Israel and Palestine

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:53

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 8 September.

“With permission, I would like to make a Statement on Israel and Palestine. I do so as a proud British Jew, someone with the deepest gratitude to the State of Israel for giving a home to my grandmother after she lost her husband, my grandfather, and 60 other family members at the hands of the Nazis. I remember visiting her in the 1970s in Tel Aviv and seeing the life and sanctuary Israel had provided. Indeed, some of my most joyful childhood memories are of picking oranges as a kid on the kibbutz where my cousins lived.

My personal story and that of thousands of British Jews is one of the many reasons why I say to anyone here or around the world who questions Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people: you are wrong, and we will call you out whenever you engage in that attempt at the erasure of Israel.

I know what the trauma of Hamas’s terrorist atrocity of 7 October meant and still means to people across Israel and to Jews across the world. It was a murderous act by a murderous terrorist organisation designed to massacre and instil fear across a whole population. The events of 7 October make plain the grave threats that Israel faces, and it has every right to defend itself. We should not only condemn those threats but act against those who carry them out.

Iran continues to threaten Israel and Jews across the world. We have already designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and we will do more on Iran’s proxy groups. Today I can announce that we are sanctioning Lebanese Hezbollah’s financing arm, Al-Qard Al-Hassan. Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, so we are also acting this week, alongside our allies, to report Iran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear violations, and I can announce today that we are reimposing major economic sanctions on Iran in line with the European Union and the United States. Tackling those threats is just one of the important shared national security interests we have with Israel, on which we will continue to co-operate.

I know, too, that so many members of the Jewish community now live in fear in the face of rising antisemitism, including here in the UK. Last week we commemorated the anniversary of the Heaton Park attack, when Jews were murdered at their place of worship simply for their religion—an outrage that was followed by antisemitic attacks in Golders Green, including on the Hatzola ambulances. The everyday life of Jews in Britain is deeply affected by the climate that such hate creates. When I went to school in the 1980s, I did so without fear. Today we need to face the truth: that is not the case for thousands of Jewish children across the UK—children who have to go to a school with security guards outside it. No child should have to go to school facing that, and no teacher should face antisemitism either.

Whether it happens in our schools, universities or workplaces, online or on our streets, antisemitism is a scourge and an evil. We are rightly putting in place an additional investment of £250 million for community security, but we all have a responsibility to do more. As part of this, I will in October host representatives of the J7—the countries across the world with the largest Jewish populations. We will meet in the UK to discuss the different ways we can work across borders to tackle antisemitism, including tackling online hate.

I am proud of my Jewishness and unwavering in my support for the State of Israel, and there is absolutely no contradiction between that and my support for the State of Palestine—indeed, quite the opposite. The two-state solution is based on an explicit belief that the only route to security for both peoples is to live side by side in peaceful co-existence, with freedom, security and self-determination. Securing the two-state solution in its fullest form is the north star of this Government’s policy and, indeed, of successive British Governments over decades.

It is precisely this belief in the rights and freedoms of the Israeli and Palestinian people that leads many, including me, to a deep sense of shame about what has unfolded in Palestine under the eyes of the international community. In Gaza, we have seen the most unimaginable trauma and suffering in the last three years—death, destruction and dehumanisation on an appalling scale; a stain on the conscience of the world and of this country too. And in the West Bank, we have seen the clear attempt to, in the words of Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich,

‘bury the idea of a Palestinian state’.

There is a deeply painful contrast between our professed commitment to a two-state solution and the reality on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank. I pay tribute to my predecessors, my right honourable friends the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), for their tireless efforts on this issue, as well as to the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations, my right honourable friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer).

We should always be proud that it was a Labour Government who took the historic step of recognising the State of Palestine, but the Prime Minister is right to say that the Labour Government have not done enough in the face of what is happening, so today marks the beginning of a new approach—an approach that not only calls out injustice and suffering but acts. In taking this stance, I make a very clear distinction that is crucial for us all in this debate: our argument is not with the people of Israel, with whom the UK has unshakeable bonds; our argument is with the conduct of its Government. I also want to say emphatically to people in Britain and across the world: holding British Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government is antisemitism, plain and simple.

What we seek today is to salvage the only course for peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians: the two-state solution. Let me start with the situation in the West Bank. At the time of the Oslo peace accords in 1993, around 270,000 settlers lived in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Today it is some 770,000. More settlements have been approved under the four years of this Israeli Government than in the previous 20 years. Let us spell out what that has meant for Palestinian communities: houses bulldozed; roads and public infrastructure destroyed; families displaced from their homes, community by community, family by family, person by person. Sixty-five Palestinian communities have been completely expelled since 2023—a total of over 4,000 Palestinians have been evicted from their homes due to settler violence and state actions.

