UK Government to Civil Servants: Resign Over Gaza Policy if Disagree

The UK government makes it clear to its civil servants either completely back its Israel policy or consider resigning recently. More than 300 employees of the Foreign Office sent letters to express their worries about the government’s stance on the Israel-Gaza issue, therefore leading this directive.

The civil servants assert that Israel’s actions go against international law and that the UK’s position subverts international norms. This scenario presents critical questions on the responsibility of the state to abide by international law, freedom of conscience, and the impartiality of the civil service.

Dissent From Within: Civil Servants Raise Alarm

A significant number of Foreign Office staff publicly voiced their unease with the government approach to the Gaza conflict. In a letter to Foreign Secretary David Lammy, these civil servants stated that the UK could do more to end the fighting. They emphasized Israel disregard for international law had become more stark since July 2024.

Their concerns included the continued suspension of aid to Gaza and the barring of two Labour MPs from entering Israel. They also criticized efforts to block questions about Gaza in all staff meetings and called for release of legal advice and suspension of arms sales to Israel.

UK Government Response: Loyalty Demanded

Permanent Under-Secretary Olly Robbins and Second Permanent Under-Secretary Nick Dyer sent a robust response to the civil servants. They acknowledged there was “healthy challenge” in policymaking but insisted that staff must ultimately support government policy. Their letter, dated May 29, clearly stated, “If 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 honorable course.” They also reminded staff of internal mechanisms for raising concerns, such as speaking with a line manager or using staff counseling services. However, they stressed civil servants must “deliver the policies of the government of the day wholeheartedly.”

Union Backlash: “Simply Reprehensible”

The government response immediately drew strong condemnation from union representatives. Fran Heathcote, General Secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, representing many civil servants, called the letter “hopelessly inadequate.” She criticized the lack of effort to address members concerns or justify the UK government interactions with the government of Israel. Heathcote described it as “simply reprehensible” that civil servants would consider resigning.”

“It is a dereliction of duty and a startling ignorance of the provisions of the civil service code, which require all civil servants to act in accordance with the law, including international law.”

UK Government Defends Stand: Adhering Law

The Foreign Office spokeswoman defended the government position, saying the government has diligently implemented international law in reference to the Gaza conflict from day one. They confirmed that Civil Service code specifies civil servants’ job as delivering government initiatives and offering professional, objective counsel.

They also verified that there are processes in place for staff members to voice grievances. Calling the humanitarian crisis in Gaza “intolerable,” the UK government has openly requested a ceasefire and the release of hostages. In answer to the aid embargo, it stopped free trade negotiations with Israel last month and sanctioned groups thought to be using violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

The UK, though, has declined to acknowledge a Palestinian state and has not described Israel’s activities a genocide, claiming that courts should handle such issues.

A more fundamental principle in jeopardy This event reveals a fundamental disagreement inside the civil service. Though they also abide by a code of ethics defending lawfulness and integrity, civil servants must implement chosen government policies. The Gaza crisis challenges such equilibrium with its widespread humanitarian consequences and intricate international legal framework.