Thousands gather in London to express support for Palestinians after three years of ‘genocide’

Organisers said 250,000 people attended a pro-Palestinian march through central London. Demonstrators carried Palestine flags and signs including “End the genocide” and “Free Palestine.” A two-minute silence remembered people killed in Gaza. The event mattered because it showed continuing public pressure over Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank.

The march began on the Embankment and moved towards parliament. Protesters asked the UK government to stop supplying arms to Israel. They also objected to Israel’s settlement policy and ongoing military action. Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, described the demonstration as evidence of continuing British solidarity.

The Metropolitan police imposed conditions on the route, timings, and rally. The force reported arrests, including people accused of supporting proscribed organisation Palestine Action and criminal damage. The march was the first national demonstration since Ed Miliband announced sanctions on trade with Israeli settlements.

Genocide is a legal term for certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. The acts can include killing, causing serious harm, or creating conditions meant to bring about the group’s destruction. A court’s finding requires evidence of both acts and intent.

Ethnic cleansing generally describes forcing an ethnic or national population from a territory. It is a descriptive term rather than a separate crime named in the Genocide Convention, though the conduct can involve war crimes or crimes against humanity. Occupation means one state exercises effective control over territory without gaining lawful sovereignty over it.

In this article, the UN, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, and Physicians for Human Rights are reported as saying Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Ed Miliband said settler terrorists supported by Israel’s government were committing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, and declared the occupation unlawful. These reported claims are not presented as final court judgments.

The march was presented as a major national demonstration. By Saturday afternoon, organisers said 250,000 people were attending. The crowd gathered on London’s Embankment before moving towards parliament, with many participants carrying Palestine flags and wearing keffiyehs. That reported size showed the breadth of public mobilisation around Gaza and the West Bank.

The article also gives a separate figure for violence in the West Bank. According to UN figures, 230 Palestinians were killed there by Israeli forces and settlers in 2025. Settler attacks had intensified, while Israeli airstrikes continued in Gaza despite a ceasefire declared a year earlier.

The article reports that the overall death toll in Gaza rose by a further 1,400 people during the last year. These figures come from different contexts and sources, so they should not be combined into one single count. They illustrate the continuing human cost that protesters were highlighting.

A ceasefire is an agreement to pause fighting, but it does not automatically resolve the political and territorial disputes behind a conflict. It can also fail to stop every form of violence. In this case, the article reports that Israeli airstrikes continued in Gaza after the ceasefire declared a year earlier.

Violence also continued in the West Bank. The article says settlers ramped up attacks against Palestinians, while UN figures recorded 230 Palestinian deaths there in 2025 caused by Israeli forces and settlers. It further reports that Gaza’s overall death toll increased by 1,400 people over the last year.

The article does not identify the precise terms of the ceasefire or explain why it broke down. It does show that the pause did not end military action or settler violence. Those continuing events drove renewed protests, demands to halt arms supplies, and international criticism of Israel’s conduct.

Stopping arms supplies and restricting trade are foreign-policy tools. An arms halt could reduce the equipment or support available for military operations, while sanctions on Israeli settlements could raise their economic and political costs. Such measures can also signal that Britain considers alleged violations serious, especially when civilian deaths and displacement remain central concerns.

For Palestinians, less military support could potentially reduce harm if it changed battlefield capacity or behaviour. For Israel, restrictions could create economic pressure, diplomatic isolation, or incentives to change policy. The effects would depend on what goods, weapons, licences, and companies were covered, and whether other countries adopted similar measures.

For Britain, the decision could strengthen its stated opposition to settlement activity and unlawful occupation. It could also create tension with Israel and affect Britain’s wider diplomatic role. The article reports sanctions on trade with Israeli settlements, but it does not establish their results or say that Britain had stopped all arms supplies.

The Metropolitan police said the conditions were intended to minimise the risk of serious disruption to communities. They controlled where the march and counter-protest could go, when speeches and music had to end, and when each event had to conclude. The police also said the weekend’s timing could increase its impact.

The march had to use Westminster Bridge, York Road, Waterloo Bridge, and The Strand before reaching Whitehall. Speeches and music had to finish by 5.30pm, and the rally had to end by 6.30pm. The Stop The Hate counter-protest had to remain outside New Scotland Yard and finish at 2.30pm.

The force also required people wearing face coverings to remove them if the coverings deliberately concealed identity. Police reported arrests over alleged support for Palestine Action, criminal damage, and breaches of conditions. These rules balanced the right to protest with public order and investigation concerns, according to the force’s stated rationale.

International humanitarian law protects civilians and limits attacks, treatment of detainees, and methods of warfare during armed conflict. It applies to governments and armed groups. Serious violations, such as deliberately attacking civilians or unlawfully transferring populations, may amount to war crimes when the required legal elements and evidence are present.

The law of occupation applies when a foreign power exercises effective control over territory. It requires protection of civilians and restricts how the occupying power administers the area. Settlers, armed groups, and governments may each face responsibility for particular conduct, but liability depends on evidence, intent, control, and the exact act. Genocide has an additional requirement: intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part.

The article says the UN, Amnesty International, B’Tselem, and Physicians for Human Rights have called Israel’s actions in Gaza genocide. It also reports Ed Miliband’s descriptions of ethnic cleansing and unlawful occupation. Those statements identify allegations and political positions, not a final determination by a court.