Why Keir Starmer's Genocide Denialism is Completely Irrelevant
He might be Prime Minister, but his word isn't law
Keir Starmer’s genocide denialism
During Prime Minister’s Questions last week, independent MP Ayoub Khan reminded Prime Minster Keir Starmer that genocide was defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention and asked the Prime Minister what his definition of genocide was.
Keir Starmer replied,
“I am well aware of the definition of genocide, and that is why I have never described this or referred to it as genocide.”
In December 2023, South Africa filed a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, as defined by Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. Article 2 lists acts that constitute genocide, including the intentional destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group including through acts such as killing, inflicting harm, and creating destructive conditions. On January 26, 2024, the ICJ ruled that Israel's actions in Gaza constituted ‘plausible’ genocide. Britain is a signatory to the ICJ and has made a declaration accepting its compulsory jurisdiction.
Despite the ICJ's ruling, Keir Starmer has continued to refuse to label Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide. Even more damning, a recent UN report confirmed that Israel's actions in Gaza are consistent with the definition of genocide. This refusal to acknowledge the findings of both the ICJ and the UN underscores Starmer’s ongoing reluctance to confront the scale of the atrocities being committed.
Similarly, Foreign Secretary David Lammy a fortnight earlier made the claim in Parliament that no genocide was occurring in Gaza as not enough people had died. In his response to Conservative MP Nick Timothy’s request that the Foreign Secretary “take this opportunity to say that there is not a genocide occurring in the middle east?” Lammy replied, “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.”
However, both men have been content to use the word genocide in the past, including for the UK recognised Yazidi genocide committed by Daesh, which took the lives of 5,000 victims and the Srebrenica genocide where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were murdered.
To claim that genocide is not occurring in Gaza ultimately serves only to benefit Israel. Such denial deflects international scrutiny and shields Israel from legal consequences on the global stage, protecting its military and political interests. However, this approach does not fundamentally change the UK's commitments under domestic law. For example, denying Israel’s genocide has no bearing on the UK’s Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, which governs military exports. The Licensing Criteria does not require a determination of genocide to restrict arms sales, but instead focus on violations of international humanitarian law - a far lower threshold. Similarly, war crimes and crimes against humanity are punishable under UK domestic law regardless of whether genocide is formally recognised. On the contrary, genocide denialism undermines the UK’s interests and damages its international reputation. By refusing to acknowledge credible determinations of genocide, Keir Starmer risks weakening the UK’s credibility and diminishing confidence in its commitment to upholding international treaties and obligations.
It is not a surprise that both men have attempted to deny Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians. Both Keir Starmer and David Lammy are Labour Friends of Israel Parliamentary Supporters and both have received significant funds from pro-Israeli lobbyists. Keir Starmer says that he supports Zionism ‘without qualification’ meaning that no war crime committed by Zionists will ever make him waver in his support.
But the Prime Minister’s opinions are irrelevant
Though these Labour Friends of Israel MPs are both trying to redefine the term genocide for the sole benefit of Israel, their personal opinions given in the House of Commons are irrelevant.
That is because the UK government has consistently confirmed that its long-standing position on acknowledging genocide is that it is for courts to determine and not government. In recognising the Yazidi genocide, the government confirmed that its position on acknowledging genocide:
“has always been that determinations of genocide should be made by competent courts, rather than by governments or non-judicial bodies [such as parliament].”
In the UK Uyghur Tribunal, Dominic Raab confirmed that competent courts included the ICJ:
“[I]t has been the Government’s long-standing policy that any determination of genocide should only be made by competent courts, rather than by governments or non-judicial bodies. Competent courts include international courts, such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and national criminal courts that meet international standards of due process.”
Consequently, it matters little what David Lammy or Keir Starmer’s personal views are on the genocide in Gaza or their denial of it. The UK’s position has consistently been that the determination of genocide is a matter for the courts, not political debate. The International Court of Justice has already established that there is a plausible case for genocide in Gaza. Both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have a duty to the UK to accept the ICJ's ruling and publicly acknowledge the plausible genocide being committed by Israel.
