Israel and Palestine

Layla Moran Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris.

I will limit my remarks to arms exports, but before I do, I want to recognise what an appalling atrocity 7 October 2023 was. I also want to mention the 101 hostages who are still held captive, including the British citizen Emily Damari. Like the British Government, I demand their immediate release. I have just got back from King Charles Street, where the Foreign Affairs Committee was visiting the consular team. It is plain that they do really sensitive work with the families of British hostages held overseas.

My remarks about arms exports to Israel are largely based on last Tuesday’s Business and Trade Committee sitting, where I was a guest as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has been carrying out two inquiries, one on the middle east and one on soft power. We have found that British soft power has been damaged by the lack of full compliance with international law. It undermines the UK’s reputation if we do not pursue international law consistently.

[Mark Pritchard in the Chair]

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about international law. Does he agree that the judgment that we all need to look at is the ICJ advisory opinion on the occupation? The Government are working through the process of understanding what it means—including, potentially, in respect of banning illegal settlement goods—but what is taking them so long? Our reputation has suffered hugely as a result of such prevarication, particularly from the last Government, and it is now up to this Government to repair it.

[Richard Foord]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The ICJ advisory opinion is crucial, and the Government need to crack on with their rulings in the light of that opinion.

My remarks are about the carve-out for the F-35 fighter jet and, specifically, the five licences that are somehow exempt in terms of international law. The licences are what are called open general licences—that is, they can be of an indefinite duration and an unlimited quantity. The British state does not have to set out the quantities of weapons being exported. At the Business and Trade Committee last week, Ministers from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Ministry of Defence talked about how the F-35 is different: 15% of it is British, and the other 85% is produced by a collaboration involving Italy, the Netherlands, the US, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Turkey and Australia—and, by the way, we contribute only the ejector seats, the batteries and the rear parts of the tail.

The point is that we in the west have to abide by international law. The British Government have been asking for an immediate ceasefire since 4 July—the Liberal Democrats have been calling for one for a great deal longer—but Israel are not listening to the British Government. In the absence of any influence, the UK Government need to take the next step. I want to address those who allege that it is somehow contradictory to ask Israel to stop using arms while it has to defend itself against Iran. I am proud that the UK was instrumental in defending Israel against the attack by Iran last April, but I see no contradiction whatsoever. The withholding of arms exports to Israel is a policy lever that we now have to pull.

Finally, we have to remember that we are talking about the principle of distinction, which is a firm principle in international humanitarian law that every British soldier is taught: that of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. Evidence gathered by Danish NGOs, for example, shows that 2,000 lb bombs delivered by F-35 fighter jets killed 90 Palestinians at the al-Mawasi camp on 13 July. That is little surprise, because a 2,000 lb bomb will kill people within a 360-metre radius of the detonation. The British Government are failing to comply with international humanitarian law. They need to abide by the principle of distinction. We need to abide by international law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), the petitioner Sandra Downs, and all the petition signatories up and down the country.

It is fair to say that we have heard a lot of discussions and statements by hon. Members all saying pretty much the same thing: that what is taking place in Gaza is a genocide and that the UK Government need to do more. It is almost sickening to be constantly reminded by some that there is an agenda of self-defence when everyone—even children at schools—can see what is taking place on social media. They see stories like that of Hind Rajab, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); more bullets penetrated that vehicle than she had bones. They see stories like that and they are outraged by politicians who stand up and somehow provide this smokescreen of self-defence. Self-defence has parameters. Excessive self-defence is no defence. It cannot be used to avoid accountability. We are constantly reminded by senior political figures, whether from this country or America, that somehow this is self-defence, when everybody else can see that it is not.

Look at the words of Benjamin Netanyahu: “Amalek” is the word he used. Look at some of the video footage that comes out of Gaza. Animals, including donkeys, are being shot so that food cannot reach its destination. Paramedics are being killed. Recently, a doctor at a hospital was murdered, raped and put out on to the streets. Some are saying this is all part of the agenda not to give the Palestinians any recourse even to medical aid. Because what have we got? More than 200 aid workers killed and 500 medical staff killed. These are just some of the basic stats that everybody in this country can see, yet we still have arguments of self-defence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am not going to take up too much time, because other Members want to speak, but we have an opportunity early next year. My colleague, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), has presented a Bill on the recognition of Palestinian statehood. That is our opportunity to stand up for the rights of the Palestinians. They have suffered far too much.

