Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(4 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I put on record my thanks to the Speaker’s Office for working so hard to ensure that we have time for the debate this afternoon? Given the pressure on time, and in order to allow as many Back-Bench speeches as possible, I will not take any interventions.
In his book, “One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This”, the Egyptian-Canadian novelist and journalist Omar El Akkad wrote:
“The moral component of history, the most necessary component, is simply a single question, asked over and over again: When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power? What makes moments such as this one so dangerous, so clarifying, is that one way or another everyone is forced to answer.”
That question will have to be answered. That may not be today or even this year, but at some point all of us, particularly those who hold positions of power or have a public platform, will have to answer that fundamental question: which side were we on? Were we on the side of justice, or did we side with the powerful?
When asked, each of us will have to answer: did we speak up for the tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children who were killed; did we use our platform to actively oppose the forced displacement of millions of Palestinians from their homes and communities as they were reduced to rubble, and condemn unequivocally the collective punishment imposed on an entire population when the basics necessary to sustain life—water, electricity, food and medicine—were deliberately withheld from them; or did we, either by what we said and did, or by what we did not say and did not do, side with the powerful, look away because it was in our political or financial interests so to do, and give political cover and legitimacy to the Netanyahu regime as it carried out its genocide while our Government supplied it with the weapons and military intelligence to do so?
The Hamas attack of 7 October was utterly appalling, and no right-thinking person could excuse or condone what happened that day. Neither, however, could any right-thinking person excuse or condone the Israeli response, which has been not just disproportionate, but brutal and relentless. Israel’s response has been carried out in such a systematic manner that, in my opinion, no reasonable person could deny that what we have witnessed in Gaza over the past two and a half years constitutes genocide.
The Government have denied, and continue to this day to deny, that it is a genocide. It is a decision that the Government will have to explain, and with which they will have to live. Today, however, I am not here to play ping-pong with the Government on the legal definition of what does and does not constitute genocide.
Instead, I want to focus on the mountain of evidence that says there is at least a serious risk of genocide occurring, and that serious risk should have triggered the UK’s legal obligation to act under the terms of the genocide convention, as explained by the International Court of Justice in its 2007 Bosnia ruling—an obligation that comes into effect long before any determination of genocide has been made by a court. The standard of serious risk is designed to be an early warning that ensures that states and international bodies act to prevent a genocide from occurring. In the case of the Palestinian people of Gaza, the UK has clearly and undeniably failed abjectly to meet its legal responsibility when alerted to there being a serious risk of genocide.
When the UK signed the genocide convention in 1948, it promised to prevent and punish this most heinous of crimes. Now, with more 71,000 people dead and 200,000 people injured, Gaza reduced to an uninhabitable wasteland, its population in the grip of a man-made famine and its medical infrastructure obliterated, hundreds of journalists murdered, water and electricity used as a means of coercion and punishment, food and medicine denied to the starving and the dying and the repeated forced displacement of millions of civilians, it is surely beyond any dispute that the minimum requirement for the UK to act to prevent and punish the crime of genocide has been met.
Arguably the most damning indictment, however, is that more than 21,000 children have been killed by the Israel Defence Forces since October 2023. Let us not forget that in November 2023 the UK Government formally intervened in the case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar at the ICJ to argue for changes to the definition of genocide that included lowering the threshold when damage was inflicted on children. If it is appropriate for the UK to intervene to protect children from the bombs and bullets of the Myanmar military, why is it not appropriate for it to intervene to protect Palestinian children from the bombs and bullets of the IDF?
Of course, genocide is not and never has been about numbers. The numbers killed, while shocking, do not in and of themselves necessarily prove genocide; there are other methods, including
“deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
That is why it is important that we look at what else has happened in Gaza since October 2023. Over the past two and a half years, Israel has obliterated the agricultural sector; the fishing industry has gone; the road network has been wrecked; agricultural wells have been demolished; most crop land and greenhouses have been rendered unusable; the vast majority of livestock have been killed; and the vitally important and culturally significant olive tree crops have been targeted and destroyed.
