UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

May I start with a preamble? It is important to say that this is not about the Jewish community; it is about the state of Israel. We must be careful in our words and ensure that we do not conflate the two.

It is always said that the strength of a nation’s alliance is measured by how much it can endure. For two years, this Government have supported the state of Israel through the unimaginable: genocide in Gaza, illegal settlement building in the occupied west bank, and even war in Iran. It is also said that the power of a lobby group is measured by how far a Government can be pushed beyond the limits of policy making. I think it is fair to say that for millions up and down this country, the Government’s approach to Israel has defied the most basic logic, justice and humanity. Continued arms sales amid mass extermination, the weaponisation of terrorism law to silence dissent, the welcoming of wanted war criminals on the steps of 10 Downing Street—with every decision this Government have made, it is not only reasonable to ask questions about political influence in Britain, but necessary.

This is not about Jewish communities or Jewish identity, and it is not about denying anyone the right to advocate for Israel, Palestine or any other state. Lobbying is part of our democracy, but when such practices are shrouded in secrecy while shifting huge sums of money, we must ask, “Are this Government truly committed to cleansing our politics of foreign influence, or are they just concerned with blocking the foreign donations they do not get?”

This is about more than simply election funds. It is about access and influence. Anyone who claims that these donors receive nothing in return is being naïve. The transactional nature of donations applies no less to those in the highest echelons of our democracy. Just this year, Labour Friends of Israel, which funded many Cabinet members, was reported to the Electoral Commission over concerns about opaque funding arrangements. Ministers in this Government publicly identify themselves as members of that organisation, yet it is not registered as a Members’ association, and therefore avoids the further disclosure requirements that accompany that status. That cannot be right.

More troubling still is the question of direct support from the Israeli state. Electoral records show that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has provided financial support to UK parliamentarians. That must be transparent.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I will begin, as many have, by associating myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). In the interests of time, I will skip over the many things on which I agreed with him and talk about some of our role as leaders.

What I am about to say is not meant as a partisan attack. I am just as angry about incidents of antisemitism in my own party as I am when I see it in others. On that note, and on this day in particular, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who rooted out the poisonous antisemitism that had taken hold of our party. However, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) talked about choosing our words carefully before going straight into the conflation of the actions of the Israeli Government with the Jewish people. There was an attack on Labour Friends of Israel, which receives no money whatsoever from the Israeli Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) referred to a list. I have also been on that infamous list. I am proud that one of those donors is a big supporter of refugee rights around the world. He just happens to be Jewish. How many conversations have I had with him about Israel and the actions of the Israeli Government? Zero. The idea that any of us is somehow having their strings pulled by anyone is an absolute disgrace.

[Ayoub Khan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[David Taylor]

I will not, unless the hon. Member wants to apologise for some of his remarks.

Where do we even begin with some of the things that we have heard in the Chamber in recent years? In relation to the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, one Member referred to a stunt by an MP representing the Zionist lobby. Another MP referred to Israel’s “thirst” for the “blood of innocent civilians” in a clear antisemitic trope. Another referred to the “blood-soaked tentacles” of the Israel Defence Forces—another clear antisemitic trope.

That is before we get to political parties outside the Chamber, which are not yet represented in this House in any decent numbers. I am referring to the Green party, and specifically to its deputy leader, who talked about supporting the right of indigenous people to fight back on 7 October, the day the attacks happened. He has never apologised properly for those remarks, if at all, and it has since been revealed that he actively supports members of his party who have rightly been suspended for antisemitism.

We leaders have a responsibility to be careful with our words and not stir up hatred in the community, among which is a very fragile Jewish community reeling from ever-more antisemitic attacks. In the case of the Golders Green attacks, there was serious injury and death, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Gentleman gets to the heart of the issue, as he so often does. Protest stops being peaceful protest when it involves using weapons to harm and intimidate those who hold a different view. To suggest that open and transparent advocacy by British citizens and established communal organisations constitutes an improper or malign conspiracy is not only factually incorrect but treads into deeply troubling territory. As I have said, the petition is not supported by credible evidence. Instead, it invites vague suspicion of covert—

[Ayoub Khan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

I have given way a number of times; I need to make a little progress.

