PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Israel and Palestine - 16 December 2024 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 653509 and 652949 relating to Israel and Palestine.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and to introduce these two e-petitions on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I want to open this debate by expressing the grief and horror that many of us have felt so strongly in response to the tragic events in Gaza and Israel, particularly over the last 14 months. I am aware that this issue provokes powerful emotions in this place and across the country, and the roots of the broader Israel-Palestine conflict are deep and complex. I do not presume to speak as an expert on the history or politics of the middle east, but I do speak as someone who deplores the killing of innocent, defenceless people, no matter what their place of origin, their religion or the colour of their skin. The loss of life, including the lives of so many children, is truly heartbreaking, and my thoughts are with all who have been injured, maimed, displaced or bereaved.

I would like to position the debate within the framework of a guiding principle, which is that none of us gets to choose where, when or into which religion we are born. In that spirit, I hope that we can begin the debate from a shared reference point—that what we are watching in the middle east is innocent people being punished unjustly for where and when they were born, that that is wrong and that it is our duty as parliamentarians to do all we can to put a stop to it.

The intensification of this conflict began on 7 October 2023 with Hamas’s attacks on Israel, killing more than 1,200 Israelis. As of October 2024, 154 hostages had been freed, but 101 remain in captivity, with 33 believed to have died. The 101 include British national Emily Damari. Across the political spectrum, we are calling on the Government to do all they can to ensure her release.

Over the past year, the situation has escalated dramatically. The official death toll in occupied Gaza stands at more than 42,000 Palestinians, although estimates from reputable sources claim that as many as 186,000 may have been killed. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is dire, with approximately 90% of the population having been displaced at least once. I continue to call on the Government to do all they can to secure an immediate bilateral ceasefire in Gaza, to put an end to the humanitarian devastation there, to bring the hostages home and to open the door to a two-state solution, which is the only way to ensure dignity and security for Palestinians and Israelis alike.

In July, this Government called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, but Netanyahu and his Government refused to listen. The only way we can ensure a permanent end to the cycle of violence is by facilitating the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel, so does the hon. Member agree that it is time for the UK to join the 146 UN member states that recognise the state of Palestine, and that it should do so as a matter of urgency?

I will come to that point shortly.

The conflict has expanded beyond Gaza’s borders. I am sure that we all welcomed the recent ceasefire agreement in Lebanon, which faced a humanitarian crisis of its own. But it is not just in Lebanon; across the whole middle east, from Iran to Yemen, and of course most recently in Syria, we have seen the ramifications of this conflict.

The first petition calls for the immediate recognition of Palestine as a state. It received 283,669 signatures and was started by Sandra Downs, who is in the Public Gallery. I thank Sandra for her time last week, when she met me to discuss her petition.

I thank the hon. Member for leading on the debate. I am glad that the Government have publicly and repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, because the sheer scale of bloodshed and destruction is totally intolerable. Does she agree that to attain lasting peace, we need to commit wholeheartedly to a two-state solution and recognise Palestine as soon as possible, because that is the only way that we can have a sovereign and viable Palestine alongside a safe and secure Israel?

I shall come to that shortly.

The UK bears a unique historical responsibility in this matter, stemming from the Balfour declaration of 1917. The declaration spoke of creating a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, but it was silent on Palestinian political rights, setting the stage for decades of conflict. It paved the way for the Nakba, or catastrophe, in 1948, when 750,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes.

The UK Government’s position on Palestinian statehood, as stated by the Foreign Secretary on 30 July this year, is:

“We want a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution: a safe, secure Israel alongside a viable, sovereign Palestinian state. We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state as a contribution to a peace process, at a time that is most conducive to that process.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1150.]

I, too, pay tribute to Sandra Downs for starting this petition. Does the hon. Lady agree that the recognition of a Palestinian state is the route to peace, not a by-product of peace? We have seen the petulance of Netanyahu and the Israeli Government towards some of our European counterparts, such as Ireland, where they are shutting down an embassy, and with the terrible reaction to Macron. Does the hon. Lady agree that recognition is actually a route to peace?

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I will make some progress now, as I am aware that I am on a time limit, with the clock ticking.

The Prime Minister has also expressed support for Palestinian statehood as a contribution to the peace process, describing it as an “undeniable right” of Palestinians. The Government, however, have not committed to a fixed timeline for recognition. Currently, the state of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign country by 146 other countries, representing a little more than 75% of UN member states. On 3 December—just earlier this month—the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the creation of a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders, with 157 votes in favour, including that of the United Kingdom. A YouGov poll in early October found that 70% of respondents agreed that Palestinians have a right to a state of their own. I was proud to stand on a manifesto that committed to the immediate recognition of Palestine on 1967 lines, something that the Liberal Democrats have long called for. In fact, in each of the past three Parliaments, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) has tabled a Bill to recognise the state of Palestine.

The recognition of Palestine is a tool that will inject into Palestinian society hope that having their own state is possible. We believe that that will help wrest control back from the extremes at the edges of Palestinian society. Ultimately, if such a step were mirrored by other countries, widespread recognition of Palestine would have significant practical and political implications, including full participation in international organisations such as the UN and its agencies; access to economic benefits, including predictable market access; membership of the IMF and World Bank, opening avenues for financial support; and the establishment of full embassies in countries that recognise Palestinian statehood.

More than half of EU nation states recognise Palestine, and the UK recognises it at the International Criminal Court and in UN agencies. Does the hon. Lady agree that it seems a bit inconsistent for His Majesty’s Government—of both parties—to have a long-standing policy of pursuing a two-state solution if they recognise only one of those states?

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, and I agree.

Given that the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary have both committed in principle to Palestinian statehood, and given that the majority of the international community has already recognised the statehood of Palestine, we might validly ask what the Government’s criteria are for the time that is “most conducive” to peace, and why we are lagging behind the rest of the world and dragging our feet on this issue.

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Mike Huckabee as the next US ambassador to Israel. Is my hon. Friend worried, as I am, that a man who has called for a one-state solution will jeopardise the situation? Does she agree that the UK Government should make it clear to the US that we believe firmly in a two-state solution?

Indeed. I am conscious that I have less than four minutes left, so I will keep it moving.

The second petition, which received 107,316 signatures, demands the revocation of arms export licences to Israel. Under international and domestic law, the UK is required to prevent the transfer of military equipment and technology where there is a clear risk of it being used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law.

Between 7 October 2023 and 31 May this year, 42 export licences were issued for military goods to Israel. The Campaign Against Arms Trade has stated that the UK has granted arms export licences worth £576 million in total since 2008. Fifteen per cent. of the components that make up each F-35 aircraft used to bomb the Gaza strip were produced in Britain. In December last year, the then Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron decided not to suspend any export licences, stating that he was

“satisfied that there was good evidence to support a judgment that Israel is committed to comply with IHL.”

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unjustifiable to continue the sale of arms to Israel, especially now that there are concerns about its compliance with international humanitarian standards? The United Nations Relief and Works Agency cannot deliver desperately needed aid to Gaza because of the aggression of the Israel Defence Forces towards its aid workers, and we need to deal with that.

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.

In September 2024, the new Foreign Secretary announced the suspension of around 30 export licences to Israel, including components for military aircraft, helicopters and drones, as well as items that facilitate ground targeting.

A constituent wrote to me to say that although this is a national and international issue, it feels profoundly local to them, because there are factories producing military components for export to Israel in Cheltenham, Bishop’s Cleeve, Ashchurch, Tewkesbury and Swindon, which are all close to my constituency of South Cotswolds. My constituent went on to say that they do not believe it is right for the south-west to be so heavily complicit in crimes for which the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for violations of international law, and that Amnesty International has concluded to be tantamount to genocidal in intent and impact.

I agree very much with my hon. Friend on this point. The 2030 road map for UK-Israel bilateral relations, however, has extensive provision in relation to defence and security. It is difficult to see how the current Government could continue with that road map while suspending arms sales. Will she join me in calling for the Minister to clarify today the current Government’s position on that road map, because it was entered into by the previous Government?

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and likewise look forward to the Minister’s statement on the matter.

One of the petitions states:

“Palestinian children have been made orphans, people have been crushed by buildings in airstrikes, and there have been many other tragedies. Arms that have been partly manufactured in the UK appear to be being used in the current military action in Gaza…We believe the UK Government is on the wrong side of history, and must stop the sale of arms to Israel.”

I stood on a commitment to ensure better controls on the UK’s arms exports to countries with poor human rights records. Liberal Democrats have been calling for a presumption of denial to those countries listed as human rights priority countries by the Foreign Office, including Israel. Accordingly, we have supported a full suspension of arms sales to Israel; indeed, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) was the first leader of a major UK party to do so.

