(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberMy right hon. Friend makes a good point about ensuring that the debate is informed by facts, not rhetoric.
I am a little bit confused. The Government have previously said that they will not endorse any military operation in Rafah because it would be against international law. The Minister has said today that that would be the case unless there was a very clear plan on how to protect people and save lives. What has changed?
Nothing has changed at all. We have repeatedly made it clear that we cannot support an attack on Rafah without seeing a detailed plan. Clearly, that means a constructive plan that abides by IHL on all counts.
(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberThe right hon. Gentleman makes the point that Israel has the right to self-defence, but I am sure that he would accept that it must be exercised within international humanitarian law.
Minister, what does “finish the job” mean, with 40,000 people dead, many of whom are children? Is it finished when every single man, woman, child and baby is dead in Gaza? Is that what “finish the job” means? The Government said that the invasion of Rafah would not comply with international law. The Minister says that we do not supply that many arms to Israel, but if we were to stop even that supply, would it not send the message that our Government abide by, and believe in the importance of, international law?
I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that although the Government do not publish the legal advice that they receive, they always act in accordance with it.