Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
It is an honour to serve under chairship today, Dame Siobhain. It is also an honour to bring this debate to Westminster Hall, and I am delighted to see so many parliamentary colleagues in attendance. With that being the case, I am not planning to take up my full allotted 10 minutes, as there is obvious enthusiasm among Members to participate in the coming hour. There are many colleagues here who have been passionate campaigners for justice for many years, and I would like to hear as many speeches as possible this afternoon.
On 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion in respect of the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem. The ICJ was clear that Israel’s occupation, annexation and continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful, and that Israel is under an obligation to end its unlawful presence in the OPT as rapidly as possible, with the evacuation of all settlers from existing settlements. The Court built on the determination that Israel has committed systemic violations of international humanitarian law by recognising that Israel has permanently acquired territory by force and suppressed the right of Palestinians to self-determination.
When the Minister rises to speak later in this debate, can he confirm that the Government agree that the occupation is illegal, and that they will call on Israel to comply with the ICJ and demand an end to the occupation? While the UK has called for an end to settlement expansion, do the Government agree that Israel must comply with the ICJ and not only stop settlement expansion but evacuate settlers from Palestinian land?
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important and timely debate. He is absolute right to point out that this is perhaps the most substantial advisory opinion on Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, which makes it clear that settlements are illegal, as is Israel’s ongoing expansion of them, and settlement goods are illegal, as is the import of them. Does my hon. Friend agree that this places a particular and clear obligation on our Government to act immediately and abide by international law?
Brian Leishman
I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend, and I pay testament to the work he has done to bring this issue to Parliament in the primary Chamber. I would also appreciate it if the Minister could explain why—to quote the UK ambassador to the UN—we supported
“the central findings of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion”,
but then abstained at the UN general assembly on 18 September 2024, where an overwhelming majority of nations supported the ICJ’s advisory opinion? They demanded that Israel brings to an end, without delay, its unlawful occupation within no more than 12 months’ time, by 18 September 2025.
Israel has developed and maintained its settlements through the forced removal and displacement of Palestinians. The Court’s opinion is that Israel has the obligation to make
“reparation for the damage caused…to all natural or legal persons concerned”
in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for action. Does he agree with Amnesty International that one of the practical measures the UK Government could take would be to ban goods produced in the illegal Israeli settlements?
Brian Leishman
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that topic. That is something that I will mention at more length later on in my contribution, but yes, he can rest assured that I do. I am in firm agreement with my hon. Friend.
The ICJ advisory opinion is significant because it adds to the growing international consensus that Israel is committing the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians. That language is extremely important, because the international community has witnessed, and continues to witness, annexation, occupation, segregation and apartheid. The world is the witness of crimes against humanity, and while the UK Government are in denial about what constitutes a genocide, millions of our own citizens, Amnesty International—as mentioned before—and many nations from the international community are not.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point, which I strongly endorse. Of course, he can go further, because we are well aware that the new US Administration are now recommending the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. On top of the UK Government making clear their abhorrence of all of the actions that the hon. Gentleman has just described, they should make it very clear that they strongly oppose the proposals coming from the US as well.
Brian Leishman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution as well. I think it is fair to say that, when we look at President Trump’s recent comments, it takes us into a new and rather diabolical position, with his efforts to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people from their homeland. His comments about making Gaza a riviera of the middle east are frankly appalling, and an explicit denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.
The hard truth is that the UK needs introspection—to look at what we have done, and what we continue to do, to allow these dreadful acts of death and destruction to happen with impunity. I ask the Minister to please explain why the UK has sold, and continue to sell, arms to Israel—arms that have been used in committing atrocities against the Palestinian people.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for taking my intervention, and for securing today’s debate, which is indeed on a very important subject.
I recently attended a talk by Professor Mamode, who demonstrated, with images and with his own testimony, the kinds of injuries that are being sustained by some people in Palestine. Notably, there was a seven-year-old boy whose injuries were so symmetrical that they could not have been done by human hand; they had clearly been done by a drone. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to also be thinking about the export of items that are not militaristic in and of themselves, but that can be weaponised, as drones have been in Palestine, and that we have to consider export bans on those items, too?
Brian Leishman
I thank my hon. Friend; I wholeheartedly agree. Again, that is something that I will turn to later in my contribution, when we look at a variety of actions that the UK Government could undertake.
I also ask the Minister to defend the words, and lack of action, from our Government, which have enabled the Israeli blockades to continue—blockades that stopped lifesaving aid, food, water and medicine from reaching besieged Palestinians who were starving and in the most dire need.