I say again that these are complex issues with no easy answers, but I hark back to the guiding principle that I stated at the outset: it can never be right to punish human beings for the time and place of their birth.

Does the hon. Member agree that to stop the atrocities being committed, allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, ensure the return of the hostages to Israel and have the sovereign state of Palestine, together with a safe and secure Israel, we need to do what we can to urgently achieve a mutual and permanent ceasefire?

I wholeheartedly agree. As we debate these petitions, we must consider how the UK can best contribute to lasting peace in the region, what role we should play in supporting Palestinian statehood and ensuring Israel’s security, and how we can align our arms export policies with our commitment to international law and human rights. I am sure Members will reflect that in their contributions.

The question of how we achieve a sustainable solution to this long-running conflict in line with international law is not easy to answer. However, the widespread public support for these petitions demonstrates that the British people want the UK Government to play their part in helping to end the appalling suffering we have witnessed over these past 14 months and the decades prior.

I close this opening speech with a quote from Nadeem Ahmed:

“From the seeds of hope, the tree of peace shall grow, sheltering both nations.”

Order. As Members can see, the debate is very oversubscribed. I will set a time limit of four minutes, but if interventions continue as they have, I anticipate that it will be reduced. If Members are on my call list, they need to be at a seat. I ask Members who have made an intervention and who are not down to speak to make way for Members who are waiting to speak. I also remind Members taking interventions that, as generous as it may be to the person they allow to speak, it means that Members at the bottom of the call list will not have an opportunity to speak. I leave that to your judgment.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mrs Harris. First things first: I utterly condemn the attacks on 7 October. I utterly condemn the kidnap, torture and murder of hostages by Hamas. I also utterly deplore and condemn the destruction of Palestine and Palestinian life that has ensued. That destruction is now so complete that Israel is at risk of turning Gaza into a desert and calling it peace. The prosecution of the war is now so brutal that the Foreign Secretary himself said on 2 September that any exports of weapons from here lead to

“a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 42.]

On arms sales, does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK Government need to make a different decision about F-35 parts, think about employing an immediate ceasefire, cease selling arms to Israel and impose sanctions to bring about peace?

Let me come to exactly that argument. The Foreign Secretary was followed by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who said that there were now “significant doubts” about Israel’s “record of compliance”. In court, His Majesty’s Government said bluntly, in their opening statement on 12 November 2024, that Israel is

“not committed to complying with international humanitarian law”.

Yet the Government have not cancelled all licences; they have cancelled some, but not all, and they have kept open the licences for F-35 parts.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

I will not, because time is so short.

Last week, in front of the Business and Trade Committee, a Defence Minister said that although it is technically possible to track the parts, it is contractually impossible. Indeed, Lockheed Martin has supplied me with a letter that states that, if I want to know anything about the parts, I need to address my queries to the Department of Defence in the United States.

The Government defend their case by pointing to the 28 words that allow them to make it up as they go along when it comes to weapons exports. Those words were written by the last Government and were published in the House on 8 December 2021. They state:

“The application of these Criteria”—

the selective licensing criteria—

“will be without prejudice to the application to specific cases of specific measures as may be announced to Parliament from time to time.”

There we have it. However, what Ministers have not explained is the part of criterion 1 that states:

“The Government will not grant a licence if to do so would be inconsistent with…the UK’s obligations under the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty”.

Of course, the UN arms trade treaty is very clear. Article 7 requires this Government, as a signatory, to assess any items that we may seek to export. If there is an overriding risk of the use of those weapons to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law,

“the exporting State Party shall not authorize the export.”

Now, if there was any question, doubt or dispute about whether F-35 parts that we supply could be used in such a way, perhaps the Government would have a case for keeping the licences open. But there is nodoubt, dispute or question about the Government’s analysis of F-35 parts, because in their opening statement to the High Court on 12 November 2024, they said:

“The F-35 carve-out accepts that there is clear risk that F-35 components might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL”.

We now have the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, the arrest warrants and the Government’s own assessment. I cannot see how this Government can now legally defend a position of keeping these arms export licences open.

I start by making my position abundantly clear: I am, and always have been, a steadfast friend of Israel. My commitment to the state of Israel is rooted in its right to exist as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. For me, that principle is non-negotiable. I hope that my remarks will reflect both my empathy and my unwavering belief in Israel’s right to defend itself.

Those who champion such measures as a ban on arms sales to Israel fail to acknowledge the existential threats that Israel faces daily. To remind the House, on 7 October Hamas murdered some 1,200 people. Babies, children and elderly civilians were slaughtered on that day. I have to be blunt: the scale of the barbarism was unthinkable. The world witnessed graphic evidence of men beheaded, women raped and children murdered. If we in this House fail to stand unequivocally against that level of evil, we fail humanity itself. Hamas do not aim for co-existence or peace; their very charter calls for Israel’s destruction.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I am going to keep to the four minutes—I am sorry. I would normally give way, but I am going to follow Mrs Harris’s rules.

It is deeply misguided to suggest, as one of the petitions does, that we should deny Israel the tools it needs to protect its citizens. At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge the human cost of the conflict in Gaza. Thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians, many of them children, have tragically lost their lives as well. Their suffering cannot and must not be ignored.

Hamas’s strategy is to use civilians as human shields and embed their terror infrastructure in hospitals, schools and residential areas. As Brigadier General Doron Gavish said, Hamas deliberately target civilians while hiding behind their own population. They hide among the skirts of women and among children. That is what Hamas do, because their goal is the destruction of Israel.

Although I respect the aspirations of Palestinian people, I firmly believe that the path to peace lies in negotiations, not unilateral declarations. Israel has repeatedly extended its hand in peace, most notably through the Oslo accords, but it has been met time and again with rejection and violence.

That brings me to the concept of a two-state solution. I believe in and support a two-state solution in principle, but let us be clear: peace cannot co-exist with the likes of Hamas. Any discussion of a future Palestinian state must begin with the dismantling of terrorist organisations that perpetuate hatred and violence. Can we hope for a lasting peace that allows Palestinians to thrive along alongside Israelis in safety, dignity and prosperity? I hope we can.

Abandoning Israel would have dire consequences not only for the middle east but for global stability. Israel is a cornerstone of western values in a region plagued by extremism and authoritarianism. To weaken Israel is to embolden its enemies, including Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and other forces of radicalisation that threaten not just Israel but the wider world. Israel’s existence is not just a matter of geopolitics; it is a beacon of hope and freedom in a turbulent region. We must not allow that beacon to be extinguished by those who seek its destruction.

As we debate these petitions, let us do so with compassion for all those affected by this conflict, but let us also stand firm in our support for Israel’s right to self-defence and its quest for peace. That is critical, and that is what Israel wants, but it has to be a peace with justice. To abandon Israel now, in its hour of need, would be a betrayal not just of an ally but of the principles of freedom and democracy that this House holds dear.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. We are rightly debating these important petitions on arms sales to Israel and the recognition of the state of Palestine. My constituents in Luton South and South Bedfordshire care deeply about these issues, and more than 1,300 of them signed the petitions. However, that is only a fraction of those who have reached out to me since this devastating conflict began. Since October 2023, I have received thousands of emails from people horrified by the events we have seen unfolding on our TV screens and on social media. I share the concerns of my constituents.

We have now passed the one-year mark since this terrible conflict began, and every day we watch the damage and destruction done to the lives of Palestinian people in Gaza. The priority for all of us, of course, is an end to this brutal conflict.

I thank the 543 constituents in Bedford and Kempston who signed the petition to recognise the state of Palestine immediately. Does my hon. Friend agree that after a year of Israel’s unprecedented bombardment and destruction of Gaza, which has led to massive human suffering and overwhelming evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity, it is our obligation—our duty—to recognise the Palestinian state now?

I thank my hon. Friend for making an excellent point. The priority for all of us, of course, is an end to this brutal conflict, and that brings me to the first petition, which relates to UK arms sales to Israel. I respect the swift action taken by the Foreign Secretary when Labour took office to review existing arms licences, and the subsequent decision to suspend several licences to Israel where the Government concluded there was a clear risk they

“might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL.”

However, my constituents continue to be appalled by the death and destruction they are witnessing in Gaza, and they want the Government to go much further.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I have taken one intervention—sorry.

This issue is deeply important to my constituents, and they question why the Government have not restricted arms sales to Israel completely—a position my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) argued for so well. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out the Government’s rationale for their position and how that position aligns with international law.

