Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Liam Conlon Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

What the Palestinian people have endured is cruel, inhumane and completely unacceptable. We know that, last year, it was an Israeli Government blockade that led the United Nations and others to declare a famine in Gaza. We know that the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu for war crimes. We know that more than 90% of the homes across Gaza have been damaged or destroyed.

The UN’s “Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory” concluded that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza strip under the 1948 genocide convention, and human rights organisations such as the International Association of Genocide Scholars—which has already been mentioned—Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Oxfam have expressed the view that genocide has been committed by Israel under international law. Israel has also recently revoked the licences of 37 international NGOs.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

From working with the Norwegian Refugee Council, including my constituent Amelia Rule—who is its head of shelter and settlements—I know the vital work that charity is doing. As my hon. Friend has said, though, in January it was banned from operating in Gaza, along with 36 other NGOs and aid organisations. This move is plainly an attempt by the Israeli Government to circumvent international institutions and accountability. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government and the international community should attempt to use all their influence and leverage to push for that ban to be rescinded, so that aid organisations such as the Norwegian Refugee Council can continue their lifesaving work?

[Warinder Juss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

It seems quite clear that the reason the licences have been revoked is to prevent aid from going through, which leads to the assumption, at least, that there might be a risk of genocide taking place.

The UN genocide convention requires states

“to prevent and to punish”

genocide. I will repeat the definition in article II of the convention, which is that genocide is any act

“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”—

I emphasise the words “in whole or in part”—

“a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

We cannot stand by and pretend that it is for an international court to decide whether or not genocide has occurred in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and we cannot turn a blind eye as innocent Palestinian people continue to suffer. We are fortunate to have enough distinguished lawyers in this House to decide whether there is at least a risk of genocide having occurred and to conduct that risk assessment, as has been requested in this debate. When do we decide that enough is enough? When do we decide that enough innocent people have been killed and enough suffering has occurred for us to consider that an ally of ours, Israel, may be committing genocide under international law, and to take decisive, concrete action to prevent that genocide by the Israeli Government?

Middle East

Liam Conlon Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to look in detail at export licences and how they work. As I have said, we are not sending arms to Israel. He will recognise, however, that we are continuing to export body armour that NGOs or journalists use on the ground in the west bank and indeed in Gaza. For the very reason he gave, I do not think that he would want us to stop.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcements, in particular on support to get critically ill children out of Gaza and into the UK to receive specialist NHS treatment. Does he agree that the Israeli Government’s promises to carry on developing more illegal settlements in the west bank will further undermine the prospects for a two-state solution?

[Mr Lammy]

The plans deliberately attempt to thwart a two-state solution: they effectively split the land and they drive out Bedouin and villages. The plans were opposed by the last Government when they first surfaced, and they are opposed by all in the international community. They are entirely unacceptable. I repeated that to the Israeli Foreign Minister just a few days ago.

UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms

Liam Conlon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of digital platforms on UK democracy.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to host this debate today, and I thank the sponsors and Members here present for supporting it. I begin by paying tribute to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, two public servants murdered in the name of hatred—the very hatred and radicalisation that digital platforms fuel. We are failing a whole generation. We are failing young women facing unprecedented levels of abuse and harassment. We are failing young men being radicalised and exploited in plain sight. We are failing democracy itself, as misinformation and intimidation silence voices and distort political participation.

Today’s digital age presents a new, unparalleled threat to our democracy. Social media is not without its benefits. It allows us to connect with constituents and promote causes; indeed, I am sure that all of us would be looked upon very unfavourably if we did not engage in the online space in some shape or form. It has become one of the few ways that young people engage with politics, and it has played a pivotal role in promoting grassroots activism and greater transparency. However, we now face a national emergency of misinformation and digital violence. Families, teachers and even young people themselves are crying out for an overhaul.

Just this past month, we have seen stark reminders of the harm that digital platforms enable. The release of “Adolescence” has rightly ignited a national conversation about online misogyny and radicalisation, exposing the toxic digital culture infiltrating our homes and classrooms. We only have to look at cases like the murder of Brianna Ghey to see the horrifying real-world impact. The reality is that young men radicalised online do not just stay there; they go out into the world and sometimes commit the most heinous acts of violence.

The rising tide of online hate and radicalisation does not exist in isolation. Misogyny, incel ideology and far-right extremism, among others, are not just thriving in online spaces; they are being actively cultivated by algorithms that are designed to maximise engagement and profit. That is a really important point, which I will come back to later.

Esther Ghey, Brianna’s mum, has called social media “an absolute cesspit”, and I am sure that we all agree. She has called for an under-16s ban, and she is right to do so. I want to make it clear that this crisis is not confined to one country, one background or even one ideology. The names change, but the pattern remains the same. Parents are terrified and teachers powerless, and children are being exploited right under our noses. All we have to do is look at the case of Alexander McCartney, a prolific paedophile who sat in his bedroom in County Armagh and abused thousands of children across the world. It is the UK’s largest ever catfishing case, involving a man who used social media to blackmail, torment and sexually exploit children across the world. When I participated in a discussion last year on the safer phones Bill, all the big social media companies were present. After they had boasted about how they self-regulated, I asked them whether they were familiar with the Alexander McCartney case.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate, and on all the campaign work that she is doing. Does she agree that although there are some fantastic examples of social media being used positively to enhance democracy and political participation, this is often reliant on benevolent and honest owners, and that our democratic safeguards should not rest on the presumption of good will or honesty from technology giants?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Absolutely, and that is a really timely point. We should not outsource our children’s safety to social media companies. Indeed, we heard in a previous statement about the impact of content moderation and how it may or not form part of discussions on trade agreements as we move forward.

When I sat in a room with all the social media companies, only one had heard of the Alex McCartney case. That tells us everything that we need to know about how seriously big tech takes child safety.

It should not take a TV show like “Adolescence” to make the Government wake up to what has been warping our society for years. The actions that they have taken so far have been inadequate. Meeting the creators of “Adolescence” was indeed welcome, but it is simply not enough. Commissioning more reviews, talking about cultural change, and tinkering at the edges will not fix the problem. We must speak to the platforms in the only language they understand: profit and loss. We know what drives this issue: algorithms, content recommendation systems and the financial interests of the big tech companies actively steer vulnerable young people towards ever more extreme content. This is not a side effect; it is their business model.

Fundamentally, this debate is about power: who holds it, who wields it, and in whose name are they acting? Right now, big tech billionaires and online extremists are working hand in hand, shaping our children and democracy, and warping our society. This Government have been too slow, too weak and too captured by vested interests to stop them. Figures like Andrew Tate have built empires by manipulating young men into their worlds of violent misogyny, lies and conspiracy. Tate has ingratiated himself with Donald Trump and Elon Musk, but does he care about men? Not a bit—he exploits them. This is not just an individual person behaving irresponsibly; it is a co-ordinated machine trying to drown out critical voices, spread misinformation and undermine public debate.

Let us be honest: agitators and bullies like the Tate brothers have always existed. What has changed are the tools and the platforms that they have at their disposal, which give them access to young people in particular. Let us be clear: their reach is not accidental. Andrew Tate is amplified, promoted and monetised by the same platforms that claim to be unable to regulate online harm. This is not just about free speech; it is about radicalisation and control. Powerful malign actors—some overseas, and some home grown—are exploiting our young people and our political system for profit. Social media platforms are not neutral: they push extremist content deliberately, algorithmically and at scale.