Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
We are witnessing in Gaza a catastrophe that was not only foreseeable but preventable. For over two years, the UK Government have hidden behind legal sleight of hand while a genocide has unfolded in Gaza. The definition of genocide set out in article II of the genocide convention is precise. It involves specific acts
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
First, article II(a) prohibits killing members of such a group. As of January of this year, 71,500 Palestinians have been killed, including 570 aid workers and 1,700 health workers. That is not collateral damage; it is the destruction of a people and it is sickening.
Just yesterday, during the current supposed ceasefire, the BBC reported that at least 20 Palestinians, including several children and a paramedic, had been killed and almost 40 others wounded in Israeli strikes in Gaza, according to hospitals in Palestine. The response from the Israel Defence Forces stated that they had carried out “precise strikes”—so precise, apparently, that they had to further state,
“The IDF is aware of the claim that several uninvolved civilians, including a medical staff member, were hit in the strike.”
That is a familiar trope that they have used throughout the conflict. If those were the reactions of our own military, the standards we would apply in investigation and response would be rigorous and likely lead to court martial because it is not even close to our, rightly, highly robust rules of engagement rooted in moral integrity.
Secondly, article II(b) prohibits
“Causing serious bodily or mental harm”.
We know that over 143,000 people have been injured, with many maimed for life, and the population has been subjected to torture and arbitrary detention. Thirdly, and perhaps most damningly, article II(c) prohibits
“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”.
Amnesty International has found that Israel has systematically destroyed life-sustaining infrastructure, including water, sanitation and energy grids. By creating a so-called buffer zone, Israel has razed 59% of agricultural land in that area and, as of last month, 81% of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged, and all the while it has severely restricted vital aid and supplies. This is the deliberate erasure of the means of survival, which has led to widely reported and verifiable famine.
When Israeli leaders describe Palestinians as “human animals” and speak of “flattening Gaza”, and then proceed to destroy 19 hospitals and block essential aid, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is the “intent to destroy” the group, as per the definition. Even now, despite the UN commission of inquiry finding in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide and Amnesty International confirming that the genocide continues despite the October ceasefire, the UK refuses to act.
History will judge this Government and this Parliament for their—
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
We strongly support the role of the United Nations. Many of these points were set out as part of a UN Security Council resolution, which had widespread support. We think it is important to have the underpinnings of the UN and international law more widely, and to maintain the international consensus that we need to move to the next phase. The proposals that have been put forward are different from what was described, and are not focused on Gaza. The focus now for Gaza has to be on the Palestinian committee and on key practical issues such as the surging of humanitarian aid and the decommissioning of Hamas weapons. Our focus needs to be on the practical next steps, and we will work with everyone to ensure that happens.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)
As I set out in the House yesterday, we continue to support the people of Greenland and to make it clear that the future of Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the Danes alone. We are working to increase the support for security across the Arctic region, which is why I visited Norway and Finland this week.
Graham Leadbitter
Yesterday, the Prime Minister attempted to justify the hesitant approach that is being taken to Greenland, the US and the EU as being in the national interest, yet there was nothing in the national interest about Brexit, a false-hope deal that has left us far away from our European friends, desperately clinging to a US Administration who do not care about our national interests. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the UK is nothing but a cork in the ocean, bobbing around at this moment of international crisis, neither here nor there—and all because of a disastrous, isolationist, self-sabotaging Brexit?
Yvette Cooper
The UK works with our NATO allies, some of whom are part of the EU and some of whom—like us, and like Norway, where some of our closest partnerships are—are not. This is about strengthening our Arctic security, because the Arctic is the gateway through which the Russian northern fleet can threaten the UK, Europe, the US and Canada. Arctic security is a transatlantic security issue.
UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process
Graham Leadbitter 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
Stephen Doughty
On the question about the Whip, as an employee of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Lord Mandelson was on a leave of absence from the other place, so that is very clear. As I said, the emails show that the depth and the extent of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was materially different from what was known about it at the time he was employed. In particular, his suggestion that Jeffrey Epstein’s first conviction was wrongful and should be challenged is new information, and that is why the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador to Washington.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Prime Minister was hiding behind process yesterday, and is doing the same today. Did the Prime Minister know about these messages before Prime Minister’s questions yesterday?
Stephen Doughty
I am updating the House in real time on actions and decisions that have been taken. I have been very clear about the new information that has come to light, and the decision that the Prime Minister has taken as a result.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
It is important to recognise that in our country, at Sizewell and at Urenco, uranium is enriched at between 3% and 5%. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found 60% enrichment in Iran. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and we are doing all we can diplomatically to get a negotiated settlement on that problem. Of course, we continue to press for aid to the Palestinians.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Mr Falconer
We have discussed these issues many times. Earlier, an hon. Friend asked me why, when Ministers say things at the Dispatch Box, they do not happen. The view of this House on the question of a two-state solution is clearly very important, but it is the job of Foreign Office Ministers to try to make it a reality in practice, through diplomacy.
Israel: Refusal of Entry for UK Parliamentarians
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Falconer
I agree. There are many friends of Israel in this House, many of whom are disappointed by the events of the weekend.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I express my own solidarity and the solidarity of my party with the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who were detained at the weekend. That was a completely unacceptable set of circumstances. While there can be no doubt about the fact that our colleagues were denied entry into Israel because the Israeli Government were terrified of what they would witness, in the last week Israel has intentionally targeted 15 UN medical workers, burying them in a mass grave, and confirmed the indefinite expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied west bank. Last week, the Minister told this House that the Government take action when there is “a risk” that Israel is breaching international law. Does he consider that the targeting of UN aid workers and the confirmation that settlements in the west bank will be expanded demonstrates a risk that international law is being violated by Israel, and will the Government end Israeli impunity by condemning its indiscriminate attacks and suspending all arms exports?
Mr Falconer
We went through many of these issues in some detail last Wednesday, and I am sure that I will return to this House to do so again. My position remains as it was on Wednesday.
Syria
Graham Leadbitter Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
On 11 December, the Home Secretary gave a statement to the House on border security and collaboration, following the meeting of the Calais Group just after the collapse of the Assad regime. I made the point during that statement that it was critical that there should be safe routes to asylum for the most vulnerable, and the events of the past few days illustrate exactly why that needs to be the case. Are there safe routes to asylum for people? If there are not, will the Minister undertake to raise this directly with his colleagues in the Home Department?
Mr Falconer
As I said in answer to a previous question, we will make a close assessment of the developments in the coastal areas. At the moment the violence appears to be isolated to that area, but we will keep it under close review.