Israel's Philosophical Conundrum: Jewish Historicism, Ethical Memory and State Power
Dr Alan Sanderson
20th September 2026
Abstract
This article examines a contemporary tension between Jewish historical memory, Jewish ethical traditions, Israeli state power, and competing understandings of security and political responsibility. It argues that Israeli government policy, Israeli society and Jewish ethical thought must not be treated as interchangeable categories. Jewish traditions contain strong strands of responsibility, justice, preservation of life, human dignity and care for the vulnerable, but they also exist within a plural interpretive tradition in which obligations to communal survival and security have substantial moral weight. Against that background, the article analyses developments in Gaza and the occupied West Bank from October 2023 to September 2026, the 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, debates within British and Israeli Jewish communities, British policy towards Israeli settlements, and the controversy surrounding the 2026 documentary NAZA. The purpose is not to derive a single political programme from Judaism, but to investigate how historical suffering, collective memory, international law and state power interact in contemporary moral argument.
Keywords: Jewish ethics; historical memory; Israel; Gaza; West Bank; occupation; international law; state power; moral responsibility.
Note on terminology and evidence
The expression 'Jewish historicism' is used here as a heuristic term for the moral and political significance attached to Jewish historical memory, rather than as the name of a single, settled school of Jewish historiography. Yerushalmi's distinction between history and collective memory is particularly relevant: Jewish identity has often been formed not simply by knowledge of past events but by ritualised and ethically charged remembrance (Yerushalmi, 1982). Margalit similarly treats memory as a domain of moral relationship and obligation (Margalit, 2002). Because the events discussed below remain politically contested, this revision distinguishes among judicial findings, official government statements, reports by international organisations, journalistic investigations, allegations by affected parties and normative interpretation.
1. Introduction: historical memory, identity and ethical responsibility
The conflict involving Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian territories is commonly described through the language of security, sovereignty, occupation, terrorism, national self-determination and international law. Yet it also contains a less visible philosophical conflict over the meaning of Jewish historical experience. One position gives priority to the protection of Jewish sovereignty after centuries of persecution and to the security obligations of the Israeli state in the face of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and other threats. Another position, articulated by Israeli, Jewish and international critics of current policy, asks whether prolonged occupation, settlement expansion, restrictions on civilian movement and humanitarian access, displacement, and very high levels of civilian harm can be reconciled with international law and with ethical traditions that place responsibility for the life and dignity of others at the centre of moral conduct.
These positions should not be reduced to a simple opposition between 'Jewish' and 'anti-Jewish' perspectives. Jewish political and ethical thought is internally diverse, as are Israeli society and the Jewish diaspora. The events considered in this article therefore reveal a conflict within Jewish and Israeli public life as well as a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. That internal plurality is analytically important because criticism of a government, a military operation or a settlement policy is not equivalent to hostility towards Jews as a people, just as concern about antisemitism cannot be dismissed merely because it is expressed in the context of criticism of Israel.
The central question is consequently one of ethical agency under conditions of historical vulnerability and concentrated state power. How should a society whose political identity is profoundly shaped by persecution, displacement and the Holocaust understand obligations towards populations over whom it exercises extensive military and administrative power? Historical suffering may generate compelling claims to security and refuge, but it does not by itself determine how political power should be exercised. The philosophical problem lies in the relationship amongst memory, vulnerability, sovereignty and responsibility.
2. Jewish ethical traditions: justice, life and responsibility
No single set of principles can exhaust Jewish ethics. The tradition is legal, theological, interpretive and argumentative, and it contains competing priorities. Nevertheless, modern Jewish ethicists repeatedly emphasise responsibility, justice, human dignity, charitable obligation and the moral importance of concrete action (Dorff, 2003; Sacks, 2005; Telushkin, 2006). Jonathan Sacks, for example, describes Judaism in terms of an 'ethics of responsibility' in which freedom carries obligations towards others and towards the shared social world (Sacks, 2005). Such formulations do not automatically resolve questions of war, self-defence or occupation, but they provide a moral vocabulary against which state conduct can be examined.
