Kier Starmer and Genocide

In October 2023, Nick Ferrari asked the Prime Minister whether the siege of Gaza (which was already subject to an unlawful blockade)¹ was a proportionate response to October 7? Starmer responded by saying:

‘I think that Israel does have that right, it is an ongoing situation, obviously everything should be done within international law but I don’t want to step away from the core principles that Israel has the right to defend herself’¹

In 2024 in the House of Commons he stated he was ‘well aware of the definition of genocide’ and that is why he has ’never described or referred to [the situation in Gaza] as genocide’.²

On the 24th July 2025, the Prime Minister Sir Kier Starmer KCB KC, made the following statement:

‘The suffering and starvation unfolding in Gaza is unspeakable and indefensible. While the situation has been grave for some time, it has reached new depths and continues to worsen. We are witnessing a humanitarian catastrophe…. We all agree on the pressing need for Israel to change course and allow the aid that is desperately needed to enter Gaza without delay.’³

What is noteable is the absence of any discussion of International Law, specifically that a deprivation of objects necessary to human life such as food, water and electricity is a war crime and when, like in Gaza, it is committed with the intend to destroy a people it is genocide. As he stated in 2024, Starmer is well aware of this, but he omitted to discuss how he became well aware. In 2014 the Prime Minister represented Croatia before the ICJ in a case titled: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia).⁴

Croatia v Serbia:

In 1999, Croatia brought a case against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) allegeding violations of the Genocide Convention. Following a referendum in 2006, Montenegro declared independence and as a result, the case became known as Croatia v Serbia as Serbia was the successor to the FRY.

The events at issue in this case was part of the Croatian War of Independence, the following summary is based on the summary in the ICJ’s judgment in this case.⁵ Until the start of the 1990s, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) included the Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia (with two autonomous provinces Vojvodina and Kosovo) and Slovenia. After the death of President Tito in 1980, there was a growing economic crisis, leading to some of the Republics eventually declaring independence. Croatia declared itself independent in June 1991.

Withtin Croatia, the majority of residents were ethnic Croats but there were ethnic minorities including Serbs, whom mostly lived in towns with Croat majorities close to the border with Bosnia and Herzegovina. The majority of Serbs opposed the independence of Croatia. Following the creation of regional municipalities within Croatia as well as the decision by the Croatian government to move towards independence, the Union of Municipalities of the Northern Dalmatia and Lika held a referendum, where the majority voted in favour of autonomy from Croatia. This led to the establishment of the Serb Autonomous Region (SOA) of Krajina. Other regions soon followed and also established themselves as SOAs.

At the end of 1990, Croatia adopted a new constitution that Serbs argued deprived them of certain rights. In 1991, the SOA of Krajina established its own police and state security services. Following the beginning of an armed clashes between Croatian armed forces and those of the SAO Krajina and other armed groups, the armed forces of the FRY intervened. Croatia alleges they did so to support the Krajina Serbs. Following a further referendum in the SAO Krajina a majority of Serbs voted in favour of attaching the region to Serbia and staying in the SFRY. A week later, the majority of Croats voted in a separate referendum to leave the SFRY.

By the Summer of 1991, the war of independence had begun. From September the armed forces of the SFRY intervened in the war on behalf of the Serbs and by the end of the year, the armed forces of the SFRY and Serb forces from within Croatia controlled a third of Croat territory. Despite a UN peace plan, peaceful attempts to resolve the conflict failed and following military operations by the Croats they succeeded in regaining some territory with the remainder slowing reintegrating into Croatia from 1996-8.

Croatia alleges that several types of act by Serbia in occupied territory violated the genocide convention.⁶ One such act was the deprivation of access to food which has a direct parallel to Israel preventing the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza which has caused widespread starvation.⁷ Article II (c) of the Genocide Convention states ‘deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’ is an act capable of meeting the definition of genocide is the other elements of the definition are met.⁸

During hearings before the ICJ, Starmer argued that Serbia’s de-facto army and Serb forces committed genocide which was attributable to Serbia under international law. Alternatively, he argued Serbia has a responsibility to prevent genocide in the territory it controlled, and it failed to do so. In addition he argued that Serbia participated in a conspiracy to commit, was complicit in or attempt to commit genocide. With regard to conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group, he stated:

