Thank you for visiting this page which we have created to assist you in emailing (or writing a letter) to your MP.
Currently we have 3 issues on which we encourage you to write to your MP, please see the 3 tabs below.
As new issues inevitably arise, we will update the list.
Email / Letter Writing Guide:
- Click on the issue(s) you want to address from the 3 blue rectangular tabs below.
- Review the sample email/letter, the Q&A’s together with the information points to assist you with writing your own email / letter.
- Draft your email/letter.
Note:
a. It is always better to try and make your email/letter as individual as possible, whilst of course sticking to the relevant points.
b. If you wish to write one email/letter to your MP about all 3 issues, we recommend you do not draft too long an email/letter. - Find your MP’s contact details by going to: https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons
Here you will find your MP’s email address and also their postal address (if you are planning on sending your letter by post).
To email your MP, simply copy their email address and paste it into the “To” field of your email app. - Send your email / letter to your MP and let us know about any response you get by emailing us at office@nja.org.uk
Download Sample Letter
Questions and Answers
Why did the UK government drop its objection to the ICC’s arrest warrant for Netanyahu?
The UK government, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, decided not to object to the ICC’s request for an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israel leaders.
What was the previous UK government's position on this issue?
The previous Conservative government, led by Rishi Sunak, planned to challenge the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israeli nationals and opposed the warrant against Netanyahu. This was part of an effort to support Israel against what they perceived as biased actions by the ICC.
How does this decision affect the UK’s relationship with Israel?
The decision could strain the UK’s relationship with Israel, as it contrasts with the UK’s traditionally strong support for Israel. Israeli leaders and some international allies, like the United States, have criticised the ICC’s actions, viewing them as politically motivated and unfairly targeting Israel.
Why is the ICC pursuing an arrest warrant against Netanyahu?
The UK’s decision could weaken its alignment with key allies like the United States, who oppose the ICC’s actions. It might also set a precedent for international legal actions that could target leaders of other democratic nations, raising concerns about the politicisation of international justice.
What has been the international response to the ICC’s actions?
The international response has been mixed. While some countries and human rights organisations support the ICC’s investigation, others, including the United States and Israel, have criticised the court’s actions as biased and politically motivated.
Does the UK’s decision impact the actual issuance of the arrest warrant?
While the UK’s decision not to object does not directly impact the ICC’s decision-making process, it could influence the court’s perception of international support or opposition. The final decision on issuing arrest warrants will be made by the ICC’s pre-trial chamber.
How does this decision align with Labour’s broader foreign policy?
Labour’s decision to not intervene in the ICC’s process aligns with its stated commitment to international law and the rules-based order. However, it also reflects internal party pressures and the complex dynamics of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as well as the party’s effort to distance itself from past controversies related to antisemitism.
Information To Assist You With Letter Writing
- Reversal of Policy – The current UK government, under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, reversed the previous government’s opposition to the ICC’s request for an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
- International Law and Separation of Powers – The UK government justifies this decision by citing its commitment to the separation of powers and the rule of law, asserting that the matter should be left to the courts to decide.
- Impact on UK-Israel Relations – This decision could strain the UK’s relationship with Israel, a key ally, as it contrasts sharply with the supportive stance traditionally taken by the UK towards Israel in international forums.
- Potential Precedent – The decision to not intervene in the ICC’s process could set a precedent that might encourage the targeting of leaders from other democratic nations, raising concerns about the politicisation of international justice.
- Comparison with US Policy – The UK’s decision diverges from the United States, which has strongly opposed the ICC’s actions and supported Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas, a recognised terrorist organis
- Allegations of Bias – Israeli leaders and some international allies have condemned the ICC’s actions as politically motivated and antisemitic, questioning the fairness of the charges against Netanyahu and other Israeli officials.
- Internal Labour Party Pressures – Labour’s decision reflects internal party pressures and a desire to maintain a stance consistent with international law, especially following controversies related to antisemitism under the previous Labour leadership.
- Broader Foreign Policy Implications – This decision is part of a broader shift in the UK’s foreign policy, which includes a renewed focus on supporting international institutions like the ICC and upholding the rules-based international order.
- Potential Complications for Israeli Officials – While Israel is not a member of the ICC, the arrest warrants, if issued, could complicate travel and diplomatic activities for Netanyahu and other accused officials, affecting Israel’s international relations.
- Call for Reconsideration – Critics of the decision urge the UK government to reconsider its stance, highlighting the importance of standing by allies and ensuring that international legal actions are not driven by political motivations.
Download Sample Letter
Questions and Answers
Why is the UK government resuming funding for UNRWA?
The UK government has announced the resumption of funding to UNRWA to provide urgent humanitarian aid to Gaza, citing the agency’s role in delivering essential services to Palestinian refugees.
What are the allegations against UNRWA staff?
The UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) has confirmed that several UNRWA employees were involved in the October 7th, 2023 massacre. Additionally, there are allegations of systemic infiltration by terrorist organisations like Hamas and PIJ into UNRWA’s operations.
What steps has UNRWA taken to address these allegations?
UNRWA has introduced some reforms and revised vetting procedures for its staff. However, there are significant concerns that these measures are insufficient and not fully implemented, leaving the organisation vulnerable to infiltration by terrorist groups.
Why is it important to reconsider funding to UNRWA?
Continuing to fund UNRWA without addressing these critical issues risks enabling terrorist activities and undermining the security and integrity of humanitarian aid. Alternative channels should be explored to ensure aid reaches those in need without supporting terrorist organisations.