The petition invites vague suspicion of covert, improper activity by unnamed organisations and we must call it out for what it is. The use of terms such as “the Israel lobby” to describe British Jewish communal bodies combines unfounded claims of disproportionate backroom influence with the ancient insidious trope that Jewish citizens are inherently disloyal or untrustworthy.

[Ayoub Khan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

I give way briefly.

[Ayoub Khan]

The hon. Member is clearly very emotional in delivering his points. Would he agree that, whichever nation is concerned, our responsibility to the millions of British citizens is to be transparent? Would he support transparency when it comes to donations of any kind?

[Mike Wood]

Of course. One of the reasons why those donations have been highlighted and publicised as thoroughly as they have is that they are recorded and published. I myself have not taken any donations to which that applies, but there is nothing inherently wrong with them.

The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly warned that we are witnessing a deeply concerning normalisation of rhetoric towards British Jews that would once have been unthinkable. Far too often, individuals use their political views on Israel as a convenient cover to display blatant antisemitism. We cannot allow a moral and political vacuum to be filled by a hatred of Jews. We must be vigilant that parliamentary procedures, including the e-petition system, are not inadvertently weaponised to legitimise those harmful tropes.

Our political system is built on open, transparent advocacy. Members of this House regularly engage with a wide variety of groups to understand complex international issues, and we recognise and value the long-standing, transparent activities of groups such as Conservative Friends of Israel and Labour Friends of Israel, which work openly to foster strong bilateral ties, trade and security co-operation between the United Kingdom and a democratic ally.

At the same time, our parliamentary democracy benefits from a diverse range of perspectives. Organisations such as the Conservative Middle East Council and other advocacy groups play an invaluable role in ensuring that Members of Parliament receive a comprehensive understanding of the region. They work diligently to ensure that parliamentarians receive detailed information and insights from a range of viewpoints, including pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab perspectives. That is how healthy, transparent democracy should operate: through open debate, visible briefings and competing arguments presented clearly in the light of day. There is no secrecy here, no hidden hand and certainly no malign infiltration.

While this petition asks us to chase shadows and investigate legitimate domestic advocacy, it distracts from the very real, pressing and deeply dangerous threats of foreign interference that our security services warn us about every single day. The greatest threat to British politics and democracy comes not from democratic allies or British community groups, but from hostile foreign state actors, most notably China and Russia. That is why they were at the heart of the Rycroft review.

Our intelligence agencies have been explicit. In October 2025, MI5 issued urgent guidance to Parliament warning that Russian hackers had actively stolen data from Members of Parliament, leaked sensitive UK-US trade documents ahead of the 2019 general election, and even impersonated foreign embassies to contact Ministers directly. We have seen the tangible consequences of that subversion in our legal system, such as the sentencing in November 2025 of Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK Wales, to more than 10 years in prison after he was found guilty of accepting bribes from a pro-Russian Ukrainian politician to peddle Kremlin narratives.

Equally alarming is the sustained, calculated campaign of espionage and democratic infiltration orchestrated by Beijing. MI5 security alerts have warned of covert attempts to recruit individuals with access to sensitive information within the Palace of Westminster. We have seen a string of high-profile cases, including espionage involving the UK Border Force and Hong Kong trade officials, and deeply concerning allegations involving political advisers and researchers. China is actively seeking to pass information on parliamentarians and undermine our sovereign affairs. It continues to spy on our colleagues and to target Hong Kong activists, many of whom remain British citizens and who have sought refuge on our shores, and actively works to weaken our democratic resilience.

The Opposition believe that we must go much further to protect the integrity of British politics and our wider democratic framework, which is why the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), has called for China to be formally placed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. That would require strict monitoring of any political activity taking place in the UK at the instruction of the Chinese state. The Government must publicly accept that China is already acting in a matter opposed and hostile to the core interests of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr James Frith)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I bring the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion. He does so on behalf of the signatories of the petition, which asks for

“a public inquiry into pro-Israel influence on politics and democracy”.

I also thank hon. Members from across the House who have participated today. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) in paying tribute to the Prime Minister, who has shown his finest form in his six years leading our party in rooting out antisemitism. I pay tribute to how he has handled himself and took the fight to issues in the party.