Historical context is vital because the persecution Palestinians suffer is not recent. That treatment did not start in October 2023. For Palestinians, the Nakba began many decades ago. From the mass dispossession of the Palestinian people in 1947 and 1948 to the present day, ethnic cleansing has been a constant.
The seizure of land and homes, the forced displacement, the destruction of civic, educational, cultural and religious infrastructure, which are all protected by international conventions and treaties, to which this country is a committed signatory, are all examples of settler colonialism and Israeli Government-authorised apartheid, that sees removal of the local population through ethnic cleansing. For decades, the international community has looked away and ignored the suffering of the Palestinian people.
I put it to the Government, through the Minister, that the time for the UK to show international and moral leadership is long overdue, especially regarding Palestine. Our nation’s role as the former colonial power in Palestine, issuing and implementing the Balfour declaration of 1917, presiding over the dispossession and disfranchisement of the Palestinian people, has imposed an historical debt, which continues to grow the longer we refuse to stand up for the inalienable rights of Palestinians.
Will the Minister commit the UK Government to undertaking a thorough review of their diplomatic, political, trade, economic and military relations with Israel, to identify any aspects that assist and empower Israel’s illegal occupation, and to stop those aspects? Will the UK Government suspend trade privileges, agreements and negotiations with Israel, pending the outcome of that thorough review?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. He is making a passionate speech about the situation in Gaza. One of the biggest arguments made against the abolition of slavery was the financial cost to our country, so does he agree that the Foreign Secretary’s statement that we will not have economic sanctions against Israel because we have a £6.1 billion trade deal is abhorrent, and that we should reverse that statement as soon as possible?
Brian Leishman
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. My answer is quite simply yes, I agree. That was an appalling statement. I would like to think that our country is frankly better than putting a pound and pence figure on the cost of a humanitarian disaster and genocide.
I put this to the Minister. Will the UK Government ban the importation of goods from illegal Israeli settlements, which facilitate and give credibility to their existence? Banning the importation of goods from Israel’s illegal settlements brings into line our commitment to international law and human rights. The ICJ is clear that all states have an obligation not to recognise, aid or assist in maintaining the illegal situation of occupation, and to stop providing assistance that sustains occupation and to ensure compliance with international law, through diplomatic and economic measures.
In conclusion, the UK Government have a very simple choice to make. Do we side with an apartheid state that has seized territory; displaced and contained people into an open-air prison; eradicated communities and centuries of culture; ethnically cleansed a people and committed genocide? Or do we join the call that many in the international community have already made for full compliance with international law, recognition of the state of Palestine and justice for its indomitable people?
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Please do not take that to be a promise. As everybody can see, a lot of people want to speak. We will endeavour to get through everybody, as is our hope. At the moment, we think the limit is around two minutes, but should it prove necessary to change that, I will let people know.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for setting the scene. I have a different opinion from other hon. Members, but I respect their point of view and I hope that they will respect mine.
I am, and always have been, a steadfast friend of Israel. My commitment to the state of Israel is rooted in its right to exist as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. For me, that principle is non-negotiable. I hope that my remarks will reflect both my empathy and my unwavering belief in Israel’s right to defend itself.
The ICJ measures, initiated by South Africa, reflect a deeply flawed and one-sided interpretation of international law. Israel has a sovereign right, indeed a duty, to protect its citizens from the barbaric terrorist organisation Hamas. The petitioners in this case conveniently ignore Hamas’s atrocities: their deliberate targeting of civilians; the massacre of innocent men, women and children; and the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields.
I support the principle of a two-state solution, but let us be clear that peace cannot co-exist with Hamas’s continued aggression. Every time Israel has made significant concessions, whether during the Oslo accords or the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, it has been met with an escalation in violence and not with peace. If Hamas retains power, Palestine will be a failed state from the outset—one that continues to launch rockets into Israel’s towns and incite hatred against Jews worldwide. Peace will be possible only when the Palestinian leadership prioritises economic stability and co-existence over terrorism and destruction. A weakened Israel emboldens its adversaries, most notably Iran, Hezbollah and radical Islamist movements. Those entities do not simply wish for an end to Israel’s military operations; they desire Israel’s total annihilation.