Several concepts are particularly relevant. Tzedakah is commonly translated as charity, but its linguistic connection to tzedek (justice or righteousness) emphasises obligation rather than discretionary generosity. Gemilut hasadim refers to acts of loving-kindness that may include visiting the sick, comforting mourners, hospitality and other forms of practical care. Pikuach nefesh, the preservation of human life, has exceptional weight in Jewish law and can override many other commandments. Tselem Elohim, the belief that human beings are created in the image of God, has frequently been invoked as a foundation for human dignity. Tikkun olam has a complex historical development, but in modern Jewish discourse it is often associated with social repair and public responsibility (Dorff, 2003; Sacks, 2005; Telushkin, 2006).
These principles do not constitute a mechanical decision rule for military or political policy. Jewish ethics also recognises duties of self-preservation, communal protection and the defence of life. The analytical question is therefore not whether one can simply label a policy 'Jewish' or 'un-Jewish'. It is how competing moral claims are prioritised, how the dignity and security of different populations are weighed, and how emergency arguments affect the moral scrutiny applied to state practices.
This is where historical memory becomes especially important. Yerushalmi (1982) showed that Jewish memory is not merely recollection but a cultural practice through which the past is made morally present. Margalit (2002) likewise argues that memory belongs to the ethics of human relationships. The Holocaust therefore cannot be treated simply as historical background to the Israeli state. It remains a powerful source of moral and political meaning. Yet collective memory can support more than one ethical inference: it may reinforce the imperative that Jews must possess the means of self-defence, while also sustaining a universal warning against dehumanisation, forced displacement and the erosion of restraints on state violence. The tension between these interpretations is central to the philosophical problem considered here.
3. British policy in September 2026 and divergent Jewish responses
On 8 September 2026, British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced a substantial change in UK policy towards the occupied Palestinian territory. In the House of Commons he described himself as 'a proud British Jew', recalled the refuge Israel had provided to his grandmother after the Holocaust, and explicitly distinguished support for Israel's existence and security from criticism of the conduct of the Israeli government (FCDO, 2026a). The speech is philosophically significant because it framed criticism of occupation and settlement policy from within, rather than outside, a Jewish historical narrative of refuge and survival.
The measures announced included the British government's formal adoption of the view that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territory is unlawful; a proposed ban on imports from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories; a sanctions regime aimed at actors facilitating settlement expansion; a ban on advertising illegal settlement property in the UK; further sanctions on extremist settlers; and refusal of future export licence applications for arms and other items that materially contribute to the occupation (FCDO, 2026a). Miliband also stated that the government continued to support trade with Israel within the Green Line and opposed the broader Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, thereby presenting the policy as a distinction between Israel and the occupied territory rather than as a boycott of Israel as a state (FCDO, 2026a).
The policy produced sharply divergent responses within British Jewish public life. Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis described the announcement as 'a dark day for British Jews' and argued that punitive measures directed at Israel could intensify a hostile discourse that endangered Jewish communities in Britain (The Guardian, 2026a). The Jewish Leadership Council similarly described the government's approach as 'increasingly punitive and unbalanced', arguing that it placed disproportionate responsibility on Israel and insufficiently addressed Palestinian political violence and incitement (Jewish Leadership Council, 2026). These interventions express a concern that foreign-policy measures directed at Israel can have social consequences for diaspora Jews, especially in a period of heightened antisemitism.
Other Jewish religious leaders supported the measures. Senior British rabbis, including figures from Masorti and Liberal Judaism, publicly argued that settlement expansion and settler violence required meaningful political action and stressed the diversity of opinion within the Jewish community (The Guardian, 2026b). This disagreement is important. It demonstrates that British Jewish responses cannot be represented by a single communal position and that disagreements over Israeli policy may themselves arise from different interpretations of Jewish responsibility, security and solidarity.
The Israeli government responded forcefully. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar announced the closure of the British consulate in East Jerusalem and restrictions on several British nationals, while accusing the UK government of moral distortion and interference in Israeli affairs (Reuters, 2026a). The exchange illustrates how the same policy can be interpreted in fundamentally different conceptual languages: as enforcement of distinctions required by international law, as a defence of a two-state settlement, as pressure on a sovereign ally, or as discriminatory political targeting.
