Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations

Debate between Richard Burgon and Jeremy Corbyn

Monday 24th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I will be brief, Ms McVey. I simply say this: anyone who has observed what has happened in Gaza over the past 18 months must be disgusted and appalled at what they have seen—the deaths of children, the deaths of adults and the continued bombardment—and at the role that Britain has played in supplying arms to Israel that have contributed to all that. It is an utterly disgusting situation. History will be very harsh on European and north American politicians who stood by and allowed those weapons to be supplied, knowing full well what was happening to them, while we were watching genocide on live television.

Whole families have been destroyed. I have friends who send me stuff from the west bank and Gaza, and this weekend I was reading about one man who has been left looking after 26 grandchildren because all his children, his partner and his immediate family have been killed. He is an elderly man looking after 26 children, but that is not an unusual situation. He has no money or home, so he is trying to build a tent to house them all. That is the reality of what has happened because of this bombardment.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is vividly explaining the reality of what is happening in Gaza and the west bank. Does he agree that the Government of Israel are treating the international community with contempt, as well as the public the world over who are concerned about the genocide? Rather than treating the Government of Israel with kid gloves, this Government have a moral and legal obligation to introduce sanctions on Israel on the scale of those that have been rightly brought on Russia. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a failure to do so will go down as a real abdication of moral and legal responsibility at this crucial time?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

By any measurement of humanity, the people of Gaza have suffered as grievously as anyone has ever suffered in any conflict in the world. More than 60,000 are already dead, with the rest living among rubble, starving and unable to get the basic needs of medical attention. That also affects children, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out.

We are looking at an utterly devastating situation, which the British Government have been told about many times. They resisted the calls for a ceasefire at the very beginning; we even had the now Prime Minister saying that it was a legitimate act of self-defence by Israel to deny food and water to people in Gaza. Both the Conservative and Labour Governments have a pretty bad record on this, and I would have thought that the very least we could do now is say that there can be absolutely no arms sales of any sort or any military co-operation with Israel.

The so-called ceasefire in the Trump plan basically ensures Israel’s continued occupation of substantial parts of Gaza. It does not say very much about the abominable behaviour of Israeli armed settlers on the west bank, who are destroying villages and killing people as we speak. Surely this House needs to send the strong message that we recognise the right of the Palestinian people to live in peace, as well as recognising the importance and primacy of international law—the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made that point very strongly.

The hon. Member and I have visited the International Court of Justice at The Hague, and I sat through the entire hearing when South Africa made its application—a moving and fascinating experience. The case was made brilliantly by South Africa, which was condemned by Members on both sides of the House for even bringing the case of genocide against Israel. While it put its case, I was looking at the wonderful ceiling in the Peace Palace and thinking back to when all South Africa’s current leaders were called terrorists and denounced for undermining and upsetting the apartheid regime. They finished apartheid, and then they gave their support to the people of Palestine—well done, South Africa, for having the bravery to do that.

We need to understand the importance of international law. If we believe in international law, as this Parliament and Britain always claim—we helped to write the European convention on human rights and the United Nations universal declaration of human rights—we must stand by it and ensure that the Israeli Government are taken to task for their breaches of human rights around the world.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Richard Burgon and Jeremy Corbyn

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon]

I am not going to give way. The hon. Member talked enough rubbish before.

I want to draw a contrast with a community event that I attended in the most ethnically diverse ward in my constituency, Gipton and Harehills, in Leeds on Friday. Young people were there reading poems about their experiences, and one poem read by a local resident was about how the community has welcomed asylum seekers and welcomed refugees. Rather than using the issue of migration as a weapon of mass distraction to distract people from the responsibility that the Tory Government and their policies have for the misery in their lives, this Government would do better to listen to the message of hope and unity from diverse communities and stop peddling this legislation of division, racism, scapegoating and hate—and I make no apologies for this speech.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I just want to put on record four things. First, this Bill is an appalling piece of legislation. It is designed to appease the most backward elements in our society and it is designed to chase headlines in the popular media. The attacks on refugees and the attacks on people who support refugees are nothing but appalling and disgusting. The idea that this country has always been a welcoming place for refugees is simply not true. Often, it has been very hostile towards refugees. If we were that welcoming, we would not have so many people who have legitimately sought asylum in Britain living in desperate poverty, because the Home Office cannot be bothered to process their applications, and they are living in penury as a result. It would not be criminalising people who are trying to save lives on our shores, or prosecuting people in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, or anything else. We should all be very proud of people who demonstrated in memory of those who died off Calais, including the 250 people who attended a demonstration at the Stade in Hastings a couple of weeks ago.

I wish to refer to three parts of the Bill. I absolutely support new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith). I have been a member, and in the past chair, of the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party group for many years, and I worked with Olivier Bancoult, and many other Chagos islanders. We did wrong to the Chagos islanders in the 1970s and ’80s when they were driven off their land, and we have done wrong by them many times since then. The reason British nationality was offered was that the late Tam Dalyell and I tabled an amendment to previous legislation, to try to get recognition of the rights of Chagos islanders. Unfortunately, the Foreign Office and the Home Office collectively got it wrong, and the new clause corrects a mistake—let us be generous and call it a mistake—that was made many years ago, and will grant security to Chagos islanders living in this country.

I strongly support new clause 8 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). Nationality fees should be based solely on the cost of processing, not on the Home Office making a vast amount of money out of that. The new clause would help to right what is an intrinsic wrong.

In my remaining 39 seconds, I strongly support amendment 12, tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), about the removal of British nationality. Many of us in the House—probably everybody—has at some point been to a citizenship ceremony at our town hall. They are nice; they are moving occasions. But all that could be for naught. The Home Secretary could simply remove the right of citizenship from someone who has gained it in this country or gained it through their heritage. Such a removal requires the agreement of another country, but people will not get that, and we will end up with stateless people as a result.