We know that only an immediate ceasefire, with the release of all hostages and a huge increase in humanitarian aid, can begin to address the tragedy unfolding in Gaza. That should rightly be the priority at this time, but in the long term, people in all the Occupied Palestinian Territories need hope of peace and a better future for their children, and I am proud that this Labour Government made it a manifesto commitment to provide that hope by pledging to recognise a Palestinian state. As has been said, recognition is essential to make steps towards a peace process and to offer Palestinian people hope of equality and a future free from occupation and violence.

My constituents are unwavering in their support for the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination. They want the Government to make that a priority, so will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking towards that? We must continue to listen to those across our constituencies who are desperate to see an end to the conflict. Importantly, we must stand firm in our work with international allies and humanitarian agencies to ensure that we bring about a renewed peace process that results in a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

Every week of the last year, virtually, we have had a debate in this or the main Chamber: questions are asked and then we go home and watch on television the bodies of children being dug out of rubble—body parts, in some instances—with those white wrappings around their bodies. In every debate we seem to have got virtually nowhere because the arms are still being sold. We are still supplying essential parts for the F-35—the very vehicle that is dropping the bombs, firing the weapons and killing the children.

Was the right hon. Member as shocked as I was to learn that, contrary to the notion that the UK’s trade in F-35 parts is untraceable, as we were told previously, not only is it traceable but the US Government are tracking it? The reason we do not have that information is that we have not even asked them.

I will be careful with my language here, but one of the frustrations, in this debate as well, is getting the truth about what is happening and what is contributing to the murders that are taking place. Unless we can stop that and prevent the UK from participating, we will all be implicated. History will judge us all for not doing enough to stop it.

I am pleased that the petition has taken place and pleased about the numbers; I congratulate the people who organised it. The petition represents the sense of frustration felt out there and the real depth of anger. I have been on virtually every national demonstration. They have been peaceful, but there is a level of frustration that I do not think we can contain any more. We are alienating whole sections of our own community. It is not about the Labour party or other political parties, but democracy itself. People say, “You’re an MP. You go to Parliament. Why aren’t you stopping this? It’s no good just shouting on demonstrations. Why isn’t democracy being exercised to stop this?”

I want to make just one point about the lack of action by the Government. Yes, petitions are taking place, but other people are taking direct action and have been imprisoned. Those cases will be sub judice, so I will not mention them individually. But Palestine Action took direct action to close down an arms factory that was supplying goods and materials for the F-35 and the drones. Those people were arrested under counter-terrorism powers and detained. They are young people, a lot of them young women—some of them just starting out at university. They exercised their influence and power because we failed to exercise ours. Some have been in court; when they are in front of a jury, they usually win the case. A number of them are now on remand and will have been in prison since last March until next November, when their trial is listed.

Order. I remind the right hon. Member that the case is sub judice and we should not talk about it.

I am careful about not mentioning any names. I am raising the issue of the process itself, which is the use of counter-terrorism powers against direct action groups. The last Government even came forward with proposals and discussions about proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. I hope this Government are not going anywhere near that.

But why are the people in prison at the moment on remand? Why can they not be tagged before their trial comes up next November? A number of them, most probably, will be proven innocent, but they will have served nearly two years in prison—for what? For trying to do what we are failing to do: prevent this Government from supplying arms to a regime that kills children.

I say to the Government: it is now time to act. All arms licences need to be closed down. The Minister may say that it is a matter of defending Israel; if so, let us have a conversation with Israel itself about how to supervise that defence internationally, rather than using it as an excuse to kill children. I have had enough of coming back here every week—as you can tell, Mrs Harris. We need action from the Government now.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Last week, a needs assessment carried out by a Gazan NGO and sponsored by War Child Alliance charities revealed the psychological trauma of young people in Gaza living through the ongoing war. The assessment was carried out back in June. The results are devastating: 96% of children feel that death is imminent; 79% are suffering from nightmares; and 49% wish to die because of the war. This makes for distressing reading and highlights the awful plight of Gaza’s civilians.

We know the destruction of the war. We want a full and immediate ceasefire and the hostages to be released. We must continue to urge the Government to uphold international law and enforce further sanctions as necessary.

Does the hon. Lady agree that killing civilians through hunger, cold, illness, exhaustion, fear and torture is every bit as reprehensible as bombing and shooting to death 45,000 or more civilians, mostly innocent women and children, and that the only way to force Israel to stop is to completely cease providing them with arms?

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman.

We must also recognise the Palestinian state, of course, as the route towards a two-state solution. We know that the United Kingdom is firm in its support for UNRWA, and I welcome the recent announcement of £13 million of further support for it, but it is not good enough if support and vital aid cannot get through. Far too many innocent people have died in this conflict. That devastating recent data shows the specific impact it is having on children and young people. This has to end.

I thank the constituents in Hyndburn who have contacted me about the petition and welcome the work of those who organised it. We must move forward today to make sure that we are working towards peace in the region and an end to the devastation.

I want to add my voice and the SNP’s to the millions of people across these islands who are demanding an immediate ceasefire, the release of all the hostages, an end to all UK arms sales to Israel and for the UK Government to officially recognise the state of Palestine. Since the atrocities of 7 October, the civilian population of Gaza has been subjected to the most brutal onslaught imaginable. Every day, 10 children lose at least one of their limbs, making this tiny strip of land home to the largest population of child amputees in history—something that does not happen by accident.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not; I apologise.

About four fifths of those killed were killed while inside residential buildings. The Minister knows that residential buildings are not legitimate targets under international law, but we all know that so much of what has happened since October 2023 has been a violation of international law. Indeed, Lord Cameron let slip at the Foreign Affairs Committee that the UK has long known that Netanyahu was imposing collective punishment against the population by controlling their water supply. We had hoped that things would be different with a change of Government, but that has not been the case. By choosing to deny the evidence of their own eyes in order to supply Netanyahu with the weapons he needs, the UK is complicit and is giving Netanyahu and his Government the degree of international respectability that he desperately craves. This is a shameful episode in UK foreign policy—one that will long be remembered and will not be without consequence.

When it comes to international law, everyone can see the blatant double standards. In September, the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds)—Minister of State at the Foreign Office—told this House:

“intentionally directing attacks at civilian objects is a war crime.”—[Official Report, 2 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 29.]

She said that attacks that threaten power, heating and water and impact the safety and livelihoods of millions of Ukrainians are a war crime. She was absolutely right. But why are this Government and the previous one able to call out Putin’s war crimes the moment they happen but seem utterly incapable of doing so when the perpetrator is Netanyahu and the victims are Palestinians?

Our system of international law has always been fragile, but operating with such clear double standards in its application and enforcement is a sure-fire way of ensuring its complete destruction. These petitions, these mass demonstrations that we have seen, tell me that this Government are miles behind the people. People want to find a solution in which all arms to Israel are suspended and the Palestinian state is recognised.

People feel so badly let down by this Government’s defence of international law, because there seems to be very little difference between the situation now and the situation under the last Government; what change we have seen has been superficial and cosmetic. That was not unexpected, but perhaps we dared to hope that they would be better than the last lot. But there are voices in this place, many of whom we will hear today, that are loud and persistent in continuing to speak up for international law—for justice, for accountability and for peace. Those people in this House will continue to shine a light where too many people do not want it to be shone. We will keep doing it not just for the Palestinians but whenever we see the powerful and the privileged abusing the human rights of the powerless, and wilfully ignoring international law.

I can be very brief, Mrs Harris, because this speech has been honed by repetition over the past year, since Israeli tanks, troops and planes went into Gaza against not only Hamas but, significantly, the civilian population without discrimination. It mirrors, on a larger scale, the previous attacks on Gaza over the past 15 years, which I have seen with my own eyes. The Minister replying to the debate could not be more empathetic to the situation, and he could not be more sympathetic to the complaints from all parties. However, there has been a lack of action from this Government, as there was from the previous Government, and that lack of action speaks louder than any palliative words.

Does my hon. Friend celebrate the work of Standing Together, which is a group of Israelis and Palestinian people working side by side for peace? Would he support it in its call for the suspension of arms transfers to Israel and for the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine?

Standing Together is a fantastic group, and it is one of many Israeli and multinational groups that are protesting; we have seen that on the streets of Tel Aviv, as we have around the world.

There is yet to be any substantive action by the UK, and war crimes are being committed in Gaza. The evidence is clear; it is clear from journalists, and many brave journalists have been killed. It is evidenced by the actions of the International Criminal Court and from the ICJ, through both its advisory opinion and the South African case, and the Irish Government should be praised for their association with that case last week. It is clear from votes, decisions and debates in the UN, from the evidence of non-governmental organisations on the ground, and from the evidence of medics.