[Layla Moran]

That Bill is really important; I have tabled a similar Bill every single year that I have been in Parliament. One thing I find remarkable about certain speeches from Members in this debate is that Palestinian voices seem to be rather missing, forgotten or, in this case, erased. Will the hon. Gentleman look at what has happened in the House longer ago than just this year? We have been having decades-long fights, on a cross-party basis, and most of us have been trying to do that. Let us continue in that vein.

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the hon. Member for all her endeavours and for those of the Liberal Democrats, because they have been very vocal on this topic. I know that there may also be another Bill tabled in her name to ask for the recognition of Palestinian statehood—something on which we should all unite and seek to encourage other parliamentarians to support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am pleased to be here to discuss these two important petitions, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate.

The Liberal Democrats have been calling for an immediate bilateral ceasefire since November 2023—one that will put an end to the humanitarian devastation in Gaza, get the hostages out and provide the opportunity for a political process towards a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. A lasting peace and two states is the only way to guarantee the dignity and security that both the Palestinians and the Israelis deserve.

Petition 653509 calls for

“the United Kingdom to recognise the state of Palestine immediately.”

I can proudly say that that is something the Liberal Democrats have long been calling for, and we support immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. The UK’s allies have increasingly been recognising the state of Palestine, and we should join them, with the hope of refocusing attention on efforts to find a political solution to the war in the middle east.

The recognition of Palestine is particularly important right now, given the threats of some in Israel—noted by the ICC and the ICJ—such as Minister Smotrich, who seeks to annex the west bank. I visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories in November and saw at first hand the expanding settlements and growing violence. Recognising Palestine on 1967 lines would make clear where the United Kingdom stands.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds pointed out, recognising Palestine is a tool that will inject into Palestinian society the hope that having their own state is possible. They are far from hope just now, and it is essential we signal that we support statehood for them. I believe that that will wrest control back from the extremes at the edges of Palestinian society. As has been pointed out, that is not the by-product of a solution; it is the route to a solution. It must be stated that Hamas can have no part in the governance of this Palestinian state.

[Layla Moran]

My hon. Friend is entirely right that, within Palestine, recognition is seen as a prerequisite for what might come next. It is not a replacement and is not top-down. That is deeply felt—in fact, it was promised to the Palestinian people when my great-grandfather was alive. Does my hon. Friend also recognise that, alongside a state, there need to be viable, democratic elections? They would be made much easier if everyone in Palestine were allowed to vote in them. That is what stopped the last ones happening: people were not.

[Monica Harding]

I support my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her work. I agree with her.

Let me turn to the second petition, on immediately revoking all arms export licences to Israel. I fully support that proposal, which my party has been calling on the UK Government to implement since April. Tougher controls on UK arms exports are vital to ensure that those arms are not used in potential human rights breaches. I support the introduction of a presumption of denial for all Governments listed in the FCDO’s “Human Rights and Democracy” report as human rights priorities. As a result, arms exports to Israel should be halted.

The Minister has long avoided responding to calls from my colleagues for clarity on the UK’s position on ceasing all arms exports to Israel, so I hope we will hear a clearer response from him today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

My right hon. Friend is making two distinct arguments. One is that we know who the end user is but cannot practically stop it, but we can also maintain the F-35 programme. The Government’s position is that we cannot take action on the global spares pool without bringing the F-35 programme into peril, which would have implications for international peace and security. That is the position of the Government. On the article of the arms trade treaty to which he refers, it is clear that consideration needs to be given to international peace and security. It is on that basis that we have set out our position.

Another Member asked me about the legal advice. We have set out the legal position as clearly as we possibly can—more clearly than any previous Government has on such a decision. It is being tested in the courts. We are proceeding with the utmost transparency on these questions.

[Layla Moran]

Is it not the case that the review itself was drawn very narrowly, focusing just on Gaza, and did not look at the west bank? We know that there are violations and other issues in the west bank, and that they are getting worse and worse. Will the Government consider increasing the scope of their review to include the west bank, and perhaps conducting it again, given that everything is under review? I rather suspect that more than 30 export licences might be suspended if the west bank were included.

[Mr Falconer]

I can confirm to the hon. Member that, with the exception of the position with F-35 that we have just discussed, I have satisfied myself that the review conducted in relation to Gaza also covers the licences for arms that could be used both in the west bank and in the conflict in Lebanon. I have satisfied myself that the suspension announced on 2 September would cover the—