The lengths to which Western political and media elites go to propagate denialism of the Gaza genocide is downright deplorable. All the more so because the law itself is abundantly clear (IHL as the bar for stopping arms exports, diplomatic cover and the likes, obligations under the Genocide Convention kicking in upon the issuance of provisional measures etc.).
I think part of this has to do with the visceral reluctance of sizeable segments of White society to honestly come to terms with their colonial past. Over the past 80 years, the West has been peddling the lie that they've put their racist past behind them. That they've learnt from it, they feel remorse and regret for it, and that they've relinquished it. Various institutions (domestic and international) were setup to create the veneer that the preservation and advancement of inalienable rights are central to how the West thinks and operates. That 'values' became core to their policies. Yet, little (if anything) was actually done to make amends for reigning death and destruction, plunder and pillage throughout much of the world for the better part of 500 years. To this day, they can't even bring themselves to teach the history properly in schools.
However, as trained historians started to shed light to the record, exposing colonialism and settler colonialism for what it is, we started to witness the 'backlash' from White 'snowflakes' who found the truth an incredibly bitter pill to swallow. No surprise then that they've had to come up with fake definitions of things like Critical Race Theory to throw their tantrums, because facts don't care about feelings. Being the empty chameleons that they are, political and media elites from the 'right' latched onto this fallout to further capitalize on it.
Yet, until October 8, 2023, there was a sense of being somewhat removed from the Trail of Tears, or the Britain's savage response to the First Indian Revolt of 1857, or the Nakba. We'd listen/read the testimonies of survivors, pore through detailed accounts meticulously compiled by historians and the likes. But such episodes of mass colonial violence by and large felt like a thing of the past (even in Palestine, what continued unabated from 1967 to October 2023 was what the Israelis historian Ilan Pappe called 'incremental' genocide and ethnic cleansing). And on the whole, it felt like the 'left' and 'liberal' segments of the political and media class were slowly but surely confronting the legacy of colonialism (albeit in a piecemeal way, but still it seemed like a baby step or two in the right direction).
The past 14 months has been a jolt to the system of these 'liberals' like nothing else. We've been witnessing the sheer barbarity and hypocrisy that is inherent to colonial violence play out in front of our eyes every single day. At one level, Kier Starmer, Justin Trudeau, the Democrats (and their blind cultish followers) have drank so much of their own self-righteous kool-aid that cognitive dissonance alone prevents them recognizing a genocide staring them right in the face. But we also have to consider a more cynical proposition. The West has never truly, genuinely, sincerely confronted or contended with its colonial past - to honestly address it for what it was. Instead, the 'monster of white supremacy' was largely swept under the carpet with a sustained campaign of mass gaslighting premised on the West's 'virtue' (you won't find any other society other than the world that relentlessly harps about its 'values' in such absolutist terms - empty vessels make the most noise as they say). Gaza has ripped this mask off altogether to expose Western 'liberal' political and media elites for the self-righteous filthy hypocrites they always were. Starmer knows it. Trudeau knows it. Albanese knows it (not Francesca of course). And they're desperately playing every last card to try and piece together the world as it was on October 6th. Thing is, people can't 'unsee' what they've already seen. And what they're seeing is the latest episode of this five century long story called European settler colonial genocide, which as Columbia historian Joseph Massad puts it, is really what 'Western values' are mostly about.
Maybe we should call it a Holocaust or perhaps slaughter. Would it make any difference? Holocaust would be preferable for me. "Never again" would no longer apply to just one group.
It reminds me of the Mafia providing "insurance". "If you pay us we won't break your window." Just reinterpret the word insurance or genocide.
Genocide doesn't have to mean extermination of all living members of a group of people ( If that's even possible). What is Starmer's"number"That needs to be reached to qualify as a genocide. Or is it a percentage?
Genocide is actually more of a cultural destruction of a people. The Aim is to destroy a society's culture and history And integrate Into the conquerors society. What is being destroyed is the lifestyle, economic system, religion and financial system ( If there is one). Mass killings, starvation, torture etc, are the first step In achieving these goals as can be seen in Gaza.
Starmer Never answered the question about genocide. There is no rule of law international or domestic .
The failure of the leadership ,courts, political systems of the countries supplying arms and assisting in defense of Israel Are all complicit In genocide a Palestinians.