The remedies are also clear, and there are many steps that the UK Government could take. They could look at trade, including settlement trade. Why is that allowed to continue? They could at preferential trade agreements with Israel. They could look at arms sales. They should certainly be re-examining, and asking the law officers to re-examine, on a weekly basis, the actions that UK-supplied arms are being used for—not just in Gaza, but across the occupied territories. They could look at sanctions, including those against settlers that go much further than the few that have happened so far, as well as against members of the Netanyahu Government—particularly the extremists such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. Why have they not been taken so far?

We could also look at the question of recognition. It is the policy of the Government to recognise the state of Palestine at some point during negotiations. We are a long way from negotiations at the moment, and there seems to be no reason whatever not to allow recognition.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time to provide hope to Palestinians? If we are to have any hope of a political solution, this country must follow our allies in recognising the state of Palestine—not least when extremists such as Smotrich in the Israeli Government are looking to annex the west bank.

I could not agree more. I cannot think of a single reason why we are not moving, as many other European countries have, towards immediate recognition. I heard previously from the Government, “We do not want to go it alone.” Well, now we are not just going it alone; we are going behind the curve.

My final point—I do not want to take all my time—is to ask one question to the Government: why have the actions I have mentioned not been taken? I would like to hear a coherent response because what is being said is, “We will not take action against Israel because it is an ally.” Well, sometimes we have to speak as sternly to our allies as to our foes. It is also said that Israel will ignore what we say, so we will be shown as a weak country. That is a counsel of despair.

Alternatively, we may be waiting until such time as something more extreme happens—aid no longer going into Gaza, following what is happening with UNRWA, or the threatened annexation of the west bank—and then we will take some action. That is too late. Now is the time—actually, yesterday, last year, or even 10 years ago was the time to take action. I would love to hear from the Minister, who is not only an expert in the field but cares very much about these issues, about what action his Government is going to take.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, while we debate two important petitions that a number of my Woking constituents have signed. Liberal Democrat policy on this issue is clear: British-made arms must not be sold to countries that are breaching human rights law. This principle is not just a moral standard; it is a legal one. When it comes to Israel, the British Government have failed to demonstrate transparency. Despite repeated calls, Ministers have not released their own legal advice on whether arms exports to Israel align with international law. Given the ongoing cases at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, the British public have a right to know whether the Government are upholding their own arms export regime. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s confirmation on that.

The human cost of war is always staggering, and the last 14 months show that to be true. Tens of thousands of people in Palestine and Israel have lost their lives. The horrific numbers represent families torn apart and communities devastated. According to data from the United Nations and other organisations, Israeli Government attacks have damaged or destroyed more than half of Gaza’s homes, 80% of its commercial facilities, and 87% of its school buildings, and left healthcare systems barely functioning, with just 17 of 36 hospitals only partially operational. More than two thirds of Gaza’s road networks and cropland have been obliterated. In the wake of this destruction, the ICC’s chief prosecutor has stated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu bears criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must uphold its obligations to the International Criminal Court by supporting investigations into alleged war crimes in the region and enforcing any resulting rulings?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We must support the International Criminal Court investigations and uphold whatever it finds.

The Prime Minister of Israel bears criminal responsibility, but it does not stop with him. The former Israeli Defence Minister, Gallant, is also under investigation. That brings me to the urgent need for targeted sanctions against those in Israel’s leadership who are directly fuelling the conflict and undermining the chance for peace. Israel’s current Finance Minister, Smotrich, is a prominent advocate of settlement expansion, opposes Palestinian statehood, and supports the full annexation of the west bank.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Because of time pressure, I will not give way again—sorry. Smotrich has even encouraged the forced transfer of Palestinians out of these territories. The current Minister of National Security, Ben-Gvir, has a troubling past. He has been charged more than 50 times and convicted in eight cases, including incitement to racism and support for a terrorist organisation. Those two individuals need to be sanctioned by the UK, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on that. This violence is at risk of escalating even further, and we cannot allow that. That is why the UK should stop selling arms to Israel. It is time for the Government to demonstrate leadership; halt arms sales where there is evidence of human rights abuses; impose sanctions on the people I have mentioned and on others pushing a conflict; and lead an international effort to stop the bloodbath and rebuild Gaza.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Harris. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for securing this important debate and to everyone from my constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood who has signed these important petitions. Both the war in Gaza and the horrific actions in Israel on 7 October that started it are intolerable. Fourteen months on from the attack that claimed 1,200 lives, more than 40,000 Palestinian men, women and children are dead and 101 Israelis are still being held hostage. Palestinians in Gaza have been displaced, often multiple times. Aid has repeatedly been prevented from reaching the population and the risk of preventable diseases has continued to rise. There is an horrific humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza.

With medics working in intolerable conditions, witnessing unimaginable horrors and without the very basics to treat civilian casualties, does my hon. Friend agree that safe and secure routes to allow medical aid into Gaza must be prioritised immediately, without delay?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on that point.

I welcome the actions that the UK Government have taken since the election in July. However, the UK Government have found that there is a clear risk that UK arms components are being used by Israeli armed forces in Gaza in ways that breach international law. It is welcome that the new Government took swift action to suspend some arms licences, but when there are breaches of international law, they must be clear that they take action to ensure compliance with the law. The importance of the F-35 programme is understood, but the argument that it is justifiable in the current circumstances to carry on with business as usual does not hold water. If the Government believe in the rules-based international order, they cannot recognise breaches of international law and then ignore them. The Government’s position on the F-35 licences is not defensible.

I would like to focus on the importance of the recognition of the state of Palestine as an essential precondition for a successful peace process. I have had the privilege of visiting Israel and Palestine twice. I have seen at first hand how oppressive the Israeli occupation is for Palestinians in the west bank: how every day, ordinary Palestinians face systems and actions that seem to be devised to frustrate their normal activity and grind them down; how widespread the practice of illegal settlement is and how it seems designed to ensure that there can never be a viable landmass to form a state of Palestine; and how Palestinians are forced to live under different laws, travel on different road systems, live in different areas and attend different schools.

The UK Government’s position is to support a two-state solution, but that position is currently rejected by the Government of Israel. Recognition of a state of Palestine is an important counteraction to that rejection. It would send an immediate and powerful message that the UK is serious about the only viable route to peace: a two-state solution. That must be accompanied by a much stronger position on illegal settlement and settler violence. Again, we cannot pick and choose which aspects of international law we uphold. Taking a stronger stance on illegal settlements and settler violence in Palestine is not only the right thing to do; it sends a message to Governments around the world that the UK Parliament are serious about the rules-based international order. Israeli settlements in the west bank are illegal.

There should be a process accompanying recognition for supporting and strengthening the Palestinian Authority and building the full capacity of a functioning state. Of course, with recognition comes responsibilities and accountability, but I believe that recognition of a Palestinian state cannot continue to be delayed. To do so is simply to further reduce the possibility of the two-state solution that the Government support ever coming to fruition.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for securing this vital debate. I also thank Sandra Downs for her e-petition and the thousands of people who signed it, including in my constituency of Leicester South. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds mentioned the Balfour declaration, which indeed promised a Jewish land for a Jewish people, but there was a caveat to that statement: “Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

I thank the hon. Member for taking an intervention. Does he share my fear that the statements of Israeli officials suggest that they intend to have a long-term presence in Gaza? Will he join me in condemning the de facto annexation of parts of Gaza that is going on at the moment?

I certainly agree, and I fear that too.

We of course welcome the cessation of 9% of arms licences to Israel, but that falls woefully short of what is required. Thirty out of 350 is too low, especially given that equipment made in this country is used for the killing machines that are F-35 fighter jets.

Many hon. Members have spoken about the massacre that is taking place. More than 16,000 children have been murdered and 10,000 women have been killed; they were not all hiding behind the skirts of Hamas. Palestinians have been killed since 1948—before the invention of Hamas. Just overnight, 10 Palestinians were killed, including a family—two parents and two children—in a tent in northern Gaza City. They were not hiding behind the skirts of Hamas.

We as a nation have a moral, political and legal duty to uphold international law and the rules of engagement in times of conflict. Under the genocide convention, we have a duty not only to prevent and punish genocide, but to avoid actions that might assist or enable a genocide. With that in mind, I want to raise an important and pressing issue with the Minister: the US Air Force’s use of British sovereign airspace in Cyprus. According to Declassified UK, at least 13 US planes used by the special forces, nearly all of them unmarked, have gone from Britain’s sprawling air base in Cyprus to Israel since Labour took office on 5 July and 10 October. Most flights stayed in Israel for about two hours before returning to Cyprus. Are we providing a base for the delivery of weapons to Israel? That would make us complicit in any war crimes and/or genocide that is happening there.

