Gaza and Humanitarian Aid

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

As politicians, we talk of the international rules-based system, by which we mean the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations, but often we do so only when it suits our position. When it does not, we ignore it. That is why it is crucial that we grasp the legal implications of the decision promulgated on 19 July this year by the International Court of Justice. It settled the law in its advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory. The opinion came from a request by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2022, and I believe it carries immense weight. It is the interpretation of our world’s highest court of law as it relates to the occupation of Palestine.

The court ruled that the occupied Palestinian territory is to be considered a single territorial unit, which means that the failure to recognise Palestine as a state is now out of step with international law. On 10 September, Palestine took its seat at the 79th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. It is not yet a full member, because it has been blocked by the United States, but it has the right to submit proposals and amendments. The Government of the UK still does not recognise the Palestinian state, and I believe that that is now incompatible with international law.

The court ruled that settlements and outposts in the west bank and East Jerusalem were unlawful. It does not matter that Israeli law considers settlements to be lawful; they are not, and they should be evacuated. The court ruled that Israel’s exploitation of natural resources in settled land was also unlawful. The court ruled that Israel occupied Gaza. It ruled that it occupied the west bank and East Jerusalem. It ruled that that occupation was unlawful. It ruled that the occupation must be brought to an end.

That also means that, in its actions, Israel must behave not as a warring nation state against another warring state, but as an occupying force, with all the obligations that entails about its conduct, including ensuring that aid can get through to all who need it. Israel ought to cease its unlawful activities, halt all new settlement activity and provide full reparation for the damage caused by its wrongful acts, which includes returning land, property and assets seized since the occupation began in 1967 and allowing displaced Palestinians to return to their original places of residence.

The court made it clear that other states also have obligations. It emphasised that all states are required not to recognise the illegal situation created by Israel’s actions in the occupied territories. That means that they should not engage in trade, investment or diplomatic relations that would entrench Israel’s unlawful presence. The advisory opinion is a landmark in the legal and political struggle over the fate of the Palestinian people and the integrity of international law. It highlights the obligations of all states, including the United Kingdom, to ensure that the rule of law prevails. We are all duty bound not only to act in the interests of justice and human rights, but to uphold the very principles of international law. That is the law. It is clear. It has been authoritatively stated by the court. What is not clear is whether Governments will abide by it. The law can state, the court can rule, but none of it brings about anything unless the power of enforcement lies behind it.

In the UK we are very fond of saying that we respect the international court and the international rules-based order. My challenge to the Minister is this: show it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hamish Falconer]

I think that is an issue in relation to the advisory opinion of the ICJ rather than the ceasefire; that is how I understood my hon. Friend’s remarks. I will stick to the ceasefire now, and I can come to the advisory opinion later. We are clear that we need a ceasefire; we need a ceasefire in Gaza and we need a ceasefire in Lebanon. It is clearly a statement of fact that neither of those things is happening, and we continue to work behind the scenes with our partners to try to achieve that. That point has been made by both the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, as well as the whole ministerial team in the Foreign Office.

We are repeatedly urging our Israeli counterparts— I think it is on this issue that I have received the most questions over the afternoon. We are asking them to take three key steps. The first is to take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian casualties, and we have heard many lurid examples of where that has not been the case. The second is to ensure that aid can flow freely into Gaza through all land routes, and many contributors have described how that is not currently the case. The third is to allow the UN and its humanitarian partners to operate safely and effectively. I recognise some of the concerns raised this afternoon about the functioning of UNRWA, so I will say a little bit about that.

[Barry Gardiner]

I congratulate the Minister on making his maiden address. Can he reflect on the verb that he used? He said that we have been “asking” Israel to do those three things. He then went on to elaborate that none of those three had actually been fulfilled. Is it not time to stop “asking” and to do something a little stronger?

[Hamish Falconer]

My colleague will understand that there is a difference between what we can say in public and what we can say in private. However, I reassure him that those points are being made to partners with force, with emphasis and with consistency. As he will have seen through a number of forums over the last few weeks, the UK has made its position absolutely clear. It is, of course, a frustration to me that at this stage, and since we came into power in July, we are still having some of those discussions, so I recognise the frustration in his voice.

On my first day as a Minister, we lifted the funding pause on UNRWA. We provided £21 million to support its humanitarian appeal in Gaza. No other agency can deliver aid to Gaza on the scale that is needed. We must support UNRWA to do its job effectively. Of course, in delivering, we expect it to meet the highest standards of neutrality, as laid out in Catherine Colonna’s independent review, and the Minister for Development has met her to discuss such matters. Of our funding to UNRWA this year, £1 million has gone to support the implementation of its agreed action plan. However, I take note of the reference to some of the discussions in the Israeli Knesset. I want to emphasise the importance that the UK places on UNRWA, on its continued function and its unique role in the area, as well as our full support for the UN Secretary-General.