Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
Debate between Andrew George and Abtisam Mohamed(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Abtisam Mohamed
I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why it is essential that we are having this debate and that there must be a ban on trade. I will not take further interventions now because I have to make progress.
The annexation has accelerated so fast that today 750,000 settlers are believed to be living on occupied Palestinian land. Their presence each year robs the Palestinian economy, which is largely agricultural, of over £38 billion. Water in the west bank is extracted disproportionately to sustain Israel and Israeli settlers. Seventy per cent of grazing land in the occupied territories is systematically denied to Palestinians. Olive orchards are regularly set on fire. Toxic waste is dumped on their crops to destroy their economic future—I could go on.
Between 2009 and 2020, Israeli settlers in area C received 22,000 building permits; for Palestinians, the figure was just 66. When Palestinians build their homes, their presence is rendered illegal and they are often slapped with demolition orders. Settlers, however, can have their illegal outposts given full legal status by the Israeli Government. In the last two years alone, 3,500 Palestinians have been displaced in the west bank. That is over 80 communities. This is an Israeli Government-backed policy reaching far and wide across the west bank.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I did give her advance notice that because of the rescheduling of the debate, I would seek to intervene on her. As she knows, I visited the area a year ago, and the whole situation is unacceptable; in fact, the Foreign Secretary has already referred to the current circumstances as “settlement terrorism”. Does she agree that taking action on this is about not just cast-iron sanctions on trade but financial services and visas, including visas of British citizens who serve in the Israel Defence Forces?
Abtisam Mohamed
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The first act should be that we seek to stem trade from the settlements; the other points are valid ones that must be explored.
Let us imagine two children born in the same land: one is born in an Israeli settlement; the other is born in a Palestinian community—perhaps one of the 58 refugee camps scattered across the nearby region. They may be separated by only a few miles, but they will grow up under entirely different systems. One will enjoy unrestricted freedom of movement, infrastructure investment, dependable access to healthcare, free-flowing water, the right to be educated, legal protections and state support. The other may face military restrictions, checkpoints, demolitions, land seizures and profound uncertainty about their future. They will both have the same dreams, the same hopes, the same potential, yet one will grow up benefiting from a system of privilege while the other experiences the consequences of occupation. These two children will be governed by two different sets of laws, one civilian and one military. I am sure everyone will be able to guess which child is which. These waves of injustice will keep flowing, over families, over communities, over generations. How is it possible that two children in the west bank can have such different experiences, yet still there is denial that it is apartheid?
Across Europe, action is starting to take shape. Ireland has moved forward towards a ban on settlement goods. Spain has already implemented a ban. The Belgian Council of Ministers is expected to agree the detail of a ban tomorrow and for it to be in place by the end of this year. Belgium has also asked the European Commission to bring proposals to the Foreign Ministers meeting on 13 July. The Netherlands has begun moving beyond a policy of simple discouragement and has tabled a legal instrument to ban settlement trade. These countries have looked at the same legal questions and the same settlement expansions. They have the same international obligations as we do, but they have concluded that words alone are not enough. The UK remains hesitant, which should concern us all because our Government do have the tools to act. The issue is not capability, but political will.
Some will argue that it is too complex to enforce a ban and that our system of not allowing tariff preferences for settlement goods works perfectly well. It does not work, and it puts us on a collision course with our international legal obligations. Ministers cannot in good faith say that it is impossible to ban settlement trade, not when the UK’s current trade agreement with Israel already depends on identifying whether goods qualify as being of Israeli origin.
Complexity is not an excuse to hide from our international obligations. In fact, the complexity is why a ban is needed. Settlement goods are routinely mislabelled, mixed into supply chains and rerouted to obscure their origin. According to a major Global Echo study, 17% of Israeli goods that are either sold, supplied or advertised in the UK are actually from illegal settlements. In the last week alone, my office has identified products from 12 different companies based in the occupied territories being sold online or physically in our shops and markets. Most of them are marked as Israeli products, so the differentiation system we depend on does not stop the goods entering this country; it only allows us to slap a tariff charge on them. Those tariff charges actually mean nothing because the Israeli Government offer incentives to settlers. They give out millions in grants to companies to cover the costs of doing business from an illegal settlement.
I remind the Minister of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of July 2024. It includes an obligation not to aid or assist the illegal occupation, and to take steps to prevent trade and investment relations that sustain it. When I have written to companies such as Barclays and JCB about their links to Israeli settlements, they offer very little concern, but if our Government were to take stronger action to compel them not to do business in illegal settlements, we would see that action. We would see them sever their links with illegal settlements.
Others say that European countries find it difficult to enforce their bans, and that may make our job even more difficult. However, the question is not about new enforcement powers, but about utilising existing ones. There are enough instruments already to seriously disrupt illegal activity wherever it is happening. I need only point to the successes of legislation such as the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, through which much more complex sanctions have been applied in much tougher circumstances. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK did not say that sanctions were too complicated; we relished identifying Russian-linked assets. We did not say that economic pressure was pointless because Russia would just ignore it; we acted because we rightly believed in the principles at stake. What answer does the Minister have to the accusations of double standards that we constantly hear?
If the Government believe that international law has meaning, it should be applied consistently. In years to come, will we have the words to explain that we saw the warning signs, we recognised the damage being done, and still we chose to hesitate? Will we really be able to look back and say that we did enough? There are only so many times that Members can hear the same holding responses repeated at the Dispatch Box by Ministers. The Government say that they support international law, that settlements are illegal and that they support a viable Palestinian state, so what does it mean if we can identify the problem and yet we refuse to take the necessary steps, and refuse to move beyond discouragement and expressions of concern?
The time to legislate for a ban on trade with illegal settlements was decades ago, and now it may be too late to do anything. We must demonstrate that Britain’s commitment to international law is measured not only in what we say, but in what we do, because if settlements are illegal, Britain should not be trading with them.