The UK Government's Complete Surrender of Sovereignty to Israel

UK State interests are subservient to that of the Israeli state. We are in a constitutional crisis.

Photo by Johannes Schenk on Unsplash

Firstly, an apology. I have not written for days because so much has happened and there is so much to talk about and yet so little to say. The world is burning around us. As I write, kids are being slaughtered for the colour of their skin. Women are being raped. Men are being tortured. Men with armies walk out of the UN in their fancy suits when the world’s greatest war criminal speaks, as if their gestures mean anything when they do not have the courage to stop him.

The Western media has wiped the genocide of Gaza from the front pages, replacing it instead with stories praising Israeli state terrorism as some genius strategy rather than the sick, psychopathic murder of innocents that it was. They rub their hands in glee at the prospect of a ground invasion of Lebanon, the next playground for the IOF; an army of child murderers and celebrity rapists.

What is becoming hugely clear is that the US and the UK are totally subservient to Israel. The Presidential debates in the US are a spectacle. It’s like two kids trying to please an abusive, sadistic parent who has chosen another of the children to be a punchbag and victim of the family. The presidential candidates were like those kids trying to outdo the other with promises of how bad they can be to their victim sibling: each trying to surpass the other in their promise of cruelty and abuse. That parent is Israel.

Case in point:

It happens in the UK too. The Conservative party are vying with one another about who can be their next leader. You’d think it would be about who would be the best for the British population the UK citizens who they are meant to represent. Instead we have pledges to Israel from the leadership hopefuls:

Kemi Badenoch seems to think pledging allegiance to Israel is more important for immigrants arriving to the UK than pledging allegiance to the UK, and seems not to accept that it is a protected legal right of every person in Britain to hold a belief that they do not like a state, including the state of Israel. Watch her interview with Laura Kuenssberg yourself:

My second apology comes from the length of what is coming next. I decided to collate information in the public sphere to show that UK sovereignty has been fully compromised and that the UK is completely subservient to Israel. This is only from information that is in the public domain, I have no idea what we will find behind closed doors. Yesterday we had a tiny peek. Palestine Action managed to get their hands on heavily redacted papers revealing that not only did Home Office ministers attend meetings with Elbit Systems representatives, but that one was attended by a director from the Attorney General’s Office said to be representing the CPS.

In response to this information:

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We fully respect the operational independence of the police and the independent judiciary, which remains the bedrock of our policing model. These meetings took place under the previous government.”

I mean LOL. Make of that what you will.

So, here is the information. I’ve provided links to everything. Enjoy, and if you have anything else to add, please let me know.

The UK Government's Surrender of Sovereignty

The past few weeks have seen an escalation by the UK authorities in using terror legislation to crack down upon journalists and pro-Palestine activists, all of whom are British citizens. These include the arrest of Richard Medhurst who still has not been told by the UK authorities whether he will be charged with any alleged crime, Craig Murray and journalist Sarah Wilkinson.

Most recently, terror legislation has been used in the arrest and prosecution of Pro-Palestinian activist and co-founder of Palestine Action, Richard Barnard, whose prosecution under terror legislation has been approved by the Attorney General, Baron Richard Hermer KC, himself.

Despite their arrests, none of these individuals have been accused of inciting any direct support of Hamas or any other proscribed group.

Mr. Barnard’s actions, including direct action against the Israeli weapons company Elbit Systems, have been aimed at preventing the manufacture of weaponry in their UK factories from being used in war crimes and genocide in Palestine. Despite judges denying legal defences to Palestine Action activists, juries continue to fail to find them guilty. Most recently, a jury failed to convict 4 Palestine activists who occupied and damaged the roof of a Teledyne factory in Shipley, the first trial on direct action taken since the genocide Gaza began in October last year.

It seems clear that the detention of Pro-Palestinian journalists and the prosecution of pro-Palestinian protesters in the UK are being weaponised under terrorism laws, which were designed to protect the public from genuine threats, not to suppress free speech, freedom of assembly, and protest rights—rights guaranteed under articles 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act. These laws are being applied contrary to their intended purpose, resulting in the persecution of British citizens for exercising their democratic rights.