In August, we saw the crossing of a long-standing red line: the issuing of E1 tenders for over 1,200 homes. I visited a community in the area covered by E1 in 2014. The Bedouin communities I met in Khan al-Ahmar had lived on that land for generations. E1 proposals would evict them and place settlements directly between east Jerusalem and the West Bank, cutting through the heart of Palestine. Let us be absolutely clear what this means: the creation of a set of facts on the ground to make the two-state solution unviable.

On top of official state policy, settler terrorism is rampant. The UN reports an average of six violent settler attacks against Palestinians per day this year—the highest on record. Let us take one example: in al-Mughayyir, 20 miles north of Jerusalem, settlers have encircled the village and mounted a campaign of intimidation, largely under the protection of the Israeli military. Families in the village are increasingly cut off from accessing their land, squeezed into ever smaller areas, and have olive trees uprooted and livestock stolen. In the same community, just last week, two teenagers were shot when settlers entered the village under police and military escort. Both died before reaching hospital. Five teenagers from their school have now been killed this year.

Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, has described what is happening as:

‘A violent and criminal effort … to ethnically cleanse territories in the West Bank’.

The former Minister of Health and retired brigadier general from the Israel Defense Forces, Ephraim Sneh, has said:

‘This is ethnic cleansing, to put it simply’.

Ethnic cleansing is defined by the UN as

‘a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas’.

The British Government agree that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists. All too often, the Israeli Government have turned a blind eye to that—and, worse, members of that Government have made statements and taken actions to support the forced displacement of Palestinians. I recognise the gravity of saying this, but the truth is that it is the least the people who face such suffering deserve, and it should be the prelude to justice.

For a long time, the British Government have rightly said that settlements are illegal, but we have remained silent on the question of the legality of the occupation as a whole, which in 2024 the International Court of Justice concluded was unlawful. Today, I announce that the official view of the British Government is that the occupation is unlawful, because of Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its intention to extend permanent sovereignty and its expansionist agenda via illegal settlements.

Our position is not just an overdue statement of reality; the Government believe that the unlawfulness of the occupation should be reflected in the economic relationships we choose to have with the Occupied Territories. I do not believe that the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops and supermarkets, so I can announce today that we will introduce an import ban on goods from illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories.

To do so, we will introduce a new comprehensive sanctions regime, working with my right honourable friend the Business Secretary, with appropriate religious exemptions. As part of this regime, we will go further. We will take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing or real estate for settlement expansion. To those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements, let me say this: you will face the full force of UK sanctions.

Settlements are illegal. They should not be promoted in our country. Earlier this year, shamefully, just a few miles from here, we saw an expo advertising illegal settlement land. We must and we will ensure that that never happens again, so we will ban the advertising in the UK of illegal settlements.

The sanctions regime will target illegal settlements and settlement expansion, not Israel. We will continue to support important and valued trade with green-line Israel precisely because we support the two-state solution, including security and prosperity for Israel. For that reason, I wholeheartedly oppose the BDS—boycott, divestment, sanctions—campaign.

The legislation I have announced today will be in place within six to nine months, and we will also take more immediate steps. Today, we are sanctioning a further set of extremist settlers who have supported or incited acts of violence against Palestinian communities. I can also announce that we are extending the existing global human rights regime such that it will enable swifter action to deter settlement expansion, including—crucially—seeking to prevent the development of E1.

I also want to address the question of arms sales. We have already suspended over 30 arms licences used by the IDF in Gaza. That suspension remains fully in place. We will now also refuse all licence applications for arms and other exports that materially contribute to the occupation—in effect, a double lock against arms sales. That means the ban on such exports will now remain in place for as long as the occupation persists.

To advance the two-state solution, we also need viable and effective Palestinian governance, so I urge the Palestinian Authority to accelerate reform, and I urge Israel to lift its withholding of revenues, which is frankly financially crippling the provision of essential services in the West Bank. The set of measures I have announced represents a clear message to the Government of Israel, to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and to the world that we will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution.

I turn now to Gaza. The horror of 7 October appalled the world and had terrible echoes of the centuries of persecution of the Jewish people: men, women, children and babies killed, mutilated and tortured by Hamas terrorists; people murdered while seeking to protect their families; young people massacred at a music festival; and people abducted from their homes. As the 20-point peace plan for Gaza sets out, that is one of many reasons why Hamas can play no role in the future governance of Gaza. It must decommission its weapons and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure.

