The crisis has provoked fierce responses around the world, with demonstrations in many major cities, and furious debate about the boundaries between anti-semitism, Islamophobia and legitimate protest.
The crisis raises complex issues for UK businesses.
While many businesses expressed strong support for Ukraine in the face of the Russian invasion last year, the corporate response to events in the Middle East has, for the most part, been more subdued. This may reflect a nervousness about alienating staff or customers, or the difficulties of conveying nuance in a brief statement.
Certainly, language matters, as the controversy over the BBC’s impartiality guidelines illustrates. But silence has its own risks; businesses which have trumpeted their ESG credentials risk being seen as hypocritical and indifferent by staff affected by these events.
Undoubtedly employers should offer practical and wellbeing support to any such staff.
Many Jewish staff will have family or friends in Israel, or will have been affected by concerns about anti-semitic violence at schools and synagogues.
Similarly, employees may have family in Gaza or surrounding areas affected by the conflict. Employers should ensure that employees can access any counselling or other services they offer.
It's only right to respect others' wrong views
A much more complex issue is how far employers should police employees’ expression of views about the conflict, whether inside or outside the workplace.
There are no easy answers. Overt anti-semitism or Islamophobia, or incitement to violence, will plainly amount to gross misconduct. But one can imagine more difficult cases.
What about an employee who wears a 'Free Palestine' badge at work? Or one who is pictured at a pro-Palestinian rally with a placard describing Israel as an apartheid state, and identified via social media?
Recent case law (centred around trans rights and gender-critical views) has emphasised that, if an employee expresses a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010, the employer’s ability to discipline them or dismiss them for doing so is restricted.
Whether a particular belief is protected under the Act is fact-sensitive. (With a rather grim irony, a recent employment tribunal was hearing a case centred on whether anti-Zionism is a protected belief.)
Protected beliefs: what’s in and what’s out?
However, the threshold for a belief to be protected is not high, and only obviously extremist beliefs are excluded from protection on the ground that they conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
While anti-semitism would not be protected, pacifism, anti-imperialism and similar beliefs which may be cited by some protesters would likely be protected.
If the belief is protected, the employer will be able to take disciplinary action only if the belief is expressed in a way to which objection could justifiably be taken.
This does not mean that employers can always justify action if other staff were offended; the employee’s expression of their belief must impinge on the rights of other individuals.
UK professionals divided on political conversations at work
Attending a protest with a placard expressing a political viewpoint in controversial terms is unlikely to meet this threshold.
Actions in the workplace are more likely to justify disciplinary action, but employers will need to balance competing rights and interests carefully.
This area of law has developed significantly over the last few years and case outcomes are not easy to predict.
Ultimately, employers’ decisions are likely to be based as much on the impact on staff cohesion and morale, the nature of their business and the reputational risks, as on the legal analysis.
By the time an employee is being disciplined for offensive conduct or reputational harm, the damage is often already done.
Employers would therefore be well-advised to take preventative steps, such as communications to staff emphasising the need for mutual support and respect in the workplace and care when using social media.
Alex Mizzi is legal director at Howard Kennedy