On 16 September 2026, the Trades Union Congress carried a Palestine motion endorsing the Palestinian-led movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions and calling for stronger measures against Israel (TUC, 2026). The motion itself used highly contested legal and political characterisations of Israeli conduct. Those characterisations should be attributed to the TUC rather than treated as judicial findings. However, the endorsement shows that pressure on Israel had moved further into mainstream British civil-society institutions by September 2026.
4. Media framing and the problem of representation
Arguments about Israel and Palestine are also arguments about what can be said, who is treated as authoritative and how political violence is framed. David Cronin's account of his relationship with The Guardian provides an instructive example, although it should be treated as a personal testimony rather than as proof of a general media conspiracy. Cronin wrote that, after visiting Gaza in 2009, he interviewed Sayed Abu Musameh, a founding member of Hamas, who expressed interest in studying the Northern Ireland peace process. Cronin said that a Guardian commissioning editor discouraged him from writing on Palestine and suggested he concentrate on the European Union (Cronin, 2015).
The value of this episode is methodological. Editorial selection, professional norms, source access, security concerns and institutional culture all affect which narratives become prominent. Yet one anecdote cannot establish systematic bias across the press. A more defensible conclusion is that coverage of an intensely polarised conflict is shaped by decisions about legitimacy, terminology and evidentiary thresholds, and that these decisions themselves deserve scrutiny. The same standard should apply to pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian and state sources: claims require attribution, corroboration and distinction between testimony and independently established fact.
5. 7 October 2023 and the war in Gaza
The immediate chronological starting point for the subsequent escalation in the conflict is the Hamas-led attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, in which approximately 1,200 people were killed, and 251 people were taken hostage. The attack included killings of civilians and hostage-taking on a large scale and generated a profound sense of insecurity within Israel and Jewish communities internationally. Israel subsequently launched an extensive military campaign in Gaza with the stated objectives of defeating Hamas and recovering the hostages (Reuters, 2026c).
The human cost in Gaza has been immense. UNRWA reported that, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health as relayed by the Health Cluster, 73,035 Palestinians had been killed and 173,368 injured by 21 June 2026. UNRWA also recorded 392 of its personnel and people supporting its work killed by 23 June 2026 (UNRWA, 2026). By September 2026, Reuters continued to describe the reported Palestinian death toll as above 73,000 (Reuters, 2026c). These figures originate primarily from Gaza health authorities and should be identified as such; UN agencies have repeatedly noted the severe difficulties of independent real-time casualty verification in conditions of war.
The scale of death and destruction has produced sustained debate over distinction, proportionality, military necessity and humanitarian access. Those concepts have specific meanings in international humanitarian law and should not be reduced to a simple numerical comparison of casualties. Israel has argued that Hamas's military operations from densely populated areas, hostage-taking and use of civilian infrastructure complicate its operations, and it states that it takes measures to reduce civilian harm. UN agencies, humanitarian organisations and many governments have nevertheless argued that the cumulative civilian consequences and restrictions on humanitarian relief require far stronger protection of the population. The legal evaluation of particular attacks depends on facts and intent that are not always publicly available; the ethical question is broader, concerning how foreseeable civilian harm is incorporated into military decision-making.
Violence has also intensified in the occupied West Bank. OCHA reported that by 3 July 2026, 1,109 Palestinians, including 243 children, had been killed by Israeli forces or settlers in the West Bank since 7 October 2023. OCHA also documented at least 37 settler attacks resulting in casualties or property damage during a two-week reporting period and described repeated attacks on water, electricity and livelihood infrastructure (OCHA, 2026). This data does not mean that every incident is directly ordered by the Israeli state; it does, however, make the relationship among settler activity, military presence, law enforcement and protection of civilians a central issue for analysis.
6. Israeli dissent and the plurality of Israeli political thought
The existence of profound dissent within Israel complicates any attempt to equate Israeli government policy with a homogeneous Jewish or Israeli position. Daniel Kahneman is an important example. Kahneman received the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for work integrating psychological research into economic science. Kahneman's later synthesis in Thinking, Fast and Slow examined the interaction between rapid intuitive judgement and slower deliberative reasoning (Kahneman, 2011).