Israel has the right not to live in fear of vile terrorism, and the Israeli state has the right to protect its people and defend its territory, but that cannot justify what has happened in Gaza. Over 70,000 people have been killed, at least 20,000 of them children—20,000. The vast majority of the population is displaced—nearly 2 million people—and they are now penned into just one third of the territory. Lifesaving humanitarian aid and access has been routinely blocked. Hospitals and clinics have been destroyed. Over 60% of homes are in ruins.

International humanitarian law imposes clear rules for states fighting wars, including to ensure access to food and medical supplies, to avoid mass displacement of civilians and to avoid the targeting of civilians. Serious and intentional violations of that law, if proven, amount to war crimes. What has occurred, including the actions of the IDF, has been examined in depth by a number of organisations, including the UN independent international commission of inquiry. The conclusions of these reports represent increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed, and we support legal processes to determine that.

On the question of genocide, the UK has always supported full, robust and fair judicial processes to consider allegations, with final determinations made by competent courts before the British Government reach a conclusion. That has been the case for all the genocides since the 1948 genocide convention: Rwanda, Srebrenica, Cambodia and acts against the Yazidi people. That will remain our policy. It is right that this issue has been brought before the ICJ, and I want to make it clear that we support the court in coming to its determination.

Accountability for what has happened in Gaza matters, but even more urgent is action to address the ongoing crisis, because today in Gaza the death and suffering continue. Nearly a year ago, a ceasefire was declared, yet over 1,200 Palestinians have been killed since, and the people of Gaza are experiencing a totally avoidable humanitarian catastrophe that I am afraid is driven by the decisions of the Israeli Government.

Last week, I talked to courageous doctors and humanitarian aid workers who have served in Gaza. It was a heartbreaking conversation. They recounted children dying waiting for medical treatment, people forced to live next to open sewage and without shelter, and food insecurity rampant. I am sure the whole House agrees that that is unconscionable, so I pledge that we will continue to do everything we can to provide all the humanitarian support possible to help the people of Gaza.

UK-supported hospitals in Gaza will enable around 800,000 medical consultations this year and essential health services for patients. UK expertise will deliver care to over 1,000 child amputees. We recently welcomed another wave of students from Gaza coming to study in Britain, and we will welcome more. But in truth, unless Israel changes course, the situation will remain dire, so we are taking further steps both by ourselves and with others.

Our extension of the global human rights sanctions regime will enable us to target those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or anywhere else in the world. At the UN General Assembly in New York later this month, we will shine the clearest and harshest spotlight on what is happening and what must change. With Jordan, we will convene countries across the world to lead a call for action on health and humanitarian access. We will also lend the UK’s voice to the growing global alliance of countries, led by Arab partners in the region, calling for the full implementation of the US-led 20-point plan, the rejection of extremism and a lasting end to the cycles of violence. As we implement the policy measures I have announced today, we will continue to assess the Government of Israel by their actions. We want to see a new approach in both Gaza and the West bank.

Today we refuse to be bystanders to further suffering and to the destruction of the two-state solution. We call out what is unlawful. We act on the import of goods from illegal settlements. We ban advertising of illegal settlements. We act on services to prevent new settlement expansion. We act on settler violence. We support accountability for what has happened in Gaza, and we pledge to galvanise the international community to confront the ongoing and urgent humanitarian crisis. Above all, we say: Britain is not silent in the face of deep injustice, nor is it powerless.

Today we act in concert with others in a broad international coalition. I can tell the House that today France and Canada are announcing, alongside Britain, that they will ban the import of goods from illegal settlements, joining the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Spain and Norway, which have either banned goods or are in the process of doing so. Many other countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden—are pledging today that they will support further action. That is what Britain can achieve, leading with others, and it is in our fundamental national interest, because if there is one lesson of recent decades, it is that we will never have stability in the Middle East without a two-state solution. It is also the case that if we fail to stand up for the values that this country has long held and fought for, we lose credibility and influence in the world.

My parents came to this country as Jewish refugees and found sanctuary and a country that stood up for the rule of law, freedom and self-determination. Those are the values this Government are standing up for today, and I truly believe that the vast majority of the British people, including in our communities with ties to the region, are united in their desire to see humanitarian suffering end and all sides commit to a durable peace process. Just as we want Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side, we have to live out those values in Britain. Jews in Britain, Muslims in Britain, and people of all faiths and none have a right to live without prejudice or fear. We need a Britain that upholds its values at home and around the world, a Britain that fights against oppression and suffering wherever they occur, and a Britain that stands up for what is right. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for granting us the opportunity to ask questions on this important Statement. These measures amount to a major change in the UK’s approach to the region, so it is right that we are scrutinising them in your Lordships’ House today.