These actions by the authorities overwhelmingly benefit the interests of Israel at the expense of the rights of British citizens. It appears that our institutions are being unduly influenced by staunch pro-Israel interests—funded by Israeli interests—who appear to act in the interests of Israel rather than the United Kingdom. This would represent a constitutional crisis, as it threatens the sovereignty and impartiality of British governance, with British institutions now at risk. As such, British citizens must ask themselves if Israeli state interests are superseding those of the UK, and to what extent the State of Israel is influencing the decisions of the UK government.

UK State Policy and State Interests

The UK has long adhered to policies that prioritise its state interests and national security, with many of these policies remaining consistent over decades. However, under Keir Starmer's leadership, it appears there has been a notable shift in these priorities. The UK government now seems to actively prioritise Israeli state interests over its own, relegating UK national security to a secondary position. Policies designed to protect UK state interests, British citizens, and national security increasingly appear to be subordinate to a foreign state, raising concerns about the erosion of UK sovereignty.

Key examples of UK State policy and National Security interests include:

a.            Criminal Prosecutions

UK State policy: War crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture fall within the collective name of ‘core international crimes’. The UK has a duty to investigate and prosecute those who have committed core international crimes and reports of these crimes can be made directly to the police.

However, to date, the UK police have not arrested any individual who has served in the IDF since Oct 7 and has subsequently returned to the UK. This is particularly concerning as some of these British IDF soldiers have taken photos and videos of themselves during Israeli operations in Gaza and disseminated this through social media. The International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) in January this year ruled that Israel was committing ‘plausible genocide’ in Gaza.

The UK government's refusal to investigate dual national Israeli-British IDF soldiers for alleged war crimes and potential involvement in genocide poses significant risks to British citizens. This approach starkly contrasts with the political detentions and arrests of Palestine supporters for expressing views that did not include calls for violence or mention any proscribed group. The only beneficiary of such disparate actions is the State of Israel.

b.            Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”)

UK State policy: The judgments on of the ICJ are compulsory and binding on the UK. On 26^th January the ICJ delivered a judgement and Court Order that Israel is committing 'plausible genocide' and that it must cease its genocidal acts.

Despite this, the UK government continues to aid Israel in its actions against the Palestinians in Gaza including providing intelligence support, contradicting the binding ruling of the ICJ.

Keir Starmer’s government has also refused to call the Israeli actions in Gaza, ‘plausible genocide,’ despite the binding ICJ judgment that it is.

This marries with Mr Starmer’s previous statements regarding Israeli actions in Gaza. In October 2023, Mr Starmer stated on live radio broadcast that Israel has the right to withhold power and water from Palestinian civilians. These actions constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity and are contrary to the domestic law under the International Criminal Court Act 2001 as well as international law. The ICJ judgment of 26th January further ruled such actions to constitute genocidal acts and ordered such actions to cease.

c.             Two-State solution

UK State policy: The UK has consistently been a proponent of a two-state solution. As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer called on then Prime Minister Boris Johnson to recognise Palestine as a state at the G7 summit in Cornwall:

“For too many people in Palestine, the promise of an end to the occupation and a recognised sovereign Palestinian state feels more distant than ever.

“Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity this weekend to press for renewed international agreement to finally recognise the State of Palestine, alongside a safe and secure Israel, to stop the expansion of illegal settlements and to get a meaningful peace process back up and running?"

However, despite this, Keir Starmer’s government abstained on a UN General Assembly vote to back Palestine’s full membership to the UN, a contradiction to UK State Policy. Full membership to the UN would give Palestine the rights of other sovereign states in the UN. The vote passed overwhelmingly, with 143 countries in support of Palestinian membership to 9 against.

At the Labour Conference party on 9^th September, a protestor against genocide heckled Mr Starmer and asked about the people of Gaza.

In response Keir Starmer remarked:

"This guy's obviously got a pass from the 2019 conference. We've changed the party. "While he's been protesting, we've been changing the party, that's why we've got a Labour government."

The Prime Minister’s statement seems a continuation of the pattern of action his government has taken in regards to Israel, namely what appears to be his acknowledgement that the Labour Party has changed its stance to Israel and Palestine to that of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn in 2019. The Prime Minister seems to further attribute the election victory of the Labour party to government to this fact. The 2019 manifesto promised that Labour would immediately recognise the state of Palestine and advocated for a two-state solution achieved on justice and international law.

d.            Illegal Settlements

UK State policy: Likewise, UK State policy calls for the end of illegal settlements in Occupied Palestinian territory and the Israeli occupation.