Kahneman also expressed explicit political views about Israel. In a 2015 interview he described himself as being 'far on the left' of Israeli politics and said that he had opposed the idea of occupation from its beginning after the 1967 war (Shariatmadari, 2015). His significance in the present context lies not in treating psychological theory as a direct explanation of Israeli policy, but in illustrating that a major Israeli intellectual who had himself experienced Nazi persecution could combine deep attachment to Israel with sustained opposition to occupation.
Other examples reinforce the same point. In 2025, British sanctions targeted Israeli settler Moshe Sharvit for violence and intimidation against Palestinians in the Jordan Valley; the UK government's statement of reasons accused him of threatening, harassing and assaulting Palestinian shepherds and their families (FCDO, 2024). By contrast, Israeli activists, including religious Jews, have participated in protective accompaniment of Palestinian shepherding communities. The ethical and political divide is therefore not reducible to a binary opposition between Jews and Palestinians. It also passes through Israeli society itself.
7. British political responsibility, influence and arms policy
The United Kingdom's relationship with Israel has itself become a subject of scrutiny. A 2024 investigation by Declassified UK reported that 180 members of the House of Commons had received donations, hospitality or travel support from pro-Israel organisations, individuals or associated bodies during the preceding parliamentary period (Declassified UK, 2024). Because this is an investigative-media finding rather than an official parliamentary conclusion, it should be presented as a reported pattern requiring scrutiny rather than as proof that particular parliamentary decisions were purchased or improperly controlled.
Sir Keir Starmer's October 2023 LBC interview likewise became controversial. Asked whether Israel had the right to cut off water and power to Gaza, he answered that Israel 'does have that right' while also stating that all action should remain within international law (LBC, 2023a). He subsequently clarified that he had intended to refer to Israel's right of self-defence, not to a right to withhold humanitarian supplies (LBC, 2023b).
British arms policy also changed during the conflict. In September 2024, the UK government suspended around 30 export licences after concluding that there was a clear risk that certain items might be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law. The suspension did not amount to a comprehensive arms embargo, and the government retained an exception connected to the multinational F-35 programme (UK Government, 2024). The more accurate conclusion is therefore that British military-export support was restricted but not terminated. Critics argued that the remaining permissions sustained material support for Israel, while the government argued that its licensing decisions sought to reconcile Israel's security with the UK's legal obligations.
8. The International Court of Justice and the legal status of occupation
The most authoritative legal development considered here is the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion of 19 July 2024. The Court treated the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza as a single territorial unit for the purposes of the opinion and concluded that Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was unlawful. It found that policies of settlement, annexation and associated measures violated international law and impeded the Palestinian people's right to self-determination (ICJ, 2024).
The Court also concluded that Israel's legislation and measures maintained a near-complete separation between settler and Palestinian communities in the West Bank and breached Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It did not, however, itself make a finding that Palestinians were being 'ethnically cleansed', and the Court's reasoning and conclusions were accompanied by separate and dissenting judicial opinions on significant points (ICJ, 2024). Precision here matters: political language used by governments, activists or former officials should not be attributed to the Court unless it appears in the Court's own findings.
The Court stated that Israel must bring its unlawful presence to an end as rapidly as possible, immediately cease new settlement activity, evacuate settlers from the occupied territory and make reparation for damage caused. It further held that other states are obliged not to recognise as legal the situation arising from Israel's unlawful presence and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation (ICJ, 2024). As an advisory opinion, the judgment does not operate in exactly the same way as a binding judgment between litigating states, but it is an authoritative statement of international law by the UN's principal judicial organ.
9. Gaza in 2025: displacement proposals, aid restrictions and renewed operations
The political context changed further in February 2025 when US President Donald Trump proposed that the United States should take over Gaza and that Palestinians should be resettled elsewhere, describing a future redevelopment as a 'Riviera of the Middle East' (Reuters, 2025a). The proposal was widely criticised internationally. The relevant legal issue is that the forcible transfer or deportation of protected civilians is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention and may, when the specified legal elements are met, constitute a crime under the Rome Statute (Geneva Convention IV, 1949; Rome Statute, 1998). Whether a particular proposal or policy meets those legal elements depends on its implementation, coercive circumstances and factual context.