In the other place, the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary rightly noted the consensus across both our parties on the need for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. We agree that the settlements are illegal. We are both firm in our resolve that Israel has a right to defend itself. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s explicit statement that he is unwavering in his support for the State of Israel. We also agree that His Majesty’s Government were right to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, although I remind the Minister that the Government consistently resisted our amendments to prescribe the IRGC and had to be dragged to this position by noble Lords on all sides of this House.

The question that we must ask ourselves today is whether the Government’s actions have moved us closer to a two-state solution or whether this is a backward step. The Foreign Secretary said a number of times that the UK must not be a bystander. Today we have learned that Israel has ordered the closure of the British consulate. Can the Minister say whether the news will undermine the UK’s ability to influence the future of the region? Have the Government now made the UK a bystander and a weaker influence on Israel as a result of these announcements? Can he also say what the FCDO advice was on the risk of the UK’s influence in the region being weakened as a result of yesterday’s announcement?

Then there is the matter of the timing. Only a matter of weeks ago, Ministers in the previous Government, some of whom now serve in this Government also, were saying in writing that any trade ban targeting settlements would be practically very difficult to enforce. Can the Minister confirm that this ban will in fact need primary legislation that will not be enacted for many months? The Foreign Secretary indicated nine months, but even seems optimistic to me. Can the Minister indicate when we can expect to see this draft legislation?

It has also been said by many that the Government have made a serious mistake by announcing this dramatic change in policy just weeks before an Israeli election. Bloomberg reported yesterday that British Foreign Office officials were quietly reassuring the Trump Administration that these trade sanctions were “largely symbolic”, which perhaps explains the somewhat muted US reaction.

It seems clearer by the day that this announcement has nothing to do with peace in the Middle East but everything to do with peace in the Labour Party. Can the Minister say whether Ministers even considered the risk that these measures would in fact strengthen the hand of extremist politicians in Israel who oppose the two-state solution? Yesterday, my honourable friend the Shadow Foreign Secretary asked him to say what instructions had been given to the Foreign Office on the accreditation of diplomats to the so-called Palestinian Embassy should Hamas win the elections in November and send their envoys here; he did not receive an answer. The Foreign Secretary also refused to answer the same question on Radio 4 this morning. Let me give the Minister another opportunity to do so now.

I have deliberately left the most important issue until last. Whatever His Majesty’s Government’s approach may be to issues across the world, their first duty should be to the British people. We must always stand up for British Jews. Antisemitism has no place in this country. The Chief Rabbi yesterday accused the Government of “mendacious anti-Israel rhetoric” that would put Jewish people in danger. Can the Minister please reassure the House that the Government will do everything in its power to keep British Jews safe? They are our fellow countrymen and women, and no conflict in another part of the world should be allowed to feed hate in this country. It is not just security measures for synagogues, schools and community centres that we need; although these measures are essential in this time of rising antisemitism, we need a much wider approach across our politics and in communities across the country to stamp out antisemitism. May I ask the Minister one final question before I sit down? What more are the Government going to do to end the scourge of antisemitism in the UK?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the choice of who forms the Israeli Government is for the Israeli people and them alone. Our foreign policy is for our Government, and our legislation is for this Parliament. No British Jewish person should be held to account for the actions of another Government—an Israeli Government. Antisemitism, at too high a rate, is utterly repugnant and has no place in our communities. I reiterate what I have said on a number of occasions, and I hope that the Minister might take this forward: there should be the highest-level cross-party talks on increasing measures to tackle this scourge in our country.

That said, I agree with the Foreign Secretary’s comment in his Statement that the Labour Government have not done enough in response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank. Therefore, these Benches welcome the actions taken by 12 countries, including the United Kingdom, to act on ensuring that there is no impunity for the comprehensive disregard for the rule of law in the West Bank.

The Foreign Secretary referred to the time of the Oslo accords and the number of those who resided in the illegal settlements. That number is very high. But I want to go a little bit further back and quote the first speech by Lord Carrington, as Foreign Secretary in the Thatcher Government in 1979, in this Chamber. In this speech, he said of the West Bank that:

“The objective here must be full and genuine autonomy for these areas as a step towards determining their final status. Nothing would do more to help these negotiations, to build trust in the area, and to win the consent of the Palestinians than for Israel to cease the expansion of its settlements in the occupied territories”.—[Official Report, 22/5/1979; col. 240.]


Then, there were not much more than 15,000 settlers in the illegally occupied areas. Today, there are more than 750,000. The challenges ahead are enormous, but Lord Carrington got the prescription of the problem exactly right.

I have seen the impunity both for those who are in the illegally occupied territory and for those in the outposts. In September 2024, I visited the area and saw part of the destruction and the intimidation by illegal settlers in outposts in the West Bank that are illegal under Israeli law. Our sanctions will not make any difference there. On my return to this House, I called for action and an end to the impunity, because settler violence was the worst on record in the year leading up to 7 October, and it has got worse since.

