Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Debate between Douglas McAllister and Hamish Falconer

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Falconer]

My right hon. Friend will understand that I do not want to comment too much on an individual case, but the diplomat in question was not engaged in this issue specifically since our Government have been in power, so I am not sure that there is a question for us to answer there.

The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) asked about the advisory opinion of the ICJ. The UK has traditionally been a strong supporter of the ICJ. It is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and this Government respect its independence.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Falconer]

I will make a little bit more progress, if I may.

As the Foreign Secretary and others have made clear, we continue to consider the opinion carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) rightly identified the complexity and the novel elements of that advisory opinion, and we are taking our time in considering it. I hope to be able to return to the House in due course. The opinion contains novel findings that require further reflection. I understand his desire to know quickly our position, but hon. Members will appreciate that such an important decision necessarily takes time and careful consideration. The advisory opinion in itself took months in its development, and will take some months in its—

[Mr Falconer]

I am not going to be drawn on precise timings.

[Douglas McAllister]

In its judgment, the Court stated that Israel is

“under an obligation to provide full reparation”

to Palestinian victims—full reparations for its damage and destruction. That is a key part of securing peace. How will our Government ensure not only that UK and international aid flows in, but that reparations are paid to the people of Palestine?

[Mr Falconer]

I am not going to comment further on how we are going to respond to the advisory opinion. It is in process and I hope to be able to update the House soon. Recognising that time is running away from me, I am not going to take any more interventions, but I will very quickly run through some of the other issues that were raised most regularly.

In relation to trade, I want to be clear that the UK Government consider Israeli settlements illegal under international law, and goods produced in those settlements are not entitled to benefit from trade and trade preferences under the UK’s current trade agreements with the Palestinian Authority and Israel. We support accurate labelling of settlement goods so as not to mislead the consumer. We routinely update our guidance to British businesses on the overseas business risk website and advise British businesses to bear in mind the UK Government’s view on the illegality of settlements under international law when considering their investments and activities in the region.

There have been many questions about statements from the US President. The UK has always been clear, and we remain clear, that we must see two states, with Palestinians able to live and prosper in their homelands in Gaza and the west bank. There must be no forced displacement of Palestinians, nor any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip. Palestinians should be able to return and rebuild their homes and their lives. That is a right guaranteed under international law. We need to move through the phases of this ceasefire deal, towards reconstruction. We will play our part in supporting that reconstruction, working alongside the Palestinian Authority and Gulf and Arab partners.

Let me end by reiterating this Government’s commitment to international law. We continue to consider the advisory opinion carefully, with the seriousness and rigour that it deserves. Our long-standing position is that Israel should bring an end to its presence in the OPTs as rapidly as possible. That should be done in a way that creates a path for negotiations towards a two-state solution where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace. That is what we will continue to press for with our international partners at every opportunity.

I close by saying that my thoughts are with those in Gaza and in Israel suffering with terrible uncertainty at the moment. We must all hope for the preservation of the ceasefire. I and the rest of the Ministers at the Foreign Office will do everything in our power to preserve it.

Northern Gaza

Debate between Douglas McAllister and Hamish Falconer

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I have been clear about the position in relation to F-35s. I have a responsibility, as do the rest of the Government, to try to ensure Britain’s national security. That includes, where we have entered into multi-nation, complex programmes such as the F-35, not bringing those programmes down where that would undermine international peace and security. That is our judgment in relation to the F-35 components, which I have discussed already.

On other arms that are not suspended, I think that this House would be much reassured to see the detail of those licences. I am sure that everybody wants body armour and helmets on aid workers going into dangerous areas. I am sure that everybody would want us to focus on the arms that could be used in breaches of international humanitarian law, not other arms.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

This year has started with a horrific intensification of Israeli air strikes raining down on civilians and children. Israel has intensified its assault on the already decimated healthcare services in Gaza, to the extent that there are no fully functioning hospitals remaining in Gaza. It is a humanitarian crisis, so I am afraid I have to ask the Minister the question that he has been asked repeatedly this afternoon: have we not reached the stage where the UK should immediately end all arms trade and exports with Israel?

[Mr Falconer]

As I set out in my previous answer, we have sought to focus on those weapons that could be used for a serious breach of international humanitarian law. We have taken far-reaching action. We have sought to safeguard Britain’s national security in relation to the F-35 programme and exclude licenses that we judge do not contribute to a risk of breach of international humanitarian law. This is far-reaching action focused on weapons that could be used in breaches. I remain of the view that it is the correct judgment.