The ICJ may issue opinions, but it is not infallible. We must challenge rulings that fail to acknowledge Israel’s security needs, excuse Hamas’s barbarism and seek to delegitimise a nation’s right to exist. The UK must continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, not just in words but in actions. That is my point of view, and I hope other Members will respect it, as I will respect theirs.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I clarify that I am imposing a hard two-minute limit, so I will ask hon. Members to sit down if they go over it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this debate, which comes at a critical time for the Palestinian people, the future of Gaza and the very foundations of international law. Those things are under direct threat from the recently elected so-called leader of the free world, who has proposed ethnic cleansing that violates the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to return to their homeland and live free from occupation. His threat to withdraw aid to Jordan and Egypt if they reject his so-called Gaza development plan has ignited a sharp backlash.
Those proposals are a blueprint for a crime of historic proportions, and our Government must condemn and resist them. That must, of course, mean accepting in full the historic advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, made in July last year, which confirmed that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful and which found Israel guilty of violating the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid.
Let us be clear: following the advisory opinion is not optional. As a UN member state and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK has clear obligations under international law. For a year and a half, I and other hon. Members have called for urgent action to hold Israel accountable for the indiscriminate targeting of civilians and the near total destruction in the Gaza strip. We must stand unequivocally and unashamedly for upholding international law and, in doing so, for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Any further delay or refusal to do so risks the escalation of crimes of unimaginable proportions, as well as continuing to abnegate our responsibilities to meaningfully oppose the decades-long crimes of occupation.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this important debate. I will not repeat what has already been set out, but I think that the British people want to hear politicians who sit in this Chamber speak the truth.
The repeated suggestion that the more than 40,000 innocent men, women and children who have been massacred were somehow being used as human shields is nonsense. Most British people know the truth because they see it on social media. The only evidence of human shields is the ones that the Israeli army have used. We have seen that documented and international organisations have confirmed it.
Any reputable organisation that makes adverse findings against the Israeli army and the Israeli leadership is immediately labelled as antisemitic, diluting the very essence of that word. Anyone with a moral compass wants to support peace and stability for Israelis and for Palestinians—that is paramount—but it is sickening to constantly hear the disparity in the argument whereby Palestinians are dehumanised.
Today on the BBC, we heard about one individual who was killed in Ukraine by a missile—one individual. I am not saying that that is not important—of course it is; any loss of innocent life is important—but thousands of children in Gaza can be killed and it barely makes the headlines. The atrocities in the west bank are continuing. We must do all that we can to support the Palestinians.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this debate today.
Less than two months ago, on 16 December, we were here in a Westminster Hall debate—the Minister was present—when I was quite passionate about the intentions of Netanyahu. I stated unequivocally that Netanyahu’s intention was to displace Palestinians into Egypt and Jordan. Lo and behold, what did we hear last week? That is exactly his intention, and now he is joined by President Trump. To me, that is no less than ethnic cleansing. We, including the Government, must call it out for what it is: ethnic cleansing. There is no other word for it.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Ethnic cleansing is a practice that we see taking place, as is the annexation of the west bank. Does my hon. Friend agree that the peace process is not an end result, and recognition must be a by-product of the peace process? That is inevitably coming to an end with the ongoing annexation that we see, but Palestinians must have a recognised state.
Tahir Ali
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. It is another point that I have been quite vociferous on. We can achieve a two-state solution only if the UK Government recognise both states. By recognising one state, we can never achieve a two-state solution; it is almost as if we are saying that we agree with Netanyahu, who simply wants a one-state solution. That is not the way forward for the peace process. What is being said should not be taken lightly; our denial is almost complicit in that agenda.
As of today, we have seen more than 50,000 Palestinians killed; thousands remain missing, their fate unknown; and countless families have been expelled from their homes. Humanitarian aid has been consistently denied, worsening an already catastrophic situation. The ceasefire three weeks ago brought a sigh of relief across the world. As fragile as it was—our Government have been repeating that—it almost, now, has become clear that Netanyahu, in preventing aid from getting to the Gazans as part of the deal, is the one who is reneging on it. More must be done to make sure that that ceasefire continues, and the harsh words that are being used against the Palestinians by Netanyahu and President Trump have to be called out.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. We are at a pivotal moment in history. The international rule of law, established and affirmed after world war two, is on the brink of being disregarded by some of the very states that created it. The International Court of Justice, established in 1945, has a critical role in promoting peace and resolving disputes between states. Since its inception, it has seen approximately 90% of its rulings implemented. It is literally the world court, and the suggestion that its authority somehow is not recognised and respected because it does not apply to one single state cannot abide.