If the established view across all parties in this House is that outposts are illegal under both Israeli and international law, and that settlements are illegal under international law, surely it is a natural position that UK law should not facilitate trade and investment with those illegal outposts. I do not understand those who are saying that we should not have our law respecting Israeli law.

Further, it is surely a natural position that, for those who facilitate settlements and outposts that are illegal under Israeli law, our law should ensure that both finance and violence by intimidation should also be illegal. My first-hand sight of the intimidation was on a particular occasion where the settler was South African and had secured and formalised his Israeli citizenship on the flight from South Africa.

Unfortunately, actions to ensure that there is no peace in Gaza and the West Bank are happening through a systematic approach by some of those outpost communities. Lord Carrington was right that the outposts and settlements were a hindrance and block to peace.

I ask the Minister how we in the United Kingdom will ensure that Hamas gangsters are prevented from being part of governance. We called for the IRGC to be proscribed and were, on occasions, frustrated that the previous Government refused to do so. We welcome this Government’s proscription of it.

We have also been supportive of the recognition of the state of Palestine. But, on the balance of ensuring that Hamas is not part of the governance, we need to ensure that there is good governance for Palestine, and that is why we were critical of the Government cutting development partnership support for the very governance and transparency for Palestine that we will need in the future.

The previous Government perpetuated a cut of 80% to ODA for Palestine, which this Government are continuing. I hope that the Minister might review this, to ensure that the UK’s support for good governance increases and does not continue to fall. The travesty of the Trump Administration’s failed humanitarian agency shows the need for there to be clarity, law and order, and good governance.

Finally, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the sanctions regime that will be put in place will ensure that all those involved in circumvention of the sanctions regime will be caught within it, so that there is no impunity for those within this country, under our law, to continue to support the expansion of outposts that are illegal under Israeli law.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Purvis, for their comments. I will answer their questions in a minute, but I think it might be helpful to give a little bit of context that will help me provide some of the answers they are looking for.

This Government think that the situation in Palestine is a moral emergency. We all know—we can see with our eyes—what the Israeli Government have inflicted on the people of Gaza. It is an outrage. There is increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed in Gaza, and we are witnessing unprecedented violence, including settler terrorism, in the West Bank.

What the Foreign Secretary announced yesterday was a decision not to stand by and let this happen. We are going to be stronger in standing up for what is right and bolder in the action we take.

What is striking is that all parties—the Liberal Democrats, Conservative and Labour, at the very least, but others as well—support the two-state solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, eloquently stated at the outset of his remarks: freedom, security and self-determination for both Palestinian and Israeli people.

This action is designed to defend this policy at a time when the already diminishing prospects for that solution are under serious threat. That is why we have concluded that Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, in line with the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion in 2024. That is why we have brought in the various sanctions regime measures that the Foreign Secretary talked about yesterday. I am happy to talk about those in more detail in a minute in response to some of these questions.

Turning to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, it is striking that he started his remarks by supporting our policy but is unwilling to support the means by which we prosecute our policy at a time when it is needed most. He asked whether our actions would undermine influence. How Israel responds is a matter for Israel, just as our foreign policy is a matter for us. We have very strong and continuing security co-operation with Israel. That will continue. It is in the interests of our country, Israel, the wider region and the West in general.

The noble Lord also asked about support. We have support most notably from the Palestinian representatives of the people whom these measures affect most. We also have support directly from France and Canada, which aligned their policies yesterday, the day that the Foreign Secretary announced our new approach, and 12 other countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, which are going to support economic measures to pursue the same goal.

The noble Lord asked about legislation for sanctions. It is a good question. There is a series of separate things. We are taking immediate action under existing legislation to target individual settlers—an action that the Conservative Government also took against individual settlers a few years ago. We are going to extend the global human rights regime to include violations of humanitarian law. We expect that to be brought into force in the next few weeks. In the longer term, as the noble Lord said, it will take six months or more to develop a new, targeted approach to companies that assist or profit from the expansion of settlements. There are challenges in bringing that about. There is no doubt about it. There will be tough cases, particularly as we are committed to protecting the integrity of trade with green-line Israel. But we are confident that we have a sophisticated sanctions regime, with various institutions that have played a part in applying sanctions elsewhere. I have taken decisions in my short time in this job with regard to Russia, for example. We have sophisticated co-ordination between HMRC, OTSI, OFSI and other bodies that we are confident can deliver a manageable regime.

The noble Lord asked about timing in advance of the elections. The elections, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said more eloquently than I could, are a matter for the Israeli people. Our responsibility is to our country and to advance a policy that defends the commitments that are shared not just across parties but, we believe, across the country.

