The Foreign Secretary was in Jordan last week demanding that “aid must get in to Gaza”, under a US-backed peace plan where Britain has largely abdicated any serious diplomatic role and restricted itself to commentary from the sidelines.
At the very same time, another catastrophe unfolds almost unnoticed. In Sudan, an Islamist militia is carrying out what the United States Government has already determined to be genocide.
Yet where are the mass marches, the wall-to-wall BBC coverage, and the hordes of MPs in the chamber parroting their moral outrage?
More than 30 million people in Sudan now need aid; over 12 million have been displaced. Famine and cholera are spreading. The UK Government itself describes Sudan as “the worst humanitarian crisis on record”.
In Zamzam camp in Darfur, aid agencies report at least one child dying every two hours from malnutrition and disease, even before supply blockades forced lifesaving treatment to stop. Entire communities have been wiped out, women raped, and villages burned.
El Fasher has endured an eighteen-month siege by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), with roads cut, food stocks exhausted, and civilians now facing confirmed famine conditions and mass executions as the city falls.
The UN calls Sudan’s war “spiralling out of control”. Human rights bodies and the US Government call the RSF’s campaign in Darfur what it is: genocide. And still, in Britain, barely a word.
The UK’s Ranger Regiment has a battalion focused on Africa—trained, equipped, and ready for crises just like Sudan. Yet no one has called for their deployment to protect civilians there, as they have for peacekeepers in Gaza. Why not?
By contrast, Britain’s political and media focus on Gaza has been relentless. Even now, it still has its own dedicated “Israel–Gaza war” page on the BBC News site.
Every Commons statement, every protest, every headline follows the same moral script. But it’s worth remembering why Israel went in at all: after the worst terrorist attack in its history on 7 October, when Hamas murdered, raped, and abducted civilians on a scale unseen in decades.
Around 1,200 people were killed, and some 250 were taken hostage that day alone. No democratic state could tolerate an Islamist army dedicated to its destruction operating on its border.
Two common denominators: Islamist extremism and the organised murder of innocent civilians. One difference: no Jews. Just Muslims killing Muslims—just as in Syria, where more than half a million people have been killed, and millions more driven from their homes.
Britain is turning a blind eye to Islamists committing genocide. Why? Jews are not involved - Stuart Fawcett | Getty Images
That reality has all but vanished from the official narrative. When ministers and broadcasters speak on Gaza, their emphasis is almost exclusively on Israeli restrictions, aid corridors, and ceasefire violations - rarely on Hamas’ systematic use of civilian areas, its executions of Palestinian dissidents during pauses in the fighting, or its looting and taxation of the very aid going in.
Six hundred trucks went into Gaza yesterday carrying aid. You would not know any of that from the Foreign Secretary’s official broadcast lines. Neither would you know that much of it is hijacked and taxed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad militias.
The BBC’s Arabic output-and Gaza coverage more broadly-has now been exposed for precisely this selectivity. BBC Arabic and related content have been accused of minimising Israeli suffering, amplifying Hamas-aligned claims, and mistranslating “Jews” into “Israeli forces”.
Separately, a BBC documentary, Gaza: How To Survive a Warzone, was found by Ofcom to be “materially misleading” after it emerged that the child narrator was the son of a Hamas official, a fact never disclosed to viewers.
The BBC pulled the film and admitted “serious flaws”; Ofcom has now formally sanctioned the corporation for breaching broadcasting rules.
This isn’t just a BBC issue - it’s a Foreign Office one. The same department that shapes Britain’s message abroad helps fund the World Service, including its Arabic-language output, through a nine-figure annual grant.
When the Foreign Office talks about Gaza, its tone is absolute: “inhumane restrictions”, “aid not allowed in”, “unacceptable suffering”. When it talks about Sudan, the language softens into bureaucratic murmur - “complex dynamics”, “regional context”, “continued engagement”. One crisis is treated as a moral reckoning; the other as a management issue.
It’s fair to ask whether our diplomacy has been captured by the same selective empathy that colours our media. The Foreign Secretary’s sympathy for Gaza may be entirely sincere, but does it reflect the full picture?
When her own department funds a broadcaster accused of parroting Hamas narratives, can Britain still claim to speak with impartial authority in the region?
The BBC’s bias scandal has at least forced a conversation about where this selective morality begins. We need not stop asking tough questions of the BBC’s former Director-General. Equally, Foreign Office ministers who stood at the despatch box while this debacle unfolded should also expect a grilling.
The Middle East Minister was the point of the spear in parroting that narrative—choosing to believe the very worst, without exception, of one side while excusing or overlooking the other.
The top team at the FCDO swallowed the Islamist narrative, then parroted it. And worse: funded it with your money.
Ministers are not civil servants, no matter how much they may wish to function as them. Accountability starts with those who authorised the funding and allowed the bias to continue under their watch.
If moral seriousness is measured by consistency, we are failing it. When Islamist militias in Sudan massacre Muslims by the thousand, Britain’s outrage evaporates.
There have been small Sudan solidarity protests outside Downing Street, but nothing remotely on the scale of the vast, repeated Gaza marches that brought central London to a standstill.
Where are the mass marches in London for the Masalit people? I see no thunderous speeches in Parliament, no flags on public buildings. The moral machinery only roars to life when Israel can be blamed.
No Jews, no news. I always thought it was a myth. Why are Muslim lives treated as worthless by our state broadcaster and government when there are no Jews involved in the conflict?
Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter
More From GB News