On 2 March 2025 Israel blocked the entry of aid into Gaza as the first phase of a ceasefire expired, presenting the measure as pressure on Hamas in negotiations over hostages and the next phase of the ceasefire. Hamas accused Israel of reneging on the agreement and of using aid as leverage (Reuters, 2025b). Major Israeli military operations resumed later that month. Whatever the strategic purpose, restrictions on essential civilian supplies raise acute humanitarian and legal questions under the rules governing civilian protection and humanitarian relief.
The killing of 15 Palestinian emergency and humanitarian workers near Rafah on 23 March 2025 illustrates the importance of evidentiary scrutiny. The Israeli military initially said its forces had fired on suspicious vehicles without emergency markings. Video recovered from a victim's phone showed clearly marked ambulances and emergency vehicles with lights operating, causing the military to revise its account. Its subsequent review acknowledged professional failures and violations of orders, dismissed a deputy commander and reprimanded another officer, while maintaining that troops had perceived a threat and asserting that some of those killed were militants - an assertion disputed by Palestinian organisations (Reuters, 2025c; Reuters, 2025d). The incident therefore should not be described through the initial account alone or through an unqualified allegation of deliberate execution; the evidence supports a more specific conclusion that the original military account was contradicted by video evidence and that the military later acknowledged serious operational failures.
In April 2025, Israel also denied entry to British MPs Yuan Yang and Abtisam Mohamed, who intended to visit the West Bank as part of a parliamentary delegation. Israeli authorities said they suspected the MPs planned to document security-force activity and spread hostility towards Israel; the British foreign secretary criticised their exclusion (Reuters, 2025e). The episode became another point of contention over observation, documentation and control of political narratives surrounding the occupied territories.
On 5 May 2025, Israel's security cabinet approved an expanded military plan for Gaza. Israeli officials described plans involving the seizure and holding of territory, movement of civilians southwards and changes to humanitarian-aid distribution, while Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that intensified operations were intended to defeat Hamas and secure the hostages (Reuters, 2025f). The ethical significance of the plan lies in the relationship between military objectives and the displacement, dependency and vulnerability of the civilian population.
Internal Jewish disagreement again became visible. In April 2025, 36 members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews signed an open letter criticising the renewed Gaza offensive and arguing that their Jewish values required them to speak out. The Board's official response placed greater emphasis on Hamas's responsibility, the remaining hostages and Israel's security (The Guardian, 2025). The episode is evidence of a substantive ethical disagreement within an established Jewish communal institution, not of a single 'Jewish position' on the war.
10. Settler violence, displacement and territorial transformation in the West Bank
The West Bank presents a distinct but related pattern of conflict in which settlement expansion, military administration, movement restrictions, demolition, land access and settler violence intersect. The UK imposed sanctions on Moshe Sharvit and other settlers in February 2024, stating that Sharvit had threatened, harassed and assaulted Palestinian shepherds and that a community of 20 families had fled after he attacked residents and ordered them to leave (FCDO, 2024). Such sanctions are executive measures rather than criminal convictions, but they constitute formal state findings for the purpose of sanctions policy and are more substantial than unverified allegations alone.
OCHA's 2026 reporting documents the broader pattern. By early July, more than 6,200 Palestinians had been displaced since 2023 in a context of settler attacks and access restrictions, including more than 2,300 people in 2026 alone. OCHA described the repeated targeting of agricultural assets, water systems and electricity infrastructure and the increasing pressure on herding and farming communities (OCHA, 2026). The analytical question is not whether every settler action is state-directed. It is whether the legal, military and institutional environment adequately prevents violence, protects Palestinian civilians and holds perpetrators accountable.
The E1 settlement project illustrates the territorial dimension of the dispute. The British government condemned E1 tenders in August 2026, stating that they risked separating East Jerusalem from the West Bank and undermining territorial contiguity for a future Palestinian state (FCDO, 2026b). By 17 September, a further tender for 2,167 housing units had been added, bringing the reported E1 total to 3,401 units. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich publicly presented the plan as a means of blocking Palestinian statehood, whereas critics and a number of foreign governments argued that it would seriously damage the viability of a two-state settlement (Reuters, 2026b).
