Political journalist and author Peter Oborne, whose book Complicit: Britain’s Role in the Destruction of Gaza lays out one of the starkest indictments of modern British foreign policy.
For more than two years, Gaza has endured a “live-streamed genocide,” despite headline talk of ceasefires. In his new book, veteran British journalist Peter Oborne argues Britain is not a bystander but a central enabler—politically, militarily, and culturally—of the destruction. From the Balfour Declaration to modern lobbying networks, from arms export licences to interventions against international courts, Oborne presents a sustained case: Britain helped construct the architecture of impunity—and then defended it.
The Long Shadow of Balfour
Oborne insists that Britain’s responsibility runs through more than a century of policy. In 1917, the British Empire pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, where more than 90% of inhabitants were Palestinian Muslims or Christians. It was an era when imperial statesmen routinely “gave” territory to settler populations, he notes, motivated by geostrategic concerns such as protecting access to the Suez Canal.
That original act seeded the disaster that Palestinians now call al-Nakba, and for Oborne, Britain’s role continued long after its imperial flag came down. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a significant arms exporter, London has leverage and legal duties. It has used the former, he argues, and dodged the latter.
Memory-Holed Terror: When Zionist Militias Targeted the British
Oborne draws attention to a chapter that modern politicians seldom reference. In the 1940s, Zionist militias bombed the King David Hotel, assassinated British officials, and killed British soldiers. Count Folke Bernadotte—the UN mediator credited with saving Jews during the Holocaust—was murdered in Jerusalem by the Lehi (Stern Gang). Queen Elizabeth II reportedly never visited Israel because of this record.
Margaret Thatcher, who dealt directly with Menachem Begin, knew that history. But according to Oborne, when she condemned atrocities in Lebanon—particularly the Sabra and Shatila massacres in 1982—she stood on principle: “international law is all we have.”
That moral grammar, he argues, has since evaporated.
Neoconservatism and the Unmaking of International Law
Asked what changed, Oborne points to the ideological rise of neoconservatism. It was contemptuous of institutions built after the Second World War—institutions Britain helped design precisely to prevent genocides, mass expulsions, and wars of aggression. The neocon approach, he argues, is about projecting power, not obeying law.
The result has been:
- hostility toward the United Nations,
- disdain for refugee frameworks,
- sabotage of the International Criminal Court (ICC),
- and sanctions on its officials.
Where once Britain championed these bodies, Oborne argues, today its leaders undermine them when they constrain Israel.
The Pro-Israel Lobby in Westminster
Oborne—who previously made a Channel 4 documentary on the subject—treats the pro-Israel lobby with forensic caution, warning against antisemitic tropes while insisting journalists must describe how power operates.
He notes:
- Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) has at times claimed a majority of Tory MPs as members.
- Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) visited Tel Aviv even as Israel’s bombing of Gaza peaked.
- Boris Johnson allegedly corresponded “directly” with CFI officials about ICC matters—bypassing Parliament.
- Alan Duncan’s diaries describe lobbying efforts that blocked him from becoming Middle East minister.
Oborne frames these as examples of unhealthy foreign influence—not illegality, but distortion.
He also revisits the 2017 Al Jazeera sting, in which an Israeli embassy figure discussed “taking down” British MPs who expressed pro-Palestinian views. Johnson, then Foreign Secretary, shut down the scandal in a single afternoon.
Britain’s Gaza Playbook
Oborne argues Britain developed a template during Operation Protective Edge in 2014. The pattern:
- Affirm Israel’s “right to self-defence.”
- Condemn Palestinian actors swiftly and unambiguously.
- Express “concern” about civilian deaths in vague, depoliticised terms.
- Avoid attributing intent or criminality to Israel.
- Call for investigations—then oppose international versions.
- Continue arms exports regardless.
- Pledge commitment to a “two-state solution” while backing policies that destroy it.
This rhetorical choreography, Oborne contends, enabled Britain to appear moral while acting otherwise.
Cameron, Cleverly, Sunak: The Government’s Record
Oborne views former Foreign Secretary James Cleverly as adrift—so lacking in clarity that his Israeli counterpart effectively answered questions for him on live television.
He reserves harsher criticism for Lord David Cameron, whose return to the Foreign Office he initially hoped would stiffen Britain’s spine. Instead, Oborne argues, Cameron:
- suspended UNRWA funding based on a later-discredited dossier,
- continued arms exports while acknowledging war crimes-adjacent conduct,
- sought to influence ICC investigations into Israeli officials.