Last year, the ICJ ruling declared Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories unlawful. Although the ruling is legally binding in its principles, it is advisory in nature and its implementation will depend on the political will of states in the international community. The horrific attacks carried out by Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023 were appalling, and they too must not go unpunished, but Israel’s response to that atrocity has failed to distinguish in every case between terrorists and innocent civilians in Gaza. Will we continue to uphold a world order based on law, or will we allow power politics and strategic alliances to dictate when international law applies and when it does not?
Just last week, the US President sanctioned officials of the ICC for daring to investigate potential war crimes committed by Israeli forces. That was another dangerous precedent that undermines international justice. We cannot abide this: we must stand by international law and we must respect the ruling of the ICJ.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this timely debate. It is not too onerous to have two minutes for a speech on this occasion, because there is really only one question to ask: when will the Government respond to the advisory opinion? Yes, it is a very significant piece of work and it will take some time, but we have had seven months, so I hope the Minister might indicate today how long it will be before that happens.
It will be difficult for the Government to respond, because it is not just about Gaza; it is about East Jerusalem and the west bank. It has fundamental implications for the continued existence of settlements, let alone their expansion, and for trade with those settlements. There are inconsistencies already in Government policy—from the last Government as well as this Government—in terms of allowing that trade to continue when we recognise the settlements as illegal. It is also about the segregation of the Palestinian population and the enforcement of that segregation, particularly on the west bank, and about the transfer of population, which we have heard a lot about in the last few weeks.
This will be a difficult decision for the Government. The Minister said that he agrees with the central findings, notwithstanding the fact that the UK abstained in the vote, but the implications of the Government agreeing with the judgment are very powerful for our relations with Israel, which is a friendly country.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On that point, and following on from the speech by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), is not the key issue whether the UK will abide by international law, the rules-based order and the systems that were set up after the second world war?
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a conflict between some of the Government’s political instincts. They say that Israel is an ally, but sometimes we have to speak as strongly to our friends as we do to our enemies. The reality is that the UK has particular responsibilities, such as historical responsibilities, going back to the Balfour declaration and the mandate, and moral responsibilities. The UK also has power and influence as a member of the UN Security Council. Unlike the last Government, this Government should take that seriously.
This issue goes to the heart of the problems in the middle east, and resolving issues between Israel and Palestine will unlock peace in the middle east. What is happening at the moment is exactly the reverse of that. We have a Government who say very clearly, through the Attorney General, that they believe in the rule of law. That is to be admired, but we must see it in the way that they respond to this opinion. I hope that we will see that soon.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain.
I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this very important debate. As he set out in his introductory remarks, the historic opinion from the International Court of Justice has significant implications for the UK Government. It adds to the growing international consensus that the actions of the Israeli Government constitute apartheid—a consensus articulated by states, by NGOs, by Israeli as well as Palestinian organisations, by Israeli politicians and by Israeli newspapers.
The ICJ opinion is very meaningful for the UK because, as it sets out, third states have obligations deriving from that opinion. Third states have an obligation not to recognise as legal the illegal occupation; not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation; to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the occupied Palestinian territory; and to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of that illegal situation.
I ask the Minister to please answer five specific questions. Given the opinion, it seems absolutely crystal clear that the UK must, first, end all arms sales to Israel, including dual-use items; secondly, end any military surveillance partnership that could contribute to rendering aid in maintenance of this illegal situation; and thirdly, regulate the private sector—there are credible reports of complicity on the part of private sector organisations, not least oil and gas companies, in providing fuel that maintains the unlawful occupation. Fourthly, the UK should ban the import of products from illegal settlements. Fifthly, it should suspend the UK’s current trade agreement with Israel and negotiations over any new trade agreement, pending a proper and thorough review of the international human rights implications of this. In order to get peace, the occupation must be ended.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain.
The conflict in Gaza has undoubtedly devastated communities, decimated areas and destroyed countless lives. Each and every day, the death toll rises as further lives are extinguished. Futures are lost forever. Our Government have worked extensively with the international community to support a desperately needed ceasefire in the region—and of course, we can always do more.
The ceasefire was hard fought and painstakingly negotiated, but finally it delivered not only peace but hope. Along with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, we welcomed a ceasefire that I know brought some small comfort to my constituents in Ilford South. After 15 months of death, destruction and violence, we have witnessed hostages returning to their families and prisoners being freed in exchange. Too often in such immense tragedies, when the scale of destruction is so severe, individuals are forgotten. When we talk of death tolls—raw numbers—the son, the husband, the brother and the father are lost. Seeing the hostages and prisoners being reunited with loved ones brings into stark reality the human cost of ongoing violence in the region.