Information To Assist You With Letter Writing
Confirmed Involvement – The UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) has verified that nine UNRWA employees participated in the October 7th, 2023 massacre. The investigation further suggests involvement of other staff members affiliated with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).
Lack of Accountability – Despite the incriminating evidence, UN Secretary-General António Guterres and UNRWA Commissioner General Philippe Lazzarini have not dismissed any implicated staff members, showing a reluctance to act against those with ties to terrorist groups.
Delayed and Insufficient Reforms – Commissioner General Lazzarini’s June 2024 statement prohibiting membership in militant groups for UNRWA staff came five months after the scandal broke and did not explicitly classify Hamas as a terrorist organisation, rendering the statement ineffective.
Systematic Infiltration – Intelligence reports reveal that over 10% of senior UNRWA educators in Gaza, including school principals and directors, are members of Hamas or PIJ. Additionally, over 30 UNRWA facilities in Gaza have been found to contain terror infrastructure such as tunnel shafts and server farms.
Misleading Public – Lazzarini has failed to clearly state that UNRWA prohibits employment of Hamas members, aligning with some UN officials who view Hamas as a political movement rather than a terrorist organisation, undermining efforts to enforce genuine neutrality.
Inadequate Vetting – The “Action Plan” proposed by UNRWA lacks effective measures to prevent the employment of terrorist group members. The plan only adds mandatory questions about outside activities during recruitment and revises hiring contracts without substantive enforcement mechanisms.
Inaction on Intelligence – After Israel provided a list of 100 UNRWA staff identified as military operatives of Hamas or PIJ, Lazzarini did not suspend these employees or launch an independent investigation, despite the gravity of the allegations and the need for swift action.
Previous Failures – Over the past decade, UNRWA’s announced reforms and new neutrality mechanisms have been ineffective and never fully implemented, reflecting either a lack of will or capability to prevent terror infiltration.
Operational Failures – Since October 7th, 2023, UNRWA has struggled to scale up its operations and has been outperformed by other humanitarian organisations like the World Food Program (WFP) and the Egyptian Red Crescent, which have provided a larger share of the aid.
Alternative Aid Channels – Other humanitarian actors, including over 43 NGOs and various UN agencies, have shown they can distribute aid more effectively than UNRWA. For instance, during a critical six-week period, UNRWA failed to deliver aid to northern Gaza, whereas other organisations filled this gap.
Risk of Funding Terrorism – Continued funding of UNRWA without addressing these critical issues means indirectly supporting terrorist organisations like Hamas, compromising the integrity and safety of humanitarian aid efforts.
Call for Reconsideration – Given these detailed concerns, it is imperative to reconsider the decision to resume funding for UNRWA and explore more reliable and accountable channels to ensure humanitarian aid reaches those in need without enabling terrorist activities.
Recent Findings – On August 5, 2024, the UN announced that nine UNRWA employees “may have been involved” in the October 7 attacks and have been fired. However, the Israeli ambassador to the UN criticised the investigation for focusing on only 19 employees when detailed information on 100 implicated staff had been provided.
Evidence of Misconduct – A video surfaced showing an UNRWA worker using a UN jeep to abduct the body of Jonathan Samerano, who was killed by Hamas terrorists on October 7, highlighting the misuse of UN resources for terrorist activities.
Download Sample Letter
Questions and Answers
. Why has the UK government paused arms exports to Israel?
On September 3, 2024, the UK government, under Foreign Secretary David Lammy, has suspended 30 out of 350 arms export licences to Israel due to concerns that certain military equipment could be used in violation of international humanitarian law. This review is part of the government’s legal obligation to assess the risk of exported arms being used unlawfully during Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
What concerns have been raised about this decision?
– Critics argue that suspending arms exports undermines Israel’s ability to defend itself, especially during a time of multiple threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iranian-backed groups. They also point to the decision’s negative impact on UK-Israel relations, with accusations that the UK’s actions send a dangerous message to terrorist groups like Hamas. Additionally, some view this as politically motivated, aimed at appeasing domestic critics of Israel.
How does the UK’s position compare to that of other countries?
While the UK has suspended some arms export licences, other allies such as the United States and Germany continue to supply arms to Israel. This discrepancy in responses has led to concerns that the UK is not fully aligned with its international partners in supporting Israel during the ongoing conflict.
What is Israel’s stance on international humanitarian law?
What is the impact of the arms export limitations on the UK’s defence industry?
The suspension of 30 arms export licences to Israel may have a symbolic impact on UK-Israel defence relations, though it is expected to have little material effect on Israel’s overall defence capabilities. The UK provides less than 1% of Israel’s arms imports, and the economic impact on the UK’s defence industry is likely to be minimal.
Why is the lack of transparency in this decision problematic?
The absence of a clear and formal explanation from the UK government has raised concerns about accountability. Critics have dubbed the suspension a “secret arms embargo,” questioning the criteria used for determining which licences are suspended and whether political motivations are influencing the decision.
What has been the response from UK officials and military experts?
Some UK officials and military experts have criticised the decision. Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Colonel Richard Kemp have both expressed concerns that the suspension weakens Israel’s ability to defend itself and sends the wrong message to terrorist groups like Hamas.
What are the next steps for the UK government regarding this issue?
The UK government will continue reviewing its arms export licences to Israel and may reconsider its stance depending on future assessments of the conflict and Israel’s adherence to international humanitarian law. The suspension is not permanent and could be lifted if the risks are deemed to have diminished