PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants - 25 November 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the decision taken by the International Criminal Court’s pre-trial chamber I to issue arrest warrants in respect of the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Last Thursday, judges at the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and the reportedly deceased Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri, commonly known as Deif, commander-in-chief of the military wing of Hamas.

The ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern. It is actively investigating allegations of the gravest crimes in countries around the world, including Ukraine, Sudan and Libya. In line with this Government’s stated commitment to the rule of law, we respect the independence of the ICC. We will comply with our international obligations. There is a domestic legal process through our independent courts that determines whether to endorse an arrest warrant by the ICC in accordance with the International Criminal Court Act 2001. That process has never been tested, because the UK has never been visited by an ICC indictee. If there were such a visit to the UK, there would be a court process, and due process would be followed in relation to those issues.

There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy, and Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, two terrorist organisations. This Government have been clear that Israel has a right to defend itself in accordance with international law. That right is not under question, and the Court’s approval of the warrants last week does not change that. Israel is of course a partner across UK priorities, including trade, investment, security and science and technology. We co-operate across a wide range of issues for our mutual benefit.

This Government remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza. That is essential to protect civilians, ensure the release of hostages and increase humanitarian aid into Gaza. We have always said that diplomacy is what will see an end to this conflict, and that can only be achieved through dialogue. It is in the long-term interests of the Israelis, Palestinians and the wider region to agree to a ceasefire deal urgently and bring this devastating conflict to an end.

The International Criminal Court’s decision to issue arrest warrants for the state of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant will do nothing to help secure the release of those poor hostages, who have been held captive by Hamas for more than a year. It will not help to get more aid into Gaza, and it will not deliver a sustainable end to this awful conflict. In charging Israeli leaders alongside Hamas, the ICC appears to be drawing a moral equivalence between Israel’s war of self-defence and Hamas terrorism. We utterly reject any moral equivalence. The only beneficiaries of this decision are Hamas and their terrorist sponsors, Iran, who are now celebrating this propaganda coup as a great victory for Hamas and Hezbollah. Since the ICC’s decision, we have had dither from Ministers, confused messaging and no clarity, so I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks today.

The Government have indicated already that they will seek to enforce these warrants through our own courts, and there is a process around that. On the issue of warrants, we have expressed serious concerns over process, jurisdiction and the position on the complementarity principle. We believe that the warrants for Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant have no basis in international law. Do the Government believe that the Court has jurisdiction in this case, given that Israel is not party to the Rome statute and Palestine is not a recognised state? Does the Minister agree that the ICC must act within legal norms?

In the absence of the ICC making public the specific context of the charges, does the Minister share the concerns expressed about reports of process errors in the ICC’s investigation and the concerns expressed by Lord Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, about the use by the prosecutor of an expert panel? Finally, but crucially, what effect does the Minister believe that Mr Netanyahu’s immunity under international law as a serving Prime Minister of a country that is not a state party has on enforcing these warrants in the UK’s own courts?

These are important questions on which I look forward to the Minister’s response. He has already spoken about securing the release of hostages and more aid coming into Gaza, but at this time when such a conflict is taking place, it is important that we have clarity from the Government.

I welcome the questions from the right hon. Member across the Benches. Utmost in the Government’s mind is the need to bring an immediate end to the conflict in Gaza and to secure the release of the hostages, whose families I have met. She knows that I am familiar with these issues from my previous life. We also need to see more aid going into Gaza. The questions at issue with the ICC are separate from that.

Diplomacy will continue regardless of the ICC process. But I had understood it to be the common position of the House that the international rule of law is an important commitment. The International Criminal Court is an important body—the primary body—in enforcing those norms, and the issues on jurisdiction and complementarity were heard by the pre-trial chamber. Its three judges issued their findings. I think we should respect those.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The International Criminal Court was created when 120 countries put their names to the Rome statute and signed up to the principle that certain basic standards of behaviour must be enforced internationally, with those laws applicable to everyone, no matter who they were. From the time when Winston Churchill led the Conservative party, this country has been a proud supporter of international law. It is wrong for us to try to undermine it. Does my hon. Friend share my deep disappointment that the Conservatives have fallen as far as they have?

As I think has been clear from our actions from July when we became the Government, the international rule of law is incredibly important to this Government. All our actions will be guided by it.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The conflict between Israel and Hamas has had a devastating impact on Palestinian and Israeli civilians, with women and children paying a particularly terrible price. Now that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for those it believes are culpable, the UK has obligations under international law, which we must uphold. The previous Conservative Government chose to be selective with those obligations when it came to the ICC’s jurisdiction in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That was deeply regrettable and damaging for our country, and I greatly regret that Conservative Front-Bench Members are pursuing that same line today.

It is right that the Government have committed to uphold the ruling, and I welcome the Minister’s statement that they will support the process to enforce the arrest warrants. Does the Minister share my concern about the words of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who has proposed sanctioning nations—including the UK—who uphold the ruling? Will he outline the specific new steps that the Government are taking to secure an immediate bilateral ceasefire with all parties, so that we can put a stop to the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, get the hostages home and open the door to a two-state solution?