On Hamas, let me be absolutely clear that there should be no place for Hamas in the future governance of Palestine. We have taken strong action on the proscription of Hamas. We will continue to take strong action against Hamas in funding and also against individuals. At the moment, the priority is to support the United States’ 20-point plan. That is a crucial plank for achieving the restoration of order and peace in the region. However, we will not hesitate to use the powers we have to target Hamas individually and collectively in the future.

The noble Lord asked about the Chief Rabbi’s comments. I have huge respect for the Chief Rabbi, but I disagree with his conclusion. Antisemitism is a scourge not just in our country but elsewhere. It is something that everyone should take hugely seriously and do the utmost to stamp out, but the Government have to be able to take decisions about the foreign policy of another Government. They have to have the freedom to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, again eloquently said, we should all condemn eliding the distinction between British Jews and the responsibilities they have and the Israeli Government and the responsibilities they have. We should deny that connection.

I turn now to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who supported much of yesterday’s announcement, and I am very grateful for that. He is right to point to the number of countries that have co-ordinated in aligning themselves with the Foreign Secretary’s new approach yesterday—and he is also right to point to the cross-party routes of action against settlers. The quote from Lord Carrington shows that action against settlers is not a new part of Labour Government policy; it is a consistent theme that goes back to distinguished members of both parties, and other parties, for a very long time.

I, too, have visited areas where—let us be honest—settlers have wreaked havoc and caused misery and destruction. I went with the Foreign Secretary, when he was leader of the Labour Party, to the E1 area, where we met and dined with a Bedouin community who had been there for decades and were being forcibly expelled by settler violence. The noble Lord put his finger on the key rationale here: once you take a position on the legality of the occupation, as we have done, our trade policy aligning with that is not just an extra but a duty. That is the policy that was announced yesterday, and it is why we are targeting not only those who perpetrate settler violence but also, in future, individual companies that will seek to assist settlement expansion and profit from it. He is right also to point to the need to ensure Hamas is not involved in future Palestinian governance arrangements, and to say that the UK needs to play a strong part in supporting good governance in Palestine. My noble friend Lord Barber plays an important part as an envoy on Palestinian governance, and we have a range of support measures that we will continue to provide.

On the last point about sanction circumvention, the noble Lord is absolutely right that a regime that is not easily evaded needs to be devised. The regime will be based on postcode declarations, an established mechanism that is used elsewhere. There is a combination of activity by HMRC, the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation and the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which have worked together in many ways for a long time. They will continue to do so to ensure that this regime is as watertight as we can make it.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we go on to the next 20 minutes, which is for Back-Bench questions only, if we have short questions and not statements or speeches, we will be able to get in as many noble Lords as possible. Bearing that in mind, we will start with the Conservatives and work around the Chamber.

16:12

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answers to the two Front Benches, and note the proud tradition of the Conservative Party —not just Lord Carrington, who called out the E1 settlement which was the trigger here, but successive Conservative Prime Ministers also. I declare my interests in working for organisations that have been resolving conflict in the Middle East. I have two practical questions to ask the Minister.

In response to British sanctions—and I agree with him that the Conservative Government initiated the sanctions regime to which he refers—what are the practical consequences of the closure of the consulate in Jerusalem in terms of Palestinian representation? Also importantly, what engagement do we directly have with the Israelis—because many in Israel wish to see a final agreement and settlement so there is security and peace for Palestinians and Israelis—to ensure that this vision, which has gone on for far too long, turns into a working, practical reality?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. He is right that we were disappointed that the Israeli response was to close the UK consulate in East Jerusalem, with a 30-day notice period. We will continue to endeavour to provide in other ways the kind of activities that the consulate provided. There are other measures that Israel responded with, though none affecting security. It is, of course, its right to respond in the way it sees fit. The noble Lord is also right that there has to be dialogue with those forces in Israeli society who want peace and see cross-community co-operation as the future. That is something that this Government are going to support, and the Foreign Secretary is very keen to support it as well.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. In that context, we unequivocally oppose the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and condemn settler violence. Those responsible for the violence should face the full force of the law. However, the Government’s decision to ban trade with settlements is, in my view, the wrong response at the wrong time. Announced just before the Israeli elections, which are next month, this strengthens the far right of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who claim that Israel is under siege, pushing voters away from the less hard-line parties and weakening Israelis’ hope for change. Britain should refrain from acts that will influence Israeli elections, which, as I say, are next month. We would not like it if a foreign country were doing that during the course of the UK elections. We should be supporting moderates. The Minister mentioned—

[Noble Lords]

Question!

