Israel and Palestine

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)]

The petitions reflect the deep concern and passion of many in our society about the ongoing conflict and suffering in the middle east, and I respect the sentiment behind them. This Government are already working towards the same objectives that many of the signatories seek: an end to the violence in Gaza, the immediate release of all remaining hostages, an improved supply of humanitarian aid and, crucially, irreversible progress towards a lasting two-state solution. Peace in the middle east will come from negotiations, dialogue and the willingness of both sides to find common ground.

I turn first to the question of recognising the state of Palestine. Both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples have a legitimate right to self-determination. The foundation of a two-state solution is an independent, viable and democratic Palestine living alongside a safe and secure Israel. Since the Oslo accords, the principle has been clear: a two-state solution can be reached only through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. An action that undermines that principle, such as unilateral recognition of Palestine by the UK, only complicates that matter and makes peace more difficult. It creates the false impression that a Palestinian state can be imposed from the outside, without the necessary negotiations. Unilateral recognition, as seen with countries such as Spain, Norway and Ireland, has led to no real progress on the ground. It is a symbolic gesture, but it does not advance the cause of peace.

We must also approach the matter of arms exports with a clear-eyed view of the facts. Revoking UK arms export licences would once again be a largely symbolic gesture, with little practical impact on the situation in Gaza. It would also undermine our credibility as a security partner in the region and send the wrong messages to adversaries, including Iran.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Presumably, my hon. Friend will recognise that 15% of the F-35 construction parts come from the United Kingdom, and they are the choice of delivery of the 2,000 lb bombs that obliterate civilian populations in Gaza. Does he share my concern that continuing to participate in that programme leaves the United Kingdom at risk of being prosecuted under various conventions for complicity in those heinous acts?

[Mike Tapp]

We must bear in mind that 95% of weapons come from the US and Germany, and on the legal side of things, the Prime Minister and the Government have been clear that they have consulted legal advice, which of course will continue—I expect that there will be more from the Minister on that.

That is not to say that we ignore the suffering or the rights of Palestinians—far from it—but revoking arms sales to Israel, particularly when the country is engaged in a seven-front conflict against Iran and its proxies, would undermine our national security interests in the middle east. The UK has a long-standing defence and security relationship with Israel, which played a key role in defending Israel against an unprecedented Iranian ballistic attack earlier this year.

We have real-world experience in peacebuilding through initiatives such as the International Fund for Ireland, which invested in cross-community projects in Northern Ireland long before the Good Friday agreement was signed. Over time, these projects help to change attitudes and foster the conditions for political leaders to negotiate and compromise. The UK can and must apply those lessons to the middle east. By supporting peacebuilding civil society organisations in both Israel and Palestine, we can build the foundations for lasting peace. That approach has already received backing from the G7, and was reinforced by the Prime Minister's recent announcement on supporting civil society peacebuilding.

I urge us all to focus on actions that have a tangible long-term impact. Unilateral recognition of Palestine or the withdrawal of arms exports to Israel may offer a moment of symbolic protest, but will not move us closer to a genuine and lasting peace. The real path to peace lies in dialogue, supporting peacebuilding initiatives and encouraging both Israelis and Palestinians to come to the table. The UK can play a meaningful role by investing in projects that build trust and create the conditions necessary for a sustainable two-state solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for securing this debate, and to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for leading it. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. They have represented their views and those of their constituents, many of whom I know have signed these petitions with sincerity. With your forbearance, Mr Pritchard, and recognising the many pages of questions I have received over the course of the afternoon, I will try to make progress with my speech before taking interventions.

I recognise the tone both of the petitions and of the questions and contributions this afternoon. I think the House is united in wanting to end the agonies in Gaza, return the hostages, end the violent expansion of settlements, and secure a two-state solution. That is my work and the work of this Government, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for highlighting how different our approach is from that of the Government who preceded us. When we became the Government, we called for an immediate ceasefire. On my first day as a Minister, we restored funding to UNRWA. We have now provided £41 million to UNRWA, recognising its vital work.

We have taken a different approach on questions of international law in relation to the ICC and the ICJ, and in our votes in the UN Security Council. Even when resolutions have been defeated, we have been clear on our commitment to international humanitarian law and the need for a two-state solution. In relation to sanctions on settlers and settlements, we have taken far-reaching action, which I shall cover briefly in my speech.

I would like to say something, given how strongly many of our constituents feel about the issues. I am a Labour Member and Minister, and other Labour MPs send me the videos the photos and the many reports that I know constituents see every day, as so many people have referred to. I see them too. As a Labour Member and Minister, I am never far from the reality of the situation. I am grateful to my colleagues for helping to ensure that that is the case.

I will turn briefly to the petitions that we are debating, trying to give substantive answers to both, then I will take interventions. First, on the call for immediate recognition, I want to I want to make it clear that this Government are unequivocal in their support for recognition and of a two-state solution. Palestinian statehood, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said, is the right of the Palestinian people; it is not in the gift of any neighbour, and it is vital, as was set out, that the people of the west bank and Gaza are given the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state.

We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state, and we will do so at the time most conducive to the long-term prospects for peace. We must take that step when we think that it will make the greatest contribution to bringing about the reality of a sovereign Palestinian state, alongside a secure Israel, which I know is the end goal we all agree on.