Every member of the Government—most particularly the Foreign Secretary and the rest of the Foreign Office ministerial team—is engaged every day, including this morning, in pressing all parties for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon, and for a de-escalation of violence in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but also more broadly in the middle east, where violence remains far too high.

The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for the Prime Minister of a democratic state that is a UK ally, having found that there are reasonable grounds that he is responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Does that not call for action as well as words from the UK Government, which might include ending trade with illegal settlements, the sanctioning of members of that Government and settlers, and indeed recognition of the state of Palestine if we are to show not only our disapproval, but how we want to move forward?

I recognise my hon. Friend’s long commitment to these issues. As you would expect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not comment further on the ICC process, which needs now to carry through in accordance with due process in the way you would expect. On sanctions, which have been discussed before in the Chamber, I am not, in the usual way, at liberty to provide any further commentary on who we might consider for them.

Whatever reservations one may have about the conduct of the conflict in Gaza, there are two fundamental principles: first, Netanyahu is a democratically elected leader of a sovereign state; and secondly, that state is conducting a legitimate war of self-defence. The Minister acknowledges those facts, but does he not appreciate how this ruling is seen by many of my constituents as an affront to those principles?

I am slightly stumped by the questions from the Opposition. We are signatories to the ICC Act. I think the whole House agrees with the importance of the rule of law. Representations were made to the ICC in the pre-trial chamber, and it has come to its decisions. I think we should respect its independence.

I find it shocking but not surprising that the Conservative party has chosen to downgrade and disparage the highly respected International Criminal Court. We are a nation that upholds the rule of law, so I am proud that the new Labour Government have chosen to respect the independence of the ICC in its arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant and Mohammed Deif, on the basis that there are reasonable grounds for their criminal responsibility for potential war crimes. Does the Minister agree that it is important that we respect the independence of that ICC judgment and that, if required, we implement those findings?

I am not really able to go much further than to say that there is a domestic legal process, through our independent courts, that would determine whether to endorse an arrest warrant. We would follow due process in the way that hon. Members would expect. This is a decision not for Ministers but for an independent court.

The Minister may be aware that I have fought the corner for international courts time and again in this House. I view upholding the authority of those courts and their reputation as very important. The difficulty here is not just that Israel is a democracy, but that it has an internal, independent judiciary, which puts a limit on what any Government can do in Israel. That is why equating—or appearing to equate—Netanyahu with all the other monsters that the International Criminal Court has quite properly prosecuted risks bringing the court into disrepute.

I know that the right hon. Member has looked at these issues over a long period of time. Questions of complementarity are important, and I understand that they were considered by the pre-trial chamber.

Several of our allies and international partners have outlined their commitment to fully support the ICC, including Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium and Ireland, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to respect the independence of the ICC. Does the Minister agree that it has a high evidential threshold for issuing arrest warrants for alleged perpetrators, which has been demonstrated in this case?

The deliberations of the ICC on this matter have gone on for some time. I think it is clear for all to see the way in which it has proceeded, and I welcome it.

Last week I attended a memorial service for the people of Gaza with families of Palestinian origin here in the UK—I believe the Minister has met some of those representatives. We heard from a woman called Kitam, who described how, overnight, she lost 48 members of her family. As she walked back and sat behind me, she broke down in sobs as she remembered so painfully that day. She deserves justice. The issuing of a warrant is not justice. There is still a process to go through and a trial to be had. Is it not right that, whatever the court, those outcomes are adhered to? May I press him on the ruling of the ICJ advisory opinion on the occupation? That ruling is at the core of this: it should mean that we do much more than just meeting those families and sharing in their pain.

As the hon. Member alludes to, I have met those families, and many other families who have been so wounded by the conduct of this conflict, over the course of the last year—families on both sides, both the hostage families and the many, many Palestinians and Lebanese who have seen their lives so cruelly turned upside down. As I said earlier, in the end it is only diplomacy that will bring an end to the conflict. We will continue to have contact with all sides, including those indicted. We will continue to press all those with whom we engage to bring an early end to this war. On the ICJ, we have set out our position before. We are considering the judgment carefully. We have provided an explanation of our position so far in the United Nations. It is an important, far-reaching judgment and we hope to be able to say more in due course.

I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the UK will be upholding the ICC arrest warrant for the Hamas general and Israeli leaders. The ICC found grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant

“each bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.”

It goes on to refer to

“the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.”

On that last point, what moral justification is there now for continuing arms sales used by Israeli forces at the behest of a Prime Minister accused of such serious war crimes? When will we use every diplomatic lever to stop the killing, free all hostages and stop selling arms to a country led by someone accused of such horrific war crimes?

I would like to just be clear that what I have said this afternoon is not that the Government will uphold arrest warrants. What I have been clear about this afternoon is that due process will be followed. These are questions for independent courts in the UK, and it is independent courts that would review the arrest warrants if that situation were to arise.

