UK tells 300+ staff to quit if they oppose Gaza government policy
4 Min Read
Senior UK civil servants have warned that continued arms exports to "Israel" and inaction over Gaza could expose officials to future legal consequences.
-
A Palestinian girl runs past the ruins of destroyed buildings by Israeli airstrikes along the Gaza City shoreline, on Monday, June 9, 2025 (AP)
More than 300 employees of the British Foreign Office have raised concerns over the government’s stance on Gaza, warning of potential UK complicity in "Israel’s" violations of international law. In a formal letter addressed to Foreign Secretary David Lammy, the civil servants criticized continued arms exports and what they described as "Israel’s stark… disregard for international law."
The letter, seen by the BBC and dated May 16, reflects deep internal dissent over UK policy and marks at least the fourth such communication from officials since late 2023. The British Foreign Office dissent spans multiple departments, embassies, and missions worldwide.
The civil servants outlined concerns over the civilian death toll in Gaza, the ongoing blockade of humanitarian aid, and settlement expansion across the occupied West Bank. Citing the killing of 15 aid workers in March by Israeli forces and the use of starvation tactics, the letter accused "Israel" of engaging in actions that could amount to war crimes.
Officials also questioned the UK's continued arms sales to "Israel", arguing that these exports undermine international legal norms and could expose UK personnel to future legal liability. The letter noted that staff had warned in July 2024 about possible violations of humanitarian law and emphasized that those concerns have since intensified.
One passage reads: "The reality of Israel's disregard for international law has become more stark," adding that warnings issued by UK officials have been largely ignored.
Government response sparks backlash
In a response dated May 29, Sir Oliver Robbins and Nick Dyer, the two most senior civil servants at the Foreign Office, defended government policy and reminded staff of their obligations under the Civil Service Code.
They acknowledged the value of internal debate but wrote: "[I]f your disagreement with any aspect of government policy or action is profound, your ultimate recourse is to resign from the Civil Service. This is an honourable course."
This statement triggered strong reactions among employees. One official who signed the letter described the response as generating "outrage" and a “deep sense of disappointment that the space for challenge is being further shut down.”
Critics within the department viewed the reply as an effort to discourage legitimate dissent and labeled it a veiled threat. A former official called the response "obfuscation", arguing that it enabled "plausible deniability" for actions that may violate international law. They also pointed to the civil service's failure to implement lessons from the 2016 Chilcot Report, which urged protection for dissenting voices.
Broader legal, political implications
The UK government maintains that "Israel" is "at risk" of breaching international humanitarian law but insists it has rigorously applied legal standards. In September, Foreign Secretary Lammy suspended about 30 arms export licenses, citing a "clear risk" that British-made equipment could be used in serious violations. This followed the International Criminal Court (ICC) issuing arrest warrants for Israeli officials, a move strongly condemned by "Israel" and the US, which recently sanctioned four ICC judges.
The civil service resignation letter controversy comes amid broader international pressure. On May 19, the UK joined France and Canada in warning "Israel" of potential "concrete actions" if it failed to halt its assaults on Gaza and lift restrictions on aid.
Palestinian human rights groups have initiated legal proceedings abroad, challenging the UK’s support for "Israel" and emphasizing international law violations in Gaza. The Foreign Office has stated that systems exist for staff to raise concerns internally and emphasized the expectation that civil servants carry out policies impartially and professionally.