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

Could the Minister confirm that we should be supporting moderates like Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party and Samer Sinijlawi’s new party challenging the Fatah-PA, which has not held an election for decades? Will the Minister also confirm that we need to safeguard the UK’s vital security and intelligence relationship with Israel, which helps to protect lives? Lastly—

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord like to sit down, please? He has had ample time to make his point.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. He obviously speaks with great authority and passionate interest in this subject. I agree that we should be supporting moderates—not intervening politically to support them, but supporting moderate voices across Israeli society and within the Palestinian Authority. Serious reform needs to be done in the Palestinian area as well.

I want to be clear that, while obviously a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet are in place, the reason for the timing of this announcement is a sharp rise in settler violence; an accelerating expansion of settlements; a new tender process in the E1 settlement area that was issued in August—which, by the way, completes a week before the Israeli election; and a consistent failure by many of those in power in Israel to hold those who perpetrate violence to account. That is the explanation for the timing.

Israel’s elections will proceed according to Israeli law, and we will not intervene in Israeli politics. We have to make decisions based on the facts that we see. The new Government have come in and made an assessment, and that is why we responded when we did.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Will the Minister recognise the wisdom of the statement yesterday by the much-respected president of the State of Israel, Isaac Herzog, who said that what is needed in this context is constructive dialogue, not gesture politics. Is it not therefore most unfortunate that, since the appointment of Prime Minister Burnham in July, he is yet even to speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu?

[Lord Wood of Anfield]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. Dialogue is, of course, fundamental to the way forward in this as in any comparable crisis, and in any complex situation like this. President Herzog urged dialogue. When it comes to the expansion of settlements, though, there seems to be precious little dialogue going on domestically to restrain an accelerating and deeply disturbing trend. I will give the House some statistics: as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, there were about 250,000 settlers in 1993 at the time of Oslo, but in 2026 there are 750,000. There are six settler violence incidents per day, with 65 Palestinian communities expelled in their entirety since 2023. I absolutely agree with the need for dialogue, and I think dialogue should be the first port of call between Israel’s Government and the settler community.

I am sorry, I forget the second part of the noble Lord’s question. I do apologise.

[Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Statement by the Foreign Secretary yesterday, particularly the tone in which he delivered it. I truly believe that the calling out of the illegal occupation, and the sanctions on the illegal settlements, is a game-changer in progressing towards peace in the region. While that is happening, and the implementation is key, can my noble friend the Minister say what actions the Government are taking to bring force to bear on some of the other actors in the region, such as Iran and its proxies?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. It is absolutely right that the action we took yesterday, in announcing a new policy on sanctions with regard to the West Bank, was accompanied by further strong action against Iran, in particular by taking action against the supply chain for its nuclear programme. The Labour Government have already—last year—reapplied the snapback mechanism, as some noble Lords know, for United Nations resolutions. We yesterday announced further actions targeting the financial trade, energy and transport sectors, and are targeting financial assistance and the banking of Iranian companies, for those companies connected to the nuclear programme. We are going to expand the sanctioning of vessels involved in activities supporting the nuclear programme. We also took action yesterday in proscribing al-Qard al-Hassan, the financing arm of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Taking strong action against Iran and its proxies, as my noble friend said, is a crucial part of ensuring that Israel remains secure.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, like others in this House, I came face to face with settler militia and the impact on settlements while visiting the south Hebron hills last year. Therefore, with many on these Benches, I welcome this Statement. We have called for such principled action over many years. We believe that these measures are just, necessary and, frankly, overdue, although we also want to emphasise that, in acting against specific policies of the Israeli Government, we of course remain unreservedly opposed to the evils of antisemitism, here in the UK and everywhere. I have a specific question. Does the Minister accept, given the E1 tenders—E1 has already been mentioned, but I think tenders are coming up on 19 October and are about to be opened—that further measures are needed to deter Israeli banks from guaranteeing such bids?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the most reverend Primate for those comments. He is right that the E1 settlement tender process finishes on 19 October. Our announcement yesterday is a signal that any company which wants to take part in any of the construction-related processes in that tender should think twice, because we are bringing forward steps that, although not a blanket services ban at all, are targeted measures to focus on any company that assists or profits from the expansion of settlements. I appreciate also his comments at the beginning about broad support for this policy. I should also point out that it is not just Muslim Palestinians who are the victims of settlement expansion. Palestinian Christians have seen terrible suffering, including arson attacks and attacks on churches. In Taybeh, I believe the fifth-century St Peter’s Church was attacked. They have seen their land taken away, so this is action in support of Palestinians of all descriptions who have experienced those horrors in the face of settler violence.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Shinkwin!