Such is the devastation that a Guardian journalist on board a Jordanian air force plane wrote:
“Seen from the air, Gaza looks like the ruins of an ancient civilisation.”
And he added that Gaza was razed by an Israeli military campaign that has left behind a place that looks like the aftermath of an apocalypse. That does not happen by accident, and it is impossible to view this as anything other than a premeditated attempt to erase Palestinians from their land by making it impossible for human life to survive.
By any measure, collectively, all of that constitutes unimpeachable evidence that there has been a serious risk of genocide. And that should have triggered a UK Government response to prevent that becoming a full-blown genocide, but is has not. It is not as if the Government can say that they did not know or that they were unaware, because, time and again, statements made from that Dispatch Box, including from the former Foreign Secretary and the current Prime Minister, have conceded that they knew exactly what was happening, but they have chosen to do nothing about it. They have accepted and have publicly condemned the siege tactics, the denial of humanitarian assistance, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, the use of evacuation orders, the denial of water, food and electricity, the targeting of journalists, the destruction of healthcare, the astronomical number of civilian casualties, and the deliberate dehumanising of the Palestinian people.
In their own words, the Government have denied undeniable proof that war crimes are being carried out, that mass atrocities are being carried out, and that civilians are being denied the basics to maintain life. A quick trawl of Hansard will reveal that as far back as January 2024, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), said that
“85% of the population are displaced and millions face the risk of famine.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 622.]
Two months later he said that
“famine in Gaza is imminent... but what distinguishes the horror in Gaza from what has come before is that is it not driven by drought or natural disaster; it is man-made.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 806.]
And in May 2024 he said that
“aid is reportedly being blocked and northern Gaza is now in full blown famine”.—[Official Report, 7 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 443.]
A year later, in May of 2025, he openly acknowledged Israeli war crimes against the civilian population when he said:
“The whole House should be able to utterly condemn the Israeli Government’s denial of food to hungry children. It is wrong. It is appalling.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 927.]
And then he continued that
“what we are seeing is inhumane, it is deadly and it is depriving Gazans of their human dignity.—[Official Report, 21 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 662.]
It is there in black and white. The Government have acknowledged it. And the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition in October of 2023, acknowledged that serious risk, saying:
“Civilians must not be targeted. Where Palestinians are forced to flee, they must not be permanently displaced… International law is clear. It also means that basic services, including water, electricity and the fuel needed for it, cannot be denied.—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 593.]
And as Prime Minister he said:
“We continue to see mounting evidence of appalling atrocities against civilians and unacceptable restrictions on humanitarian access.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 806.]
There are so many more examples of the Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary and other Ministers admitting from that Dispatch Box that Israel was using food as a weapon of war, that it had manufactured a famine, that it was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, that it was committing war crimes, and that it was stripping Gazans of their human dignity. Yet it remains the official position of the UK Government that none of that—none of it—meets the threshold for there being a serious risk of genocide.
I ask the Minister whether we are being asked to believe that, even when the Israeli Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, said:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed… We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly”.
Did that not trigger within the Government the thought that perhaps there was a serious risk of genocide? Finance Minister Smotrich said:
“Gaza will be entirely destroyed; civilians will be sent to...the south…and from there they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries.”
Did that not trigger the thought that, perhaps, there was a potential risk of genocide occurring? The Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, said:
“It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”.
Did that not suggest to the UK Government that perhaps Israel’s response to the atrocities of 7 October was going to be disproportionate, brutal and illegal; and that continuing to sell weapons and maintaining a “business as usual” relationship with Tel Aviv might put us in grave danger of breaching our obligations under the genocide convention?
Despite Israel making its intentions unambiguously clear from the very start—that it was going to ethnically cleanse Gaza, would do so using whatever means necessarily and would do so indiscriminately—it appears that the UK Government made the political choice to deliberately ignore their obligations so that they could continue a business-as-usual relationship with Netanyahu’s Government.
I will finish where I began, with that powerful quote from Omar El Akkad:
“When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power? What makes moments such as this one so dangerous, so clarifying, is that one way or another everyone is forced to answer.”
