Israel and Palestine

Debate between Naz Shah and Ayoub Khan

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I, too, put on the record my thanks to the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), for all the work he has done to get us to this place, and to the Minister and his team for all the work they are doing at the moment, particularly last week.

I welcome today’s general debate on Israel and Palestine. It is a timely debate that rightly deserves the attention of the House. There will, no doubt, be a small minority online who will ask why events thousands of miles away should take up time in the British Parliament, so let me address that from the outset.

First, Britain does not exist on a planet of its own, detached from the rest of the world. What happens beyond our shores has consequences here at home. We also have a particular historic and moral responsibility when it comes to Israel and Palestine, given the Balfour declaration, the British mandate and our country’s historical role in the region. But even putting that history aside, whether we like it or not, conflicts elsewhere affect the lives of people right here in Britain. A war in Ukraine, a war involving Iran or instability across the middle east can mean higher prices at the petrol pump, higher energy bills, greater inflationary pressures and, ultimately, higher borrowing costs for families. More fundamentally, growing instability around the world threatens the peace, security and freedoms upon which all our lives depend. Britain therefore has both an interest and a responsibility in seeking peace, upholding international law and preventing further conflict.

Secondly, we cannot discuss this conflict without confronting the extraordinary loss of human life. According to figures published by the United Nations, more than 73,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since 7 October 2023. More than 21,700 of those killed have been children—21,700 children.

[Ayoub Khan]

The hon. Member may be aware that the United Nations inquiry revealed that the IDF was intentionally targeting children as a way to end the future generation. That inquiry should prompt this Government to take even further steps towards sanctions.

[Naz Shah]

Certainly, the Secretary of State highlighted in his remarks last Tuesday that the Government will seek advice from the ICJ and are continuously supporting those inquiries, but the hon. Member makes an important point.

Sadly, we live in a world where we can go about our daily lives and not always feel the seriousness of the pain in Gaza, or comprehend the magnitude of the killing. Putting those thousands of deaths to one side for a moment, as mothers and fathers, in this Chamber and beyond, can we not feel the pain being felt by the people of Gaza? I recently saw a video of a father who believed his child was dead, only to be reunited with his son more than two years later, having thought that he had been killed and buried beneath the rubble of Gaza’s destruction. He holds his son, pulls him close and cries uncontrollably, completely overwhelmed with emotion.

Can we imagine being that father? If we had lost our child, can we imagine the happiness, relief and overwhelming emotion of that moment of being reunited? That is one story that at least has some happiness at the end, and it makes us tear up because we imagine, “What if this was my child? What if this was your child?” But I ask: how do those mothers who will never see their beloved children again feel; those fathers who will never again hold their children tightly to their chests; those children growing up in Gaza with no mother, no father, no guardian and no shelter?

What is it like to live in a conflict zone where someone who is a journalist, like Hamza al-Dahdouh, can be killed in an Israeli airstrike, or, like Shireen Abu Akleh, can be shot dead while doing their job? Years later there is still no accountability to bring about justice for their families.

It is a conflict zone where someone can be a British, Australian, Canadian or Palestinian aid worker for the World Central Kitchen, trying to provide basic food and humanitarian assistance to people living among the rubble, and be killed by the IDF. The seven World Central Kitchen workers were travelling in a clearly marked convoy and co-ordinating their movements with the Israeli military. Three of those killed were British. They were returning from delivering food and humanitarian assistance to people in Gaza when their vehicles were struck. Their deaths show the extraordinary danger faced by aid workers trying to feed civilians in a warzone. Israel acknowledged serious failures in the strike and dismissed two officers, yet the families of the World Central Kitchen workers have called for independent accountability—that call is falling on deaf ears.

That is the treatment of journalists, aid workers and others whose very purpose is to help and bear witness. So where is the justice, the accountability and the protection of life for everyone in Gaza? God forbid you stand up and consistently speak out against the oppression, killing and destruction of the Palestinian people, and call for sanctions in line with international law and the position of successive British Governments for decades—the response is that Israel sanctions people like me.

