Afrasianet - Starmer and Herzog - Mark Curtis and Laura Bidcock, editors of the site, published an article by Declassian UK in which they argued that Israel's war of extermination against Gaza exposed Britain's oligarchic regime and the need to change it. The extermination war on Gaza should be a pivotal moment in British history, as the political system failed miserably in the face of genocide.  Israel's two-year-old assault on Palestinians, including ethnic cleansing, systematic attacks on schools and hospitals, and crimes against humanity.

British leaders have cooperated militarily, politically and diplomatically with Israel throughout the attacks on Palestinians in Gaza. However, imposing significant sanctions on Israel is now completely off the government's agenda, in stark contrast to Russia, because the British establishment chooses to support Israel even in its crimes.

There is not an iota of morality in Britain's political and economic decision-making. But that doesn't mean the system is "down," it works as planned.

What we are witnessing is the peak of impunity for ministers for complicity in crimes abroad, and the irrelevance of human rights and international law to British policymaking, they said.

The main concern of the ruling establishment was the protection of Israel and the British and Israeli arms industry. Gaza thus highlights many of the deepest problems in British rule, exposes the illusion of democracy in the United Kingdom, and a mass movement is needed to address ten key issues.
The most important issue revealed by the Gaza genocide is that the government and political decision-makers do not attach importance to human life and do not deal with it, even seriously.

Since the October 7, 2023 war, British ministers have put their strategic alliance with Israel above the lives of dehumanized Palestinians, even as the death toll has risen to tens of thousands. Ministers in both the Conservative and Labour governments have openly apologized for Israel's clear violations of international law and human rights.

The government's description of the Israeli attack on Gaza as merely a war on Hamas, and the media's coverage of the genocide through this framework, has given credence to Israel's strategy of collective punishment of the Palestinians.

As happened when Israeli President Isaac Herzog – who was later welcomed by Keir Starmer in Downing Street – said that an "entire people" of Palestinians were "responsible" for the attacks in October. Beyond Gaza, the reality is that Britain has contributed to many of the world's genocides, and supports most of the world's repressive regimes, with British weapons and diplomatic support supporting many of them.

There is no need to compare the government's hawkish stance on Russia and its war against Ukraine with Israel's war on Gaza. Hence, we need a foreign policy that respects and adheres to human rights.

The second issue is the adherence to international law, to which all British governments claim to be bound, but this is completely untrue. Gaza has exposed a belief that they can act like criminals, upholding laws they like and ignoring those they don't.

The British government has repeatedly refused to recognise Israeli war crimes and granted "special immunity" to Israeli military commanders to visit Britain. Britain has also made an effort to protect Israel from legal blame, in stark contrast to its position on Russia. The fact that cannot be mentioned in the mainstream media is that Britain is a rogue country in its foreign policies.

The third point relates to the government's disregard for popular pressure, as the majority of the British people opposed Israel's attack on Gaza and sympathizes with the Palestinians. Public pressure, including dozens of mass national marches, eventually forced the government to back down from its initially explicit public support for Israel's mass attacks. But the British government has only improved its support for Israel in the midst of genocide, imposing selective sanctions on two Israeli ministers, not imposing a comprehensive arms embargo, continuing trade relations and remaining a strategic ally, and strongly opposed to major sanctions.

When the government faced pressure from Palestine Action, which directly targeted Britain's largest Israeli arms company, Elbit Systems, the British government simply banned the movement. Without reforming the British government's policy, there will be few ways in which the public can influence it, and certainly not through formal mechanisms.

What good is it for Parliament if elected MPs cannot ensure that the institution is not complicit in genocide, the most heinous international crime, or that governments abide by international law, which is another fundamental duty, the power they wield is frankly fictitious and they have lost their right to represent the British people.

They routinely do not hold ministers accountable, and they have completely failed to do so on Gaza. The Israel lobby has funded a quarter of MPs and half of Keir Starmer's government. However, organizations such as the Labour Party and the conservative Friends of Israel, which fund members of parliament to go on trips to Israel, are not even obligated to declare their funders. What does a voter do when his or her deputy does not respond to his emails, when his request to meet with him at "clinics" is rejected, or when he goes against the wishes of the majority of his constituents to vote in parliament?

The voter has no mechanism other than elections to hold deputies and ministers accountable. Voters must dismiss MPs who fail to challenge British support for Israeli genocide.

The process of political system change needs to stop excessive government secrecy, as the British system thrives on official secrecy, the main currency of the British government, which has been described as the "English disease." The British electorate may endure a state of excessive official secrecy only because it is forced to do so and because there is no serious attempt by any political party to open up the system and reduce its secrecy.

He is not allowed to know anything about the cooperation of the British intelligence services, whether GCHQ or MI6, with Israel. The government refuses to even publish its secret 2020 military agreement with Israel, or the formal legal advice it has received on Israel's violations of international humanitarian law.

Gaza has made it clear that the media routinely function as de facto tools of the state, inflating its positions and failing to adequately convey independent or contradictory narratives. Public outrage at the way the traditional media has covered the genocide is also palpable. But real media accountability in Britain is limited, and the media regularly publishes false information without any response. In the first place, traditional media must be buried by the public.

All independent bodies, such as trade unions and NGOs, should stop cooperating with "main" media and support and invest in independent media that are in the public interest.

The reform process needs to curb the influence of the Israeli lobby, as excessive influence by a foreign power in British politics is neither democratic nor acceptable, which is why many voted in favor of Brexit. The government is rightly keen to prevent the influence of countries such as Russia or China, but it is very welcome by Israel.

Many may have been shocked by the way the British government defended Israel during genocide. However, revealing the extent of the Israeli lobby's influence in Britain and its influence on policymaking remains a taboo topic in the national media. It has been proven that the Israel lobby figures and groups in Britain fund a huge number of MPs, hold secret meetings with ministers, pressure the government to secure policy changes, and exert considerable influence over the media and the political agenda.

Another issue concerns Britain's independence from the United States. Britain's submission to Israel is mainly linked to the British government's unwillingness to upset Washington. This shows once again that Britain is not a truly independent country. This submission was evident when Tony Blair defied the masses and joined America in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Starmer continued the British tradition of backing almost every illegal act abroad by the United States, such as its military attacks on Iran in June.

The government's willingness to abandon some of its citizens' democratic rights on the altar of supporting a foreign state involved in genocide is a worrying indicator of the institution's priorities. Faced with strong opposition to its policies, the government has resorted to censoring dissent and restricting civil liberties. Finally, a movement must be built against war, militarism and impunity.

The governing establishment will not accept any of these changes voluntarily. It goes without saying this, but Britain needs an organised movement against war, militarism and impunity. The past two years have seen an explosion of activism in support of the liberation of Palestine and against genocide. Repeated demonstrations have sometimes seen hundreds of thousands take to the streets, but even that was only the tip of the iceberg.