Israel and Palestine

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I will confine my remarks to the subject of Israel and Palestine, and I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on Britain-Palestine.

I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement of 8 September, and particularly the Government having now made it clear that their official position is that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is unlawful—it is illegal. That is an important change, and it at long last brings the United Kingdom into line with the International Court of Justice 2024 advisory opinion, but, as the Minister said, the court’s conclusion was rooted in Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its clear intention to extend permanent sovereignty, and its expansionist settlement agenda. It is also welcome that the Foreign Secretary acknowledged the increasing evidence identified by bodies, including the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, that war crimes appear to have been committed in Gaza, and we support the appropriate legal processes to establish responsibility for those crimes.

On genocide, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to full, robust and fair judicial processes, with final determinations made by competent courts, but the UK does not need to wait for a final determination before acting. The UN commission of inquiry stated in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and that state parties to the genocide convention had been on notice of a serious risk of genocide since at least January 2024. That serious risk itself triggers a duty to prevent genocide. The UK must therefore recognise that risk and act now: ending political, financial and military support that contributes to it; sanctioning those most implicated; committing to execute International Criminal Court arrest warrants; and supporting South Africa’s case at the ICJ.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to refuse arms licences where exports materially contribute to the unlawful occupation, but the Foreign Secretary did not clearly confirm when I asked during last week’s statement whether existing licences will be cancelled where they meet that test. Will the Minister confirm that the new double lock will apply to existing licences, and set out the criteria by which the Government will determine whether an export contributes to the occupation? Colleagues will wish to know whether British arms exports currently available for the IDF in the west bank will no longer be licensed.

I welcome the proposed sanctions on goods and services linked to illegal settlements I very much welcome that in the context of the previous ridiculous position of properties being marketed in this city for sale in the west bank. When that was raised, the wholly inappropriate response was to send in the Advertising Standards Authority, so I welcome the movement on that by Front Benchers. Will the Government confirm that these measures will cover all settlements, including existing settlements, that the ban on goods will apply to exports as well as imports, and that there will be no “re-export to settlements” clauses in contracts, as modelled on the guidance issued in respect of Russia?

Finally, I sincerely hope that this reset will be furthered and sustained, as only by doing so can the commitment to a two-state solution be truly achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Uma Kumaran)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their heartfelt contributions to today’s debate, and I pay tribute to those who called, cross-party, for the actions this Labour Government have taken. I thank the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Rugby (John Slinger), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) and for High Peak (Jon Pearce), the hon. Members for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), who also mentioned the work of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Dr Opher) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp).

I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary for a deeply moving and powerful speech last week, and for taking action. The Foreign Secretary’s speech resonated with so many across the country. He spoke about the history of his family, and the power of his words and actions were felt by my constituents in Stratford and Bow. On a personal level, I felt profoundly the weight of his remarks, and of the action taken by the United Kingdom. As you mentioned, Madam Deputy Speaker, these are my first remarks from the Dispatch Box, so I hope you will allow me to reflect briefly on the poignance of this moment. The Foreign Secretary spoke of the sanctuary that his family were given. My parents, like so many, were given sanctuary in Britain, which is why I was born in east London. In one generation, my family has gone from being Tamil refugees who fled persecution and war, to their daughter standing here as a Minister in the Foreign Office. That is a testament to the United Kingdom.

As my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the middle east said at the start of this debate, the United Kingdom is a country that stands up for the rule of law, freedom and self-determination, but as the Foreign Secretary powerfully said last week, many of us feel a deep sense of shame about what has unfolded in Palestine under the eyes of the international community. We also condemn the atrocities of 7 October and the murderous actions of the vile Hamas terrorist group.

In the debate, Members rightly welcomed the Government’s standing up for what is right more strongly, and being bolder in the action we have taken. The situation in Palestine is a moral emergency. What the Israeli Government have inflicted on the people of Gaza is a stain on the conscience of the world. The occupation is unlawful. There is increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed. We are witnessing unprecedented violence, including settler terrorism and ethnic cleansing in areas of the west bank. It is for those reasons that the British Government have been bolder in the actions we have taken.

I have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and I will try to respond to some of the key points. At the outset, let me address the meaningful remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West on the importance of MPs not amplifying division, but promoting understanding. Many Members focused on timing and how sanctions will work, and on concerns about rising antisemitism, arms sales and E1 expansion, so I will take those issues in turn.

On timing, there is an urgent need to respond to the deteriorating reality in Palestine. We have seen a sharp rise in settler violence, accelerating settlement expansion and a persistent failure to hold those responsible for violence to account. These recent developments threaten the viability of prospects for lasting peace, security and prosperity for Israelis and Palestinians. Our immediate priority in our designations will be to prevent settlement expansion, including in E1. We have not done this alone. We are acting alongside France and Canada, and are joining the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Spain and Norway, which have all either banned goods or are in the process of doing so. Many other countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden—have pledged their support for further action.

On implementation and whether matters can be expedited, implementation will take six to nine months. That is a reasonable and necessary timeframe. We are working intensively on implementation. Sanctions are powerful and technical. We must take the time necessary to ensure that the measures are effective and enforceable.

On the legislative changes that may be needed, we are acting as swiftly as we can. We are also taking more immediate steps. As the Foreign Secretary announced last week, we have sanctioned a further group of extremist settlers who have supported or incited violence against Palestinian communities. We have expanded the global human rights sanctions regime, enabling swifter action against those involved in 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 a harsh spotlight on what is happening and what must change.

On genocide and arms export licences, 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. It is right that the issue has been brought before the ICJ, and I make clear that we support the court in coming to its determination.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister is setting out the criteria around the crime of genocide, but would she accept that the duty actually bites when the risk of genocide is known, not at the determination of legal processes? That is when the United Kingdom has a duty to act. I welcome the steps that have been taken thus far.

[Uma Kumaran]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and as I have said, final determinations will be made by competent courts before the British Government reach a conclusion.