By Iqbal Jassat
Has George Galloway’s whirlwind tour of South Africa where he inspired thousands of people to be more upfront in opposing the settler colonial regime’s barbaric slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, had an impact on Britain’s foreign secretary?
Whether or not he had a role in sparking a reaction, Ed Miliband seems to have found his voice to speak out against Israel’s conduct.
Miliband’s words are now acknowledging what millions have been saying about the suffering of Palestinians.
But words alone do not change the reality on the ground.
The real test is British policy. The UK has suspended certain arms licences for equipment assessed as being used in Gaza, but it continues to maintain defence relationships and other military export arrangements involving Israel.
So when Miliband says, “You were right”, the question is what that recognition actually means in practice.
Until Britain ends the military and logistical support that can contribute to Israel’s military operations, and aligns its actions with its stated concern for Palestinian lives, declarations of solidarity remain rhetoric.
Palestinians do not need another expression of sympathy from Western governments. They need the policies that sustain the destruction in Gaza to end.
The tension between official government rhetoric and actual policy is a central point of debate regarding the UK’s approach to the region.
While the British government has suspended around 30 out of 350 arms export licenses to Israel following an internal review that found a “clear risk” they might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law, critics argue this measure does not go far enough.
A key point of contention is that the suspension excludes components for the F-35 fighter jet program, except when shipped directly to Israel, due to the UK’s integration into a global supply chain.
For many human rights advocates and international observers, the continuation of these defense arrangements and logistical links creates a disconnect between expressions of concern for civilian life and the tangible impact of British policy.
The debate continues over whether the UK will shift from restricted regulatory suspensions to broader policy changes that align its diplomatic statements with its trade and military relationships.
The historical context of British involvement in the region heavily shapes current perspectives and fuels deep-seated skepticism toward UK foreign policy.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 remains a foundational point of major grievance for Palestinians. In it, the British colonial government expressed official support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”
Historians and analysts note that this declaration, made during World War II while Britain was negotiating control over the region, fundamentally altered the demographic and political landscape of Palestine without the consent of its indigenous Arab population.
During the subsequent British Mandate period (1920–1948), British administrative policies, land laws, and responses to local uprisings are viewed by Palestinians as having laid the legal and institutional groundwork for their eventual mass displacement and dispossession.
Because of this long historical arc, current UK diplomatic statements and partial policy adjustments are often viewed by Palestinians not in isolation, but through the lens of a century-long legacy of perceived British complicity.
One cannot fault critics who argue that Britain’s legacy of double-dealing is not a thing of the past. Even as modern British governments have begun to shift their public language—such as calling the West Bank occupation unlawful or offering symbolic recognition of Palestinian statehood — they face ongoing accusations of hypocrisy.
Not surprising therefore when observers point out that the UK continues to avoid taking direct accountability for its colonial-era record while maintaining military-industrial ties with Israel.
Indeed, a growing movement of legal experts, activists, and petitioners argue that Britain should be held to account for its historical and contemporary role in the dispossession of Palestinians.
Iqbal Jassat
Executive Member
Media Review Network
Johannesburg
South Africa