This UK Government and the Government who preceded them have chosen to side with power over justice, and history will judge them accordingly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Arctic Security
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the very strong feelings on this matter right across the UK—of the need to protect sovereignty for the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark more widely, and the sense that to propose tariffs in this way is just deeply wrong. It is counterproductive to our collective security, but it is also deeply wrong.
My hon. Friend has also raised issues of UK resilience. She will know that on things like the Five Eyes partnership, there is very deep, long-standing co-operation and shared technology, but there are also areas in which we agree that Europe needs to do more for its own defence and its own investment, and that is what we are doing.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Greenland. President Trump’s threat to annex Greenland either “the easy way” or “the hard way” is pushing Europe to the verge of one of the biggest political and security crises we have faced in decades. Now, his threat to impose punitive tariffs on those opposing his illegal annexation means that the President of our closest ally is using economic and military threats against the UK and other European nations simply for defending sovereignty, self-determination and international law. On what basis do this Government view this particular President as being a trustworthy and reliable ally?
Yvette Cooper
We have made it very clear that threats to Greenland’s sovereignty are wrong, and that threats of tariffs and economic pressure are also wrong, because allies should stand together and not face the kinds of threats we have seen. That is a particular issue for the UK, but also for Denmark, which has been such a close ally to both the UK and the US. We are taking a very robust, hard-headed approach to this matter, to work through what is in the UK national interest and get a resolution that can protect, defend and strengthen Arctic security, as well as UK security more widely. That is the right thing to do.
Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts, for this important debate on religious minority persecution in Myanmar. As I have done so often over the years, I sincerely thank and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the driving force behind the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, for securing this debate and ensuring that people who have been persecuted for professing their beliefs or—just as importantly—those exercising their human rights not to believe or practise a faith, wherever they are in the world, are not forgotten about. With the world on a seemingly endless cycle, stumbling from crisis to disaster and back again, it would be all too easy to forget or choose to ignore issues such as the persecution of religious minorities, but it is vital that we do not do so or allow others to forget or choose to ignore such a fundamental human rights issue.
No one would wish us to forget or ignore this issue more than the military regime in Myanmar, where for decades a deliberate policy of religious and ethnic cleansing has been pursued as they seek to Burmanise the country. Burmanisation is the belief that true Myanmar citizens are both Burman and, of course, Buddhist. That is why the citizenship law was introduced in 1982 to strip Rohingya Muslims of their citizenship, rendering many of them effectively stateless and making them foreigners in their own land. That hideous, racist, sectarian policy excluded minorities from the political process and limited the social and economic development of ethnic minority communities by curtailing their cultural and religious freedoms.
The attempt to erase the identity of anyone who is not both Burman and Buddhist has resulted in the most appalling oppression of religious minority communities. Notably, as we have heard, Rohingya Muslims and Christians have been the primary victims of this ethno-religious Burmese nationalism. As we just heard, this year the charity Open Doors declared that Myanmar has risen up its world watch list rankings, and is now deemed the 13th most dangerous place in the world in which to be a Christian. Since 2021, Open Doors has recorded a steep rise in murders, destruction of places of worship and forced displacement, and has now put Myanmar in the extreme category for religious persecution.
State-sponsored religious persecution—as we have heard from every speaker in this debate—has caused Rohingya Muslims to flee, predominantly over the border to refugee camps in Bangladesh, where they are having to endure some of the worst living conditions on the planet, because they are fleeing what the United Nations has described as an “ongoing genocide” at the hands of the Myanmar military. So fearful are they of returning that appalling squalor and overcrowded camps are deemed preferable to the fate that would await them should they return home. Displacement, murder, repression and widespread endemic gender-based sexual violence are every bit as real a threat there today as they were in 2017, when over 1 million Rohingya Muslims fled to Bangladesh. It is worth remembering that in 2019, the United Nations described gender-based sexual violence as the hallmark of the Burmese military’s operations in Myanmar.