As we stand here today, the ceasefire hangs in jeopardy less than two weeks after it was announced. The lives and liberty of so many hang in the balance. Gaza is not a political tool; Gaza is home to millions of Palestinians. As the Prime Minister said recently, Palestinians “must be allowed home”.
We cannot revert back to the violence. We cannot accept further death and destruction. We know that the only viable solution to unrest in the region is a free Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. To support anything else would be to tolerate further suffering and violation of international law.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this debate.
The situation in the middle east is one of the greatest humanitarian crises of our time. Gaza is in ruins and tens of thousands are dead—including, tragically, many children. Meanwhile, Israeli families are still mourning the loved ones lost to Hamas’s brutal attack on 7 October, and many hostages remain in captivity. Across the region, civilians are paying the price for political failure and international inaction, and now with United States President Donald Trump’s reckless Gaza plan, the current fragile truce is ever more endangered.
We cannot ignore the deepening humanitarian catastrophe. Hospitals should never be battlegrounds, nor should their doctors be detained—doctors and nurses must be allowed to do their jobs in safety. Aid must be allowed into Gaza at scale, and those responsible for blocking that aid should face real consequences. Let us not equivocate: the obstruction of humanitarian aid is a breach of the Geneva convention and constitutes a war crime. Then there is the issue of illegal settlements and settler violence in the west bank. Not only is the expansion of settlements illegal under international law, but it is a direct obstacle to peace. The UK must be willing to act, including by ending trade with illegal settlements, as specified in the International Court of Justice opinion, and by holding to account those inciting violence.
The immediate priorities must be a lasting ceasefire; the return of hostages, including the release of prisoners such as Dr Abu Safiya; and urgent humanitarian relief. Beyond that, there must be a real political effort—one that does not just manage the crisis but ends it. That means real pressure on all sides to make sure the current ceasefire lasts, to respect international law, and to finally deliver a solution in which both Palestinian and Israeli people can live in peace and safety.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. I apologise for this, but a desire to get everybody in means that I am now reducing the time limit to one minute.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
We need action, not words. The International Court of Justice ruling means that we need to see real action from our Government, and that means widespread sanctions. I recently co-ordinated a letter to the Foreign Secretary with my colleague and hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), supported by over 60 parliamentarians from seven political parties, calling on our Government to impose comprehensive sanctions.
Specifically, we should impose targeted sanctions on state actors, ban the import of products from illegal settlements, introduce a total and immediate arms ban—including on F-35s—and revoke the 2030 road map. That special UK partnership with Israel seeks to deepen economic, trade and security ties. How on earth would it be acceptable to do that with a state facing serious allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide? The UN General Assembly has endorsed the approach that sanctions are necessary. We now need the political will to put that moral and legal imperative into practice.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing today’s debate. I was at the International Court of Justice when the South African application was originally made, and I think we should congratulate South Africa on what it put forward and the work it has done to apply international law for Palestinians.
For the record, the ICJ’s judgment included settlement activities in breach of article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention, Israel’s attempt to annex parts of the Palestinian territories, and violations of international law prohibiting racial segregation and apartheid. These are very serious cases indeed. What we need to hear from the British Government is that they fully accept and fully support all the ICJ’s decisions, and that they will implement them. My last word is this: if we continue supplying weapons to a country that is in violation of international law, we ourselves are in violation of international law.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this debate. The Israeli occupation and annexation is unlawful; I would gently say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we cannot pick and choose where the law applies. There is no exemption for Israel.
I want to ask three questions about settlement goods. Can the Minister set out what legislative and regulatory steps the Government have considered to prohibit UK nationals, companies and financial institutions from conducting business in, or with, illegal Israeli settlements? Has the UK taken any measures aimed at banning trade in settlement goods, such as introducing effective tracking systems, and will the UK ban investments in Israeli companies or banks that are contributing to maintaining Israel’s unlawful occupation?
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
It is my pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this important debate.
While our closest allies rubbish the international courts, we must not go down that path and I welcome the Government’s statements to that effect. As my time is brief, I will focus on one particular argument. Occupations are never planned to be extraordinarily long. Israeli occupation is now 57 years long, as reflected in Judge Yusuf’s separate opinion. I fear that, if the occupation continues, it will become increasingly difficult to apply international law to the situation on the ground. I am therefore keen to hear from the Minister about what approach the Government are taking to ensure that the current fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas can become a long-lasting peace with a two-state solution. That is the only way that this extraordinarily long occupation will be brought to an end in the interests of Israeli and Palestinian people.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on securing this important debate.
