UK David Lammy’s stance on Gaza genocide, ignorant and dangerous

UK Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, has come under fire for downplaying Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Standing at the dispatch box yesterday during a heated debate on the Middle East, Lammy dismissed claims that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide. He argued that such a term undermines the gravity of atrocities like the Holocaust. The remarks were met with shock and outrage, as critics accused him of demonstrating a troubling lack of understanding about what constitutes genocide.

Lammy’s uninformed remark was in response to a question by Tory MP, Nick Timothy, about the right terminology to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza. “Although we all accept that there is obviously much suffering in Gaza, this terminology [genocide] is completely inappropriate and inaccurate, and it is repeated by the protesters and lawbreakers who are intimidating British Jews, as we saw again this weekend,” said Timothy conflating the actions of the state of Israel with Jews and Judaism, a conflation widely recognised as a form of anti-Semitism. “Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to say that there is not a genocide occurring in the Middle East?”

In his response, Lammy said that these are legal terms, and they must be determined by international courts, before stating: “I agree with the hon. gentleman that those terms were largely used when millions of people lost their lives in crises such as Rwanda and the Holocaust of the Second World War The way that people are now using those terms undermines their seriousness.”

OPINION: What is going on at the International Criminal Court?

While Lammy is correct in acknowledging genocide as a legal term, he is shockingly mistaken on almost every other aspect of the issue. The most obvious error, one that is inexplicable given his position, is the claim that the term genocide is used when “millions” are killed. The Foreign Secretary seems wilfully ignorant of what constitutes genocide and is seeking to redefine it apparently for no purpose other than to shield Israel from criticism and minimise the suffering in Gaza.

Many are rightly asking if Lammy, who has received funding from the Israel lobby and is a member of the notorious anti-Palestine group, the Labour Friends of Israel, is aware of the many atrocities the UK itself has labelled as genocide, even though the death tolls were far below a million. The UK, for instance, recognises the genocide of Bosnian Muslims even though approximately 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were systematically separated from women and children, detained and executed in what became the worst massacre in Europe since World War II.

The UK has commemorated the Srebrenica massacre as genocide for years, with annual memorials and parliamentary debates. The Srebrenica massacre is often the most cited to highlight that genocide is defined by the intent to destroy a group “in part”, as laid out in the UN Genocide Convention, rather than by the sheer scale of deaths.

In the very examples cited by Lammy, the Foreign Secretary reveals a level of ignorance that calls into question both his understanding and his intentions.  The UK does indeed recognise the genocide in Rwanda but not because of the number of people killed.  While the death toll is significant, it did not reach “millions”. The Rwandan Genocide, instead, meets the criteria of genocide due to the intent and rapid organised effort to eradicate the Tutsi population within Rwanda.

In a more recent example, the UK Parliament has recognised the atrocities committed by Daesh against the Yazidis in Iraq and Syria as genocide. Beginning in 2014, Daesh launched a campaign of mass executions and displacement specifically targeting the Yazidi religious minority. Thousands of Yazidis were killed, with estimates between 2,000 to 5,000 deaths; many others were enslaved or displaced, with devastating impacts on the community.

OPINION: ‘Gaza is ours, forever’ – Israel’s extremists have a plan for the day after the genocide

Despite the lower death toll, the UK recognised Daesh’s actions against the Yazidis as genocide because of the clear intent to eradicate the Yazidi people as a distinct religious group.

These examples serve as a clear indication that the UK’s recognition of genocide is not contingent upon a death toll in the millions, as Lammy suggests. Rather, genocide is defined primarily by intent and systematic targeting of a group, as specified by the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to which the UK is a signatory.

While Lammy is correct in noting that determining whether Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide is ultimately for the courts to decide, this does not give him the freedom to dismiss the allegation outright—particularly as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is actively investigating Israel for genocide. A more balanced approach would be to consider the perspectives of genocide experts until a formal judgment is issued.

What do the experts say? The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, founded by Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term “Genocide”, has itself described Israel’s action in Gaza as genocide. “Let us be clear: Israel is committing genocide in Gaza,” said the institute in May. “The US is complicit in genocide. These are not political statements. They are statements that are made from knowledge and experience. Nevertheless, you do not need a PhD, a law degree, or X-ray vision to see the genocidal dimensions of Israel’s carnage in Gaza. It is clear in the behaviour of the state and its military, on full display.”

In comments that appear to have had politicians like Lammy in mind, the Institute went on to say: “We are disgusted by Western leaders, especially in the USA, Germany and the UK. They have demonstrated not only that they don’t care one bit about genocide prevention and human rights, but also that they are willing to allow an ally to commit atrocity crimes while they offer material and diplomatic support.”

Lammy also conveniently ignores Israeli experts on genocide like Professor Omer Bartov. Writing in the Guardian in August, Bartov acknowledged that he had made a mistake as a historian of genocide for initially stating that “there is no proof that genocide is now taking place in Gaza.” He then stressed: “I no longer believe that. By the time I travelled to Israel, I had become convinced that at least since the attack by the IDF on Rafah on 6 May 2024, it was no longer possible to deny that Israel was engaged in systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions.”

A week into Israel’s onslaught in Gaza, Raz Segal, a professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, warned that the actions of the Occupation state is “a textbook case of genocide”. Segal, along with many others who are deeply familiar with the Zionist project and listened to Israeli leaders, was able to reach the conclusion he did because he understood that, at the core of what constitute genocide, is intent. Days after 7 October, Israeli leaders had provided ample evidence that they had the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.”

Yesterday, South Africa submitted a detailed memorial to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), presenting extensive evidence of Israel’s intent to commit genocide. This 750-page document compiles substantial proof of both genocidal acts and the specific intent behind them. The submission argues that Israel’s actions are driven by a deliberate, targeted intent to commit genocide.

By dismissing claims of genocide, Lammy’s stance appears not only misinformed but dangerously dismissive. The examples above demonstrate that genocide is defined by intent, not by arbitrary death tolls. With the International Court of Justice actively investigating Israel’s actions and experts worldwide calling it a “textbook case of genocide”, Lammy’s stance is not just a diplomatic misstep—it risks aligning the UK with a wilful blindness to atrocity crimes.

OPINION: CNN has just tried to garner even more impunity for Israel and its genocide

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.