My hon. Friend asks about aid. I want to be absolutely clear: insufficient aid is getting into Gaza. I travelled, myself, to the Gaza border and saw the restrictions Israel is putting on aid reaching Gaza. Those restrictions have been called out by me and other Foreign Office Ministers day in, day out. We are taking steps with our partners and our allies to try to ensure that people in Gaza have the aid they need as winter comes in, in order to survive. These are grave matters and I understand the frustration right across the House that we have not seen the amount of aid in Gaza that we would like to see. I recognise that people are asking for yet more to be done. On the specific question about the arms licence suspensions announced to the House on 2 September, we will of course keep that under review. We will consider the findings of the ICC in relation to that assessment.

The right hon. Member says with dismay that war is ugly. War is ugly and we are doing everything that we can to bring it to a close through all the diplomatic measures we would expect. This is not an issue for grandstanding; this is an issue for diplomacy. That is what the Government are committed to.

Surely central to the debate today must be the UK’s ongoing political role as Israel’s close ally, and the fact that UK-made weapons, including components, are still being used by Israel. Does the Minister recognise that beyond the commitment to uphold the ICC’s arrest warrants, the UK’s failure to clearly condemn the collective punishment of civilians—an intent explicitly indicated by key Israeli leading figures—and the continued military support for Israel’s ongoing onslaught in Gaza have serious implications for the UK’s own human rights obligations and the fate of millions of innocent men, women and children?

I will not rehearse too much the answers provided on 2 September and on numerous occasions in the Chamber since then. We have suspended, with one exemption—to which I am happy to return—all the arms that we are selling to Israel that could be used in Gaza. That suspension, in our assessment, also covers the west bank and Lebanon. We are taking action in accordance with our commitments under international humanitarian law, and we will continue to do so.

Can we be absolutely clear about what the Government are saying? It seems that the Government are not saying that there would be an automatic arrest should Benjamin Netanyahu arrive in this country, but they are saying that there would due process. Can the Minister confirm that

“customary international law…does not permit the arrest or delivery of the serving Prime Minister of a non-State party to the ICC”?

So the Minister is committing himself to due process but not to arrest. Am I correct in my understanding?

There is a domestic legal process through our independent courts, and we cannot prejudge that process. I note that the shadow Attorney General has written to the Attorney General about questions of detail in relation to some of the points to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, and the Attorney General tells me that he will be writing back on the subject of those more detailed points.

While we watch and work tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza—which is really important simply because if children do not see an end in sight, neither do the families in Gaza—does the Minister agree that Britain’s reputation on the world scene as a global leader in upholding justice would be undermined if Britain did not respect the independence of the ICC, which is what Conservative Members are implying?

This Government think that adherence to international law, and being seen to adhere to international law, are incredibly important, and in everything we have done since July we have sought to underline that principle, which I hope is one on which the whole House would support us.

The Minister has assured us that the arrest warrants will be carried out, and I hope that is the case, but will he also consider this question? If an arrest warrant has been issued for the leader of a country, and the International Court of Justice has found that country deeply wanting in respect of its behaviour as an occupying power and the war crimes that have been committed, why are we still supplying weapons that are being used in the bombardment of Gaza and destroying life as we speak?

As I said in answer to a question from my own Benches, we took steps on 2 September to ensure that, with one exemption—which I am happy to go into—we are not selling arms that are being used and could pose a breach of international humanitarian law in Gaza. That continues to be the position, and it is kept under regular review.

The ICC’s decision is a crucial step towards ensuring justice and accountability for the crimes against humanity committed in Gaza and Israel. It is vital for the Government to act without fear or favour in order to uphold the international rules-based system. War crimes are wrong whoever commits them and wherever they happen, whether they are committed by Russian forces in unlawfully occupied Ukraine or by Israeli forces on unlawfully occupied Palestinian territory. Will the Minister now review all diplomatic, economic and political relations with Israel to ensure that our country is not complicit in the atrocities that are taking place in Gaza, the west bank and Lebanon?

I can confirm that the Department and the Government as a whole keep our international obligations under close review, including in relation to the theatres described.

Last week I was in the west bank and saw for myself the incursions by settlers into the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Following recent comments from Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who described in explicit terms the active effort to annex the west bank into Israel, does the Minister agree that now is the time to sanction Smotrich?

The comments of Finance Minister Smotrich have been condemned in this Chamber before, and we can reiterate that condemnation. As the hon. Lady would expect, however, we cannot comment on sanctions that may or may not be under consideration in the usual way.

I am no friend of Hamas, but we must remember that Prime Minister Netanyahu promised us intelligence-led precision attacks in Gaza. We have seen daily violation of international law, 43,000 people killed, restrictions on food and aid, and 136 journalists killed. I welcome the Government’s announcement about respecting the ICC’s decision, but may I urge them to consider using all levers, including sanctions against two Israeli Government Ministers, the settlers in the west bank and other organisations operating therein?

I will not comment on what sanctions may be under review, for reasons that are well established, but I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the sanctions that we took in October against Israeli settlers and organisations involved in both breaches of international law and violence in the west bank.

