and parts to the Israeli military. According to Fallon, 15 percent of every F-35 jet, which has been linked to airstrikes killing more than 400 people and the destruction of key infrastructure, is produced by British industry. These jets, which have flown over 15,000 hours since the start of the war, require constant maintenance, with spare parts being crucial for their operation. ‘They are made all across the country. In Lancashire, the rear fuselage; the active interceptor system by BAE Systems in Kent; durability testing in East Yorkshire; Martin Baker makes the ejection seats in Buckinghamshire; L3Harris produces the weapons release system in Brighton.’
According to journalist Matt Kennard, Israel could not have so flagrantly violated international law without the supply of British intelligence. Kennard rubbished claims by the British government that surveillance flights, launched from RAF Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus, were not involved in combat operations or intelligence sharing. ‘The idea that it’s just for hostage rescue is preposterous,’ Kennard added. ‘It doesn’t make any sense. And the reason they (the UK government) say that is because they know it’s participation in war crimes.’
Ralph Wilde underlined Britain’s legal obligations to not only prevent Israel’s actions in committing war crimes in the region, but to oppose Israeli presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) altogether. As the ICJ had ruled the presence of Israel in the OPT as illegal, the UK must take all positive steps to bring its presence to an end, not to recognise that presence as lawful, and not to aid or assist in maintaining the illegal presence.
The tribunal laid bare the unbroken continuum of British involvement in the dispossession of the Palestinian people. From the Balfour Declaration onwards, witnesses stressed, Britain’s liability did not begin on 7 October. The charge was not one of passive indifference but of active complicity: a state that helped lay the foundations for Palestinian dispossession under the mandate, and that has since armed, justified, and shielded Israel’s actions. British fingerprints have been on the dispossession of the Palestinian people for over 100 years.
The Collapse of Credibility
Whilst the calls have been loud, the responses have been muted. Despite multiple witnesses providing the government with first-hand testimonies and accounts of breaches of international law, lawmakers have failed to respond. Dr Natalie Roberts, Executive Director of Médecins Sans Frontières, has overseen the collection of swathes of data outlining how and why a genocide is taking place.
Roberts outlined the processes by which Israel has prevented access to food and water, systematically manufacturing a famine and destroying the necessities for life. Despite asking for a meeting with the Foreign Secretary for two years, her calls have fallen on deaf ears. Roberts now concludes that the UK does not want to acknowledge what workers on the ground have experienced.
The current government’s aversion to confronting breaches of international humanitarian law is striking, given the legal background of the front bench. Keir Starmer has been a lawyer since 1987, authoring legal opinions and even marching against the Iraq War, stating that he did not believe the war was ‘lawful under international law’. The government has so far refused to acknowledge the UN International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) ruling that Israel’s occupation of Palestine was unlawful, despite Starmer having previously brought a case of genocide to the ICJ just 11 years ago. Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy studied law and was called to the bar in 1994, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood qualified as a barrister in 2003, whilst the Prime Minister’s Chief Secretary Darren Jones worked as a solicitor.
Whilst selectively failing to acknowledge the extent of human rights abuses, the current government has deepened its aversion to human rights domestically. Instead of listening to its own voters, the majority of whom back an end to trade deals and the sale of weapons to Israel, the current administration has spent the last few weeks arresting the elderly, lawyers and doctors for peacefully protesting. As the lawyer Charlotte Andrews-Briscoe testified at the tribunal, the British government has ‘hollowed out its domestic laws as well as the procedural safeguards afforded by the Geneva Conventions and the Arms Trade Treaty’ to shield scrutiny from both itself and the Israeli government it protects.
The Verdict
British complicity does not stop at supplying the weapons and surveillance that enable genocide; it extends to providing the very justifications for those acts. In 2023, David Lammy described international law as ‘the connective tissue which binds us to other nations.’ That connective tissue is now being torn apart, and when it unravels, it is not only the people of Gaza who suffer, but the credibility and security of us all. If our government is unwilling to protect the rights of those enshrined in law abroad, why would it not do the same at home?
The tribunal’s report will be collated by Jeremy Corbyn and two legal experts, who intend to present it to the Foreign Secretary. Its findings will not carry binding force. The real verdict can only be delivered by the public: by those who refuse to accept Britain’s complicity and by those who believe international law must mean something more than words on paper.
Public accountability does not begin and end with outrage; it becomes real through collective pressure. It means sustained protest that makes silence politically untenable. It means unions refusing to allow British-made weapons to be exported. It means lawyers pursuing strategic litigation to challenge the legality of arms sales and intelligence-sharing. It means voters forcing their MPs to take a stand or face removal at the ballot box. And it means ordinary people confronting complicity in everyday life: divesting pensions from arms manufacturers, challenging media silence, and building coalitions across communities.
In the court of history and conscience, Britain is already on trial. The Gaza Tribunal may not wield legal power, but it carries a deeper moral authority, a people’s record of testimony that cannot be erased or denied. Just as the Russell Tribunal revealed the lies of Vietnam, and the anti-apartheid movement forced sanctions on South Africa, this process has laid bare the truth of Britain’s role in Gaza.
The evidence is no longer in question. What remains is whether we, the public, will act upon it. The verdict will not come from Westminster but from the streets, workplaces, and communities willing to confront silence with solidarity. To forget would be to become complicit ourselves. As journalist Ben Jamal reminded the tribunal, citing Mary Oliver: ‘There is a sickness worse than the risk of death and that’s forgetting what we should never forget.’