The Israeli war in Gaza will soon enter its second year. The moral lines that were once faintly visible have long since been crossed. What began as a response to atrocity has become a programme of atrocity in its own right, waged under the cover of self-defence and managed by a public relations machine.

Of course, the defenders of Israeli policy will talk of self-defence, and turn the question to the undoubtedly loathsome Hamas. But there are limits to what is legitimate in war, and that when a state passes outside those limits—not in heat or just once, but repeatedly and deliberately—it deserves none of any moral credit it may claim.

I do not expect this case to be accepted by the sort of people who read The Times and repeat Foreign Office talking points at dinner. But it is a case made also by Ehud Olmert, a former prime minister of Israel. In an article published by Haaretz on the 27^th May 2025, Olmert calls the Gaza operation what it has become: “a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians.”

Olmert says plainly that many Hamas combatants “deserve to die.” Some probably do. But he also says what the international press, for all its hand-wringing, will not: that the Israeli government has adopted starvation of civilians as a strategy, destruction of their infrastructure as a language, and impunity as a policy. This is no longer about defeating Hamas. It is about reducing Gaza to a place where no future can exist.

He writes: “Yes, we’ve been denying Gazans food, medicine and basic living needs as part of an explicit policy… Some of [Netanyahu’s] lackeys are saying so outright, in public, even with pride: Yes, we will starve out Gaza. Because all Gazans are Hamas, there’s no moral or operational limitation on exterminating them all, over two million people.”

Olmert says he no longer believes the distinction between reckless excess and deliberate criminality can be maintained. In his words: “We’re not doing this due to loss of control… It’s the result of government policy – knowingly, evilly, maliciously, irresponsibly dictated.”

He is echoed by Yair Golan, a former general in the Israeli army and now a politician. Speaking recently to Kan, Israel’s equivalent of the BBC, Golan warned that “Israel is on the way to becoming a pariah state, like South Africa was, if we don’t return to acting like a sane country.” He added: “A sane country does not fight against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not give itself the aim of expelling populations.”

If that is the opinion of a former prime minister of Israel and a former senior officer in its army, what excuse remains for our own leaders and journalists? This is not an argument, as some try to frame it, between those who want Israel to survive and those who want it destroyed. It is an argument between those who have a moral bearing and those who have none.

Why then does the BBC still describe neighbourhoods full of corpses as “areas of heavy fighting”? Why does The Guardian, which did at least report Olmert’s words, fail to put them on the front page where they belong? Why do our politicians, who spoke of legal norms and human rights in Ukraine, now fall silent when children in Gaza die from thirst?

The British media reads like a row of pamphlets written by the Israeli Defence Ministry. The framing is always the same. A school is hit—”Israel says militants were inside.” A refugee camp is bombed—”IDF believes tunnel may have been nearby.” A food convoy is struck—”unclear what caused the explosion.” Never a voice from Gaza that is not filtered, never a death that is not second-guessed, never a war crime that cannot be euphemised.

Even the coverage of Olmert’s article has been muted. No headlines. No commentary pieces. No editorials titled “Former Prime Minister Accuses Israel of War Crimes.” The line is held. The lie continues.

This is what happens when media forget their function. Their job is not to relay the position of a government engaged in mass killing. Their job is to expose it. Their job is to question, to verify, to refuse the logic that says that because Hamas is evil, no crime against Palestinians can ever be too great.

I do not write this to defend Hamas. I do not believe in their cause, their methods, or their God. But I am not required to. The moral standard we apply to war is not contingent on liking one side. The measure is the suffering of the innocent, and the willingness of those with power to restrain themselves in its presence. Israel has failed that test. Britain, by endorsing the failure, has disgraced itself.

This is not complicated. Starving civilians is a war crime. Bombing hospitals is a war crime. Indiscriminate shelling is a war crime. Declaring two million people to be enemy combatants is not a defence—it is a confession.

And yet we go on. The tanks roll. The papers print. The prime minister stammers his lines about our “friend in the region.” We are being governed by people who do not know what justice is, and informed by a media class that no longer cares.

We cannot say we were not warned. We have been told, by generals, by journalists, by Israel’s own former prime minister. If we now fail to say what is obvious—that this war is not a campaign against terror but an act of sustained immorality—then we are not misinformed. We are complicit.