On 19^th July this year, the ICJ delivered an Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territories in response to a request by the UN General Assembly. The advisory opinion concluded that all states had an “obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” It also called for the evacuation of all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory and for Israel to end its unlawful occupation within 12 months.

Despite this on 18^th September the UK government under Keir Starmer, abstained on the UN General Assembly vote to adopt the ICJ ruling, a motion which passed with 124 countries for to only 14 against.

In its explanation of why it abstained, the UK government stated:

"While our abstention reflects our unwavering determination to focus on efforts to bring about a peaceful and negotiated two-state solution, the United Kingdom aims, by this statement, to indicate our clear view that Israel should bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as rapidly as possible. And every effort must be made to create the conditions for negotiations which provide for a sovereign, viable and free Palestine, alongside a safe, secure and free Israel, recognising the security concerns and right to self-defence of each one. We must also work towards the reunification of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza in line with 1967 borders and under the effective control of the Palestinian Authority, as a fundamental step towards a two-state solution."

The statement of Keir Starmer’s government is in direct contradiction with the advisory opinion given by the ICJ and moreover a direct contradiction of UK State interests. The ICJ ruling male clear that no negotiations can take place until the withdrawal of the occupation of Israel, including evacuation of all settlers from occupied Palestinian territory. In essence the statement provided by the UK government is one of impossibility, due to the fact it undermines and dismisses this tenet of the ICJ ruling.

The UK government indicated they would respond to the ICJ ruling. To date, they have not.

Though in complete contradiction to UK State policy, it does however, marry with Israeli State policy.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has categorically stated that he does not want a two-state solution and the Knesset has rejected it in totality, thereby committing to the full annexation of Palestinian land. The actions of Keir Starmer’s government in these UN votes thus appear to directly support Israeli State interests at the expense of UK State policy and UK State interests.

e.            ICC arrest warrants

UK State policy: On 20th May 2024, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court ("ICC")made an application to the court for the arrest warrants of Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu,  Israeli Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant and Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri (Deif) and Ismail Haniyeh.

The current UK government's position on the arrest warrants was confirmed by now foreign secretary David Lammy in May:

“Labour’s position is that the ICC chief prosecutor’s decision to apply for arrest warrants is an independent matter for the court and the prosecutor."

The prime minister's deputy official spokesperson further confirmed regarding the ICC's jurisdiction to issue these arrest warrants July:

“The government feels very strongly about the rule of law internationally and domestically, and the separation of powers, and I would note the courts have already received a number of submissions on either side and they are well seized of the arguments to make their determination.”

The UK State’s position is very clear. They accept due process and the rule of law internationally. That is, firstly the International Criminal Court should rule on whether it has jurisdiction to issue those arrest warrants and if it decides that it does, secondly to arrest those named on the arrest warrants and finally, bring them to stand trial on the charges against them.

However, Israel took action that directly went against UK State policy, by launching an armed attack on Iran and assassinating Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh.

Despite UK State policy, the UK government under Keir Starmer failed to condemn the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. The lack of condemnation of political assassination gives tacit condonation. It further undermines the rule of law internationally and undermines UK state policy.

f. UN Charter

UK State policy: To uphold and defend the UN Charter. Keir Starmer’s government further reaffirmed this policy in July this year.

In the armed attack on Iran and subsequent assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, Israel violated the UN Charter, namely Article 2(4) which states:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Not only did the Keir Starmer’s government also fail to defend and uphold the Charter by its failure to condemn Israel’s action, but Keir Starmer went further, by calling the President of Iran in order to prevent him from invoking art.51 of the UN Charter.

Art 51 of the Charter states:

"Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

In a phonecall with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Mr Starmer asked for Iran to "refrain" from taking action against Israel and further told Mr Pezeshkian that there was a:

"serious risk of miscalculation and now was the time for calm and careful consideration"

Rather than recognising the framework of international law and the UN Charter, Mr. Starmer chose to support Israel’s unlawful aggression, stating his endorsement of Israel's defence against alleged Iranian aggression in a further conversation with a handful of European leaders.

This position not only contradicts established international law but also undermines the UK's obligations as a member of the UN and its commitments to uphold and defend the UN charter. Starmer’s statements to the President of Iran, contradict the government’s statement to defend the UN charter made in July. This speech delivered at the UN, is titled on the government website, ‘We must defend the UN Charter: UK statement at the UN Security Council.’