The distinction between settler action and state action remains essential. Some acts of violence are committed by private individuals; some settlement decisions are formal government policies; and in other cases Palestinians and human-rights organisations allege that Israeli soldiers or police have failed to intervene or have accompanied settlers. Those categories should not be conflated. At the same time, the existence of formal settlement planning, security structures and differential systems of law means that private violence cannot be analysed in complete isolation from the institutional environment in which it occurs.
11. NAZA, military testimony and the boundaries of dissent
The controversy surrounding the documentary NAZA in September 2026 brought the relationship between military secrecy, internal dissent and freedom of expression into unusually sharp focus. Directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, the film draws on anonymous testimony from 24 Israeli soldiers and intelligence personnel and alleges that anticipated civilian casualties were routinely incorporated into targeting decisions during the Gaza war. The film received the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival (Reuters, 2026c).
The allegations in NAZA are serious, but they should not be treated as fact merely because they are made by insiders. The Israeli military rejected the film's portrayal, questioned anonymous testimony and argued that it distorted operational reality. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the film as 'shocking incitement', while military chief Eyal Zamir called for consideration of legal measures. Subsequent political proposals included stronger defamation penalties and possible citizenship consequences for those deemed to have defamed soldiers (Reuters, 2026c; Reuters, 2026d).
The filmmakers, by contrast, argue that public accountability requires Israelis to confront the consequences of military policy and the testimony of those who participated in it. The resulting dispute is therefore both factual and constitutional: factual, because the accuracy and representativeness of the testimonies must be tested; constitutional, because threats of legal or citizenship penalties can affect the space available for citizens to criticise state violence during wartime. The controversy illustrates a recurring feature of societies under prolonged security pressure: disagreement over whether dissent constitutes democratic accountability or disloyalty.
For the purposes of the present argument, the importance of NAZA does not depend on accepting every allegation in the film. Its significance is that Israeli citizens, former military personnel and public officials are engaged in an internal struggle over the moral description of the war. That struggle reinforces the central claim that 'Israel', 'Israeli society' and 'Jewish ethics' must remain analytically distinct.
12. Conclusion: from historical suffering to ethical agency
The evidence considered here points to a widening field of Israeli power after 7 October 2023: intensive military operations in Gaza; major restrictions on humanitarian access during critical periods; policies involving territorial control and civilian movement; continuing settlement expansion in the West Bank; and a security environment in which settler violence and Palestinian displacement have increased. Israel has consistently justified many of these measures by reference to the destruction of Hamas's military capacity, the recovery of hostages, protection from terrorism and long-term security. International organisations, courts, allied governments and Israeli and Jewish critics have increasingly questioned whether particular policies are lawful, proportionate or compatible with a durable political settlement.
This text does not support treating Jewish ethics as if it spoke with a single voice either for or against Israeli policy. Instead, the material reveals a conflict among values that Jewish traditions themselves recognise: preservation of life, communal security, justice, human dignity, responsibility for the stranger and the vulnerable, and duties arising from collective memory. That conflict becomes especially consequential where a historical memory of existential vulnerability is invoked in a setting characterised by a substantial asymmetry of military and administrative power.
The 2024 ICJ advisory opinion adds a legal framework to this moral problem by concluding that Israel's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and that settlement and annexation policies violate international law (ICJ, 2024). Legal judgment and ethical judgment are not identical. In analysing state conduct towards civilians, however, ethical inquiry can consider not only intentions and perceived threats but also institutions, foreseeable consequences, patterns of displacement and the capacity of those affected to exercise agency and rights.
The philosophical conundrum therefore concerns the political meanings attached to Jewish historical suffering. One interpretation emphasises vigilance against antisemitism and the defence of Jewish life; another draws from the same historical memory a heightened concern with dehumanisation, dispossession and civilian suffering. These interpretations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The continuing dispute concerns how security, collective memory and responsibility towards others are to be held together when the communities involved understand both history and present danger in markedly different ways.