The Rohingya are stuck in what has been described as a hell on earth. For the benefit of Members who were not here the last time we debated Myanmar and the situation in Cox’s Bazar and Bangladesh, I will repeat what the journalist and documentary filmmaker Simon Reeve said after he visited one of those camps. He said it was
“like nothing I have seen anywhere on Planet Earth. This speaks of a Biblical exodus of an entire people terrorised into fleeing.”
Yet for those people, living in that unimaginable horror is deemed preferable and safer than returning home.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) is right that the situation for Rohingya Muslims living in the camps is only getting worse. Minister, that is in no small part due to the shameful decision by this Government to ape the previous Government and slash UK overseas aid, leaving Bangladesh—already one of the poorest countries in the world—to shoulder a massively disproportionate share of the costs of looking after more than 1 million refugees. When helpless, homeless refugees are dumped on impoverished countries, it leads to the crisis in Bangladesh that was alluded to earlier. We have a moral responsibility to do something about that.
As much as the Rohingya may wish to return home in a safe and dignified manner, such a return is not possible while the military in Myanmar is pursuing its reign of terror. The stark truth is that the Rohingya will be able to return home only when a Government committed to human rights, religious freedom and the rule of law are established. That prospect is unfortunately a long way off, because Myanmar, as we have heard so often, is in the grip of a man-made humanitarian crisis. The situation for the country’s religious minorities who have remained continues to worsen and the regime ramps up its persecution of those communities by attacking places of worship, forcibly conscripting minorities into its military, and continuing its genocide of the Rohingya Muslims.
As we also heard earlier, there are other armed players in this conflict who are also perpetrating abuses that disproportionately affect religious minorities—notably, the Rohingya Muslims and Christians. It is a dire situation. I desperately urge the Government to reassess the short-term, counterproductive and frankly inhumane decision to cut overseas aid; every single penny taken out of that aid pot has real-life, real-world consequences for men, women and children.
Although the return of UK aid would undoubtedly help considerably, so too would allowing refugees in Bangladesh the right to work and thereby to support themselves and their families. Of course I can understand why the Bangladesh Government would be reluctant to make legislative change that would, in their eyes, encourage 1 million or so refugees to stay within Bangladesh’s borders. But the reality is that these people cannot return home until it is safe for them to do so, and that is not happening any time soon.
Last month, I visited Thailand and Malaysia with the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief to meet many of those refugee communities who have been fleeing persecution—chiefly the Ahmadiyyas, Vietnamese Christians, Uyghurs, Chinese Christians and Iranian Christians, but also many more. Like Bangladesh, Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 refugee convention. Legally, in Thailand, there is no such thing as a refugee, despite hundreds of thousands of them living there.
The largest group of refugees in Thailand are from Myanmar, and they have lived in the camps along Thailand’s northern border for decades. With no legal right to work they obviously make a living in the black market, but in recent months the Thai Government have recognised the reality that such people are unable to return home and could well be an economic asset, and so have loosened the rules to allow them to work legally in Thailand. Perhaps, at least, the Government of Bangladesh might look at that—and indeed, why would the UK Government not look at it as well? What is happening in Thailand could happen in Bangladesh, and here. Refugees can be that economic asset. Allowing them to work will allow them to contribute, better themselves and benefit us all.
I again thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing this debate. I hope the Government can see that, although the persecution of these communities happens so far from our shores, we have a moral and a humanitarian obligation to help—because we absolutely, certainly do.
Kashmir: Self-determination
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing the debate.
I want to put on the record that the SNP fully supports the right of the people of Kashmir to exercise their fundamental human right to have a free, safe and legal vote on their own future. That vote has been mandated by numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, and that vote must be not only free, fair and transparent, but conducted free from violence and intimidation, and under the auspices of the United Nations.
