UK Surveillance Flights Over Gaza: Are We Israel’s Useful Idiots?

Read our Monthly Magazine

And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The phrase “useful idiots” is often attributed to Lenin, though the provenance is uncertain. In the Cold War, it described Westerners who, knowingly or not, advanced Soviet interests while imagining themselves independent actors. The insult implied being duped: thinking one was clever while in reality serving another’s design.

A century on, the phrase may apply less to credulous intellectuals than to British politicians and air marshals. For in Gaza’s skies, the United Kingdom is flying missions that, whatever their stated purpose, risk serving Israel’s campaign. In so doing, Britain has placed itself in danger of becoming Israel’s “useful idiot”.

This idiocy has been hard to prove. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has refused to give details of its actions. Yet open source flight data shows that, since December 2023, the Royal Air Force has conducted more than 600 surveillance missions. These sorties, flown largely from Britain’s base at Akrotiri in Cyprus, use the RAF’s Shadow R1 reconnaissance aircraft and, more recently, planes contracted from an American firm, Straight Flight Nevada.

In the little it does say, the MoD insists the missions are unarmed and designed solely to assist in the rescue of hostages. This claim has been repeated by ministers under both Conservative and Labour Governments. Each has assured the public that Britain does not help Israel prosecute its war.

Yet such assurances seem to ring hollow. After all, the flights often coincide with Israeli operations that kill civilians, such as the 8 June 2024 raid on Nuseirat refugee camp, which killed more than 270 Palestinians. In the fortnight before the raid, the RAF flew 24 missions.

Some suggest this means British officers are marking targets.

That is almost certainly not the case.

The reality seems to be subtler. Intelligence gathered and shared may be used by the IDF not only to locate hostages but also to rule out their presence in certain areas. Such “negative intelligence” would be of immense value to Israeli commanders. 

If a site can be certified as free of Israelis, it becomes a safer bet for bombardment.

In other words, Britain may not be handing over coordinates, but it may be providing Israel with reassurance that civilian areas can be destroyed without risk to its own prisoner citizens. This is the essence of being a useful idiot: believing you are acting for one cause while enabling another.

Ministers lean heavily on the line that flights are “solely for hostage rescue”. The phrasing suggests a humanitarian purpose. Yet intelligence, once shared, is beyond Britain’s control.

The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has refused to say whether oversight exists. Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee has long warned that data can be repurposed. In Gaza, such repurposing may be measured in funerals.

On 12 December 2024, Israel bombed Nuseirat again, killing more than 30 civilians. The day before, a contractor-flown Beechcraft surveillance plane, hired by the RAF, had circled the camp.

The MoD insists the mission was for hostage recovery. But when bombs fall on the very places British-linked aircraft have watched, coincidence is hard to sustain.

Article 16 of the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility makes clear that a state which knowingly aids another in committing unlawful acts can be held liable. The question is whether Britain’s intelligence, ostensibly collected for humanitarian ends, is enabling Israel’s alleged war crimes.

Both Conservative and Labour Governments have defended the flights. Under Rishi Sunak, over 300 sorties were conducted; under Keir Starmer, at least 300 more. Neither has allowed parliamentary scrutiny. Commons questions are met with stonewalling. Freedom of Information requests are rebuffed on grounds of “operational security”.

This bipartisan silence signals something deeper: a consensus that Britain’s alliance with Israel is worth the risk of complicity. Starmer even visited Akrotiri in December 2024, telling personnel that “quite a bit of what goes on here can’t necessarily be talked about”. That secrecy should alarm any democrat.

Opacity is now under sharper focus. On 3 September, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn opened a two-day Gaza Tribunal in London. Its inquiry summoned diplomats, UN experts, and international lawyers to probe Britain’s role. Witnesses included Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur, and Palestinian journalists who have documented the destruction first-hand. Dr Husam Zomlot, head of the Palestinian mission to the UK, accused Britain of failing in its duty to prevent genocide.

After all, Britain no longer has nationals held in Gaza. The last were released months ago. Yet flights have continued, justified in the name of rescuing Israelis. Why is Britain expending resources, and exposing itself to charges of complicity, in a mission tangential to its own citizens’ safety?

The answer may lie in Britain’s need to maintain relevance. After Brexit and the decline of its global military footprint, the Government clings to the role of reliable ally to Washington and Jerusalem. Providing intelligence allows London to claim it is at the table, even if only as a junior partner.

But this is precisely the trap of the useful idiot. In pursuing symbolic relevance, Britain risks sacrificing moral authority.

The MoD insists it is acting out of humanitarian concern. Ministers assure us that intelligence is carefully controlled. Yet when bombs fall on camps Britain has just watched, when intelligence meant to save lives clears the way for slaughter, these assurances collapse. 

The UK is not directing Israel’s campaign. But by failing to acknowledge how its shared intelligence may be being exploited, it risks becoming exactly what Lenin derided: an actor convinced of its virtue while serving another’s brutality.

And for Britain to continue down this path is not only strategically foolish. It is morally indefensible.