Our closest ally is the United States of America, and there has been widespread condemnation of the issuing of these arrest warrants across Congress. What effect does the Minister think this decision will have on our relationship with the United States of America, and particularly with the incoming Administration, who have very different views?

The UK is a state party to the Rome statute, and that brings with it obligations that put us in a different position from that of the US. We will continue to engage with both the current and incoming US Administrations in the shared interest of our two countries and across the full range of our priorities.

The atrocities that led to the issuing of arrest warrants continue to this day, not least in healthcare facilities, with devastating stories coming out of Gaza. My hon. Friend has set out his frustration at aid not reaching such facilities, yet more sanctions could be applied by this Government. Why will he not escalate the UK’s response to the Israeli Government by introducing sanctions so that they feel the real pain of our country but also understand that we want to ensure that justice is served by the ICC?

I want to reassure the House about how focused the Government are on the question of aid access into Gaza. As I say, I have travelled to the region and raised these issues repeatedly with all parties, including the Israeli Government. We need to see a flood of aid into Gaza. That has been the commitment of the Israeli Government, and I regret that we have not yet seen a flood of aid and that Palestinians are suffering as a consequence. Winter is coming, and Palestinians in Gaza are extremely vulnerable. We will continue to press the Israeli Government to do everything that they can to ensure that more aid reaches Gaza and, indeed, all parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories that require it. I made these points forcefully this morning, and I will continue to do so.

The ICC has issued arrest warrants for crimes including direct attacks on civilians. Open-source information shows that, on average, Royal Air Force reconnaissance flights are going over Gaza nearly four times a day. Although we all seek the information necessary to gain the release of the hostages, how confident is the Minister that the information gathered from those flights and shared with Israel has not been used to facilitate any attacks on civilians?

I will not go into operational details, but I can assure the House that the surveillance aircraft are unarmed and do not have a combat role. They are tasked solely with locating hostages, including a British national, and they will continue to do so.

In response to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), I note that the UK under the previous Conservative Government signed an ICC state party statement in support of the ICC and to preserve it from political interference, just before the election. The Foreign Secretary has confirmed the UK’s acceptance of and respect for the ICC arrest warrants for Netanyahu’s war crimes. Therefore, is it not now incumbent on the Government to take effective, concrete steps to prevent further such acts by banning all arms licences to Israel, including those relating to F-35 parts; by imposing sanctions on individuals, on assets and on goods trading with the illegally occupied west bank; and by the urgent recognition of Palestinian statehood?

I will not rehearse the points that we have already discussed on sanctions. The Foreign Secretary has set out our position in relation to the suspension of arms licences and the F-35 exemptions, and that remains the position. We will keep our assessments under regular review, including the findings of the ICC.

Frankly, I am disappointed that the Government are not giving any clear responses. I therefore ask this question. In October 2023, over 800 experts in international law and in conflict and genocide studies gave a warning of clear prospects of genocide. In November 2023, over 40 United Nations experts called it a “genocide in the making”. We then had the ICJ judgment that called it a “plausible” genocide, and a judge from the ICJ saying:

“The alarm has now been sounded by the Court. All the indicators of genocidal activities are flashing red in Gaza.”

Now we have an arrest warrant. Do this Government stand by their conviction that genocide is not being committed in Gaza—yes or no?

It is important that we treat the international institutions with the respect that they deserve. This is an indictment from the ICC and we respect it. The ICJ process to which the hon. Gentleman refers has not found; it is at an advisory opinion stage. We need to treat international law with the respect that it deserves.

The Minister will be aware that, as well as the ICC’s recent decision to issue arrest warrants, there is now an entire body of international law, including the ICJ’s advisory opinion, adopted by the UN General Assembly, ruling Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories illegal, as well as South Africa’s case at the ICJ on genocide, that points towards a clear position in international law. Does the Minister therefore agree that if we are to preserve the integrity of the international rules-based order, we must start by ending the international hypocrisy and double standards and reaffirm that all states, including the UK, have an absolute obligation under international law to act now to bring all those who commit war crimes to justice?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I want to underline this Government’s commitment in relation to accountability for war crimes. We stand against international crimes of this nature in all places, everywhere, and our commitment to international law is one of the most powerful levers we have in trying to prevent war crimes.

I ask for the Minister’s forgiveness because I did not hear whether he answered this question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. Is it his understanding that customary international law does not permit the arrest or delivery of a serving Prime Minister of a non-state party to the ICC, and that the UK seeking to arrest such a Prime Minister would not only breach our international obligations but be unlawful under the International Criminal Court Act 2001?

For the awareness of the House, the shadow Attorney General has written about the two different legal interpretations of immunity and has sought the Attorney General’s view on these matters. I think the shadow Attorney General acknowledges that this is a case on which the courts are the competent authority, but the Attorney General has undertaken to respond to that letter in due course.