As we have heard from several Members, for almost 80 years the people of Kashmir have suffered persecution, oppression and injustice while the world has, at best, wrung its hands and issued ineffectual statements condemning India’s actions or, at worst, shrugged, looked away and totally ignored their plight, allowing the world’s largest military occupation to continue largely unchallenged and unquestioned. That decades-long military occupation has resulted in a catalogue of human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, forced disappearance, arbitrary detention, media censorship, attacks on journalists and political activists, the targeting of human rights defenders and mass incarcerations. The security forces have also used rape and other forms of sexual violence as a way to control and punish Kashmiri civilians.
As we have heard, the ongoing repression took a sinister, unconstitutional twist in 2019, when the Indian Government unilaterally revoked articles 370 and 35A of the constitution. In the wake of those decisions, and in a move straight from the authoritarian playbook, the Indian Government acted swiftly to prevent the possibility of public protests by arbitrarily detaining hundreds of people, including journalists. They imposed a communications blackout and severe restrictions on the right of freedom of movement and assembly.
That move was not only unprecedented, unilateral and unconstitutional; it was a direct violation of international law and a flagrant breach of the commitments that India had made to Kashmiri people. It was a cynical and blatant attempt by the Modi Government to crush the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination once and for all. I echo the question posed by the hon. Member for Bradford East, when he asked where the international community has been for the last 78 years. Seven decades of issuing condemnatory statements denouncing India has made little or no difference to the lives of the people of Kashmir.
Whether we like it or not, the United Kingdom has a historical and moral obligation to take a lead in finding a just and lasting solution to the conflict. The UK cannot pretend to be a neutral bystander, because history dictates that the UK is not. We need a resolution in line with the UN resolutions, and one that recognises the inalienable right of the Kashmiri people to determine their own future through a free, fair and transparent referendum. The voice of the Kashmiri people is the most important voice here, but I fear that, unfortunately, to date their voice seems to be the one that is being listened to least. That must not and cannot be allowed to continue.
Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this hugely important debate, Ms McVey. I begin by thanking everyone from every corner of the UK who signed the petition and forced us into having this debate. It is another perfect example of just how far ahead of the Government and, unfortunately, of this place generally the people of these islands are when it comes to the plight of the beleaguered civilians of Gaza, and demonstrates once again their desire to see peace with justice for the Palestinian people.
Never before have I witnessed such a sustained coming together of people and communities who are determined to show solidarity with the victims of what can only be described as one of the greatest injustices of our time. The people have decided that if 70,000 deaths, 200,000 injuries, Gaza being reduced to an uninhabitable wasteland, the population being in the midst of a man-made famine, the medical infrastructure being obliterated and the occupying power using water and electricity as means of coercion and punishment are not enough to make their Government act decisively, they are going to do something themselves. The people can see that, by denying food and medicine to the starving and the dying, and repeatedly forcing the displacement of millions of civilians, Israel is, beyond any dispute, in flagrant breach of the genocide convention. They also see that the UK has failed abysmally in its legal obligation to both prevent and punish the crime of genocide. By their actions, the people from across these islands are saying to their Government, “Not in my name.”
I pay tribute to the groups in my constituency of Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber that have organised, petitioned, prayed, raised awareness and raised funds for the people of Gaza over the past two years. Events take place every single week. I thank every one of the individuals involved for their humanitarianism and their determination not to turn a blind eye to the suffering and the injustice, as I fear far too many of us have been persuaded to do. In the past three weeks alone, community-led events have taken place in Oban, Dunoon, the Isle of Bute and the village of Ardentinny. I put on record my appreciation of the astonishing efforts of Kathryn Wilkie, Graham McQueen, Marion Power and Dr Anna Leerssen from Oban Concern for Palestine, who raised more than £11,000 for medical aid for Palestinians at one fundraising event in the town a couple of weeks ago. A population of just 8,000 people raising that amount of money is absolutely remarkable.
They are not alone. Last week I spoke at an event organised by Father Roddy McAuley and the parishioners of St Mun’s in Dunoon, where, following a mass for justice and peace and a lively discussion about how we can advance justice and peace in Palestine, a collection was taken for the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund’s Gaza appeal. The same evening, in Rothesay, the Isle of Bute Palestine Solidarity Group held a sold-out music event, raising almost £1,200 for humanitarian projects in Gaza. The following day, in the tiny village of Ardentinny, Dina Macdonald organised an afternoon of music with Rickeera Kaur of the Argyll and Bute Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign where villagers raised funds for humanitarian aid. Those are just the events that I know about; I am sure there have been many others across Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber.
