More than 100,000 sign petition demanding inquiry into Britain's role in Gaza
The petition, launched on 23 October by Your Party's Jennifer Forbes, passed the threshold for a parliamentary debate on Monday; and puts the government under pressure to answer questions it has spent more than a year refusing.
Published 9 November 2026 · 16:53 GMT
The summary
More than 100,000 people have signed the petition calling for a public inquiry into the UK's role in Israeli operations in Gaza; the live count stood at 103,299 on Monday afternoon. The petition was launched on 23 October 2026 by Jennifer Forbes, chair of the executive committee of Your Party.
The three lenses
- WestThe West counts signatures and watches the committee From the West, the story is told as procedure.
- EastThe East reports the milestone, not the mechanism From the East, the coverage is thinner and sharper.
- Global SouthThe South hears its own reporting echoed back in London From the Global South, the story is the campaign's own language carried by the outlets that have covered Gaza most closely.
Key facts
- More than 100,000 people have signed the petition calling for a public inquiry into the UK's role in Israeli operations in Gaza; the live count stood at 103,299 on Monday afternoon. UK Parliament
- The petition was launched on 23 October 2026 by Jennifer Forbes, chair of the executive committee of Your Party. UK Parliament
- Passing 100,000 signatures means the Petitions Committee will consider the petition for a debate in Parliament. UK Parliament
- The petition demands an inquiry into the sale, supply or use of weapons, surveillance aircraft and Royal Air Force bases. UK Parliament
- Jeremy Corbyn, Your Party's parliamentary leader, first introduced a Gaza inquiry bill in June 2025 and reintroduced it in the 2026–27 session. The Memo
- The government has refused an inquiry: former prime minister Keir Starmer turned the idea down, and the Burnham government says its stance has not changed. Al Mayadeen
A petition crosses the line Parliament cannot ignore
A petition demanding a public inquiry into Britain's role in Israeli operations in Gaza passed 100,000 signatures on Monday 9 November 2026, the threshold at which Parliament must consider it for debate. The live count stood at 103,299 by late afternoon, and the site's own progress note confirmed it: the petition will be considered for a debate in Parliament. Published on 23 October and created by Jennifer Forbes, chair of Your Party's executive committee, it calls for an inquiry into any British involvement in Israeli operations in Gaza, including the sale, supply or use of weapons, surveillance aircraft and Royal Air Force bases. Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader who serves as Your Party's parliamentary leader, announced the milestone on X on Monday, writing that Parliament must now make time for a debate. The crossing converts a campaign demand into parliamentary procedure: the Petitions Committee must now weigh scheduling time in the Commons, and the government, which already owes a written response after 10,000 signatures on 26 October, must now answer in a chamber as well as on paper.
What the petition asks for, in its own words
The petition's text is precise about what it wants investigated. It calls for a fully independent inquiry into the United Kingdom's involvement in Israeli operations in Gaza since October 2023, with the power to question ministers and officials. It names four subjects in particular: what arms have been supplied to Israel; what RAF bases have been used and why; what intelligence was collected during RAF flights; and what legal advice the government has sought in assessing whether a genocide has taken place in Gaza. The petition argues the United Kingdom has played a vital role in Israeli military operations in Gaza, a claim the campaign has pressed since the war began. The Parliament site records the timetable: published on 23 October, it passed 10,000 signatures on 26 October, obliging the government to respond, and 100,000 on 9 November. It stays open until 23 April 2027. Corbyn has pursued the same demand in Parliament, introducing a Gaza (Independent Public Inquiry) Bill in June 2025 and reintroducing it in the 2026–27 session, and asking Prime Minister Andy Burnham to back his Private Members' Bill for a Chilcot-style investigation into British military, economic and political cooperation with Israel.
The questions no minister has yet answered
Crossing 100,000 signatures guarantees consideration, not a debate. The committee must still decide whether to schedule one, and no date has been set. The content and timing of the government's written response, triggered when the petition passed 10,000 signatures, have not been published either. Whether an inquiry will ever be granted remains entirely open: the previous prime minister, Keir Starmer, turned the idea down, and the Burnham government said last month that its stance had not shifted. The facts the inquiry would establish are themselves unknown: which arms were supplied and under which licences, which RAF bases were used and for what, what intelligence the surveillance flights collected and with whom it was shared, and what legal advice ministers received about the war in Gaza. Nor is it known how the government will frame its response, whether it will repeat that such questions are for international courts, or whether the debate, if scheduled, will draw ministers beyond the committee's usual respondents.