I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening this debate, and the thousands of my constituents in Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley who have sent me emails, signed the petitions and urged me to speak up about the extremely distressing situation in Palestine.

The situation in Gaza is far beyond breaking point. In the past 14 months, we have seen Israel’s deliberate assault on the innocent people of Gaza. More than 45,000 Palestinians have been killed and more than 100,000 have been injured, many of them innocent women and children. The death toll continues to rise every day. The United Kingdom cannot remain complicit any more.

A step towards change would be to cease not 30 out of 350 arms exports licences, but each and every one of them. We cannot allow Israel to destroy Gaza in the way it is doing. The Government say that they want a two-state solution, but to have a two-state solution they have to recognise Palestine. If they do not recognise Palestine, what does that actually mean? It is no more than warm words. Warm words are no longer a viable option; it is time for action, and that has to include immediate recognition of Palestinian statehood. Otherwise, advocating for a two-state solution means absolutely nothing.

I share my hon. Friend’s frustration, because 10 years ago this place voted to recognise Palestine as a state. Many of us took part in that debate. Does he therefore agree that we now need to take that vote to the United Nations? That is where we must recognise Palestine.

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point about the vote that happened here and about taking that to the United Nations. However, the United Nations is not democratic; it is a toothless tiger, because a single nation can stand up and veto such a vote. We have seen that happen time and time again.

What we have to do is to choose to be on the right side of history. One hundred and forty-six countries recognise Palestine as a state. We, as the United Kingdom, say the warm words that we are all in favour of a two-state solution. Before long, however, if Netanyahu gets what he wants in Gaza, which is for Palestinians to leave for Lebanon and Egypt, there will be no Palestine to recognise; there will be no Palestinians left in Palestine or Gaza. That is the agenda of Netanyahu, and we cannot aid and abet it by not recognising Palestinian statehood.

We have to rise above that, with immediate effect and without any further dithering. This Government have to rise to the challenge and say to Netanyahu, “Enough is enough. We will recognise Palestine as a state and we will stop all sales of arms to Israel.” If further sanctions are needed, we need to impose further sanctions.

When the Minister responds to the debate, can he explain something? Saying that it is not the right time to recognise Palestine is no longer an excuse. Can he say why the Government are not in a position to recognise Palestine? To use the same rhetoric as the previous Government—that when the time is right, we will recognise Palestine—does not cut the mustard any more. We have to recognise the innocent children, men and women of Gaza who have died because of the genocide—plausible genocide—being carried out by Netanyahu. Arrest warrants are out; ICJ rulings are out; many world leaders have called it a genocide; and we are still debating whether we need to recognise Palestine as a state. That is shameful for this Government and it is shameful to be part of this debate today, advocating recognition of Palestine when that should have happened many, many years ago, as my good and hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has mentioned; that vote has already happened. We need to have such a vote again; we need to have it in this Parliament; and we need to carry out not only the wishes of the people out there but the explicit wishes of every single parliamentarian in this Chamber.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Harris.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for securing this debate and the petitioners for raising these important issues for debate in the House.

I am still deeply saddened by the events of 7 October 2023. More than a year after those horrifying events, many innocent people are still dying every day. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathies to all those who have lost loved ones and who are navigating life amid all the destruction.

The murder or abduction on 7 October 2023 of over 1,000 civilians by Hamas terrorists, 101 of whom are still being held to this day, must always be condemned. Those 101 hostages should be released without delay. It is also true that Israel’s response has been hugely destructive. The Gaza strip is now in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe, with 90% of the population having been displaced at least once and critical infrastructure having been damaged or destroyed.

It would be remiss of us to ignore the fact that the damage takes many forms. It is not just the deaths and permanent life-changing injuries that horrify us, but the psychological scars of being exposed to such combat. It is hard to quantify the extent of the trauma that adults and particularly children have experienced as a result of this conflict. Tragically, we must recognise that no matter how quickly this conflict ends, and it must end quickly, an entire generation of Israelis and Palestinians will live with this horror for the rest of their lives.

In October, I was part of a group of MPs who met Sharone Lifschitz, whose parents were taken hostage on 7 October and whose father is still held by Hamas, as well as Standing Together, a progressive grassroots movement involving Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel who stand against the occupation and for peace, equality and social justice. I heard at first hand the pain and anguish of the families of those on both sides of the conflict, who only want to see a lasting peace. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent on the issue for decades: a two-state solution is the only way to guarantee that lasting peace.

All the major political parties went into the last general election saying that they would back a two-state solution and recognise the state of Palestine. Is it not about time that this Government showed leadership on the world stage and formally recognised Palestine?

I agree 100%, and I hope we hear the Minister speak with the courage to confirm that the Government will formally recognise Palestine. The dignity and security that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve can only be delivered by a two-state solution. That is why the Liberal Democrat manifesto called for the immediate recognition of Palestine on 1967 lines, and why I reiterate that ambition today.

Our conscience demands that we do that which we can and play our part to accelerate a lasting peace. That is what responsible nations do. Recognition of the state of Palestine is within our gift to grant and can be done at any moment. Contrary to what some cynics say, I believe it is a crucial first step to achieving the goal of lasting peace. It is also important that the UK considers the role its arms exports play in the conflict, so I welcome the current halt of 30 licences as a good first step. However, the UK now needs to use every tool at its disposal in order to obtain the bilateral ceasefire necessary for a lasting peace.

I conclude by echoing calls from across my party and from many parts of civil society for the Government to stop all arms exports to Israel for now, so that we can ensure that British products are not being used in any potential breaches of human rights. I encourage the Minister to act on the calls of the petitioners, to have the courage to recognise the state of Palestine and to suspend sales of arms to Israel, so that we can play our part in securing a lasting peace in the region.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate all those involved in bringing the petitions to Parliament, including all my constituents who signed them.

After 15 months of horror, the death and destruction have to stop. To address the petition on Palestinian statehood, the most important and immediate precondition must be an immediate ceasefire, with the hostages released and adequate aid allowed to flow. When I visited the region for the third time in my life in 2017, I met with peacebuilders in the west bank, Jerusalem and Israel who reaffirmed my belief in a two-state solution, but also told me how distant the prospect of peace appeared even to them.

We have seen a clear change in policy under the new UK Government. As well as calling for a ceasefire, the Government have restored funding to UNRWA, condemned attacks on UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, and committed to upholding the ICC’s arrest warrants. The Government also remain committed to a two-state solution. The question we are debating today is how and when that might become a reality. For now, our efforts must be concentrated on providing humanitarian relief and achieving a ceasefire; from that, an independent Palestinian state can emerge.

Like many other hon. Members and constituents, I have watched aghast at the scenes of suffering in Gaza. We have seen hospitals burned and aid convoys and schools bombed, and the return of ghastly, anachronistic diseases such as polio.

Does the hon. Member agree that, as a tactical manoeuvre by the state of Israel, the destruction that has been wrought on Gaza and its people is catastrophically counterproductive? These punitive measures against Palestinians will not be a harbinger of peace for Israel. If the UK is a friend of Israel, we must, as a good friend would, say, “This far and no further. You must recant.”

Israel’s behaviour towards Palestinians, as I saw 30 or 40 years ago, only worsens the chances of peace. It builds in children’s minds the idea that peace is a long way off. In that sense, I agree with the hon. Member.

What we have seen in recent months goes beyond any reasonable definition of self-defence, with destruction on a scale that has left Gaza in ruins. The scale of the destruction and human misery shows Israel’s disregard for international law and the rights of Palestinians. The Palestinian people may well take heart from Britain’s decision formally to recognise Palestine as a state, but they might take greater comfort from knowing that the bombs will stop falling from the skies above them. A two-state solution is still the only route to lasting peace, but we need a ceasefire now.

As well as causing intolerable suffering in Gaza, the conflict has helped to distract from the continued unlawful expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank; there are way more than when I first went 40 years ago. This is in violation of international law and provides one of the biggest obstacles to a lasting two-state solution. For as long as the conflict continues, illegal settlements and settler violence will continue, making the reality of Palestinian statehood all the more distant. Our Government must do more to put pressure on Israel and to end the conflict in Gaza. I ask the Government to take note of the concerns expressed last week by the Select Committee on Business and Trade.

No conflict is inevitable, no matter how intractable. Within our lifetimes, we have seen conflicts that threatened to outlive us resolved, but we must not let such a conflict happen again. We must end this grim inheritance. We must have peace.