References
Cronin, D. (2015) 'How The Guardian told me to steer clear of Palestine', The Electronic Intifada, 11 March; republished by Jewish Voice for Labour, 17 July 2019.
Declassified UK (2024) 'The Israel lobby has funded a quarter of British MPs', 5 June 2024.
Dorff, E.N. (2003) Love Your Neighbor and Yourself: A Jewish Approach to Modern Personal Ethics. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) (2024) 'UK sanctions extremist settlers in the West Bank', 12 February 2024.
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) (2025) 'UK and partners unite to sanction ministers inciting West Bank violence', 10 June 2025.
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) (2026a) 'Foreign Secretary Oral Statement on Israel-Palestine', House of Commons, 8 September 2026.
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) (2026b) 'Foreign Secretary statement on Government of Israel launch of a tender for the E1 settlement project', 19 August 2026.
Geneva Convention IV (1949) Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, Article 49.
International Court of Justice (ICJ) (2024) Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem: Advisory Opinion, 19 July 2024.
International Criminal Court (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted 17 July 1998, Article 7(1)(d).
Jewish Leadership Council (2026) 'Statement following the government's announcement of an import ban on goods from Israeli settlements', 8 September 2026.
Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane.
LBC (2023a) 'Keir Starmer questioned on Israel, Gaza and the cutting of power and water', interview, 11 October 2023.
LBC (2023b) 'Keir Starmer clarifies comments on humanitarian access to Gaza', interview, 20 October 2023.
Margalit, A. (2002) The Ethics of Memory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Occupied Palestinian Territory (OCHA) (2026) Humanitarian Situation Report, 3 July 2026.
Reuters (2025a) 'Trump vows to take over Gaza', 5 February 2025.
Reuters (2025b) 'Israel blocks aid into Gaza as ceasefire standoff escalates', 2 March 2025.
Reuters (2025c) 'Israeli military changes initial account of Gaza aid worker killings', 6 April 2025.
Reuters (2025d) 'Israeli military finds professional failures in killings of Gaza medics', 20 April 2025.
Reuters (2025e) Report on Israel's refusal of entry to British MPs Yuan Yang and Abtisam Mohamed, 5 April 2025.
Reuters (2025f) Report on the Israeli security cabinet's expanded Gaza operation, 5 May 2025.
Reuters (2026a) 'Israel's foreign minister says it is closing British consulate in East Jerusalem', 8 September 2026.
Reuters (2026b) 'Israel adds tender for 2,167 housing units to settlement expansion plan, rights groups say', 17 September 2026.
Reuters (2026c) 'Netanyahu says Gaza documentary NAZA is shocking incitement', 14 September 2026.
Reuters (2026d) 'Netanyahu steps up threats against directors of Gaza documentary NAZA', 16 September 2026.
Sacks, J. (2005) To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility. London: Continuum.
Shariatmadari, D. (2015) 'Daniel Kahneman: What would I eliminate if I had a magic wand? Overconfidence', The Guardian, 18 July 2015.
Telushkin, J. (2006) A Code of Jewish Ethics, Volume 1: You Shall Be Holy. New York: Bell Tower.
The Guardian (2025) 'Members of leading British Jewish body condemn Israel's latest actions in Gaza', 16 April 2025.
The Guardian (2026a) 'Miliband rejects chief rabbi's claim that West Bank sanctions put UK Jews at risk', 9 September 2026.
The Guardian (2026b) 'Senior UK rabbis come out in support of sanctions on Israeli settlements', 9 September 2026.
Trades Union Congress (TUC) (2026) 'C18 Palestine - Carried motion', TUC Congress, 16 September 2026.
UK Government (2024) 'UK suspends around 30 arms export licences to Israel following export control review', 2 September 2024.
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) (2026) Situation Report No. 227 on the Humanitarian Crisis in the Gaza Strip and the Occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, 25 June 2026.
Yerushalmi, Y.H. (1982) Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Source note
News and institutional sources are cited by organisation because the article is primarily concerned with contemporaneous public statements and reported events. Where a claim remains disputed, the text attributes it to the relevant speaker, organisation or investigation. Figures from Gaza are identified according to the reporting chain through which they are available, rather than presented as independently verified real-time counts.
Comments