People and communities are refusing to sit back and, by their silence and inaction, allow the suffering of the people of Gaza to be conveniently forgotten about. It confirms what I have known for the past two years: when it comes to supporting defenceless civilians from genocide, the people of these islands are miles ahead of the current and the previous Government. They know that, however welcome the arrival of a ceasefire might be, the crisis has not gone away. There are still millions of people suffering who desperately need our help.
Given the shameful track record of successive UK Governments over the past two years, they have to be held to account and never be allowed to give up on their moral responsibility to the people of Gaza. The people of these islands recognise that, unlike other one-off appeals made at times of humanitarian crisis, this is not a natural disaster. This is an unnatural disaster being perpetrated by one of the UK’s closest allies while the UK Government continue to provide them with political and military support.
It is not that the current Government or the previous Government do not know what Israel is doing. In May the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), openly acknowledged Israeli war crimes against the civilian population when he said,
“the Israeli Government’s denial of food to hungry children…is wrong. It is appalling.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 927.]
But not, it would appear, appalling enough to stop the supply of weapons and end military co-operation, for the UK to make available the contents of reconnaissance flights over Gaza to anyone bar the Israeli military, or for meaningful sanctions and a co-ordinated effort to end the siege and have aid flood into Gaza free from Israeli control.
It is inconceivable that the UK would have allowed any other state to act with the impunity with which it is allowing Israel to act. The UK rightly sanctioned Russia, but now stands rightly accused of allowing a two-tier system of international law to operate. The UK Government’s failure to put significant pressure on Israel to lift the siege is nothing new. Last year, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I visited Al-Arish on the Egypt-Gaza border, where I saw warehouses full of donated medical equipment, including wheelchairs, crutches, incubators, individual birthing kits for women in labour, medical cold storage boxes, generators and water storage bladders. They were in warehouses because the Israeli authorities had rejected out of hand the Red Crescent’s application to deliver them to those most in need in Gaza. There were warehouses full of food and miles and miles of lorries parked up waiting for permission from Israel to deliver that food aid.
That is what I mean when I say that this is an unnatural disaster—unnatural because it is deliberate. It is a man-made catastrophe in which people are not starving; they are being starved. The Prime Minister recognised that in September when he said,
“The Israeli Government are preventing urgently needed aid from getting in, which is why we are now seeing a man-made famine”.—[Official Report, 3 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 286.]
Yet despite recognising that the Israeli Government are responsible for creating this man-made famine by using food as a weapon of war, that same Prime Minister and his Government have steadfastly refused to do anything other than impose performative sanctions against a couple of individual Ministers, while continuing to provide the military and political support the Netanyahu regime needs to continue doing what it wants. That is why the people of the United Kingdom have over the past two years come together to support the civilian population in the way that they have.
By signing this petition, people in every corner of the UK, including the great folk of Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, are demanding that the UK Government do much more to hold Israel to account for its actions, to force Israel to lift the siege, and to assist the United Nations in flooding Gaza with whatever assistance is required to end the appalling suffering. I sincerely thank them, commend them and applaud them for their efforts.
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution. I have been absolutely clear throughout that the GHF was no way to deliver aid. The cost to the people of Gaza was absolutely clear from the grim images of its operation that we saw day in and day out. It has always been the case that a system exists in order to provide aid across Gaza. It is not a perfect system, and where there are abuses of that system, they need to be investigated—I am very glad to hear from our partners that the looting of aid has considerably reduced following the ceasefire—but the system exists. The aid exists. It is the United Nations system. It is mentioned specifically in the 20-point plan. That is how aid must be distributed across Gaza.