A few weeks ago, a surgeon broke down as he told the Select Committee on International Development what he had witnessed in Gaza. He spoke in particular of drones descending after a bombing and shooting—yes, deliberately targeting—children. He even spoke of wounds that he was worried indicated some sort of artificial intelligence. He was literally expressing fears of autonomous drones hunting down children. Likewise, we are aware of the long-standing partnership between the UK and Israel regarding drones in warfare, and the role of companies such as Elbit Systems is widely known, so will the Minister clarify today whether drones either developed or made in the UK are being used in this way—that is, to shoot children or doctors—and whether F-35 fighter jets containing UK-made components are being used to slaughter Palestinian families and cause mass destruction?

Will the hon. Member give way?

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will make a bit more progress. Can the Minister categorically rule out any UK products being sent to Israel to be used in Gaza, including via indirect routes and shipping between partner companies? There is a particularly chilling significance to the role of advanced weaponry and the reported use of artificial intelligence by the Israel Defence Forces against starving civilians who have been trapped in relatively small and increasingly uninhabitable pieces of land. Why is it that a modern and well-equipped army, which openly advertises that it has some of the most advanced precision weaponry in the world, is killing so many civilians, on an unprecedented scale, unless it is aiming to do so?

I know that today my constituents, who are among the top signatories of both petitions, want to hear a clear condemnation of Israel’s actions from the Minister, and not the political double-speak that Israel “must uphold international law” in theory. We all know that it should uphold international law; the point is that we all know that it is not doing so. My constituents also want a clear and unequivocal recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians—a right that is being brutally denied them. Crucially, my constituents want accountability for the role of the UK as the close and staunch ally of a Prime Minister who is facing an arrest warrant for war crimes, and as a country that continues proudly to profess that it stands firmly shoulder to shoulder with a regime that openly states its intention to destroy Palestinians as a people and then openly enacts this intention with a horrific, unprecedented war on civilians, wiping out entire multi-generational families. Indeed, a recent Amnesty International report concluded:

“Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians”.

I do wonder whether the enormity of what has happened over the past year has been properly understood, and whether the British political establishment fully knows the tremendous damage that has been done to democracy at home, the UK’s reputation abroad and, indeed, the standing of human rights benchmarks around the world. There is a complete disjunction between the majority of people and those who are meant to represent them.

Beyond the political bubble, the hypocrisy and double standards are plain for everyone to see: the disregard for Palestinian lives, the censorship, denial and, yes, the fact that UK-made weapons are being used to kill and maim civilians, 70% of them women and children. Without doubt, everything that the UK has done, everything it continues to do and everything it fails to do will forever haunt us.

People in Hackney and country-wide feel strongly about this issue. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, far from moving towards a two-state solution, Israel is deliberately trying to disrupt it with settlements on the west bank and the annexation of the Golan heights?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.

We cannot carry on with a business-as-usual approach to Israel. That has become a green light for war crimes. That is why 60 MPs and Lords from seven parties recently called on the Foreign Secretary to introduce sanctions, which is what needs to be done.

I want to use my time to put on record in this House the submission made by the Government to the latest High Court hearing into the legality of ongoing exports of F-35 fighter jet parts that end up in Israel. The Government have accepted that Israel is

“not committed to compliance with International Humanitarian Law in Gaza, including in the conduct of hostilities”;

that

“the overall picture was of obvious concern, especially having regard to the number of civilian casualties”;

and that

“there is a clear risk that F-35 components might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL”.

Yet the Government conclude that these exports “should nonetheless continue.”

It is important that we address this issue head-on. The Government have decided to carve out F-35 exports from their own licensing criteria, which are meant to ensure adherence to international law, but international law and our own laws cannot be opted into and out of at will. The F-35s are the main military export to Israel. They have been used to drop the deadliest bombs on Gaza, and they have been used since the beginning of the war. The sale of these arms is not only in flagrant violation of international law, but totally immoral and leaves Britain complicit in war crimes. The sale of these arms must end.

I hope that the Minister will answer some specific questions. The Government admitted to the Business and Trade Committee last week that all F-35 parts in the global spares pool are in fact tracked by the US Government. My first question is: do the UK Government have access to that information? If not, why not, and have they asked for it? My second question is: does the UK Government know what portion of F-35 parts that the UK exported to the global spares pool has ended up in Israel since 7 October 2023? My third question is: is the Minister certain that neither domestic nor international law is being violated by this carve-out?

I also put on record that I have been told by lawyers that the ongoing export of F-35 parts leaves workers in Britain, including civil servants in Government Departments, at risk of being held individually criminally liable for war crimes and other crimes under international law, including genocide. I want a very clear answer from the Minister and the Government as to whether they have provided legal advice to workers on this. How are the Government planning to protect the civil servants and other workers who export F-35 parts that end up in Israel from potential complicity in breaches of international humanitarian law? These are important questions, and I look forward to them being answered by the Minister.

The petitions reflect the deep concern and passion of many in our society about the ongoing conflict and suffering in the middle east, and I respect the sentiment behind them. This Government are already working towards the same objectives that many of the signatories seek: an end to the violence in Gaza, the immediate release of all remaining hostages, an improved supply of humanitarian aid and, crucially, irreversible progress towards a lasting two-state solution. Peace in the middle east will come from negotiations, dialogue and the willingness of both sides to find common ground.

I turn first to the question of recognising the state of Palestine. Both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples have a legitimate right to self-determination. The foundation of a two-state solution is an independent, viable and democratic Palestine living alongside a safe and secure Israel. Since the Oslo accords, the principle has been clear: a two-state solution can be reached only through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. An action that undermines that principle, such as unilateral recognition of Palestine by the UK, only complicates that matter and makes peace more difficult. It creates the false impression that a Palestinian state can be imposed from the outside, without the necessary negotiations. Unilateral recognition, as seen with countries such as Spain, Norway and Ireland, has led to no real progress on the ground. It is a symbolic gesture, but it does not advance the cause of peace.

We must also approach the matter of arms exports with a clear-eyed view of the facts. Revoking UK arms export licences would once again be a largely symbolic gesture, with little practical impact on the situation in Gaza. It would also undermine our credibility as a security partner in the region and send the wrong messages to adversaries, including Iran.

Presumably, my hon. Friend will recognise that 15% of the F-35 construction parts come from the United Kingdom, and they are the choice of delivery of the 2,000 lb bombs that obliterate civilian populations in Gaza. Does he share my concern that continuing to participate in that programme leaves the United Kingdom at risk of being prosecuted under various conventions for complicity in those heinous acts?

We must bear in mind that 95% of weapons come from the US and Germany, and on the legal side of things, the Prime Minister and the Government have been clear that they have consulted legal advice, which of course will continue—I expect that there will be more from the Minister on that.

That is not to say that we ignore the suffering or the rights of Palestinians—far from it—but revoking arms sales to Israel, particularly when the country is engaged in a seven-front conflict against Iran and its proxies, would undermine our national security interests in the middle east. The UK has a long-standing defence and security relationship with Israel, which played a key role in defending Israel against an unprecedented Iranian ballistic attack earlier this year.

We have real-world experience in peacebuilding through initiatives such as the International Fund for Ireland, which invested in cross-community projects in Northern Ireland long before the Good Friday agreement was signed. Over time, these projects help to change attitudes and foster the conditions for political leaders to negotiate and compromise. The UK can and must apply those lessons to the middle east. By supporting peacebuilding civil society organisations in both Israel and Palestine, we can build the foundations for lasting peace. That approach has already received backing from the G7, and was reinforced by the Prime Minister's recent announcement on supporting civil society peacebuilding.

I urge us all to focus on actions that have a tangible long-term impact. Unilateral recognition of Palestine or the withdrawal of arms exports to Israel may offer a moment of symbolic protest, but will not move us closer to a genuine and lasting peace. The real path to peace lies in dialogue, supporting peacebuilding initiatives and encouraging both Israelis and Palestinians to come to the table. The UK can play a meaningful role by investing in projects that build trust and create the conditions necessary for a sustainable two-state solution.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris.

I will limit my remarks to arms exports, but before I do, I want to recognise what an appalling atrocity 7 October 2023 was. I also want to mention the 101 hostages who are still held captive, including the British citizen Emily Damari. Like the British Government, I demand their immediate release. I have just got back from King Charles Street, where the Foreign Affairs Committee was visiting the consular team. It is plain that they do really sensitive work with the families of British hostages held overseas.

My remarks about arms exports to Israel are largely based on last Tuesday’s Business and Trade Committee sitting, where I was a guest as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has been carrying out two inquiries, one on the middle east and one on soft power. We have found that British soft power has been damaged by the lack of full compliance with international law. It undermines the UK’s reputation if we do not pursue international law consistently.