The law is the law, and the evidence is the evidence. Whether or not it is politically convenient or diplomatically helpful, the law is the law. The International Criminal Court has been clear, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to reject the Opposition’s calls to turn this into a political decision. It should remain an independent legal decision for our courts and for the International Criminal Court, and the Minister should continue exactly as he is.

I agree.

I welcome the ICC’s decision, and I sincerely hope that we will live up to our international obligations if the Prime Minister of Israel visits the UK. You have said yourself that you regret the fact that more aid is not getting into Gaza, and that you have been calling out the Israeli Government for not letting in more aid. Is it not time to do more than just calling out the Israeli Government and telling them how angry you are? Is it not time to end all arms exports to Israel, impose sanctions, end trade with all the illegal settlements and recognise Palestine as a state?

We will continue to press these points with vigour, and we will continue to keep all other measures under review, as I have said.

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind Members not to use the word “you.”

I thought the Conservative party styled itself the party of law and order, but it seems that that is increasingly not the case when it comes to international law. The Government are right to uphold the ICC’s decision, and they were right to vote for last week’s UN Security Council resolution on a ceasefire.

The Minister will be aware that there is increasing evidence, including from organisations such as Human Rights Watch, of the forcible displacement of Palestinians from the north of Gaza. He will be aware that this is a crime against humanity, and that two of the main proponents are Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government are looking at this, so when will the Government move to sanction those Ministers as part of a wider package of further action to uphold international law?

We follow reports from northern Gaza closely and with concern, and we have repeatedly raised many of these issues. I will not comment further on sanctions, but I wish to be clear that the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza is not consistent with Israel’s obligations.

Does the Minister agree that one of our greatest tools against tyranny anywhere is that—friend or foe, rich or poor, elected or unelected—the law applies to everybody, and that the universality of certain crimes means that they can be prosecuted anywhere?

As I hope I have made clear this afternoon, this Government are committed to the international rule of law and will continue to be so.

Despite what the Minister has said, the Government conceded at the royal courts of justice last week that UK-made F-35 parts could be used in violation of international law in Gaza, and admitted that Israel has shown no commitment to upholding these legal obligations. Despite this, the Government have continued to authorise offensive F-35 arms exports, exposing themselves to criminal liability.

It is disappointing that the Foreign Secretary is not here today, but will the Minister let our constituents know whether the Government will end their complicity in genocide, impose sanctions and end all arms sales? Will he confirm that should Netanyahu, who faces an ICC arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity, enter UK territory, he will be immediately arrested—yes or no?

I will return briefly to the Foreign Secretary’s statement on 2 September, in which he said that

“suspending all licences for the F-35 programme would undermine the global F-35 supply chain that is vital for the security of the UK, our allies and NATO.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 39.]

He went on to set out how the suspension of arms licences would apply to the direct sale of F-35 components to Israel but would not apply to the global supply chain. That continues to be the position.

Forty-three thousand dead; possibly 100,000 under the rubble; schools and hospitals destroyed; 16,000 children killed, including by drones and by being shot in the head—many hon. Members said that this was a genocide many months ago. Now that the ICC prosecutor has called Benjamin Netanyahu a potential serious war criminal committing crimes against humanity, does the Minister agree that now is the time to recognise the state of Palestine and end all military and financial co-operation with the Israeli Government while their leaders are essentially international fugitives?

I will not rehearse our position on the recognition of the state of Palestine, other than to say that we believe that the Palestinians have an inalienable right to a state alongside a safe and secure Israel. The Government hope to take steps to advance that as part of a contribution to a two-state solution.

The hon. Member suggests, I think, no contact at all with the Israeli Government as a consequence of the ICC ruling. It is only diplomacy that will bring an end to this conflict. We will continue to have direct contact, and in that direct contact we will continue to do all we can to secure an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, aid into Gaza and a more safe, secure and stable middle east.

I say this to my hon. Friend as constructively as I possibly can: a number of us have sat here for months and have asked questions about sanctions, but the response from Ministers has been to say, “We cannot comment on sanctions in the House.” Not only does that render sanctions ineffective, but it breaks down the accountability of Ministers to this House. We deserve a better statement than that.

On the legal process, my hon. Friend has rightly said that we will respect international law and comply with the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction and decisions. If I have got the wording right, he said that it will be for the domestic legal processes involved. Where does physical arrest come within that domestic legal process?

Let me deal with why we do not provide advance comment on sanctions, and then I will turn to the domestic legal process.

I hear my right hon. Friend. The reason that we do not provide commentary on sanctions is that to do so in advance would reduce their effect. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is sitting next to me—may correct me, but I think that we have probably issued upwards of 50 or maybe even 100 sanctions in the short time we have been in government. There has been no shortage of sanctions for this House to comment on. I recognise that the two on which I have most been pressed this afternoon are of intense political interest; however, despite that intense political interest, if we were to prejudge sanctions and trail them in this House before we made them, we would reduce their impact. The same is true of the hundreds of sanctions that we have placed on Russia over the years, and it would be the same in every forum.

In relation to the domestic legal process, I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for not entering too deeply into hypotheticals about how a court might discharge its findings on these matters.

