History does not really repeat itself, but, as the saying frequently attributed to Mark Twain goes, it often rhymes. Take, for example, Britain’s involvement in the Middle East since the turn of the century. It took six years before the British government established an independent committee of Privy Counsellors to examine the United Kingdom’s involvement in the 2003 Iraq war, and an additional seven years before Sir John Chilcot and other members of the inquiry committee published their damning findings that former Prime Minister Tony Blair had misled the public and his own government.
The Inquiry found that the UK chose to join the invasion before peaceful options had been exhausted, that Saddam Hussein did not, in fact, pose an imminent threat and that Blair had deliberately exaggerated the danger and then promised former United States President George Bush: “I will be with you, whatever.” It also found that Britain’s intelligence agencies had produced “flawed information”, that Blair had ignored warnings about what would happen in Iraq after the invasion, and that the government had not tried hard enough to keep a tally of Iraqi civilian casualties, which, according to Iraq Body Count, amounts to between 187,499 and 211,046 deaths.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown would not have established the inquiry committee without unrelenting pressure from within Parliament and civil society, and it was only due to these persistent demands that the truth finally saw the light of day (even though Tony Blair has still not been held to account).
Starmer government blocks independent inquiry into Britain’s role in the genocide
Fast forward to the Gaza genocide. In June 2025, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn proposed a bill for a full, independent, public inquiry into Britain’s role in the genocide in Gaza. This inquiry committee would consider any UK military, economic or political cooperation with Israel since October 2023, including the sale, supply or use of weapons, surveillance aircraft and Royal Air Force bases, while also having the power to question ministers and officials about decisions taken in relation to UK involvement.
The bill secured the support of more than 50 MPs. However, when it reached a second reading, Keir Starmer’s government blocked its passage. The government said “there is no need for an inquiry” and that “such an inquiry would be unnecessary as there is no confusion about UK military operations in Gaza.”
The Gaza Tribunal
In response, Jeremy Corbyn decided to hold a public tribunal in the tradition of the Russell Tribunal organised by the great British philosopher Bertrand Russell in 1966 to investigate US war crimes in Vietnam. Corbyn invited Shahd Hammouri, an international law lecturer at the University of Kent, and me to join the Tribunal panel, and the hearings were held on September 4-5, 2025, in Church House, Westminster.
We heard 29 testimonies from witnesses, journalists and survivors of the Gaza genocide, as well as a range of international law experts, lawyers, medical doctors and whistleblowers. At the time, the official death toll in Gaza was nearing 65,000, of whom almost 20,000 were children. With more than 150,000 injured, Gaza had become the home of the largest cohort of child amputees in the world. Almost 80 percent of the buildings in Gaza had either been damaged or destroyed, including more than 90 percent of housing, 97 percent of schools, 33 of 36 hospitals, and every single university in the Strip.
The two days of hearings were among the most difficult in my life, given the emotional toll of listening to so many horrific testimonies. In addition to testimony after testimony describing the extent of the British government’s complicity in the mass murder and destruction, we also heard from a whistleblower about the culture of deception – to cover up the government’s wrongdoings – that had taken over the corridors of power. In the subsequent months, we analysed the findings and concluded that Britain had played a vital role in Israeli military operations in Gaza, including but not limited to:
The sale, supply and transfer of weapons that have been used to extinguish human life and destroy vital infrastructure in Gaza, the West Bank and beyond. This included individual export licences issued directly to Israel, as well as the indirect supply of components for F-35 fighter jets. The use of Royal Air Force surveillance flights over Gaza and British airbases to facilitate the transport, refuelling and maintenance of military equipment. The provision of political and diplomatic support, which has empowered Israel, enabling it to commit atrocities with impunity. This support has included the dehumanisation of Palestinians in political rhetoric, the justification of Israel’s actions, the hosting of Israeli officials, the failure to uphold the authority and decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the demonisation of international solidarity, including the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist group.
In March 2026, Corbyn submitted the Tribunal’s findings to the ICC, encouraging the court to interview government ministers regarding British complicity in war crimes. Since then, he has continued to demand a full, official, independent public inquiry into any cooperation between the UK and Israel since October 2023.
The bill returns to Parliament
Corbyn knows that the Tribunal he organised is no substitute for a full, public, independent inquiry, and given that there is a new prime minister in Number 10 who said Labour “got it wrong” over Gaza, Corbyn wanted to know whether the current Labour government would finally commit to investigating Britain’s role in the genocide. Expressions of regret are certainly important, but if justice is the goal, then the UK public requires both truth and accountability.
Last week, the bill that Keir Starmer’s government blocked back in June 2025 was once again brought before Parliament, and once again the government blocked MPs from voting on it. The Burnham government’s decision to postpone the vote on Corbyn’s Bill is reminiscent of the way previous governments postponed the establishment of an inquiry to investigate the Iraq war. It appears that, like previous UK governments, the current government’s strategy is to demur and delay, with the goal of sending the Gaza inquiry bill to purgatory.
The ruling elite have lost the ‘common sense’
The problem for Burnham is that, today, he and other members of the ruling elite no longer have the power to define the “common sense” through which Gaza is understood. Public opinion on Israel has shifted, as the huge pro-Palestinian marches and opinion polls demonstrate. The majority of the UK population knows that Israel is committing a genocide and that it has been able to do so, in part, because of the support of Western governments. While the US and Germany were undoubtedly the most enthusiastic supporters – providing Israel with the lethal mechanisms and the diplomatic shield to carry out mass killings – the public also understands that Britain has played a vital role.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband’s recent – and I would say courageous – announcement that the UK government would ban imports from illegal Israeli settlements and sanction companies and individuals supporting settlement activity is a very important first step. Yet, it does not absolve the UK government of its alleged complicity in atrocity crimes.
The disturbing testimonies we heard during the Tribunal underscore the importance of formal scrutiny. The vote on Corbyn’s bill was postponed last week, but the need to reveal the role the British government played in Israel’s genocidal onslaught is not going away. Burnham and Miliband have a historic opportunity to prove that this new government is committed to the principles of international law and currently face a straightforward choice: Continue to block efforts to expose the truth and seek accountability, or break with the past and stand on the right side of history. History often rhymes, but it does not have to.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