Though a universal principle, this statement to defend the UN Charter was made in the context of the Ukraine-Russia war. By not applying the same universal principle to Israeli actions, Keir Starmer’s government appears to provide testament to the fact that Israeli State interests again take precedence over the UK government’s own State policy in their dealings with foreign states.

It is also of significant note that Keir Starmer’s actions in response to Israel’s armed attack on Iranian soil was in stark contrast to his government’s position regarding Israel’s proposed invasion of Lebanon.

On 17^th September, Israel engaged in an extensive bombing campaign against civilians via electronic devices in Lebanon, injuring over 3,000 Lebanese citizens over a number of days and killing dozens including children. Despite UN experts confirming that such an indiscriminate bombing campaign in booby-trapped, everyday objects violates international law and are war crimes, the UK government failed to condemn Israel.

Following this attack, Israel launched air strikes in Lebanon killing more than 550 civilians including women and children. Despite ostensibly calling for a 'ceasefire', Foreign Secretary David Lammy offered no condemnation of Israeli action, nor did he attribute any responsibility to Israel for the deaths of these civilians. In response to the Israeli State's military chief, Lt Gen Herzi Halevi's statement that Israel are preparing for a ground invasion of Lebanon Defence Secretary John Healey MP stated:

“That will be a matter for the Israelis."

g.            Parliamentary Protocol

On 21^st February, the SNP tabled a motion for a ceasefire for Parliament to vote on, on its Opposition Day. Parliamentary protocol allows Opposition Days for opposition parties to put forward motions to be debated and voted upon. However, in an unprecedented breach of Parliamentary protocol, the Labour Speaker of the House, Lindsay Hoyler, allegedly under pressure from Keir Starmer,  put forward Labour’s amended motion first instead. As such Mr Starmer’s alleged actions prevented the SNP’s ceasefire motion to be voted on.  This caused chaos in Parliament and both SNP and Tory MPs left the chamber in protest. The Parliamentary Privileges Committee was subsequently asked to investigate Mr Starmer's actions in a parliamentary motion signed by over 50 MPs over whether Mr Starmer put ‘undue pressure’ on the Speaker on that day.

Critically, in an interview with Sky TV, Mr. Starmer confirmed he had a conversation with the President of Israel prior to the vote. Significantly, the wording of the SNP’s motion condemned any military assault on Gaza, which in effect condemned Israel. The Labour amendment, however, omitted any condemnation of Israeli actions entirely and in effect gave Israel full veto power over any ceasefire. Removing any culpability from Israel has a direct effect on Britain’s defence, security, military strategy, intelligence and use of armed forces.

Subsequent to the SNP motion being blocked, three Britons were killed by Israeli forces in Gaza in a targeted attack. As such, it is vital to know what Mr Starmer spoke about with the Israeli President, and whether his actions potentially contravened the Official Secrets Act, notably section 2, which specifically deals with disclosures which relate to defence policy.

Not only has Keir Starmer spoken with the Israeli President on the phone, but he has sent his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy to Israel to meet with Israeli ministers including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and previously Israeli President Issac Herzog who made statements of genocidal intent against the population in Gaza.

Keir Starmer is a Labour Friends of Israel (“LFI”) Parliamentary supporter.

He has that he supports “Zionism without qualification.”

Keir Starmer has received more gifts, benefits and hospitality than any other member of Parliament and more than any other recent party leader.

He has received at least £50,000 from pro-Israel lobbyists.

Over 50% of Keir Starmer's cabinet has been funded by the Israel lobby. Those cabinet members include David Lammy.

Attorney General

The role of the Attorney General in the UK is to serve as the government's chief legal advisor, responsible for providing legal guidance on domestic matters, representing government interests in Parliament regarding the law and overseeing prosecutions.

The current UK Attorney General is Baron Richard Hermer KC. Baron Hermer, a good friend of Keir Starmer was appointed by the Prime Minister and nominated for a life peerage in the House of Lords. Baron Hermer had previously donated £5,000 to Keir Starmer for his Labour leadership campaign.

The Attorney General was presented in the mainstream media as someone who was previously been critical of Israel’s actions. In May last year he signed a letter urging the UK to resist any attempts by the state of Israel to encourage the UK to join the ICJ proceedings in opposition to the aforementioned Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s actions in the Occupied Palestine Territories. He was also one of several prominent Jewish lawyers who wrote an open letter published in the Financial Times on 17^th October 2023 calling for Israel to obey international law. The letter states:

“Israel has a clear right in international law to respond in self-defence, indeed like all states it has a duty to defend its citizens. Its international borders have been breached by a paramilitary force and its civilians brutally murdered and subjected to severe atrocities. It also has a clear right to seek justice for the crimes that have been committed on its soil, not simply against those captured by Israeli forces but against the Hamas organisation itself and those who enable its military operations.”