Israel is a democracy. In the past, its courts have shown themselves unafraid to put even senior politicians on trial. What assessment has the Minister made of the Israelis’ own ability to bring human rights cases in their own courts?

This is described in international law as the question of complementarity, and it was considered by the pre-trial chamber. Given the independence of the ICC, I do not think it appropriate for me to offer further commentary. Arguments were made by various states on this matter, and the pre-trial chamber came to its findings.

Does the Minister agree that as well as demanding an immediate ceasefire, the freeing of all hostages and unhindered aid getting into Gaza, we must ensure that the perpetrators of heinous war crimes and crimes against humanity, whether they are friend or foe, are held to account under international law based on justice that is blind, objective and impartial? Playing politics with courts undermines justice.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Support for international criminal justice and accountability has traditionally been a matter on which we have had widespread support in this House. It will continue to be a priority for the British Government.

The ICC, the world’s highest criminal court, has “reasonable grounds” to allege that the Israeli leaders are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The other world court, the International Court of Justice, has found that there is “plausible” risk that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians and that Israel’s occupation and annexation are unlawful.

I ask the Minister two questions. First, does he agree that the UK has obligations under international law to prevent genocide, to bring Israel’s unlawful occupation to an end and to bring suspected perpetrators of grave breaches of international law to justice? Secondly and quite simply, what will the UK do differently as a result of the decisions of the ICC and the ICJ? The Minister says that he will pull out all the stops. We have heard many suggestions here today, including stopping the export of F-35s. What will the Government do differently?

Do the Government accept that we have international obligations? Indeed we do. I have set out this afternoon how we would discharge them in relation to the ICC; I have also set out the view that we take on the ICJ process. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure that there is proper international justice that all abide by. We are one of the ICC’s major funders: we commit £13.2 million a year to ensure that the ICC can function properly. In everything that this Government do, we are trying to ensure the international rule of law, and we will continue to do so.

The UK has a responsibility not just to respect the independence of international courts, but to take active steps to promote compliance with international obligations. When nations or leaders have been accused of committing war crimes, the UK has held itself up as a global leader in placing sanctions. It is unconscionable that in this situation we are yet to stop all sales of arms to Israel. If Israel is accused of committing war crimes, does the continued sale of any arms to Israel not make the UK potentially complicit? Given the gravity of the situation, will the Minister further clarify why he cannot comment on sanctions, or indeed on the other steps that the Government are planning or willing to take to make clear the UK’s condemnation of the continued slaughter of civilians in Gaza?

Let me comment on arms sales, as they have been raised again. I will not rehearse the arguments about the F-35 exemption. In relation to the arms that are licensed to be sold to Israel, the category that has been suspended is the category that posed a risk of being involved in breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza. Those weapons, we also believe, would be the weapons at issue in the west bank and in Lebanon. There is a second category of weapons that are for resale elsewhere, which is not relevant to events in Israel. There is a third category of weapons that are used either for defensive purposes or for purposes with which nobody in this House would disagree: body armour and helmets for aid workers going into Gaza, for example.

I say gently to colleagues across the House that there is not, in the rest of the arms sales, some solution to the dilemma that faces us. The suspension of arms sales has been done carefully and has been aimed at the potential breach of international humanitarian law. It has been reached carefully and judiciously, including in relation to the F-35. That remains the position.

I have a degree of sympathy with the Minister, who has been asked to substitute in lieu of the Foreign Secretary today, so I will ask him a question of fact. Does he recognise that pursuant to section 23(6) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, representatives of a non-state party to the Rome statute will remain immune from prosecution unless that non-state party expressly waives that right to the ICC?

I do not need sympathy, just careful listening. The same question was asked by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), and the answer is the same. The shadow Attorney General has raised the matter with the Attorney General, and a letter will be sent in due course.

I must press the Minister on the question of F-35 arms sales. He mentions direct and indirect arms sales, and he says that the indirect arms sales are either irrelevant or impossible to remedy. As I understand it, there is no reason why F-35 parts that are made in the UK, sold to the United States and used by Israel cannot be subject to a conditional licence under which they are sold to the United States with the proviso that they cannot be used in Gaza. Given that, how can it be legally or morally justifiable to continue allowing UK parts for fighter jets that are being used to kill Palestinian children to be exported even indirectly to an Israeli leader who faces an arrest warrant for war crimes and crimes against humanity? We hear about the review, but while that review has been ongoing under the last Government and this one, thousands and thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed.

For clarity, we have suspended arms licences where parts for the F-35 programme are sold directly to Israel. Where they are sold to the global spares pool, it is not possible to disentangle where they go in that pool and see their final destination. That is why we have made the exemption, and it is why we judge that doing so is vital for the security of the UK, for our allies and for NATO.

Does the Minister agree that the cold-blooded slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people in Gaza cannot be justified as self-defence? Does he also agree that—contrary to the Trumpian line adopted by those on the Conservative Benches—just because a country is a democracy, that does not provide it with blanket immunity from international law?