Last week, barrister Sam Fowles warned parliamentarians of the real risk that the UK could be in breach of international law. Given the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful and given the UK’s membership of the UN, the Government must impose sanctions on Israel to undermine its illegal occupation.
Israel is on trial for genocide, so the current partial suspension of arms licences must go further. I say it again: the UK must impose an immediate and total ban on arms export licences. Furthermore, although the Government acknowledge the illegality of Israeli settlements, they continue to import goods from them. Illegal settlement products should not be regarded as Israeli goods and should be banned from entering the UK. With the US Administration openly calling—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. I ask the hon. Member to sit down. I apologise—I know that he waited a long time to make his contribution. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has five minutes.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak with you as our Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this important debate, which he introduced with clarity and power. I also thank other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken—it has been a passionate and compelling discussion.
Liberal Democrats have long argued that the UK should uphold the rule of law and the role of international institutions in our foreign policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) argued in this debate. The post-1945 rules-based order was forged by Churchill and other leaders and has endured until now. It not only holds moral weight but is in the interests of democracies such as the UK. For that reason, we believe that, as a member of both, the UK should observe the opinions and judgments of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
We think it is irresponsible for Conservative Members to say, as they often do in the Chamber, that those are foreign courts. They may be located overseas but they have legitimate jurisdiction over the UK because previous Governments, both Conservative and Labour, have consented to that. Trying to portray them as a threat to UK sovereignty is not only false but damaging, as it reduces the likelihood of other states accepting their jurisdiction.
Imran Hussain
The hon. Gentleman is making a pertinent point about the international, rules-based order. We see that the International Court of Justice is investigating genocide but states are acting as though it is not; we have seen the International Criminal Court threatened directly by the most powerful country in the world; and we see international hypocrisy and double standards like we have never seen before. Surely the international, rules-based order is not only collapsing but dying before our eyes, if the UK Government and others do not act now.
Calum Miller
The hon. Member makes a powerful point to which I am sure the Minister will wish to respond.
Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) have been right to recognise the terrible level of violence that we have seen over the 16 months since the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October. We are moved to tears and anger when we hear of the deaths of infants in tents and hospitals in Gaza. At the same time, we are shocked and appalled to see the emaciated state of hostages such as Eli Sharabi as they are released from Hamas captivity in a gruesome pageant. There has been inhumane cruelty towards innocent civilians. That underscores why the rule of law matters. The ICC is right to consider cases against leaders on both sides. The UK should enforce these warrants.
It has been impossible for us to consider the ICJ opinion today without reference to the proposals for Gaza put forward by President Trump last week, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) highlighted. Since 5 November, Liberal Democrats have pointed out that President Trump would be unpredictable, and that the UK needed to put itself in a position of strength so as not to get swept into the chaos that the new resident of the White House would unleash.
Since the ICJ’s opinion was delivered in July 2024, the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has worsened appreciably. Northern Gaza has been flattened and its citizens placed under displacement orders. Gaza is today riddled with unexploded ordnance, even as Palestinians return home under the fragile ceasefire. In the west bank, settlement expansion has continued, and the Israel Defence Forces have continued arbitrarily to detain Palestinians and protect illegal settlements. The Israeli Knesset has outlawed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Extremist members of the Israeli Cabinet have continued to call for the annexation of the west bank, and welcomed President Trump’s suggestion that Palestinians be forced from Gaza, yet the ICJ’s opinion is clear. It creates obligations on other states, including the UK, which include supporting the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, taking steps to prevent trade or investment that assists in maintaining the illegal situation, and not rendering aid or assistance that maintains the situation.
In response to that call, Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called on the Government to take the following steps: legislate to cease trade with illegal settlements in the occupied territories; sanction those who advocate illegal settler expansion or violence by settlers towards Palestinians, in particular Minister Smotrich and former Minister Ben-Gvir; restrict all arms sale to Israel, including component parts for F-35 aircraft, since those have been used against Palestinians in the occupied territories; and immediately recognise the state of Palestine. Ministers have repeatedly refused to take those steps—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. I do not have the power to tell you to stop, but if you would not mind coming to an end, that would be good.
Calum Miller
I shall, of course. I am sorry, Dame Siobhain; I was taking account of the intervention. I shall be very brief.
