Middle East

Lord Swire Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, if I may, it is completely naive of the Government to expect the Lebanese Government and armed forces to deal with Hezbollah. They are completely incapable of doing that and have been for years. The only people capable of dealing with Hezbollah are the IDF. If Israel does have the right to defend itself, and if we want to see peace, we should be supporting the Israelis in dealing with Hezbollah.

On this question of antisemitism, singling out Israel and holding it to standards not applied to other countries are clear examples of antisemitism under the official IHRA definition. This is already the second debate this week on Israel. Over the last few years, Parliament has discussed Israel more than any other issue—not just more than any international issue but more than any domestic issue, including the economy, unemployment, crime or the NHS. The public out there look at Parliament and think this is utterly mad. Do the Government and Parliament not understand that singling out the world’s only Jewish state, holding it to standards not applied to anywhere else, and falsely accusing Israel of committing these terrible crimes is bound to drive hostility towards people who are identified with Israel, which is the vast majority of the Jewish community? This is why I believe Parliament is playing a large role in driving the explosion of antisemitism that we have seen on the streets of Britain.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I can answer the question first. The noble Lord raised two issues in relation to Hezbollah; let me try to deal with those. We have made our position clear on Hezbollah. He takes the view that the only people who can deal with Hezbollah are Israel, but we do need to see progress on its actions in Lebanon and we will continue to support the Lebanese Government. We think that is the right thing to do. I am sorry if the noble Lord does not agree with that, but we do think it is the right thing to do.

With regard to Israel, I hope—I was going to say my noble friend, and I think he is my noble friend in some ways—my noble friend Lord Austin would not include me or any of my remarks in what he said about Parliament and Israel, and I do not entirely concur, frankly. I do think, though—and, to this extent, I agree with him very strongly—that we should watch our language and mind our words. People do watch out for and listen to what we say, both here and in the other place, and I would not want to endorse the view that Israel should be held to higher standards than other countries. But it is a very concerning situation and, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, we are supporters of Israel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

On the question about Hezbollah, I think I have made the Government’s view clear. On the question about our support for Lebanon, we have provided, as I think the noble Lord knows, a great deal of financial assistance over many years to the Lebanese Government and the Lebanese army, and we are still committed to supporting them. He knows, as we all know, what the pressures are in terms of development aid and the decisions the Government have taken; but I do not think it would be fair to say that the Government have not supported the Lebanese Government. On the question about northern Israel, of course we want to see territorial integrity in those communities, and we understand the pressures they are under, but we want to see territorial integrity in the whole neighbourhood.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, the Government said that the two-state solution was still the only way forward, and that is certainly my belief. Does the Minister not concede that, if the building in the E1 area—3,000 new houses—goes ahead, that will build out, in effect, any chance of a two-state solution ever? Given that, I think, that is a fact, does he not think that yesterday, in the Statement, the Foreign Secretary could have gone a bit further, and rather than advising British companies and British citizens not to take part in the construction or the purchase of any property in the illegal E1 area, that should have been made illegal?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do not want to take a doom-laden view on this, but the Prime Minister and the leaders of other countries have made very clear what the consequences of E1 going ahead will be. That is why we are against it, and that is why we have set our position out clearly. I would not want to go quite as far as the noble Lord does in saying that it ruins all hope of the two-state solution, but it is very serious. On the other point he made—this point was made extensively in the other place—about why we do not ban this altogether, the Government’s view, and I want to be completely straightforward about this, is that there is legitimate trade with Israel and legitimate activities with Israel and civil society and we do not want to compromise them. If this advice is insufficient, if I can put it like that, we will review it and keep it under review. We are completely clear, as I have already said, and I am very happy to reinforce it, that we do not want British companies involved in E1 or any of the other settlements on the West Bank, and we will do what is necessary.

I shall come back very quickly to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I have the official answer to his question on prisoner payments, so I had better read it out for the record to prevent myself getting into trouble. We welcome the important commitments made by the Palestinian Authority to reform prisoner payments so that welfare payments are needs-based and delinked from violent actions. I hope I have made that clear, and I will not have to correct myself.