A formal petition demanding a full public inquiry into alleged pro-Israel influence within British politics has exceeded 50,000 signatures, automatically triggering a mandatory written response from the UK Government under parliamentary rules.
Launched on the official UK Parliament petitions platform (petition.parliament.uk), the campaign has gained rapid momentum in recent weeks, reflecting growing public concern over foreign-linked lobbying, transparency in foreign policy decision-making, and the UK’s stance on the Israel-Gaza conflict.
The petition, titled “Hold a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence in UK politics,” explicitly calls for an independent investigation into “Israeli state-linked and pro-Israel lobbying activity” and its potential impact on government decisions, party policy, and public discourse. As of February 17, 2026, it has collected over 52,000 signatures and remains open for signatures until July 28, 2026.
Under the current UK petitions system, established in 2011 and reformed in 2015:
10,000 signatures → mandatory written response from the relevant government department (in this case, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office or Cabinet Office).
100,000 signatures → eligibility for a debate in Westminster Hall, presided over by the Petitions Committee.
Organisers are confident the threshold for a parliamentary debate will be reached well before the July deadline, citing accelerating daily signature rates driven by social media amplification and heightened public interest in Middle East policy following the ongoing Gaza crisis.
The petition’s core statement reads:
“We are concerned about reported Israeli state-linked and pro-Israel lobbying activity in UK politics. It is important to determine the scope and impact of any such influence campaigns. We feel that the horrific devastation in Gaza, the ongoing suppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, and the UK’s political response underline the urgent need to scrutinise how pro-Israel organisations, networks and lobbying efforts may shape government decisions, party policy and public debate.”
The campaign highlights concerns over groups such as Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), which maintain large parliamentary memberships. According to publicly available registers and investigative reporting:
CFI claims more than 80% of Conservative MPs as members or supporters.
LFI similarly reports strong representation across the Labour frontbench and backbenches.
Investigative outlets including Declassified UK, Middle East Eye, and reports commissioned by Transparency International UK have documented extensive financial ties, all-expenses-paid trips to Israel for parliamentarians, and close coordination between these groups and Israeli diplomatic missions. Critics argue that such relationships may influence key policy areas, including arms export licences, diplomatic language on Gaza, and the UK’s voting record at the United Nations.
The petition gained fresh impetus following recent controversies, including:
The UK’s continued approval of certain arms exports to Israel despite ICJ provisional measures in the South Africa v Israel case.
Allegations of undisclosed funding and influence networks reported in parliamentary questions and media investigations throughout 2024–2026.
Growing calls from within the Labour Party and cross-party backbenchers for greater transparency in foreign policy lobbying.
Government ministers have previously rejected similar calls for inquiries, arguing that existing mechanisms—the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, the Lobbying Act 2014, and the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS) introduced in 2024—already provide sufficient oversight. However, transparency campaigners maintain that these regimes do not adequately capture informal networks, all-party parliamentary groups, or indirect foreign state influence.
The 50,000-signature milestone obliges the Government to publish a formal response within a short timeframe (typically weeks), though such responses have historically been brief and defensive in similar high-profile cases. If the petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Petitions Committee will consider scheduling a Westminster Hall debate, which, while non-binding, carries significant political weight and media attention.
Supporters of the petition include a broad coalition of human rights organisations, Palestinian solidarity groups, Jewish Voice for Labour, and individual parliamentarians from across parties who have publicly endorsed greater scrutiny. Opponents, including CFI and LFI themselves, have described the campaign as “one-sided” and potentially antisemitic in tone, though the petition text focuses exclusively on lobbying transparency rather than individuals or communities.
The development occurs against a backdrop of strained UK-Israel relations. The previous Conservative government maintained strong bilateral ties, while the current Labour administration under Keir Starmer has adopted a more critical tone on Gaza, suspending some arms export licences in September 2025 and calling for an immediate ceasefire. Nonetheless, backbench pressure and lobbying continue to influence the pace and scope of policy shifts.
With the petition still having over five months to run, organisers have launched targeted social media drives, email campaigns to MPs, and public rallies to push toward the 100,000-signature threshold. A parallel Change.org petition on the same issue has already surpassed 120,000 signatures, indicating wider public appetite for accountability.
Should the petition succeed in forcing a Westminster Hall debate, it would mark one of the most significant parliamentary discussions on foreign influence and lobbying reform in recent years, potentially leading to calls for strengthened foreign agent registration requirements or a full public inquiry modelled on the 2021 Russia Report or the 2018 Cash-for-Access scandals.
As the signature count continues to climb, the campaign has become a focal point for debates on democratic integrity, foreign policy independence, and the balance between legitimate advocacy and undue influence in Westminster.