I am most frustrated by the consistent refusal by Ministers to recognise Palestine. If the Government are serious about working with all partners to restore a pathway to a two-state solution, that cannot happen when only one party enjoys state recognition. Failing to act empowers the extremists on both sides. The time has come to recognise the state of Palestine.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing the debate.
We continue to follow developments stemming from this case at the ICJ carefully, and note that the ICJ itself has been far from unanimous about the advisory opinion. We understand that the Labour Government’s position is that they agree with the central findings of the ICJ’s advisory opinion, but will the Minister tell us whether he thinks that such court cases are an effective way to try to bring about peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and will he be clear that under no circumstances should we draw any kind of moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel?
Let me address the immediate situation in Israel and Gaza, which remains extremely fragile. The announcement by Hamas that they are postponing hostage releases will be a cause of concern and anxiety for the families of the hostages, and all who care about their appalling captivity. Will the Minister explain what direct engagement our Government have had with the Israeli Government, the US Administration and our partners in the region in response? The hostages held in horrific and inhumane conditions in Gaza must be returned to their loved ones, both in accordance with the terms of phase 1 of the ceasefire and in the subsequent stage. We have been relieved to see the release of the hostages freed so far under the agreement, including British Israeli national Emily Damari. I sincerely hope that all those who have been freed from captivity can now begin to rebuild their lives after the most unimaginable trauma—and nobody should doubt that trauma.
We have all seen the shocking scenes of hostages being paraded by Hamas prior to their handover, and the shocking images of the release of Or Levy, Eli Sharabi and Ohad Ben Ami on Saturday. We must also acknowledge the tragic death of 86-year-old Shlomo Mansour, who we now understand was killed during the appalling Hamas attacks on 7 October. His body has been held hostage in Gaza. We think today of his family and friends at what must be an unimaginably distressing time. The hostages who remain in the hands of Hamas are at the forefront of our minds, as are the poor families who have suffered so much and continue to wait anxiously for news about their loved ones. The news that eight hostages will not be returned to their loved ones alive is tragic. The days and weeks ahead may be very difficult for Israel and the Jewish community, and we must support them.
We must again ask the UK Government to continue to work overtime alongside our partners to exert pressure and help to remove the obstacles stopping humanitarian access to those who continue to be held hostage by Hamas. That is an important point, and it does not always receive the attention it deserves.
The Government must not jeopardise the UK’s relationship or undermine trust and confidence with the Government of Israel if they want to continue having a serious and in-depth dialogue about the present situation and the future of Gaza. I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on the delivery of British aid to Gaza since last week’s urgent question.
As to what the future could look like, we are not even close to phase 3 of the current agreement and we should not get ahead of ourselves, but, to restate our long-standing position on regional peace, we support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. Our long-standing position has been that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process. We are not at that point now, and we are clear that recognition cannot be the start of the process.
Israeli hostages remain in captivity and every single one must be released. Ensuring that Hamas are no longer in charge of Gaza and removing their capacity to launch attacks against Israel are also essential and unavoidable steps on the road to lasting peace. Our immediate focus must be getting the hostages out and getting the aid in, and then making progress towards a sustainable end to the current conflict.
If the Palestinian Authority are to have an expanded role, they need to implement the most significant reforms in their history, including to their welfare and education policies, and they must demonstrate democratic progress. That will clearly be important for their operations in the west bank, too. There are also steps we would like Israel to take, as we have said before, in relation to frozen funds and settlements. More generally, we want the UK to be actively involved in efforts to expand the Abraham accords.
I will comment briefly on the other major ICJ case, brought by South Africa, which I have serious concerns about. I do not believe it to be helpful in the goal of achieving a sustainable end to the current conflict.
To conclude, although formal determination of genocide should be based on the final judgment of a competent court, the Conservative Government when in power were very clear that Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be described as genocide—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. Again, I do not have the power to ask you to sit down, but I would be very grateful if you did.
Wendy Morton
Almost there, Dame Siobhain. We will continue to carefully scrutinise the Labour Government, and I would welcome any updates from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this debate. I will try to make some progress. I imagine that many colleagues will want to intervene, but I am keen to give my hon. Friend a chance to respond, so I will limit the number of interventions that I take.
Many Members have spoken movingly of the horrific scenes that we have seen right across the conflict, and many have drawn attention to the fact that it is right for all our minds to be on the ceasefire at this time. It is vital that the ceasefire continues through this weekend and beyond, through all three of its phases, on time and in full. That is the most important intervention that the international community can make for the people of Gaza and the people of Israel at this time.