[Mark Pritchard in the Chair]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about international law. Does he agree that the judgment that we all need to look at is the ICJ advisory opinion on the occupation? The Government are working through the process of understanding what it means—including, potentially, in respect of banning illegal settlement goods—but what is taking them so long? Our reputation has suffered hugely as a result of such prevarication, particularly from the last Government, and it is now up to this Government to repair it.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The ICJ advisory opinion is crucial, and the Government need to crack on with their rulings in the light of that opinion.

My remarks are about the carve-out for the F-35 fighter jet and, specifically, the five licences that are somehow exempt in terms of international law. The licences are what are called open general licences—that is, they can be of an indefinite duration and an unlimited quantity. The British state does not have to set out the quantities of weapons being exported. At the Business and Trade Committee last week, Ministers from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Ministry of Defence talked about how the F-35 is different: 15% of it is British, and the other 85% is produced by a collaboration involving Italy, the Netherlands, the US, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Turkey and Australia—and, by the way, we contribute only the ejector seats, the batteries and the rear parts of the tail.

The point is that we in the west have to abide by international law. The British Government have been asking for an immediate ceasefire since 4 July—the Liberal Democrats have been calling for one for a great deal longer—but Israel are not listening to the British Government. In the absence of any influence, the UK Government need to take the next step. I want to address those who allege that it is somehow contradictory to ask Israel to stop using arms while it has to defend itself against Iran. I am proud that the UK was instrumental in defending Israel against the attack by Iran last April, but I see no contradiction whatsoever. The withholding of arms exports to Israel is a policy lever that we now have to pull.

Finally, we have to remember that we are talking about the principle of distinction, which is a firm principle in international humanitarian law that every British soldier is taught: that of distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. Evidence gathered by Danish NGOs, for example, shows that 2,000 lb bombs delivered by F-35 fighter jets killed 90 Palestinians at the al-Mawasi camp on 13 July. That is little surprise, because a 2,000 lb bomb will kill people within a 360-metre radius of the detonation. The British Government are failing to comply with international humanitarian law. They need to abide by the principle of distinction. We need to abide by international law.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard.

Hind Rajab was a five-year-old Palestinian girl. Her family were fleeing Gaza City when their car came under attack. The first shot killed Hind’s aunt, uncle and three of her cousins. Just Hind and her 15-year-old cousin Layan were left alive. Trapped in the car and surrounded by the bodies of dead relatives, Layan phoned for help. The recording of her call with the Palestinian Red Crescent was later released. Layan told the operator:

“They are shooting at us. The tank is next to me.”

Layan’s last moments were then heard: machine gun fire, a scream, and the phone went dead.

The Red Crescent phoned back. Five-year-old Hind answered. She was now alone in the car, her cousin was dead, and Israeli forces were still close by.

“I’m so scared, please come,”

Hind told the operator. For three hours, Hind pleaded to be rescued:

“Come take me. You will come and take me?”

As it grew dark, she told the operator how frightened she was.

Eventually, Israeli authorities gave the green light for a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance to be dispatched to her rescue. When it arrived, the ambulance was attacked and contact was lost. Two weeks passed before the bodies of Hind, her family and the two paramedics were recovered. All had been killed by Israeli forces. In the aftermath of these horrific events, images of Hind’s beautiful smile and the recording of her final moments caught the world’s attention.

Next month marks a year since Hind was killed. Since then, the slaughter of Palestinians has not stopped. Hind is one of more than 17,000 children killed in Israel’s assault, and one of more than 45,000 Palestinians of all ages killed. A study published last week found that 96% of children in Gaza believe that their death is imminent and that, following the trauma they have been subjected to, almost half want to die.

A new report by Amnesty International has concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide; last month, Human Rights Watch said that Israel had committed ethnic cleansing against Palestinians in Gaza; in January, the International Court of Justice found that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza; and in July the Court said that Israel’s occupation of Palestine breached the international convention that guards against segregation and apartheid. The Israeli Prime Minister and his former Defence Secretary are now wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. So no one in this place can say they did not know what was happening or that the facts were unclear. We know what has happened in Gaza. It is an unthinkable, unspeakable horror.

The time for expressions of regret and concern are long past. International law is clear and urgent action is needed. This means ending all arms sales to Israel, including parts for the F-35 fighter jets that are raining down hell on Gaza, and, as has been explained throughout this debate, it means sanctioning Israel and boycotting trade with illegal Israeli settlements. It means upholding the ICC’s arrest warrants, and it means revoking the 2030 road map that deepens economic, trade and security ties with Israel. These measures would go some way in showing that here in Britain we recognise our shared humanity and our legal and moral responsibilities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the debate and the petitioners for calling for it.

I believe I stand with everyone here today when I say that what is happening in Gaza is appalling and unacceptable. The death and devastation have caused anguish around the world and left many—including my constituents in Wimbledon—deeply distressed. The events that started this current cycle of violence on 7 October must not be forgotten—Hamas’s evil attacks are indefensible, and Israel undoubtedly had the right to protect its citizens by targeting those brutal terrorists in accordance with international law—but it is clear that Israel is not acting within international law and that a humanitarian catastrophe is now taking place.

Thousands of men, women and children are being killed in Gaza, without a peaceful settlement in sight. We cannot stand by and let the current situation continue. Children have lost parents and parents have lost children as a result of Israel’s disproportionate response. The killing must stop, with all the hostages released and an immediate bilateral ceasefire. But that alone is not enough, as we desperately and urgently need long-term peace. To achieve that, we must secure an enduring resolution of the underlying issues, which is why my party and I have long advocated for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state. I consequently echo the calls of my hon. Friends: the Government must follow the example of our allies, including Spain, Norway and Ireland, in formally recognising a Palestinian state.

That alone, of course, will not solve the issues. We must work with the international community and the Palestinian people to establish a democratic future for Palestine. In my previous role as head of the school of law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, I visited Palestine and worked with Palestinian activists and academics who were committed to such a future and united in their view that Hamas did not represent the Palestinian people.

Furthermore, the Government must take a presumption-of-denial approach to the sale of arms to any country deemed by the Foreign Office to be breaching international standards on human rights. We should be doing far more to sanction the settlers and their illegal settlements, which, as I saw with my own eyes, are designed to undermine and make impossible a two-state solution. The world has had a duty to act, and we must play our part.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), the petitioner Sandra Downs, and all the petition signatories up and down the country.

It is fair to say that we have heard a lot of discussions and statements by hon. Members all saying pretty much the same thing: that what is taking place in Gaza is a genocide and that the UK Government need to do more. It is almost sickening to be constantly reminded by some that there is an agenda of self-defence when everyone—even children at schools—can see what is taking place on social media. They see stories like that of Hind Rajab, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne); more bullets penetrated that vehicle than she had bones. They see stories like that and they are outraged by politicians who stand up and somehow provide this smokescreen of self-defence. Self-defence has parameters. Excessive self-defence is no defence. It cannot be used to avoid accountability. We are constantly reminded by senior political figures, whether from this country or America, that somehow this is self-defence, when everybody else can see that it is not.

Look at the words of Benjamin Netanyahu: “Amalek” is the word he used. Look at some of the video footage that comes out of Gaza. Animals, including donkeys, are being shot so that food cannot reach its destination. Paramedics are being killed. Recently, a doctor at a hospital was murdered, raped and put out on to the streets. Some are saying this is all part of the agenda not to give the Palestinians any recourse even to medical aid. Because what have we got? More than 200 aid workers killed and 500 medical staff killed. These are just some of the basic stats that everybody in this country can see, yet we still have arguments of self-defence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am not going to take up too much time, because other Members want to speak, but we have an opportunity early next year. My colleague, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), has presented a Bill on the recognition of Palestinian statehood. That is our opportunity to stand up for the rights of the Palestinians. They have suffered far too much.

That Bill is really important; I have tabled a similar Bill every single year that I have been in Parliament. One thing I find remarkable about certain speeches from Members in this debate is that Palestinian voices seem to be rather missing, forgotten or, in this case, erased. Will the hon. Gentleman look at what has happened in the House longer ago than just this year? We have been having decades-long fights, on a cross-party basis, and most of us have been trying to do that. Let us continue in that vein.

I thank the hon. Member for all her endeavours and for those of the Liberal Democrats, because they have been very vocal on this topic. I know that there may also be another Bill tabled in her name to ask for the recognition of Palestinian statehood—something on which we should all unite and seek to encourage other parliamentarians to support.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I join my hon. Friends in expressing my condolences to all those who have been killed on both sides since not only 7 October but 1948. I join in the condemnation of all war crimes committed by any state actor or group.

