UPDATE 29/4/24: 1,374 UK Lawyers have signed the New Letter

Click HERE to sign the Letter

A new open letter (“the New Letter”) has been sent to Rishi Sunak by UK lawyers, explaining that there is no legal obligation for the Government to take actions against Israel that had been demanded by a letter sent by other lawyers to the Prime Minister two days ago (“the Earlier Letter”).

The New Letter has been signed by dozens of the top lawyers and former judges in the country, including Lord Dyson, Lord Pannick, Lady Cosgrove, Sir Michael Burton, Lord Wolfson, Baroness Deech, Lord Grabiner, Sir Ivan Lawrence and Stephen Hockman.

Although only circulated yesterday evening (4 April), the New Letter had already gained over 380 signatures by 10.30am this morning. By 7pm it had gained over 700 signatures.

According to the New Letter, the Earlier Letter wrongly stated that a decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had concluded there was a “plausible risk of genocide in Gaza”. The New Letter says that the Court merely held in its first Provisional Measures Order that it was plausible that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have rights to be protected from acts of genocide.

Thus it was the rights of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip that were determined to be plausible, and not the alleged commission of genocide against them. The Court confirmed that it was not making any findings of fact at that stage.[1] Contrary to South Africa’s requests, the Court did not demand that Israel cease its military operation in Gaza in either the first or the second Provisional Measures Order.

Moreover, the Earlier Letter wrongly claimed that legal obligations on the UK flow from the wording of the Provisional Measures Orders, even though these are legally binding only on the parties to the proceedings, i.e., Israel and South Africa.

The Earlier Letter even suggested that the UK has an obligation to seek the imposition of a permanent ceasefire to prevent the commission of genocide. But such an obligation cannot flow from Orders that are not binding on the UK and do not impose a ceasefire, and nor can it flow from the Convention itself in the absence of any breach by Israel.

The Earlier Letter relies heavily on casualty figures provided by the Hamas-run, Gaza Ministry of Health. These figures do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, do not specify casualties caused by Palestinian fire (including errant rockets and direct fire on Palestinian civilians), and appear to have been fabricated, both in the overall totals and in the breakdown of men, women and children, according to several recent statistical analyses.[2]

Israel says that 13,000 combatants have been killed during the war so far, out of around 33,000 that the Gaza Health Ministry claims have been killed in total. A report by the UN Secretary General found that in conflicts in urban areas in 2021, 89% of casualties were civilians, meaning 8 civilian casualties for every combatant. But in Gaza the ratio killed (even accepting the Hamas Ministry figures) appears to be more like 1.5 civilians for every combatant. This contradicts the claim that the allegation of genocide is supported by the high number of civilian casualties.

The New Letter to the Prime Minister explains why the UK is not obliged to take and should not take any of the five specific measures recommended in the Earlier Letter.

Immediate and permanent ceasefire

Demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire at this time would undermine current negotiations to secure the release of hostages and a temporary ceasefire. Disrupting this precarious negotiation would be liable to increase the suffering of civilians and prolong the war.

Resuming funding to UNRWA with immediate effect

The Letter does not mention the current investigations into UNRWA’s alleged complicity in terrorism, which is the reason for suspending this funding. The UK should await the outcome of these investigations before deciding on future funding.

Imposing sanctions on individuals and entities in Israel

There is no justification for imposing sanctions on individuals or entities without any findings or evidence of serious misconduct by them.

Suspending sales of weapons to Israel

There is no justification for suspending the sale of weapons to Israel without evidence of systematic violation by Israel of international law.

Suspending the 2030 Roadmap for bilateral relations with Israel

There is no reason to suspend the 2030 Roadmap for bilateral relations with Israel. Continuing the 2030 Roadmap would not constitute a breach of the UK’s obligations under the Genocide Convention in the absence of any breach of that Convention.

Jonathan Turner, Chief Executive of UKLFI, which organised the circulation of the New Letter, commented: “There are many other errors in the previous letter which we hope to address in the next few days. It is indeed regrettable that so many people credulously believe and base their views on the casualty figures fabricated by Hamas, despite their source and in the face of several analyses by statisticians demonstrating their implausibility.”

Text of the New Letter

Dear Prime Minister

Open Letter from lawyers dated 3 April 2024

On 3 April 2024, you received an open letter signed by more than 600 lawyers (“the Letter”), demanding that the Government take certain measures targeting Israel. We, who are also UK-based or qualified lawyers and legal academics, are extremely concerned by the inaccuracy of the facts and law in the Letter. We address a few of these errors below. Further analysis will doubtless follow.

The Provisional Measures Orders of the ICJ

The Letter repeatedly claims that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded, through its first Provisional Measures Order, on 26 January 2024, that there was a “plausible risk of genocide” in Gaza. This is incorrect.

The Court’s ability to issue a provisional measures order depends on a finding that the rights asserted by the party seeking the order are at least plausible. It is of course plausible that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have rights to be protected from acts of genocide. Thus, it is the rights of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip that were determined to be plausible, and not the alleged commission of genocide against them.[3]

Crucially, the Court unambiguously confirmed in the same Order that it had not been called upon “to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention” and that it could not make any definitive findings of fact at this stage.[4] Despite South Africa’s request, the Court did not demand that Israel cease its military operation in Gaza in either the first or the second Provisional Measures Order.

Moreover, the Letter claims wrongly that legal obligations on the UK flow from the wording of the Provisional Measures Orders, even though these are legally binding only on the parties to the proceedings, i.e., Israel and South Africa. The Letter then goes further than the ICJ by suggesting that the UK has an obligation to seek the imposition of a permanent ceasefire to prevent the commission of genocide. Such an obligation cannot flow from Orders that are not binding on the UK and do not impose a ceasefire, and nor can it flow from the Convention itself in the absence of any breach by Israel.

Other inaccuracies and omissions

The letter relies heavily on casualty figures provided by the Hamas-run, Gaza Ministry of Health. These figures do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, do not specify casualties caused by Palestinian fire (including errant rockets and direct fire on Palestinian civilians), and appear to have been fabricated, both in the overall totals and in the breakdown of men, women and children, according to several recent statistical analyses.[5]

The casualty figures contained in the Letter also do not separate out the 13,000 combatants Israel claims it has eliminated during the operation.[6] The UN Secretary General reported that in armed conflicts in urban areas in 2021, 89% of the casualties were civilians, i.e. there were on average 8 civilian casualties for every combatant casualty.[7] By contrast, in the Gaza Strip the ratio of civilians killed (by any fire, including Palestinian) to combatants killed appears to be closer to 1.5:1 even if the Gaza Ministry total is accepted. This contradicts the claim that the allegation of genocide is supported by the high number of civilian casualties.

The Letter barely mentions the mostly civilian, Israeli hostages taken by Hamas and affiliated terrorist organisations, and fails to mention that returning the remaining hostages and destroying Hamas are the goals of the current military operation. It also makes no reference to over 1,200 mostly civilian Israelis tortured, raped and murdered on 7 October 2023, or the statements by Hamas leaders vowing to repeat the 7 October attacks “again and again”.[8] Failing to mention these crucial elements ignores the legal basis for the Israeli military operation, including Israel’s right to self-defence.

The United Kingdom’s obligations under international law

The UK is not obliged to take and should not take any of the specific measures recommended in the Letter:

Immediate and permanent ceasefire

Demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire at this time would undermine current negotiations between Israel, the US, Qatar, Egypt and Hamas to secure the release of hostages and a temporary ceasefire. Disrupting this precarious negotiation would be liable to increase the suffering of civilians and prolong the war.