The government has a website where the public can propose topics for debate. It works on a petition basis - if it reaches 10,000 signatures, the government will issue a response. At 100,000 signatures, then the government “may” debate the topic in Parliament.
The wording is important. There is no commitment to a debate, just a maybe - if the Parliamentary Petitions Committee agrees to it. The committee is made up of 11 MPs - 7 of whom are Labour MPs. This means that - as in the House of Commons itself - Labour holds a super-majority in the Parliamentary Petitions Committee. In other words, the other MPs do not have the numbers to overrule the Labour MPs in any vote.
The purpose of the debate is, well, to debate. It isn’t to come up with solutions or set policy or law. It’s a pretence at democracy: one that people fall into again and again.
The government is not Parliament. The government is the ruling party - in this case, the Labour Party. The Labour Party has a significant or ‘super’ majority in the House of Commons. In other words, they can pass any law they want and even if all the other parties voted against their proposals, they would never have enough numbers to overrule the government. (This is of course, a constitutional nightmare which I have previously explained here).
In line with the fact that the government has shown a very pro-Israeli stance, and that it holds the majority of seats of the Parliamentary Petitions Committee, one would think that the following petition - set-up by well-intentioned pro-Palestinian rights supporters - would be a waste of time:
However, the Parliamentary Petitions Committee has decided to debate it and tabled the debate for 22nd June 2026.
This is a disaster and a huge own-goal to anyone who cares about the Palestinian cause and freedom of speech.
Why?
Well, firstly, the petition calls for a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy. But the government has already said it will not hold any such inquiry. The government’s response at 10,000 signatures was:
Not only did the government say they do not support any such inquiry, but they also reference the ‘independent’ review into financial influence and interference in UK politics led by Philip Rycroft in Decemeber 2025, known at the ‘Rycroft report’.
Despite the ostensible terms of its mandate - and despite the fact that numerous MPs from all parties are members of ‘Friends of Israel’ political lobbying groups and have received funds from pro-Israeli lobbyists - the Rycroft report did not mention Israel once.
So, if the government has already concluded that there is no Israeli influence in politics and has made clear that it has no intention of holding a public inquiry into pro-Israeli influence - the very purpose of the petition - then what exactly is the purpose of the “debate,” and why has the Labour-ruled Parliamentary Petitions Commitee agreed to it?
In light of the political climate in the UK at present, it seems highly likely that this debate will be used by the government to highlight how serious the problem of anti-Semitism is, using the popularity of the petition to prove the point.
This method of gaslighting has already begun gaining traction in UK courts. One only has to look at Tony Greenstein’s latest hearing and judgment. Tony Greenstein raised concerns of the political bias of MPs towards Israel, which he argued had influenced his case. The judge not only dismissed these concerns, but stated that it was in fact Greenstein who was politically motivated in claiming bias:
“The assertion of the appearance of bias, at best could be described as flimsy and at worst politically motivated.”
In essence, this judgment suggests that if concerns are raised about an MP’s bias towards Israel, it is the person raising those concerns who risks being portrayed as politically motivated and biased. In other words, the focus shifts away from the allegation itself and onto the person making it, smearing them with the allegation of prejudice. The judge did not go so far as to suggest anti-Semitism (probably because the claimant himself, Tony Greenstein, is Jewish), but it lays the groundwork for exactly that line of argument.
My prediction is that the government will further use this debate to additionally:
justify the Met’s proposal of a police force only for the Jewish community, and that this should be an armed police force
place greater restrictions on free speech, especially concerning the term “globalise the intifada” and any other vocal support for Palestine
propose a statutory definition of anti-Semitism - potentially transforming the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism into law
I especially feel the latter two are very likely to happen, particularly as the government and the GMC are facing two court cases on the IHRA definition of anti-Semitisim, which has been used to suspend doctors who have been tweeting, speaking or writing about Palestine, or even attending anti-genocide protests.
The IHRA - though accepted and adopted by multiple Western countries, including the US and the EU - is currently non-statutory. However, if the IHRA becomes statute, even if it conflicts with our Article 10 Right to Freedom of Expression in the Human Rights Act - then the courts cannot simply refuse to apply it because they disagree with its compatibility with Article 10 rights. If Parliament clearly intends to elevate the IHRA into statute the courts are obliged to follow it, because judges cannot go against the intention of Parliament.
I suspect that even if the government does not immediately enshrine the IHRA as a statutory definition (the process of passing an Act of Parliament takes time), by stating that they intend to make it statutory during the debate, this alone may be significant enough to hamper all current legal cases against the IHRA, as Parliament has made its intention clear about the enhanced status of the IHRA.
Whatever happens, the whole petition process has provided a complete open goal for this government to continue to gaslight the public, deny Israel’s crimes, and give the police greater powers both to suppress protest rights of British citizens and to justify being armed on the streets of Britain.
The petition has also neatly collected another list of names of people who are pro-Palestinian, and who can be placed on government lists to be monitored as potential ‘dissidents’ - a handy bit of data needed for the purposes of digital ID and digital currency.
The pro-Palestinian movement continues to ignore strategy, but instead relies on attempts at gaining numbers for popular yet completely self-sabotaging acts, which do nothing but decimate our protest rights and increase suppression and oppression of British citizens while simultaneously doing nothing to halt the genocide from continuing in Gaza, and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank.
How many times can I say it? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Good intentions alone are worthless if people abandon thought, intellect, strategy, calculation and consideration. Intentions do not shield people from consequences, nor transform reckless actions into wise ones. History is littered with disasters carried out by people convinced they were doing the right thing.
And we already know where this ‘debate’ is heading. The consequences will be horrific.
Worse still, it was not imposed upon the movement from the outside. It was handed to them on a plate: entirely set up by pro-Palestinian supporters themselves.
How many times can I say it?
How many times can they be warned before they stop repeating the exact same failures and hoping for success?
How many times can they be warned against this insanity?
wow, that is a courageous and shocking revelation. Sadly I think you are right this will work against those of us who support the Palestinian struggle.
What else can we do ? The walls are closing in around us as well.
The British government is compromised. When the police disobey the law to continue the charade of "democracy" you know its nothing but a gigantic confidence trick played out over centuries?
Surely, we should be campaigning for a dismantling of the political system that has been corporately-captured and no longer, AS A SYSTEM, represents the interests or wishes of those in it? The creation of just another impotent party will change absolutely nothing? This just furthers and maintains a corrupt and venal status quo? When are British people going to accept that their political process has been captured? When are they going to face up to the fact that this Party Political Potemkin Village is nothing more than a smokescreen to confuse and manipulate them into maintaining a status quo which has no interest in the welfare and justice that they should be demanding? The corporations and their oligarchs control Britain. Stop paying taxes that are supporting a corrupt and venal system that needs to be smashed and reconstituted with fail-safe mechanisms to avoid their exploitation and manipulation.