Israel and Palestine

Debate between Layla Moran and Richard Foord

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.