‘The conditions of life which were inflicted on the Croat population remaining in Serb-occupied territory, including systematic expulsion from homes, torture, rape and denial of food, access to water, basic sanitation and medical treatment, were calculated to bring about its physical destruction as a group. This, too, amounted to genocide within the meaning of Article II (c) of the Convention’.⁹

ICJ judgment in Croatia v Serbia:

The court concluded no genocide had taken place because the acts committed by Serbia were not of a systematic or general nature, because occasional denial of food, as shown in the evidence provided by Croatia are insufficient to establish systematic or general conduct. The conclusions of the court in this case is controversial and has been subject to widespread critique. However, the court did not reject the argument that deprivation of the nature that Serbia imposed on the civilian population of occupied Croatia was capable of violating Article II (c), meaning a deprivation of food if systematic in nature can be genocidal.

South Africa V Israel:

South Africa brought a genocide case against Israel for its acts in the Gaza Strip which began on October 8th. They argue one of the acts of genocide Israel has committed is systematic denial of objects indispensable for human life including but not limited to food, water and medical care violates Article II (c). Ms Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh stated in hearings before the ICJ that ‘According to the World Food Program, “[f]our out of five people [in the world], in famine or a catastrophic type of hunger, are in Gaza right now”. Indeed, experts warn that deaths from starvation and disease risk significantly outstripping deaths from bombings’.⁹

Only provisional measures hearings have taken place before the ICJ. Provisional measures are measures ordered by the court to ensure the subject of the dispute remains in existence so the court can order appropriate remedies. They are issued where the claims being made are plausible and where there is an urgent need to prevent imminent irreparable prejudice to the rights at issue. It is clear that the subject of this dispute: the lives of two million persons are at imminently at risk so the only question the court has to answer was is are the claims by South Africa plausible. The court’s answer, in issuing provisional measures three times, is yes.

January 2024 provisional measures order:

In the ICJ’s original provisional measures judgment, the court found many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip had ’no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential medicines or heating’.¹⁰ As a result the court ordered Israel to ’take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip’¹⁰ which clearly includes food and other necessities of life.

March 2024 provisional measures order:

In March, following an application by South Africa because there had been a change in conditions in Gaza, the court amended the provisional measures order. The ICJ concluded ‘Palestinians in Gaza are no longer facing only a risk of famine, as noted in the Order of 26 January 2024, but that famine is setting in, with at least 31 people, including 27 children, having already died of malnutrition and dehydration according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs ‘¹¹

Therefore the court Israel to ’take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full co-operation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance, including food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene and sanitation requirements, as well as medical supplies and medical care to Palestinians throughout Gaza’¹¹.

May 2024 provisional measures order:

In May, following a further application by South Africa, the court found in its judgment that Israel has not dispelled it’s concerns about Israel’s offensive in Rafah because they had not ‘provided sufficient information concerning the safety of the population during the evacuation process, or the availability in the Al-Mawasi area of the necessary amount of water, sanitation, food, medicine and shelter for the 800,000 Palestinians that have evacuated thus far.’¹²

The court ordered Israel to:

• ‘Immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’¹²
• ‘Maintain open the Rafah crossing for unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance’¹²

May 2024 - August 2025:

Since May 2024, the situation regarding food access in Gaza has significantly deteriorated. The Palestinian Ministry of Health said the number of starvation-related deaths is at least 111 as of July 2025. According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, this is ’the fastest starvation campaign we’ve seen in modern history’.¹³

It is clear that the legal argument Starmer made in 2014, applies to Gaza. Israel by depriving Palestinians of food, which itself is a violation of International Humanitarian Law,¹⁴ and is clearly creating conditions which can bring about the destruction of the Palestinians as a people because the deprivation of food is systematic and widespread. One source of evidence proiding this is according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification:⁷

• 24% of people are in phase 3 food insecurity. This means households have food consumption gaps that are reflected by high or above-usual acute malnutrition or are marginally able to meet minimum food needs but only by depleting essential livelihood assets or through crisis-coping strategies.
• 54% of people are in phase 4 food insecurity. These households have large food consumption gaps which are reflected in very high acute malnutrition and excess mortality or they able to mitigate large food consumption gaps but only by employing emergency livelihood strategies and asset liquidation
• 22% of people are in phase 5 food insecurity. These households have an extreme lack of food and/or other basic needs even after full employment of coping strategies. Starvation, death, destitution and extremely critical acute malnutrition levels are evident.