On the specific request of the petition, the Government do not support a public inquiry solely on pro-Israeli influence—in fact, I would like to turn to and address what I believe to be the underlying premise of the petition and this debate. Before I do, I should say that we could have had another kind of debate today: a debate about legitimate concerns about foreign influence and interference in our politics and democracy, more wide-ranging than from any one country, and what the Government are doing about that. Instead, the premise of this debate is narrowly and deliberately targeted on Israel. To speak to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) about the need for education in this debate, the premise is that Israel—the world’s only Jewish state—is an influence on British politics that stands alone and must be held to a standard different from that for any other democratic nation.

It is unfortunate that the petition behind this debate plays into the same old antisemitic tropes of hidden forces and malign control. I remind hon. Members that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism lists the “double standards” applied to Israel as one of the hallmarks of contemporary antisemitism in public life. The definition also refers to the mendacious allegations of Jews having power as a collective, controlling the Government and other institutions. This e-petition invokes those very same stereotypes when it talks of pro-Israel organisations shaping Government decisions. With that in mind, I want to be clear that we reject the premise from which this debate originates. The framing used risks reinforcing the narratives historically associated with antisemitism.

The UK and Israel have a deep and enduring relationship. Seventy-six years ago, we were rightly proud to recognise the state of Israel. Our commitment to the security of it and its people remains unwavering. My political party has long been an advocate for the Jewish state. More than 100 years ago, Labour’s 1917 war aims declaration committed us to support for a Jewish homeland. In the 1960s and 1970s, when Israel found itself yet again under attack from its neighbours, it found one of its most passionate advocates in the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson.

Criticism of Governments is democratic and proper. Within Israel itself, citizens regularly protest against and challenge the actions of their elected Government. As a Government, we have challenged and will continue to challenge the Israeli Government when we disagree, such as on recognising the state of Palestine and the expansion of illegal settlements, and to impose sanctions on their leaders.

There are those in the UK who wish to criticise the influence of a particular Israeli Administration or their policies, but we should acknowledge that there are individuals and organisations that support the Government of Israel: they engage in our democratic process and advocate for causes they believe in, just as countless other groups do. They are normal features of a democratic society, not evidence of malign control or undue influence.

Furthermore, donors who support Israel are singled out like no others, expected to defend their position on Israel: “Jewish donors’ support for Israel equals malign influence” is the implicit and too often explicit rhetoric we see and hear. The premise of this debate gravitates towards a familiar inconsistency that even influence rooted simply in supporting Israel, or its legitimacy and right to exist, is somehow an improper or hidden force in British politics.

[Ayoub Khan]

Earlier, the Minister said that the premise of the petitioners and this petition falls foul of the IHRA guidance. He knows that this petition and its wording will have gone through the Petitions Committee. Does he agree that it does not fall foul, otherwise we would not be debating it?

[Mr Frith]

I agree that there is cause for concern that the premise of the petition is antisemitic. I have explained my reasons why. I commented earlier on the Prime Minister’s leadership in rooting out antisemitism in the Labour party. For too long, the Labour party gave too much benefit of the doubt to explicit antisemitic tropes and antisemitism. I encourage all Members not to trip over tropes knowingly or unknowingly when considering this matter, as holding British Jews collectively responsible for the Government of Israel’s behaviour is its itself antisemitic.

UK-India Technology Security Initiative

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

The hon. Member is making a very persuasive argument for building relationships between two democratic nations. Does he agree that consideration of human rights must also be at the forefront? There are violations in Kashmir, so does he agree that the Government should intervene and ensure that international law is upheld?

[Dan Aldridge]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. We must take those considerations really seriously, and they are absolutely part of a wide-ranging conversation that we have with all our trading partners. We should be aiming for the best out of our relationships; we do not want a low bar.