The hon. Member refers to the terrible loss of life in Gaza, which is in the minds and hearts of the whole House. We are a democracy, as much as signatories to petitions may wish otherwise. We abide by international law and we expect our allies to do the same, and we make that point with force.

Let us remind this House why we are here. Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant stand accused of very serious crimes: the crime against humanity of murder, and the crime against humanity of persecution and starvation as a weapon of war. Seventy per cent of those killed in this war are innocent women and children. Nobody in this House can think of a war in living memory in which 70% of those killed were women and children.

I want to ask the Minister a very specific question, because he has evaded all of this so far. Can he tell us one concrete step that he will take—apart from executing the arrest warrants, as the UK is obliged to do as a state party to the Rome statute—that we can all tangibly grasp? We would like to hear it, please.

I have been clear about what the Government have done and will continue to do. If the hon. Member would like a recap, on the very first morning that I became a Minister, we announced the restoration of funding to UNRWA. We have provided significant aid to the people of Gaza. We have provided aid that has not got into Gaza, and we have raised that with the Israelis. My ministerial colleagues and I have travelled to the region to press these issues, both alone and in company with the French Foreign Minister.

This House is united in its concern about what will happen in Gaza in December. There is no disagreement that insufficient aid has gone in. There are urgent, almost frantic efforts every day in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to try to ensure that adequate aid reaches the Palestinians. I understand the frustration of this House. We are working as hard as we can and we will continue to do so. We take concrete action each and every day on this issue.

The ICC found that there is no justification under international humanitarian law for the restriction of aid by the Israeli Government. Indeed, the ICC detailed how doctors have been forced to carry out treatments and amputations without anaesthetic, including on children. The Government’s response must include redoubling our efforts to get more aid into Gaza. Can my hon. Friend confirm what pressure is being put on the Israeli Government, in addition to what we have already done, to get more aid into Gaza?

In addition to the steps I have just outlined, we will be working closely with our partners and I hope to be able to update the House shortly on some of the measures we are taking, in company, to try to ensure that sufficient aid gets into Gaza, particularly over this vital winter period.

The ICC arrest warrants are welcome, but in themselves they will not bring an end to Israeli war crimes and ethnic cleansing and the killing of innocent men, women and children. It is an international legal obligation on the UK Government to prevent ethnic cleansing and genocide. Will the Minister explain what specific measures the Government have taken and are taking to stop Israel’s ethnic cleansing in northern Gaza and what concrete steps the UK Government have taken to comply with the genocide convention?

The hon. Member asked about northern Gaza and some of the specific measures that have been taken. As I said in answer to a previous question, we have been paying close attention to events in northern Gaza. By way of example, we watched closely—with horror—the events at Kamal Adwan hospital. I raised them myself repeatedly with the Israeli authorities and urged them to preserve life at that hospital, including among the children. We take every opportunity to underline to the Israelis their responsibilities as an occupying power in the whole of Gaza, but particularly in northern Gaza, and indeed the obligations that fall to them in relation to medical facilities, particularly where there is ongoing treatment of children, as there was in that case.

I recognise the hon. Member’s frustration at the situation in northern Gaza. We are clear that northern Gaza must not be cut off from the south. There must be no forcible transfer of Gazans from or within Gaza, nor any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip. The Government of Israel must minimise evacuation notices to only areas where they are militarily necessary, provide timely and consistent information on when and where they take effect, and be clear on where it is safe for civilians to move to.

The polio vaccination roll-out has now ended, but an estimated 6,800 to 13,700 children in northern Gaza were not reached due to intense Israel Defence Forces activity. That is deplorable. Delayed vaccination of any child in Gaza puts them at risk and is unacceptable, and we make those points to the Israelis. I recognise the hon. Member’s frustration, but we are doing what we can to try to ensure that children and others in northern Gaza have access to the aid they need.

Many of my constituents have written to me to express their horror at what is happening in Gaza. Does the Minister agree that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency plays an indispensable role in the provision of humanitarian assistance, and does he oppose the Bills recently passed in the Knesset that would prevent UNRWA’s operation?

I thank my hon. Friend for passing on the concern of his constituents; I know that that is felt right across the country and that many other Members would wish to put on record the concern of their constituents too. I do condemn the Knesset Bill in relation to UNRWA. We have made the point clear that UNRWA is indispensable. Only UNRWA can provide the aid into the Occupied Palestinian Territories at the scale required, and we will continue to press for UNRWA’s continued operation in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions.

It is crucial that the Labour Government comply with our obligations under international law to uphold the ICC’s ruling and enforce the arrest warrants against Israeli Ministers. That compliance is vital, given the previous Conservative Government’s besmirching of the International Criminal Court and, in turn, damaging of the UK’s standing on the world stage. Many of my constituents in Wokingham would like to see the UK stand up for what is right and see that the UK does not turn its back on international law. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not undermine the ICC’s ruling by unequivocally agreeing to uphold the arrest warrants?

