Israel and Palestine
Debate between Tahir Ali and Richard Foord(1Â week, 6Â days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Last week’s statement from the Foreign Secretary marked a significant moment in British policy on Israel and Palestine. I congratulate Ministers on those changes. For years, the Liberal Democrats have argued that simply declaring the west bank settlements illegal while otherwise continuing business as usual was not enough. The Government appear to have conceded that words need to be matched with actions. The Government agree that things have gone on for long enough and have recognised the occupation as unlawful. They have recognised that a ban on imports is necessary and that further sanctions on extremist settlers are required. Those are positive steps, but the reality in the region remains bleak.
Benjamin Netanyahu and his Cabinet have rejected proposals for peace and declared that a Palestinian state will not be recognised while he remains Prime Minister. At the same time, Hamas remains a terrorist organisation that has shown no convincing sign that it will disarm or dismantle itself. Hamas is a transnational actor and a transnational threat, as indeed we saw just last week with the arrest of seven suspected Hamas members in Germany as part of a terror plot.
On the ground in Israel and Palestine, the prospects for a two-state solution are being systematically undermined. The Foreign Affairs Committee saw that when we visited the Jordan valley last year. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), saw as I did how escalating settler violence meant villages were subjected to intimidation. Now, with the announcement of the E1 settlement, there are blatant attempts to make a viable contiguous Palestinian state impossible.
There has been some debate tonight about the timing of the Government’s announcement, with a suggestion that somehow they might be meddling in the affairs of Israel as it approaches its election. I have to disagree with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley). If the Government are convinced that more sanctions are required, they have a responsibility to introduce them as soon as they make that determination and not await the internal democratic electoral affairs of the Israeli state. Indeed, to have delayed would have been interference in the domestic affairs of Israel.
I welcome the fact that the Government have finally acted. I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have acknowledged that the previous Administration did not go far enough. I also welcome the decision to ban settlement goods connected to settlement expansion, but I call for the Government to go further and adopt a ban on all services and trade with those settlements, just as the Dutch Government have done. If the settlements are unlawful, the financial and commercial structures that sustain them should enjoy no benefit from trade with the UK.
Sanctions are a similar story. The Government have recently sanctioned extremist figures such as National Security Minister Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Smotrich, who have repeatedly demonstrated their disdain not just for a Palestinian state but for the Palestinian people themselves. These sanctions should be extended to all members of the Cabinet who are complicit in illegal settlement expansion, forced displacement and the ongoing erosion of a Palestinian state, and that includes Netanyahu himself. Accountability cannot rest just with the most extremist members of the security cabinet if others are enabling the same agenda.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that Israel’s forced displacement of more than 33,000 Palestinians in the west bank could amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. It is the largest and longest displacement crisis since 1967. Meanwhile in Gaza, the scale of death and destruction has shocked the conscience of the world. This Government say that there is increasing evidence that war crimes may have been committed and that they support the ICJ in reaching its determination in relation to genocide. I understand that the Government desire to defer to a competent court, but I note that it took nine years between the atrocities being carried out against the Yazidi people in 2014 and the recognition by the British Government in 2023 that Daesh had committed a genocide.
Hamas remain a terrorist organisation and there can be no future peace while armed groups backed by Iran retain the capacity to threaten Israeli civilians and sabotage any political settlement. Their disarmament and disbandment must be part of any lasting solution.
Tahir Ali
On the issue of disarmament, should we not also be calling for Israel’s disarmament, given the atrocities that have been committed? Previous Governments have intervened in the middle east to take action on human rights abuses and protect international trade routes. Is it not about time that military action was taken against Israel as well?
Richard Foord
The peace plan requires the IDF to pull back from Gaza just as Hamas disarm, so I see the onus on the IDF to pull back, just as Hamas must disarm. As far as this state is concerned, Hamas are a terrorist organisation, and I do not draw any equivalence between the state of Israel, internationally recognised, and Hamas as a proscribed terrorist organisation.
Yes, last week’s shift in British Government policy represents a welcome change in direction. It is a break from years of denial, hesitation and inaction, but the British Government have further to go. They have further to go before Britain is fully matching its commitment to international law, accountability and the two-state solution that remains the path to a just and lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians.
Arms Export Licences: Israel
Debate between Tahir Ali and Richard Foord(2Â years, 9Â months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for securing this debate. The Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq, alongside the Global Legal Action Network, has recently applied for a judicial review of the Government’s export licences for the sale of British weapons to Israel. According to those organisations, since 2015 the value of British arms exports to Israel, as part of the standard licence grants, stands at around £474 million, with 58 open licences for the arms trade with Israel.
Existing criteria for assessing the suitability of arms exports states that where there is a clear risk that any weapon may be used in violation of international humanitarian law, no licence should be granted. It is abundantly clear to me and many others—hundreds of thousands of people across the UK—that there is more than a clear risk that Israel is using the weapons provided by the UK to commit atrocious crimes against the Palestinian people. Many people in this country and around the world suggest, and I agree, that it is both clear and certain that Israel is using weapons to commit war crimes against Palestinian civilians, and that the UK, in providing such weapons, is complicit.
It should bring shame on us all that our Government, in providing arms, have been complicit in such horrendous acts of violence and cruelty. Therefore I am here to echo the demands of my constituents that Israel should receive no weapons or arms of any kind from the UK Government, and that the Government should act to stop the conflict and work to restart the peace process now.
Tahir Ali
No, I will not—many other Members are still waiting to speak. Could the sale of arms be a condition from Israel for the UK Government abstaining at the Security Council? Could the sale of arms be a condition from Israel for this Government not recognising Palestine as a state? Could the sale of arms be a condition from Israel for not demanding a ceasefire? Can the Minister explain?