Why a petition is the sharpest tool the campaign has
The petition matters because it is the one mechanism by which public pressure becomes parliamentary business without a minister's permission. A government can decline a bill, ignore a letter and refuse a meeting; it cannot ignore a petition that has passed 100,000 signatures, because the rules require the Petitions Committee to consider it and the government to respond. The campaign knows the mechanism works: in June, a separate petition forced MPs to debate pro-Israeli influence on British politics after gathering more than 118,000 signatures. The Gaza petition arrives in a country where the war has been contested in the streets for three years, with marches across Europe keeping the issue visible, and where the government's own arms-export and surveillance policies have been the subject of repeated parliamentary questions. For the campaign, the petition is also a counting device: every signature tells an MP the question of British involvement is unresolved, and the count keeps climbing until April 2027, giving the issue a calendar the government cannot close.
Why does the government resist an inquiry?
The government's resistance has been consistent across two prime ministers, suggesting the objection is structural rather than personal. Starmer turned the idea down, and Burnham's government confirmed last month that the position had not changed since he took over. Burnham has also declined to label Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide, insisting the government will follow the determination of international courts rather than make a political judgment; Israel denies the allegations. An inquiry would test exactly that posture: its four questions go to the files ministers least want opened; arms-export licences and the legal advice behind them, RAF bases, and intelligence from surveillance flights. Al Jazeera reported in a 2024 investigation that the United Kingdom supported Israel through an air bridge vital to sustaining the intensity of the war on Gaza, and the petition's questions seek to put that reporting on a formal, sworn footing. There is also a precedent problem: a Chilcot-style inquiry runs for years, summons ministers and officials, and publishes findings a government cannot control, which is why prime ministers of both parties have treated the demand as a trap. The petition's strength is that it forces the refusal into the open, in a debate the government must attend.
What does a debate actually change?
A debate is not an inquiry, and the campaign does not pretend otherwise. But a debate changes the shape of the argument in four ways. First, it puts a minister at the despatch box, on the record, answering questions about arms, bases and intelligence where evasions are visible. Second, it creates a Hansard record that lawyers, journalists and future inquiries can cite, which is why the campaign's four questions are drafted so precisely. Third, it tests the parliamentary arithmetic: Labour backbenchers who have pressed for scrutiny of the war and the region around it would have to choose, in public, between whips and constituents. Fourth, it carries an international signal, because a Commons debate about British complicity is watched in capitals that have already taken positions on the war, and in Israel, where the politics of the war remain contested. If the committee declines, the campaign loses none of this: the petition stays open until April, the count keeps rising, and Corbyn's bill remains on the order paper, so the refusal becomes the next fact to campaign on.
What happens between now and April?
The immediate step belongs to the Petitions Committee, which must consider the petition for debate; campaigners will watch its calendar for a scheduling decision in the coming weeks. The government's written response, already triggered by the 10,000-signature threshold, is also due, and its wording will show whether Burnham's government intends to repeat Starmer's refusal or to concede any ground. Corbyn's Private Members' Bill, reintroduced in the 2026–27 session, gives the campaign a second track in Parliament, and his public challenge, that Burnham has had 110 days to name what the campaign calls genocide and refused, sets the tone for the debate if one is granted. The petition remains open until 23 April 2027, so the count, already past 103,000, will keep growing and will be cited each time the issue returns to the Commons. The marker to watch is the committee's decision, not the count: a scheduled debate means the government must defend its position in public, while a refusal means the campaign will argue Parliament itself is being kept from the question.
The three lenses
West Lens:
The West counts signatures and watches the committee From the West, the story is told as procedure. British outlets tracked the climb in stages: 28,000 when the prime minister's office first responded in late October, more than 50,000 a few days later, and 100,000 on Monday. The framing is institutional: thresholds, the Petitions Committee, the government's written response, and the precedent of the June debate on pro-Israeli influence, which gathered more than 118,000 signatures.
East Lens:
The East reports the milestone, not the mechanism From the East, the coverage is thinner and sharper. Press TV, the Iranian English-language outlet, reported the petition on 8 November, when it stood at nearly 90,000 signatures, framing it as a demand for scrutiny of British involvement in what it calls Israel's genocidal war in Gaza, and carrying Corbyn's charge that Burnham had blocked an inquiry. Searches of The Hindu, CNA and NHK found no coverage of the milestone at the time of writing: the story has travelled in the Iranian and Arab press rather than the Asian mainstream.
