In early September 2025, a two-day public tribunal convened in London, drawing international attention and stirring heated debate about the United Kingdom’s role in the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The tribunal, led by former Labour Party leader and current independent lawmaker Jeremy Corbyn, set out to amass evidence and testimonies concerning Britain’s alleged complicity in what has been described by participants as war crimes and genocide committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip.
Though unofficial and lacking legal authority, the Gaza Tribunal drew a diverse array of speakers and witnesses, including Palestinian survivors, international legal experts, journalists, medical professionals, and academics. Their collective aim was to shine a light on the suffering endured by Gazans and to scrutinize the actions—and inactions—of the British government.
“We heard powerful and devastating testimonies from legal experts, journalists and survivors of the Gaza genocide,” Corbyn shared on social media after the first day, urging the public to follow the proceedings and promising that “the truth will out.”
The opening session was marked by a remote address from Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories. Albanese’s remarks underscored a central theme of the tribunal: the international community’s responsibility to act. She stated unequivocally, “There is a requirement on states like the UK to cease investment and economic relations with Israel, but they have miserably failed by providing the usurping entity with weapons, military assistance and political support.”
Albanese went further, warning that this “failure to abide by long-standing international obligations might be sufficient to establish a criminal case for complicity in the actions of Israel.” She also emphasized that government officials could be held individually accountable for approving arms sales and providing intelligence to Israel.
Since October 7, 2023, Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has resulted in the deaths of 64,231 Palestinians—most of them women and children—and injuries to 161,583 others, according to figures cited at the tribunal and reported by Press TV. Israel has also imposed a blockade, preventing the entry of essential supplies and causing what many witnesses described as mass starvation across the Gaza Strip.
The United Kingdom’s involvement in the conflict has come under particular scrutiny. The tribunal heard that Britain has supplied military aid to Israel, notably through real-time intelligence sharing. Surveillance flights over Gaza, conducted by the UK, have allegedly provided Israel with crucial data during its military operations.
Katie Fallon, representing the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), presented evidence of a “huge increase” in weapons components exported from Britain to the occupied territories over the past two years. Her testimony echoed growing concerns among activists and rights organizations about the UK’s role in arming a nation accused of severe human rights abuses.
Further details emerged from John McEvoy, chief reporter for Declassified UK, who revealed that Britain has not only shipped components for trainer aircraft to Israel but has also been involved in training Israeli soldiers—activities that reportedly continued as recently as August 2025. “Britain has been shipping components for trainer aircraft to Israel and training Israeli soldiers even as recently as last month,” McEvoy stated during his appearance at the tribunal.
The political dimension of Britain’s support was not overlooked. British MP Richard Burgon, a vocal critic of his government’s foreign policy, told attendees that the UK is “complicit through the political greenlight it gives to Israel.” His remarks highlighted the ongoing debate within Parliament and among the British public about the ethical and legal implications of supporting Israel’s military actions.
On the humanitarian front, the tribunal heard harrowing accounts from those working on the ground in Gaza. Natalie Roberts, executive director of Doctors Without Borders, described the overwhelming challenges faced by medical teams. “Medical teams are working under the harshest conditions with little food for themselves,” she said, painting a picture of desperation and resilience among healthcare workers treating the wounded and malnourished.
Nick Maynard, an Oxford academic and surgeon who has traveled to Gaza multiple times during the conflict, delivered one of the most disturbing testimonies. He claimed that Israeli soldiers have used children as “target practice” during the ongoing genocide—a statement that drew audible gasps from the audience and underscored the gravity of the allegations being examined.
While the tribunal’s findings carry no legal weight, the event succeeded in amplifying the voices of those directly affected by the conflict and those calling for accountability. The testimonies, though unofficial, were described by organizers as “stark”—a word that barely captures the emotional intensity and moral urgency conveyed by the witnesses.
Francesca Albanese’s intervention, in particular, resonated with many observers. Her insistence on the need for states to halt investment and support for Israel, and her warning about the potential for criminal liability, added a layer of gravitas to the proceedings. “This failure to abide by long-standing international obligations might be sufficient to establish a criminal case for complicity in the actions of Israel,” she reiterated, emphasizing the legal and ethical stakes at play.
As the tribunal drew to a close, its organizers and participants acknowledged the limitations of their endeavor. Without the backing of any government or international court, the tribunal’s conclusions remain symbolic. Yet, for many, the event marked a significant moment in the ongoing campaign to hold powerful nations accountable for their roles in international conflicts.
The UK government, for its part, has consistently defended its policies regarding Israel and Gaza, citing security concerns and the need to support an ally in a volatile region. Officials have pointed to existing export controls and oversight mechanisms designed to ensure that British arms are not used in violation of international law. Nevertheless, critics argue that these safeguards are insufficient and that the evidence presented at the tribunal warrants a thorough and independent investigation.
The debate over Britain’s complicity in the Gaza conflict is far from settled. While the tribunal may not have the power to enforce its recommendations, it has undoubtedly rekindled public discourse about the UK’s responsibilities on the world stage and the moral dilemmas inherent in foreign policy decisions. For the witnesses and organizers, the hope is that their efforts will prompt greater scrutiny, transparency, and, ultimately, change.
As the dust settles on the London hearings, the testimonies and evidence presented serve as a stark reminder of the human cost of war and the complex web of international relationships that sustain it.