I reiterate, as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have done repeatedly, that the UK is fully committed to international law. When the Prime Minister addressed the UN General Assembly last year, he urged UN members to turn back
“towards the rule of law towards cooperation, responsibility and progress. Towards peace.”
Mr Falconer
I will in a minute.
We demonstrated our commitment to international law in September, when the Foreign Secretary announced to Parliament the decision to suspend relevant export licences to Israel. I reassure hon. Members that that is not a partial suspension; it is a full suspension. I will not rehearse the F-35 arguments, but those suspensions do cover drones and the kinds of attacks that Professor Mamode has been briefing about so movingly.
That decision was made following the Foreign Secretary’s review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, which concluded that there is a clear risk that UK exports could be used in violation of international humanitarian law. We are continuing those assessments and we keep all aspects of our exports policy under close review.
John McDonnell
I am grateful for the Minister’s statement about the British Government complying with international law, because a number of us are concerned about complicity. Mark Smith, the diplomat who resigned because of his concern about arms sales to Israel, wrote three days ago:
“I saw illegality and complicity with war crimes.”
Has there been an investigation into Mark Smith’s allegations?
Mr Falconer
My right hon. Friend will understand that I do not want to comment too much on an individual case, but the diplomat in question was not engaged in this issue specifically since our Government have been in power, so I am not sure that there is a question for us to answer there.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) asked about the advisory opinion of the ICJ. The UK has traditionally been a strong supporter of the ICJ. It is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and this Government respect its independence.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Falconer
I will make a little bit more progress, if I may.
As the Foreign Secretary and others have made clear, we continue to consider the opinion carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) rightly identified the complexity and the novel elements of that advisory opinion, and we are taking our time in considering it. I hope to be able to return to the House in due course. The opinion contains novel findings that require further reflection. I understand his desire to know quickly our position, but hon. Members will appreciate that such an important decision necessarily takes time and careful consideration. The advisory opinion in itself took months in its development, and will take some months in its—
Debbie Abrahams
Will the decision about the advisory opinion be made before or after the Swiss conference in March?
Douglas McAllister
In its judgment, the Court stated that Israel is
“under an obligation to provide full reparation”
to Palestinian victims—full reparations for its damage and destruction. That is a key part of securing peace. How will our Government ensure not only that UK and international aid flows in, but that reparations are paid to the people of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
I am not going to comment further on how we are going to respond to the advisory opinion. It is in process and I hope to be able to update the House soon. Recognising that time is running away from me, I am not going to take any more interventions, but I will very quickly run through some of the other issues that were raised most regularly.
In relation to trade, I want to be clear that the UK Government consider Israeli settlements illegal under international law, and goods produced in those settlements are not entitled to benefit from trade and trade preferences under the UK’s current trade agreements with the Palestinian Authority and Israel. We support accurate labelling of settlement goods so as not to mislead the consumer. We routinely update our guidance to British businesses on the overseas business risk website and advise British businesses to bear in mind the UK Government’s view on the illegality of settlements under international law when considering their investments and activities in the region.
There have been many questions about statements from the US President. The UK has always been clear, and we remain clear, that we must see two states, with Palestinians able to live and prosper in their homelands in Gaza and the west bank. There must be no forced displacement of Palestinians, nor any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip. Palestinians should be able to return and rebuild their homes and their lives. That is a right guaranteed under international law. We need to move through the phases of this ceasefire deal, towards reconstruction. We will play our part in supporting that reconstruction, working alongside the Palestinian Authority and Gulf and Arab partners.
Let me end by reiterating this Government’s commitment to international law. We continue to consider the advisory opinion carefully, with the seriousness and rigour that it deserves. Our long-standing position is that Israel should bring an end to its presence in the OPTs as rapidly as possible. That should be done in a way that creates a path for negotiations towards a two-state solution where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace. That is what we will continue to press for with our international partners at every opportunity.
I close by saying that my thoughts are with those in Gaza and in Israel suffering with terrible uncertainty at the moment. We must all hope for the preservation of the ceasefire. I and the rest of the Ministers at the Foreign Office will do everything in our power to preserve it.
Brian Leishman
I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), and all other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions.
It is my opinion that the Minister did not answer all the questions that I set out, so I will submit them in writing. While there is currently a ceasefire, the humanitarian emergency facing Palestinians is very much ongoing and peace in the middle east looks a very fragile thing indeed. I will include in my letter to the Minister a suggestion that he looks into Mark Smith’s comments in greater detail, as Mr Smith details that senior officials and Government Ministers protected arms deals—