Many Members have referenced the decisions of allies. We watch those carefully and discuss the issues diplomatically, as one might expect. Simply saying a thing does not make it so, however, and this Government are driving their efforts towards the practical questions: creating the conditions necessary for a two-state solution to become a reality. The Prime Minister reiterated that commitment and his support for reforms to the Palestinian Authority—mentioned by a number of Members—when he met President Abbas in September.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about our support for Israel’s security. Of course, that remains steadfast, as it does for Israel’s right to self-defence against terrorism and state threats. However, as we have said repeatedly, Israel must do that in accordance with international law. We have taken decisive action against extremist Israeli settlers who undermine the viability of a two-state solution and we have called out the unacceptable rhetoric of some Israeli Ministers.

As Members have said, settlement expansion and violence have reached record levels. The Israeli Government seized more of the west bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years; that is completely unacceptable. We recently sanctioned three illegal outposts and four organisations that have supported and sponsored violence against communities in the west bank. Those sanctions are focused not just on the violence, but on the settlements themselves, which are contrary to international law. We will continue to take action necessary to challenge those who undermine a two-state solution. On the questions asked about sanctions, I am afraid that I will not provide—in a way that Members will be familiar with—a commentary on whom we may target with sanctions, but I reassure the Chamber that we will continue to take the action necessary.

Let me turn to the call in the second petition to revoke all licences for arms exports to Israel. I recognise the strength of feeling. It is why on day one, we commissioned a review into Israel’s commitment to and compliance with international humanitarian law and we took decisive action where the review found possible breaches. On 2 September, the Foreign Secretary announced that decision to Parliament, and it followed a conclusion of the clear risk of items being used in violation of IHL. Let me be clear: that is not a partial suspension; it is a full suspension of all licences for equipment for use in military operations in Gaza.

I will come to the F-35 points shortly, but on the remaining licences that are not in relation to the F-35s, they are for body armour for journalists and NGOs; equipment for re-export to close allies; and items utilised for training and never intended to see conflict. Those are the remaining military licences to Israel. In my view, it is not right to suspend those when there is no clear risk that they could be used in the ongoing conflict. The majority of licences to Israel are not to the Israel Defence Forces and not for military equipment. Under this Government’s watch, there are no extant licences that could be used by Israel to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the Gaza conflict. All of this is subject to the measures set out in Parliament excluding exports to the global F-35 programme from the scope of the suspension. Some Members have questioned that, but let me be clear about the Government’s view: suspending F-35 licences could not be done without prejudicing the F-35 programme.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) asked how that is consistent with the law and referred to some of the opening speeches in the ongoing judicial review. I will not comment in great detail on the judicial review, which is considering these legal questions in greater detail. The section of the arms trade treaty to which he referred asks us to tend to questions of international peace and security. We have been clear in the House, and I am clear again today, that to bring down the F-35 programme would have significance to international peace and security and to our broader strategic role in NATO, and would affect western equipment support for Ukraine. This is not an arbitrary decision that we have taken. We will keep this and all aspects of our policy under close review.

[Andy McDonald]

Will my hon. Friend please accept from the people who make this argument that there is strength in it? The issue is the end user of the F-35 programme. There is no suggestion that the UK should withdraw from the programme entirely, only that there be a block on the end user. Those F-35s are delivering the 2,000-pound bombs that are rending asunder civilian communities in Gaza and we must play our part in making sure that does not happen any longer. Will he please accept that?

[Mr Falconer]

I want to be clear to my hon. Friend and to everybody here that the direct selling of F-35 parts to Israel has now been suspended; it is indirectly that we are not in a position to determine the end user. Members are saying that we could determine the end user. I reiterate the Government’s position that the global supply chain is critical to the operation of the F-35 programme and that we cannot suspend licences to end users in the way that my hon. Friend would like without imperilling that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I will try to push on, if that is okay.

We have announced £112 million for the occupied Palestinian territories this year. We will continue to press for the vital services that civilians in Gaza and the west bank desperately need. That includes £13 million that the Prime Minister announced as our commitment to UNRWA when he met Commissioner-General Lazzarini on 11 December. As I understand it, he is the first ever Prime Minister to meet an UNRWA Commissioner-General.

We have continually supported hostage talks, and I welcome the reference that fellow Members have made to the British national who is still being detained by Hamas. We will continue to work alongside our allies and partners in the region, exercising every possible diplomatic lever to see the hostages immediately and unconditionally released.

As I said, we have imposed sanctions against those perpetrating and inciting human rights abuses against Palestinian communities in the west bank, and since July we have sanctioned three illegal outposts and four organisations. I welcome the comments from hon. Members about the importance of peace-building efforts.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister has mentioned several times the three illegal outposts and four organisations. All outposts in the west bank are illegal. As a nation, why are we not taking much more strenuous action against all illegal occupation of the west bank and the occupied territories?

[Mr Falconer]

I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to reiterate this Government’s policy towards the west bank. It is occupied Palestinian territory: that is clear in international law, and there is no dispute about that. The sanctions that we imposed had quite far-reaching implications, including for organisations that are involved on a broad and structural basis in helping to construct settlements. I hope that there is no ambiguity about our position.