Israeli president Isaac Herzog’s visit sparks fierce debate in Britain over Gaza war

Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom has triggered a storm of political debate, exposing the deep divisions within Westminster over the continuing war in Gaza. Herzog holds a largely ceremonial role, unlike Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and faces no international arrest warrant. Yet the trip is diplomatically fraught, coming at a time when the British government has condemned Israel’s escalating offensive and recognised that Palestinians face a “real risk of genocide”.

A central source of controversy is Herzog’s own rhetoric. Shortly after the Hamas assault of October 7, 2023 he claimed that “the entire [Palestinian] nation out there is responsible” and dismissed the idea that civilians in Gaza were unaware or uninvolved. That remark was later highlighted in the International Court of Justice’s ruling of January 2024, which ordered provisional measures against Israel and stated that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide”. The court warned of “irreparable damage” and criticised the use of dehumanising language. Herzog has insisted that his words were misrepresented by selective quotation and argued that he had also stressed Israel’s obligation to act in line with international law. Critics counter that mounting evidence undermines Israel’s claim of compliance and point to a statement from the International Association of Genocide Scholars accusing Israel of committing genocide.

According to the Hamas-run health ministry, more than 64,000 people have been killed in the past two years, most of the population has been displaced, and famine has been declared in Gaza City. Israel rejects allegations of genocide and blames Hamas for looting aid and blocking its distribution.

In Britain, Labour MPs are sharply split. Sarah Champion, who chairs the International Development Select Committee, questioned the wisdom of the visit, noting that Britain had itself recognised a “real risk” of genocide. She asked whether hosting Herzog would send the wrong message unless the focus was on peace. John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, went further and called for Herzog to be barred from entry, branding him “the mouthpiece of the IDF butchers”. Zarah Sultana said she was “beyond disgusted” and called for his arrest. Clive Lewis, while cautious about severing dialogue, warned that even the act of meeting the Israeli president risked being perceived as an endorsement.

Others believe engagement is vital. Emily Thornberry, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that Herzog is more accessible than members of Netanyahu’s far-right cabinet and that discussion remains the only path to resolution. She stressed the need for diplomacy while recognising the gravity of the humanitarian crisis. Trade minister Douglas Alexander offered a similar defence, insisting that diplomacy involves talking to those one may profoundly disagree with and that dialogue is essential for a two-state solution.

Downing Street has declined to confirm Herzog’s schedule or any potential meetings, reflecting the government’s caution. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has in recent months sharpened his criticism of Israel’s military strategy, particularly the plan to seize Gaza City. Britain is also edging closer to recognising Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, a move coordinated with France and Canada and seen in Israel as a reward for Hamas. London has already imposed sanctions on several hardline Israeli ministers, signalling its growing impatience.

Herzog, once leader of Israel’s Labour Party and long viewed as a centrist, has typically been portrayed as a symbolic head of state. Although he has often criticised Netanyahu’s domestic agenda, he has largely supported the war in Gaza. His earlier backing for a two-state solution has faded since October 2023 and many now view him not as a moderating influence but as an enabler of Israel’s current strategy. For Israel the visit is intended to showcase diplomatic legitimacy, yet it may instead underscore the erosion of goodwill.