This is not the legal position and contradicts the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. The Advisory Opinion of the ICJ of 9^th July 2004 categorically states that Israel does not have a right to ‘self-defence’ over territory it occupies. The Gaza Strip is territory occupied by Israel as recognised by the UN and the ICJ. Moreover, the ICJ stated that Article 51 of the UN Charter was not applicable to Israel over occupied Palestinian territory:

“139. Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State. However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State.

The Court also thus recognises that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory. The situation is thus different from that con- templated by Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), and therefore Israel could not in any event invoke those resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self-defence.

Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case.”

Moreover, Mr Hermer does not seem to acknowledge that notwithstanding the events of Oct 7, that armed struggle against occupation is recognised under international law. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3246 (XXIX) reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity, and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid, and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle. It specifically includes the inalienable right of the Palestinian people, alongside other occupied peoples, to self-determination, national independence, and sovereignty.

The Attorney General’s role is not a diplomatic one. Despite this, the Attorney General travelled to Israel this year to meet with Israeli officials, something that Israel has confirmed but which has not been mentioned on the Attorney General’s website. We have not been told who the Israeli officials the Attorney General met are.

Since this visit to Israel and discussions with Israeli officials, the Attorney General's position on Israel's actions seems to have undergone a dramatic reversal to that which the media previously portrayed of him.

For instance, following these meetings, the Attorney General returned to the UK and declined to suspend weapons export licenses to Israel, asserting that he first needed to determine which weapons were ‘offensive’ as opposed to ‘defensive’ before engaging in any such suspension - a significant reversal from his earlier position and contradictory to the UK’s own rules under the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, namely Criterion 2 which states: c) Not grant a licence if it determines there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law. The ICJ ruling of Israel’s plausible genocide confirms this clear risk.

Significantly, it seems that the UK government also disagreed with the Attorney General’s position. On 2^nd September 2024, Foreign Secretary David Lammy stated that 30 arms export licences to Israel would be suspended, out of a total of 350. This decision was a government decision and not made by the Attorney General.

However, rather than be a measure to halt Israel’s plausible genocide, the suspension of a mere 8% licenses by Keir Starmer’s government seems to be a largely inconsequential gesture. This was confirmed by Defence Secretary John Healy who stated that the suspension "won't have a material impact” on Israel's security.

David Lammy also stated, in contradiction to the binding judgment of the ICJ on plausible genocide in January 2024:

"We have not and could not arbitrate on whether or not Israel has breached international humanitarian law," Lammy, a former lawyer, said.  ‘’This is a forward-looking evaluation, not a determination of innocence or guilt, and it does not prejudge any future determinations by the competent courts.”

Mr Lammy, a parliamentary supporter of LFI, added:

"throughout my life, I have been a friend of Israel."

As such, the UK has appears to have ignored the ruling by the ICJ of plausible genocide and its subsequent order. The suspension of arms export licenses to Israel was articulated not in reference to the ICJ ruling, which would logically necessitate a complete halt to arms sales as also called for by the UN but rather framed in the context of vague potential violations of international humanitarian law. This undefined characterisation shifts focus away from the specific legal implications and subsequent requirements of the ICJ’s binding decision.

Moreover, the export licenses for the components of F-35 fighter jets, a favoured aircraft by the Israeli state and used to bomb civilians in Gaza, were not part of the ban. UK exports constitute 15% of the jet’s manufacture. Crucially, a Dutch Appeal Court has banned all exports of F-35 parts, ruling:

"It is undeniable that there is a clear risk the exported F-35 parts are used in serious violations of international humanitarian law."

"Israel does not take sufficient account of the consequences for the civilian population when conducting its attacks," the court added.

Upon his return from Israel, the Attorney General also approved the politically motivated prosecution under terrorism laws against Mr. Barnard.

The lack of transparency of the Attorney General’s trip to Israel is not only concerning but also detrimental to British interests and the rights of the British people, and his office must be forthcoming about his meetings with Israeli officials—disclosing who was present and the discussions that took place. As the Attorney General’s role is not a diplomatic role, there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether the possibility that the Attorney General's meeting with Israeli officials in Israel contravenes s.3 of the National Security Act 2023, which governs conversations with foreign intelligence services.