South Lens:
The South hears its own reporting echoed back in London From the Global South, the story is the campaign's own language carried by the outlets that have covered Gaza most closely. Al Jazeera reported the crossing on Monday, and Al Mayadeen counted 100,009 signatures at the time of its report, both foregrounding Corbyn's announcement and the demand for an inquiry into arms, surveillance aircraft and RAF bases. For these outlets the petition has a backstory their own reporting supplied: Al Jazeera's 2024 investigation found the United Kingdom provided military support to Israel through an air bridge vital to sustaining the war's intensity, and the petition's four questions seek to make that finding a matter of sworn public record.
The consensus
- What we agree on
- What we agree on: the petition passed 100,000 signatures on Monday 9 November 2026; it was launched on 23 October by Jennifer Forbes, chair of Your Party's executive committee; it calls for a fully independent inquiry into British involvement in Israeli operations in Gaza since October 2023, covering arms, surveillance aircraft and RAF bases; the Petitions Committee will consider it for a debate; and the government must also respond, having passed the 10,000-signature threshold on 26 October.
- What we don't agree on
- What we disagree on: whether a debate will actually be scheduled; whether the campaign's characterisation of British involvement, including the description of the war as genocide, is accurate; and whether an inquiry, if granted, would change government policy on arms exports, RAF flights or legal advice.
- What we know
- What we know: the dates and the counts, from 28,000 on 28 October to 103,299 on Monday afternoon; the petition's text and its four questions; the thresholds and what they trigger; Corbyn's bill, first introduced in June 2025 and reintroduced in the 2026–27 session; the June precedent, when a separate petition with more than 118,000 signatures forced a Commons debate; and the government's refusal, from Starmer to Burnham.
- What we don't know yet
- What we do not know: whether and when the Petitions Committee will schedule a debate; the content and timing of the government's written response; whether an inquiry will ever be granted; what arms were supplied, which RAF bases were used, what intelligence the surveillance flights collected, and what legal advice ministers received.
- What we expect
- What we expect: the Petitions Committee to consider the petition for debate in the coming weeks; a government written response; continued pressure from Corbyn and Your Party; the signature count to keep rising until the petition closes on 23 April 2027; and the debate decision, rather than the count, to become the next marker in the campaign.
Questions, answered
What does passing 100,000 signatures actually do?
It means the Petitions Committee must consider the petition for a debate in Parliament. That is a real step but not a guarantee: the committee decides whether to schedule time in the Commons, and no date has been set. The petition already passed the 10,000-signature threshold on 26 October, which obliges the government to issue a written response as well.
What would the inquiry investigate?
The petition calls for a fully independent inquiry into British involvement in Israeli operations in Gaza since October 2023, with the power to question ministers and officials. It names four subjects: what arms were supplied to Israel, what RAF bases were used and why, what intelligence was collected during RAF flights, and what legal advice the government sought about whether a genocide has taken place.
Why has the government refused an inquiry?
Former prime minister Keir Starmer turned the idea down, and the Burnham government said last month that its stance has not changed. Burnham has declined to label Israel's actions in Gaza as genocide, saying the government will follow the determination of international courts rather than make a political judgment. An inquiry would also open files on arms licences, RAF bases and intelligence sharing.
What happens next?
The Petitions Committee considers whether to schedule a debate, and the government's written response is due after the 10,000-signature threshold. Corbyn's Private Members' Bill, reintroduced in the 2026–27 session, gives the campaign a second parliamentary track. The petition stays open until 23 April 2027, so the count will keep rising, and the committee's scheduling decision is the next marker to watch.
Sources
- UK Parliament (9 Nov 2026); the petition itself: 103,299 signatures, created by Jennifer Forbes, published 23 October 2026, open until 23 April 2027, and the Petitions Committee will consider it for debate
- The Memo (30 Oct 2026); more than 50,000 signatures; the petition's four questions; Corbyn's bill history; the June precedent debate after 118,000 signatures
- Al Mayadeen (9 Nov 2026); 100,009 signatures at the time of writing; opened 23 October; Corbyn's Private Members' Bill; Starmer's refusal and the Burnham government's unchanged stance