Brendan O’Hara
I wholeheartedly agree with everything that the Minister has said, and applaud much of it. The restriction of aid in Gaza is utterly reprehensible. There have been multiple calls for action in this Chamber, but what is the plan if Israel says no? If Israel says that it is not allowing unfettered access to humanitarian aid, what do we do?
Mr Falconer
It may be helpful to the House if I set out what the UK sees as unfettered access. There are three areas where our advocacy is particularly focused. One is the registration provisions around NGOs, which was raised by many colleagues. We have raised that issue directly with the Israeli Government, which is what the hon. Member asked about in his intervention.
The second is dual-use items. There has been an overly restrictive approach to dual-use items that has restricted shelter, in particular, and a range of other things, including water purification equipment and a whole range of medical supplies. The dual-use list must be considerably loosened to enable the kinds of operations that so many hon. Members have discussed.
The third, turning to the comments of the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), is the crossings. There are two crossings open, which I understand the shadow Foreign Secretary saw during her recent visit, but significant crossings remain closed: the Allenby crossing into Jordan and the Rafah crossing. Those are two critical crossings, and their opening was clearly envisaged in the 20-point plan. It is on that point that we continue to press the Israeli Government.
The opening of those crossings is related to some of the important points made by hon. Members about both aid access going in and people coming out. I have told hon. Members before that I do not wish to be drawn on specific numbers of medically injured children and students whom we have assisted to leave Gaza. Many hon. Members in this Chamber have discussed some of these questions with me. Those whose questions I have not yet answered have my word that I will come back to them quickly. I can say that, after the most recent wave of evacuations, we have now exceeded the target that I had mentioned to some hon. Members in recent months. We have, after a series of evacuation operations, managed to save hundreds from what awaited them in Gaza and provided opportunities for them to take up here in the UK.
I take the point that the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), and others, have made that they would like to see larger numbers. There is a balance to be struck here. Clearly, medical assistance is most effective and timely in Gaza itself—on both sides of the yellow line. After that, it is most effective in the region, and I was pleased to be in Cairo recently seeing some of that provision. Where that assistance cannot be provided, it is appropriate that we look at specialist cases, as we have done.
Gaza and Sudan
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
The UN Human Rights Council resolution that the UK drew up and that was passed on Friday includes the urgent need for humanitarian access, as well as the investigation of the atrocities and the ability to hold people to account. The other important issue is that the Quad—the US, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt—has now committed to the humanitarian truce, to a ceasefire and to ending external support to warring parties. It is essential that we all work to implement the commitment that the Quad has set out and ensure that there is huge international pressure to get that peace in place.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
This morning, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international law, justice and accountability, I hosted a briefing for parliamentarians on the crisis in Sudan, at which Nathaniel Raymond of the humanitarian research lab at Yale described El Fasher as a slaughterhouse, where 60,000 people have been murdered in just three weeks. Those same Yale scholars now forecast that by Christmas, the RSF will be in Tawila, where hundreds of thousands of civilians could face a similarly appalling fate. Everybody at the meeting agreed that what has been missing is the Prime Minister’s personal leadership on this issue. Will the Foreign Secretary encourage the Prime Minister to become personally involved and show that vital international leadership which could prevent Tawila becoming another slaughterhouse?
Yvette Cooper
I am not only worried about Tawila; I am also deeply worried that the full scale of the atrocities in El Fasher may yet prove to be even worse than has been reported and commented on so far.
On the Prime Minister’s engagement with this issue, I say to the hon. Gentleman that when I was appointed to this role, as well as in the months before that, the Prime Minister personally highlighted the importance of Sudan as one of the central areas that needed UK Government and FCDO focus, because of the scale of the atrocities. That included the work to lead the London Sudan conference in April this year. Before many people were raising concerns about Sudan, this Government were consistently highlighting the humanitarian risks, but the situation is still getting worse and we need international support for action.