Cameron’s letter to MP Alicia Kearns, which openly documented Israeli obstruction of water and aid, is treated by Oborne as inadvertent confession: knowledge plus continued support equals complicity.
Starmer’s Choice—and the Commons Meltdown
The Labour leader fares little better. In an October 2023 LBC interview, Keir Starmer appeared to endorse Israel cutting off water and electricity to Gaza—collective punishment under Article 33 of the Geneva Conventions. He later insisted he meant something else.
More explosive was February 2024, when the Scottish National Party tabled a motion calling for a ceasefire and an end to collective punishment. Expecting a Labour rebellion, Speaker Lindsay Hoyle broke Commons convention to allow a Labour amendment after a private meeting with Starmer.
Uproar followed. To explain the breach, Hoyle invoked “security concerns” for MPs. Parts of the press—and right-wing politicians—translated this into a narrative of Islamist intimidation, igniting a moral panic.
Oborne notes:
- There was no serious evidence of violent threats.
- There was no inquiry.
- The panic benefited the far right.
The Media: Burial by Language
Oborne argues British media failures fall into three categories:
1. Dehumanisation by omission
Palestinian lives presented as anonymous numbers; Israeli narratives personalised.
2. Erasure of intent
Publicly recorded genocidal statements—catalogued in South Africa’s ICJ filing—buried or dismissed.
3. Structural asymmetry
Israeli violations frame headlines as “ceasefire jeopardised”; hypothetical Hamas violations would dominate tabloids for weeks.
A brief wobble occurred when Washington pivoted, and columnists worried they had “supported a genocide.” Then the system re-stabilised.
The West Bank: Erasure in Real Time
While Britain repeats platitudes about two states, Oborne describes armed, state-aligned settler militias conducting expulsions across the West Bank. Homes are bulldozed, equipment torched, villagers shot—sometimes with IDF assistance.
Britain still permits the sale of settlement goods.
For Oborne, that contradiction is terminal: you cannot support two states while financing the erasure of one.
Protesters, Pilloried—and Proven Right
Oborne defends the hundreds of thousands who marched peacefully for a ceasefire. Week after week, they were likened to extremists, Hamas sympathisers, or enemies of civilisation. Yet their core demand—compliance with international law—is precisely what Churchill and Roosevelt sought to embed after 1945.
He places the marchers in the lineage of:
- the Chartists,
- the suffragettes,
- Ban the Bomb,
- Stop the War.
History, he says, will celebrate them.
Toward Accountability
Could British politicians face charges? Oborne believes:
- If the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rules genocide, states that materially aided it could face legal consequences.
- Under UK domestic law, aiding and abetting genocide is criminal.
Attorney-general sign-off is a shield, but:
- foreign courts can issue warrants,
- travel restrictions can bite,
- political reputations can collapse.
He warns that Blair’s impunity over Iraq was not inevitability but political choice—and that Gaza may break the pattern.
The Global South Changes the Equation
Oborne stresses that the world of 2025 is not the world of 2003. The Global South is assertive; Western moral authority is degraded. South Africa’s case at The Hague became a diplomatic pole-star, and states from Latin America to Asia are now openly engaging.
That’s new—and unprecedented.
The Reckoning Ahead
If Complicit has one thesis, it is this: Britain matters. It mattered when it drew the lines, when it armed the occupier, when it vetoed accountability, when it smeared dissent.
And therefore: Britain will matter when accountability finally arrives.
Oborne ends, counterintuitively, on hope. Gaza has become a rallying point for the oppressed; its resonance is global, not regional. Regimes that defend Israel, he suggests, are increasingly nervous—not because Israel is winning, but because public legitimacy is draining away underneath them.
“Gaza will change the world,” Oborne says. “It has already begun.”
Key Claims, At a Glance
- Britain played a foundational role in creating the Israeli state.
- Westminster lobbying networks shape appointments and policy.
- The Commons bent convention to protect Labour unity.
- Media framing systematically dehumanised Palestinians.
- UNRWA defunding and ICC interference crossed red lines.
- Domestic law criminalises aiding and abetting genocide.
- The Global South is reshaping accountability mechanisms.
Complicit: Britain’s Role in the Destruction of Gaza will not sit quietly on academic shelves. It is a live document of a live crime. If Oborne is right, the excuses used today—“we didn’t know,” “it was complicated,” “we trusted Israel”—will not survive the archive.
History will ask who saw, who spoke, and who enabled.
Peter Oborne has staked his answer.