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement refers to an additional £250 million of investment for community security. Is that not an implicit recognition that this announcement on the boycott will fuel, and indeed legitimise, further anti-Jewish racism directed against British citizens?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

Absolutely not. There is and must be no connection between the actions of the Israeli Government and any attribution of responsibility to British Jews. That is a connection that we totally deny. The new Prime Minister has shown his commitment. The reason why this investment needs to be provided is because there has been, over time, a shocking rise in antisemitic incidents. Everyone can see it. Just last week we commemorated the upcoming anniversary of the appalling Heaton Park attack. That was followed by antisemitic attacks in Golders Green, including on the Hatzola ambulances. Antisemitic incidents are, shockingly, on the rise, not just here but across countries. That is why we will provide over £300 million, in fact, over three years to protect Jewish communities and tackle antisemitism. That is why the Foreign Secretary is meeting the J7, the group of countries with the largest Jewish populations, in October. It is a priority for the new Prime Minister; he has made that clear already. That commitment will remain absolute, and I hope it enjoys cross-party support.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s Statement. Ever since Mr Rabin’s tragic death in the mid-1990s, the Palestinians have been strung along with the hope of an independent state, and people such as Mr Netanyahu have done everything possible to hinder it. This E1 is the final straw that will break the camel’s back. I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments around our extension of the global human rights sanctions regime, which has enabled us to target those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or elsewhere. Will that be extended to Mr Netanyahu or Mr Gallant, for whom there are already arrest warrants, or to those individual soldiers seen on various videos committing crimes against humanity, whether in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank, where settlers and the police are colluding to target and shoot dead innocent Palestinians?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those questions. He is absolutely right that the cause of the overwhelming majority of decent Palestinians has been neglected for too long. I hope this starts to correct some of that. On global human rights reforms, we are beefing up the existing regime—by the way, this is a universal regime rather than targeted on specific countries—to include not just those who abuse human rights but those who violate international humanitarian law in Palestine and throughout the world. That does not stop us using existing global human rights regimes to target individual settlers. That is why five individuals were targeted yesterday.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, do the Government consider that the Government of Israel have the right to order us to close the consulate in east Jerusalem, given that it is situated in east Jerusalem, which is recognised by the United Nations and practically all its members as being occupied Palestinian territory over which Israel does not have sovereignty? Can he say whether we are going to contest the attempt to order us to close the consulate, which is both disproportionate and ultra vires?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, knows much more about this than I do; I feel like I am in my introductory day at the Foreign Office, trying to work out difficult questions. He may have a point; it is an interesting point on the legality. De facto, Israel can prevent the operation of that consulate, which is why we are endeavouring to ensure that the consulate’s functions will be provided in another way.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord give us some examples of where the Palestinians have accepted a two-state solution? Israel has accepted it. As a British Jew, I would welcome it. The Government must know—if they do not, they should, I hope, take note—that the Jews in this country have felt under attack and under pressure from the double standards that seem to be applied to the only Jewish state in the world, which is surrounded by enemies and trying to defend itself, while the Palestinian Authority is getting aid and still supports the “pay for slay” policy. Will the Minister please explain how these double standards can be acceptable?

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question; she has great interest and expertise in this issue. The two-state solution is expected on all parties—Palestinians and Israelis. It is something we expect the leaders of the Palestinian Authority and of Israel to support, and we want their actions to match their commitment. On both sides, symmetrically, where actions fall short, we will take action with our foreign policy.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the Foreign Secretary on both the tone and content of his Statement on the West Bank and Gaza. Moreover, I regret the hypocrisy of those opposite who claim to support a two-state solution yet refuse to endorse actions against the Israeli Government, whose settlement policy is making such a solution impossible. I also wonder why they do not condemn their continual breaking of international law on occupation. As so often, the Israeli Government have over-reacted, including by deciding to close the British consulate. More than one speaker has raised this issue. Will particular care be taken to ensure that Palestinians wishing to get visas to come to the UK, who would normally do that through the consulate, will be able to do so? Finally, will the Government make it clear to the Israeli Government that the measures produced yesterday have the overwhelming support of the British population, as demonstrated by polling information? That should be taken into account in any constructive dialogue that takes place.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for those questions; she has raised an important point. Down the line, I would be interested to find out whether the Conservative Party agrees with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 2024. We have made our decision; I would be interested to find out what the position of the Conservatives and other parties is. On the provision of consular services, including visa provision, as I said earlier, we will endeavour to provide functional replacements for what was provided by the consulate in East Jerusalem, once it is forced to close after 30 days. On the last point, about public support, I strongly believe that, while the position the Foreign Secretary outlined yesterday clearly does not express everyone’s view—this is an issue that sometimes divides in passionate ways—it expresses a broad majority support for taking action against some of the violence and turning of a blind eye by the Israeli Government, particularly in settler areas.