Sudan: Protection of Civilians
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Doughty
I can assure my hon. Friend of that. We support not only the work of the ICC, but those media organisations investigating these claims. I mentioned the UN fact-finding mission and the support we provide to specific NGOs on this matter. All parties must adhere to their obligations under international humanitarian law, and perpetrators of crimes must be held accountable. I share his absolute horror at some of the allegations we have been hearing in the past few days.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The massacre at the El Fasher hospital by the RSF is utterly barbaric and marks a new low in what was already a horrific conflict. Where is the international community in all this? What has happened to our duty to protect civilians from such atrocities? When was the last time that the Government carried out a joint analysis of conflict and stability in relation to Sudan? In the light of these events, are there plans to undertake another JACS assessment? Are the Government, as they did with Gaza, undertaking an assessment of the risk of genocide in Sudan?
Stephen Doughty
As I have said, we keep all these matters under close assessment. We are leading international diplomatic efforts. Indeed, that is why we have called an urgent meeting of the Security Council today as the penholder. We continue to work with all parties to try to bring an end to this conflict. I will happily come back to the hon. Member on the specific assessment that he asked about.
Gaza and Hamas
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
Due process is incredibly important. I have raised this specific case with the Israeli authorities. It is important that adequate explanations are provided where people are detained, particularly doctors who are providing vital, lifesaving work. We will continue to take this matter up with the Israelis.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Overnight, more than 100 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli airstrikes. Once again, innocent civilians are suffering a collective punishment, this time imposed for breaches of the ceasefire by Hamas. Unless this Government believe that all Palestinian civilians are Hamas and are therefore legitimate targets, the Minister must unequivocally condemn these attacks on innocent civilians. Will he unequivocally condemn those attacks and call them what they are: an egregious breach of international humanitarian law?
Mr Falconer
I think I have covered those questions already in this session, but let me be absolutely clear: all Palestinians are very clearly not part of Hamas. So many Palestinians want to see an alternative. They want to see this process succeed and to see the ceasefire hold, and that is where our focus is.
Qatar: Israeli Strike
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Israel’s bombing of Doha was the action of a state that knows it can act with complete impunity. Once again, the Netanyahu regime has shown that international law simply does not apply to it, and as long as this Government ignore the overwhelming evidence of the genocide in Gaza, so that they can profit from the sales of weapons to Israel, that situation will continue. Will Minister tell us—unless this is just another example of the performative condemnation that we have seen so often from this Government—what exactly the consequences will be for Israel for this egregious attack on Qatar?
Mr Falconer
I have set out some of the steps that we are taking in relation to this strike, including supporting an emergency session of the UN Security Council and having discussions with our allies, including the E3, which the Foreign Secretary will undertake shortly. I would not wish to be drawn further as we discuss this very important incident with our allies. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. The conflict in Gaza is not a question that relates primarily to UK arms. We are a tiny supplier of residual arms. We have suspended the sale of all of those arms that could be used in Gaza. There are other states with much fuller arms relationships—[Interruption.]
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman says “15%”, when in fact he means 15% of components of the total F-35 supply. The truth about the total supply to Israel is that it is less than 1%.
Actions of Iranian Regime: UK Response
Brendan O'Hara Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
I would be—[Interruption.] There is an amusing degree of lightness from the Opposition Benches about security matters. I would be delighted to discuss this matter further. The question at issue in the Jonathan Hall report is the state threats proscription-like tool. I accept that the name is rather clunky, but it is focused on the fact that a state, in this case, has proved a persistent threat in the UK, using methods unlike those usually employed by a state. I will not say very much more about that, but Jonathan Hall has identified a gap and it is that gap that we are seeking to fill. I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Last week, in the most tawdry and cynical fashion, a decision—born in anger and driven by revenge—was bulldozed through this House. I wonder: while the Government were discussing proscribing Palestine Action, did the Minister or any of his Foreign Office colleagues advise that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could also be added to the proscribed list? If they did not, why not? Perhaps he could explain to the House why his Government consider the IRGC to be less of a threat to our national security than Palestine Action.
Mr Falconer
In my last answer, I tried to illustrate why proscription of the IRGC is a complicated question, given gaps in the existing legislation. That is one of the reasons why Jonathan Hall has done his review. We are committed to taking forward his recommendations.