The Attorney General has confirmed that he is from a ‘blue-box’ Jewish family . A blue box family is one that raises money for the Jewish National Fund (“JNF”), a Zionist organisation formed in 1901 that, amongst other activities on occupied Palestinian land provides aid to illegal settlers on occupied Palestinian territory. As such, the JNF has been criticised by Human Rights NGOs and has had its charitable status revoked in Canada. On 26^th June this year, the Canadian Revenue Agency (“CRA”) revoked the JNF’s charitable status, noting:

“Our review identified that the Organization’s resources appear to have been applied to JNF’s non-charitable projects in the Occupied Territories, and to supporting the Israeli armed forces, and not to activities furthering its charitable purposes. It is our position that the Organization has operated as a conduit for JNF [Israel], a non-qualified donee, in contravention of the Act.”

In light of the CRA ruling, on 21^st August this year, the International Centre for Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) wrote to the Attorney General in his capacity as parens partiae of charities and the charity sector in the UK. This role includes the duty to ensure that charities are not participating in unlawful activities. The letter calls on the Attorney General to revoke JNF UK’s charitable status as a matter of public interest. The Attorney General has not responded.

The Attorney General confirmed to the Jewish Chronicle that he has “dear family members currently serving in the IDF.” He also stated that he actively supported a number of Israeli organisations. It is unclear what organisations these are and whether, like the JNF, they are engaged in unlawful activities on occupied Palestinian land.

The Attorney General also states he is a current member of Alyth Gardens shul (synagogue), which promotes Reform Zionist ideology. From sermons given at the synagogue, they promote the idea that Israel is central to Jewish identity, emphasising that a connection to Israel is an indispensable aspect of being Jewish today. Some sermons strongly imply that maintaining a relationship with Israel is crucial for preserving one’s Jewish identity, suggesting that this connection may take a priority in defining Jewishness^. Other sermons emphasise the importance of Jewish people outside of Israel to take action to improve Israel due to their connection to it as Jewish people.

Conclusion

The UK government’s actions under Keir Starmer appear to unequivocally prioritise Israeli interests over the nation's own security, creating a dangerous contradiction to the UK’s own national interests. The seemingly pervasive influence of pro-Israel lobbying, as seen in the actions and statements of figures such as the Prime Minister, raises serious concerns about the integrity of the UK’s legal and political systems. As a result, UK citizens have a legitimate basis to question and resist compliance with government laws that appear to serve the interests of the State of Israel to the subjugation of their own.

The subservience of UK interests to that of Israel also creates uncertainty for British citizens, who find themselves facing prosecution for adhering to UK laws and advocating for UK state interests. The case of Richard Barnard exemplifies this alarming trend, as he faces legal repercussions for his pro-Palestinian activism and efforts to uphold the International Criminal Court Act and the Genocide Convention. These laws mandate the UK to halt arms exports to Israel and take proactive measures to prevent genocide, yet Keir Starmer’s government’s stance undermines the very UK State policy it purports to uphold.

Equally concerning is the actions of the Attorney General, who has direct connections to Israel and the IDF through personal and familial ties. The Attorney General is a pivotal figure in the UK's legal system, responsible for overseeing prosecutions and ensuring that justice is applied fairly and impartially. As chief legal adviser to the government, he wields significant influence over legal policy and power in prosecutorial decisions under terrorism legislation. His seemingly strong pro-Israel stance, notably after his meetings with Israeli officials in Israel, raises serious concerns about his ability to maintain impartiality, particularly in cases involving pro-Palestinian activists and peaceful protesters. This perceived bias undermines public confidence in the integrity of the legal process and calls into question the fairness of prosecutions in the UK. Should this situation continue, the British people may justifiably feel that they are not obliged to follow the dictates of the Attorney General, nor be subject to prosecutions that appear to serve the interests of the Israeli state rather than justice.

As the pro-Israeli connections of the UK Prime Minister and his government continue to emerge, it becomes increasingly evident that we are confronting a constitutional crisis, with UK institutions dominated by the interests of the Israeli state. If the Prime Minister continues on this trajectory, Britain stands on the precipice, at risk of being overtaken by foreign influences that threaten its sovereignty.