This issue is not simply about what the UK can gain, but about recognising that our futures are increasingly interconnected and that we have to build new ways to navigate that. Our Government understand the potential and the scale of the opportunity, but its value has to filter out to the rest of the economy, to towns such as mine where trade with India might feel very far away from the daily concerns of the majority. We need to change that and build those relationships to show how much we can all gain from each other. Whether in clean energy, technology, education or trade, there is a real opportunity to build a partnership that supports both our economies while creating good jobs, stronger industries and deeper ties between our people. The question for us is not whether India will succeed; it is whether we choose to engage with that success in a meaningful, long-term and mutually beneficial way.

It is against that backdrop that the UK-India TSI matters so much. It sets out a bold new framework for how our two countries can work together on the defining technologies of our generation. That is not a vague statement of intent; it is an ambitious partnership covering telecoms, 5G infrastructure, AI, critical minerals, semiconductors, quantum computing, advanced materials and health and biotechnology. It is co-ordinated at the highest levels by the national security advisers of both countries and it is already delivering.

A year on from the launch of the TSI, both Governments reaffirmed their commitment to expand into new frontier domains. Private sector partnerships are multiplying, research collaborations are under way and investment is flowing. It is an important framework and forum for dialogue and diplomacy in key areas such as critical minerals, which are crucial to our economic and national security. That is particularly important right now, as China increases its global dominance of critical mineral production and refining capability, giving it enormous leverage over the global supply of those minerals.

How we build and strengthen our supply chains in an increasingly complicated and unpredictable world must be at the top of the Government’s agenda. Last week in the Business and Trade Committee we heard plea after plea from industry for a focus on diplomacy and dialogue to get Britain’s strategy on critical minerals right. The UK Government published their critical minerals strategy in November last year, aiming to increase global production while building resilient domestic and global supply networks. That is a much needed start, but for it to deliver, we need dedicated and sustained diplomacy to support our relationships with trusted international partners such as India, with both the resource base and political will to build resilient supply chains alongside us.

AI Safety

Ayoub Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this crucial debate.

Many aspects of democratic life are under immense pressure, but when we look at developments that threaten to dislodge society on a mass scale within a matter of years, there are few things that pose greater risks than artificial general intelligence. AI has undoubtedly presented us with opportunities for innovation and growth—so much so that the Government have pinned their hopes on AI to improve public services on a lower budget. But it has also played a role in creating an incredibly challenging environment, where information is no longer subject just to interpretation, but to direct and unfettered manipulation, where both the state and society risk becoming dependent on a technology that we cannot control or fully understand.

In their manifesto, Labour pledged to tackle the growing emergence of hybrid warfare, including cyber-attacks and misinformation campaigns that seek to subvert our democracy. That commitment only grows more timely and essential by the day, and yet we are falling ever further behind. Even at this stage of AI’s development, we are already seeing how it can distort reality at speed and on a scale far beyond anything we have seen before. This is not a theoretical problem. It is happening right now in real time around the world. And as time goes on, the practice of effectively determining what is real and fake will not only become a more central feature of our political reality, but will get increasingly difficult, with the consequences of making the wrong calls becoming ever more fatal.

What makes the AI revolution more dangerous is the powerful algorithms that amplify dangerous posts and trends.

What makes the AI revolution more dangerous is the power of algorithms to amplify dangerous posts and trends. On social media, where the rules reward provocation and engagement over truth, increasing use of advanced, unregulated AI only makes for a perfect storm. Increasingly, we see Governments, extremist groups and political networks deploying AI-driven bot networks to flood online spaces with co-ordinated narratives, drowning out facts in the process. These bots can mimic real people, fabricate grassroots movements and create the illusion of public consensus when there is none.

This phenomenon is widely known as astroturfing. When thousands of synthetic accounts amplify the same message, that message gains legitimacy, not because it is true but because it seems popular. AI-powered information operations are fast becoming the norm, not the exception, and they are increasingly proficient at replacing actual reality with a reality of their own making.

AI is not our enemy—it is a tool that is being developed and tested across our society—but unregulated AI that is unchecked, unaccountable and weaponised by those who seek to deceive is a threat to democratic stability. At this early stage in the adoption of AI, we have a unique opportunity to build the very guardrails that will protect our freedom of expression without undermining the integrity of our public discourse. If democracy is to remain strong, truth must remain strong. That is why we must confront the challenges of AI safety and AI-driven misinformation with urgency, because once trust is lost, our democracy will fail.