The UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) has recently made headlines following a stark internal directive: staff members who find themselves fundamentally at odds with the government’s stance on Gaza have been advised to tread the “honourable course” of resignation and resign. This guidance came in response to growing dissent from within the ranks, with over 300 Foreign Office officials publicly expressing alarm at the UK’s policy on Gaza and its moral ramifications.
In mid-May, a letter circulated internally among Foreign Office staff, addressed to Foreign Secretary David Lammy, which asked to resign. The letter voiced deep concerns over Britain’s potential role in enabling the conflict, explicitly criticising the government’s continuation of arms exports to Israel. Signatories argued that such actions not only contributed to a widespread erosion of international legal norms, but also put the UK in danger of being implicated in complicity for violations in Gaza.
In a formal reply dated May 29, the department’s permanent secretary Sir Oliver Robbins and his deputy Nick Dyer acknowledged the concerns raised. They reaffirmed that civil servants are duty-bound to implement government policies, even those they may personally find objectionable, though internal channels for raising objections do exist. Those who feel that the policy causes them profound moral or professional conflict were told that resignation remains their most dignified alternative.
This response has sparked backlash among staffers. One anonymous official told the BBC that there was palpable “outrage” within the department, lamenting a shrinking space for meaningful internal debate and scrutiny. Former civil servants also voiced criticism, characterising the reply as a form of “obfuscation” that served as “plausible deniability” for any government involvement in international law breaches.
Further echoes of concern draw on the legacy of the 2016 Chilcot Report into the Iraq War. That inquiry highlighted dangers of groupthink and urged reforms to ensure structured dissent within government. Critics now warn that the Foreign Office is failing to uphold those reforms, leaving officials with little room to challenge policy or voice dissenting opinions meaningfully.
The FCDO, for its part, has tried to clarify its position. It stated that civil servants operate under a strict professional code that allows internal challenge. It also stressed that the Labour government under Keir Starmer has endeavoured to comply with international law in its response to the Gaza conflict. According to them, one of their earliest policy moves was to suspend export licenses for military equipment that could be used by the IDF in Gaza—most notably halting direct exports of F‑35 components; no bombs or ammunition destined for Gaza have been exported.
Nonetheless, government data confirm that approximately 30 out of 350 export licenses have been revoked—but a larger number remain active—leading critics to argue that the measures fall short of what is needed. Meanwhile, calls are growing louder from former officials and public figures—including over 300 MPs and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn—for a full independent inquiry into the UK’s military involvement in Gaza, encompassing surveillance operations and other mechanisms of support.
The passage of this internal conflict to resign into the public sphere reflects deep unease among key stakeholders. It marks not only a rift between civil servants and political leadership but also a reflection of broader unease regarding Britain’s role in a conflict with acute humanitarian consequences.
As Foreign Secretary Lammy has indicated, internal legal reviews continue and the Home Office faces looming court challenges over related issues, such as the listing of Hamas as a terrorist entity. Until these are resolved, the internal schism within the FCDO persists—highlighting the delicate balance between duty and conscience within Britain’s diplomatic corps in the midst of a profoundly complex international crisis.