Other requirements under Article 2 of the genocide convention:

Palestinians are clearly a ‘a national, ethnic, racial or religious group’ covered by the Convention. So the only remaining requirement is that of genocidal intent meaning the intent to destroy in whole or part the group at issue.⁸

South Africa’s arguments list dozens of statements of genocidal intent by leadership in Israel, which are repeated by military commanders and soldiers, in some cases while they are committing atrocities in Gaza. Since the application and arguments by South Africa, many more statements displaying genocidal intent have been made by Israel’s leaders and soldiers carrying out their orders.¹⁵ As a matter of law, during provisional measures proceedings, South Africa has to prove the intent behind Israel’s actions could be genocidal. The existence of other intents alongside genocidal intent does not preclude a finding that acts of genocide are plausibly occuring.

South Africa argues that genocidal intent is evident from Israel’s conduct including mass systemic displacement to areas that are unsafe, creation of conditions to cause a slow death of Palestinians, indiscriminate killings of civilians and 1 in 40 Gazans being injured.¹⁵ In addition, they argue Israel’s leaders have in explicit terms declared their genocidal intent both generally and with regard to deprivation of humanitarian aid including food.¹⁵ These statements have been repeated by soldiers as they engage in the destruction of Palestinians and the physical infrastructure of Gaza.¹⁵

Defence Minister Yoav Gallant gave a update to the army in which he said Israel was ‘imposing a complete siege on Gaza’ with ’no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. ‘Everything would be closed’, because Israel is ‘fighting human animals’. When speaking to troops on the Gaza border, he instructed them that all restrained have been released and Gaza will not return to what it was and went ont to say ‘We will eliminate everything . . . we will reach all places.” Eliminate everything. Reach all places. Without any restraints’.

South Africa also highlighted that Fifteen United Nations Special Rapporteurs and 21 members of the United Nations Working Groups have warned that what is happening in Gaza reflects ‘a genocide in the making’ and an overt intent to ‘destroy the Palestinian people under occupation’.¹⁶

In issuing provisional measures, the court confirmed that it is possible that genocidal intent lies behind Israel’s actions including causing mass starvation. Other motives such as intending to engage in warfare against Hamas or intent to seize Palestinian territory may also exist but there is a clear intention to destroy the Palestinians.

Sir Kier Starmer believed deprivation of food and water, which is what Gazans are being subjected to, was capable of being a genocidal act in Croatia. He refused to accept this in the context of Gaza in 2023. In 2024, he said genocide was not taking place, with reference to his legal expertise, which is incorrect. His legal experience makes him uniquely aware, compared with his fellow western leaders and the vast majority of ordinary people, that Israel actions can and likely do constitute genocide.

Ammar Hijazi, Ambassador Agent of the State of Palestine in the application he submitted on behalf of Palestine to intervene in the genocide case brought by South Africa stated:

‘The purpose of the Genocide Convention is to “safeguard the very existence of human groups” and “to confirm and endorse the most elementary principles of morality”’ and ‘The urgency of these proceedings… seek nothing less than protecting the survival of the Palestinian people at a time when their existence is under threat’.¹⁷

The Prime Minister litigated Croatia v Serbia alongside Ms Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh. He has abandoned any commitment to international law for political power. By contrast, Ms Ní Ghrálaigh is now counsel for South Africa. Starmer has an both the power to and an obligation to take steps to prevent genocide, by barring arms manufactured in the UK from being used by Israel in Gaza, he could use the UK’s influence to facilitate entry of humanitarian aid but he has declined to do so. His own argument in 2014 condemns his actions, today, and it is likely that history will too.

EDIT 13/08/2025: Over 1000 lawyers, legal academics and former judges have signed an open letter stating genocide is either taking place in Gaza or there is a serious risk of genocide taking place and that the UK government has an obligation to take concrete actions to prevent genocide. See: https://lawyersletter.uk/

EDIT 07/09/2025: The International Association of Genocide Scholars (the largest group of genocide scholars in the world) has issued a resolution that states that Israel has committed genocide by creating conditions that are ‘calculated to bring about its physical destruction’. See: https://genocidescholars.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/IAGS-Resolution-on-Gaza-FINAL.pdf