Non-stun Slaughter of Animals

Debate between Naz Shah and Ayoub Khan

Monday 9th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for presenting this topic for debate following the online petition. I extend my gratitude to all Members, who have made efforts to treat this issue with the sensitivity that it demands.

However, unfortunately, while there are people looking to promote animal welfare issues, such as Mr Osborne, who I am confident is sincere in his efforts, there are also those looking to make use of this debate to stoke hatred along cultural divides. Although the petition makes no reference to halal or kosher slaughter, it has been welcomed in right-wing echo chambers as an opportunity to marginalise and discriminate against the Muslim and Jewish communities. This selective false outrage is not about ethics; it is a concerted effort to provoke and to marginalise, and to turn the wider population against religious communities by painting their practices as cruel, foreign and incompatible with modern life.

Given there are well-meaning concerns at hand, let us move beyond motive and look at practicalities. We must tread carefully when it comes to imposing a blanket ban on non-stunned meat, as we are looking at a sector that brings £2 billion of trade to the UK economy every year. The demand for non-stunned halal and kosher meat will not cease, because it is a matter of profound, unwavering religious conviction for many. Eliminating the practice outright would not just infringe religious freedom, but British farmers—the very people many of the campaigners claim to support—whose enterprises supply the demand for non-stun slaughter would be the first to suffer. In the blink of an eye, they would lose vital domestic and export markets to overseas competitors as Muslims and Jews are forced to turn to imports. It may be that the price of meat would fall for consumers because the costs of raw energy are so high in this country.

What is more, many of the abattoirs that would ship such products to Britain’s shores do not observe animal welfare regulations as stringently as we do in the United Kingdom. Although some may think they are standing up for transparency or animal welfare, they are really outsourcing the practice abroad, where British regulation and welfare standards no longer apply, all the while harming local farmers and losing millions of pounds in tax revenue. It is not just short-sighted but self-defeating, and it harms entire religious communities.

Let me be absolutely clear. If we want a serious and respectful conversation about animal welfare, let us have one. If we want to debate how best to balance religious freedom and national values, let us do that too. But those discussions must be fair, rooted in evidence and, above all, consistent.

[Naz Shah]

Following on from my intervention on the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), I have looked at the issue of stunning. I have heard from a slaughterhouse that, particularly for lambs—chickens are slightly different—the same method is used, with the same level of electricity, for stunned meat and halal. Even with chickens, the difference is actually very slight. The same legislative practice applies to the majority of chickens that are stunned. Does the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) share my concern that we are focusing on a minute number here? Ultimately, it is very disheartening that people say they are absolutely mortified to see people are eating halal meat; they would be even more mortified if they knew the real issues.

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Scientifically, one of the biggest challenges in modern times is to determine the level of pain. That will always be an enormous challenge; it just cannot be done. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that one method may be slightly less painful than the other, but it will never be factual. When we debate the different methods, we need real understanding, not dog whistles. Hon. Members have talked about the very small percentage of non-stunned meat, but we should be focusing on the wider cruelty, which simply goes unheard.

Britain has a long and storied history of tolerance for religious slaughter practices. Successive Governments have upheld that principle, and I encourage Members to honour it. Every individual has an inalienable right to freely practise their religion without fear of persecution or discrimination, or of the state setting conditions for them. Our society is made richer, more vibrant and more humane when we treat each other with dignity—even when we disagree. That dignity begins when we recognise when an argument is not about what it pretends to be about.

Let me be clear: abuse of the rules that perpetrates cruelty and excessive pain is reprehensible, and abattoirs that do not comply with welfare requirements should be disciplined, but the obligation to reduce animal suffering has its limits. Let us protect our faith communities, stand against veiled bigotry, and stand unapologetically with all affected communities.