I reassure the hon. Member and ask him to pass on to his constituents that this Government will indeed do the right thing and stand up for international law. I have set out the manner in which we would do that over the course of this afternoon.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to uphold their obligations under international law and therefore to issue arrest warrants to these men if they set foot on British soil. If the Government acknowledge that the Prime Minister of Israel should be on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, how—morally and legally—can we continue to supply him with the weapons being used by Israel in its horrific assault on innocent civilians in Gaza?

I have outlined our position in relation to both our international and domestic obligations to the ICC and our position on arms sales. I reassure my hon. Friend that we will consider the findings of the ICC in the ongoing review process in relation to arms sales.

I am truly perplexed, as most of the British population watching this debate no doubt will be, by some of the arguments being advanced. When it comes to the ICC, topics such as morality and equivalence do not feature; this is a principle of law. An independent body, encapsulating some of the most senior members of the judiciary, has made a finding, yet we have the issues of democracy and morality being used to argue for some sort of impunity for leaders. Will the Minister state that if Benjamin Netanyahu arrived on these shores, if the ICC had issued warrants, we would at least detain him, subject to our domestic procedures?

The hon. Member makes an impassioned and welcome commitment to due process and the independence of the law, and I will not demur from that by providing commentary on what domestic courts might do in a hypothetical situation.

I am frankly astonished at the principle underlying some of the comments made by the shadow Foreign Secretary and some of her Conservative colleagues today. I have been giving assemblies to primary school children across the Earley and Woodley constituency emphasising that British democracy means that nobody is above the rule of law. I hope that one day, Conservative Members might understand what the children of the Earley and Woodley constituency instinctively understand, which is that we should be equal under the law, whether we are the political leaders of a democracy or otherwise. That is why I welcome the Minister’s statement that the Government will comply with their international obligations.

The Minister has set out the work he has been doing in travelling to the region and witnessing at first hand the blockage of aid into Gaza by the Israeli Government. The United Nations states that over 83% of food aid has been blocked, which of course leads to the risk and ongoing fact of starvation in the region. What can the Minister and the Government do in line with our positive obligation under international law to prevent future atrocities occurring in Gaza?

The Government are deeply concerned by the latest Integrated Food Security Phase Classification finding about food insecurity in Gaza. We are making efforts to try to ensure a more rapid and regular flow of aid, including items that have been barred, which often seem to be those that are most vital for winterisation—as the international humanitarian community call it—in Gaza. We will continue to press for more flexibility on these points, so that the necessary tents, sleeping bags and other equipment required to safeguard Palestinian life over the course of the winter can move in at the scale that is required.

Having seen and lived through the misuse of lawfare in Northern Ireland, whereby the terrorist uses law to target those who seek to live by the law while ignoring the fact that every one of their actions is illegal, I very firmly oppose the UK’s stamp of approval on any ICC decision on Israel. It is only when you—not “you” meaning the Minister, but “you” meaning me—have been the victim of whitewashing propaganda, as Unionists have in Northern Ireland, that you truly understand the danger. Will the Minister not recall that Israel has been defending itself under perpetual attack, and that this ICC ruling is simply affirming the Hamas agenda of hiding terrorism behind women and children, sacrificing them to achieve their goal? That goal is clear: to wipe Israel off the map. That is something that we can never support, and I hope the Minister will never support it either.

I do not support the actions of Hamas—I condemn them outright and utterly. The actions of Hamas, including the continued keeping of hostages, represent unspeakable cruelty, both to the Israeli people and to British nationals. We do not forget Emily Damari, who is still held more than a year since she was taken. That being said, we can both condemn terrorist organisations such as Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah and encourage our allies to keep to the very highest standards, and our commitment to international law is part of that contribution.

I have just returned from the west bank, where I met Roland Friedrich, director of UNRWA affairs, and saw UNRWA’s work at first hand. In the west bank alone, that work includes running 97 schools and 43 health centres and providing public services such as clean drinking water and rubbish collection. Does the Minister agree that there is no viable alternative to UNRWA, and will he do everything in his power to ensure Israel allows its vital operations to continue?

I do agree. There is no alternative to UNRWA, and we will raise those points, both directly with Israel and in company. It is vital that UNRWA, underpinned by a succession of UN Security Council resolutions, is able to continue its vital work, both in the west bank and Gaza and across the wider region.

Can the Minister reassure us that he and other Ministers have directly pressed Israel on compliance with international humanitarian law in their meetings with their counterparts?

I can. I did this morning, and I will continue to do so.

Emily is a British citizen who, as the Minister has said, has been held hostage ever since the attacks. Would the Minister explain what measures the Government are taking to make contact with those holding the hostages so that we can bring Emily home?

Hostage cases are some of the most horrifying situations that a family can face. I know that many people in this House have met with Emily’s family, and have seen at first hand their bravery, but also the agony that they feel a year on. I regret deeply that the best chance of release for all of the hostages is through negotiated agreements, and I call on all parties to come back to the table to try to advance the agreement necessary to secure a release of hostages, an immediate ceasefire, and a reduction in the awful violence that scars us all.