As Israel launches a land grab in Syria and continues to bomb Lebanon, there is a danger that its continuing actions in Gaza will get lost in the egregious cycle of death and destruction in the middle east. It is timely, therefore, that we discuss yet again what contribution the UK can make to peace in the region.

Unfortunately, the record of this Government to date has been abysmal. As mentioned by my hon. Friends, the UK continues to supply spare parts for F-35 fighter jets, playing a major part in the Israeli military offensive, and it refuses to introduce any meaningful actions. Words and condolences, as well as reports of meetings to press Israeli officials to do more, are not enough, and there is much more that the UK can do. Worse, in their refusal to admit the nature of the military offensive in Gaza, the Government are culpable in the mass murder taking place.

Our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary may not understand what constitutes acts of genocide in international law, but thankfully human rights organisations do. We have heard about the recent Amnesty International report, which is unequivocal that Israeli actions against Gaza’s 2.3 million population are genocide. Note is also made of how the Israeli Government are acting with “impunity”.

Our Government, the US and other allies to Israel have granted it immunity from war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide for decades. Today is the day that that must stop. The British Government must end their complicity in Israeli war crimes and the genocide that is taking place. Our role must be to challenge the arrogance and complacency of Israel and send the message that Palestine exists. Its people have a right to live free of occupation and to have a state of their own.

The Government claim they are committed to a two-state solution, as is everybody in this room, but they have taken no meaningful action to make it a reality. The recognition of a Palestinian state is therefore a prerequisite to peace. The reply normally given to the ask of recognition for Palestine is, “This is not the right time to recognise a Palestinian state.” However, from all the strong, passionate and powerful speeches that we have heard, it is clear that the time is now.

We know from our experience of the peace process in Northern Ireland that it is too simple to reduce political violence to irrational hatred or religious bigotry. Where we have a political conflict, we have political reasons to create a pathway to solutions. The Government can help create that pathway by stopping their supply of spare parts for F-35 fighter jets and all other weapons and by joining the vast majority of UN members in formally recognising a Palestinian state.

We now move on to the Front Benchers, who have 10 minutes each. I call Monica Harding.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am pleased to be here to discuss these two important petitions, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate.

The Liberal Democrats have been calling for an immediate bilateral ceasefire since November 2023—one that will put an end to the humanitarian devastation in Gaza, get the hostages out and provide the opportunity for a political process towards a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. A lasting peace and two states is the only way to guarantee the dignity and security that both the Palestinians and the Israelis deserve.

Petition 653509 calls for

“the United Kingdom to recognise the state of Palestine immediately.”

I can proudly say that that is something the Liberal Democrats have long been calling for, and we support immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. The UK’s allies have increasingly been recognising the state of Palestine, and we should join them, with the hope of refocusing attention on efforts to find a political solution to the war in the middle east.

The recognition of Palestine is particularly important right now, given the threats of some in Israel—noted by the ICC and the ICJ—such as Minister Smotrich, who seeks to annex the west bank. I visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories in November and saw at first hand the expanding settlements and growing violence. Recognising Palestine on 1967 lines would make clear where the United Kingdom stands.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds pointed out, recognising Palestine is a tool that will inject into Palestinian society the hope that having their own state is possible. They are far from hope just now, and it is essential we signal that we support statehood for them. I believe that that will wrest control back from the extremes at the edges of Palestinian society. As has been pointed out, that is not the by-product of a solution; it is the route to a solution. It must be stated that Hamas can have no part in the governance of this Palestinian state.

My hon. Friend is entirely right that, within Palestine, recognition is seen as a prerequisite for what might come next. It is not a replacement and is not top-down. That is deeply felt—in fact, it was promised to the Palestinian people when my great-grandfather was alive. Does my hon. Friend also recognise that, alongside a state, there need to be viable, democratic elections? They would be made much easier if everyone in Palestine were allowed to vote in them. That is what stopped the last ones happening: people were not.

I support my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her work. I agree with her.

Let me turn to the second petition, on immediately revoking all arms export licences to Israel. I fully support that proposal, which my party has been calling on the UK Government to implement since April. Tougher controls on UK arms exports are vital to ensure that those arms are not used in potential human rights breaches. I support the introduction of a presumption of denial for all Governments listed in the FCDO’s “Human Rights and Democracy” report as human rights priorities. As a result, arms exports to Israel should be halted.

The Minister has long avoided responding to calls from my colleagues for clarity on the UK’s position on ceasing all arms exports to Israel, so I hope we will hear a clearer response from him today.

Sometimes, small actions can help. A number of my constituents were incredibly concerned that premises owned by my local council were occupied by a company that they perceived to have been administratively involved in supplying parts for the arms business. The council has now relinquished its interest in that building. Would my hon. Friend recognise that?

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I would like the Minister to note that Members have spoken about their unease at the fact that workers in the United Kingdom are making such parts. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) pointed out, the UK Government have made a choice to export F-35 components, which is not in line with their international commitments and obligations under international humanitarian law.

As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on international development, I must use this opportunity to emphasise my deep concern about laws passed in Israel’s Knesset banning UNRWA, in a situation that could not be more desperate. The Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator starkly warned:

“The entire population of north Gaza is at risk of dying.”

That move, if enacted, would lead to the death of innocent Palestinian civilians. UNRWA plays a critical role in distributing humanitarian aid in Gaza, and that move risks catastrophic consequences. As well as words of condemnation, I ask the Minister to set out the consequences of breaching international law, and I urge the Government to consider sanctioning Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for their incitement to violence against Palestinians by illegal settlers. The Government must continue to provide support to UNRWA to address the humanitarian crisis at hand, as well as ensuring that the recommendations of the Colonna report are implemented as soon as possible.

My last point is one that I hope the Minister agrees with and acts on. Increasing international development funding is a critical way in which the UK Government can tackle the humanitarian crises resulting from conflicts such as this, which are driving the cause behind the petitions being debated today. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on international development, I must urge the UK Government to strengthen the UK’s aid and development response. Overseas aid spending is at its lowest level in 17 years, having been cut by a further £2 billion in this fiscal year by this Government. It is now lower than under the last Conservative Government, despite the Prime Minister previously promising to reset Britain’s place in the world and return us to our status as an international development and aid superpower.

The UK’s funding for health programmes and the humanitarian relief reserve fund, both of which have been cut, urgently needs to be restored so that the UK can improve its response to conflict and support the victims of the devastating war in the middle east. Not only were the programmes eroded in the years since UK official development assistance was cut from 0.7% of gross national income to 0.58% by the Conservative Government, but this Government have slashed it again to 0.5%. United Kingdom support is needed more than ever, given global conflicts and humanitarian disasters, so I call on the Government to restore ODA to 0.7% of GNI as soon as possible to reinstate our commitment to the world’s poorest by ensuring that the UK is a global leader on aid and development.

I will end where I started: the Liberal Democrats call for the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, the return of the hostages and a halt to all arms exports to Israel, and for the Government to bring every effort and pressure to bear on Israel to get the humanitarian assistance in now.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to be able to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition today. I start by thanking the Petitions Committee and the petitioners for this important debate on the two petitions. This is clearly a matter of concern to constituents up and down the country, as well as to Members across the House.

The Conservatives support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. It is right that the people of the west bank and Gaza should have the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future. Our long-standing position is that we will recognise a Palestinian state at the time that is most conducive to the peace process. We are not at that point now, and we are clear that recognition cannot be the start of the process. Hamas is still being fought in parts of Gaza, while Israeli hostages remain in captivity. Ensuring that Hamas is no longer in charge of Gaza, and removing its capacity to launch attacks against Israel, are essential and unavoidable steps on the road to a lasting peace. The steps we must take now include getting the hostages out and getting more aid in. That is crucial for making progress towards a sustainable end to the current conflict.

The suffering of the hostages is intolerable for Israel; it should be intolerable for any person and any Government who care about human dignity and human rights. Let me be clear: Hamas could release the hostages now, immediately and unconditionally. We must also do more to support the innocent civilians of Gaza who are suffering and desperate. They continue to be used as human shields by Hamas, who have no regard at all for their safety and welfare. We continue to call for more humanitarian aid to enter Gaza and, importantly, for improved access through existing routes.

The Conservative Government helped to identify different ways that aid could get in, and we appointed a special representative for humanitarian affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who was on the ground and had a remit to try to address the bottlenecks in aid delivery. We came up with clear proposals and put them to the Government of Israel, including in relation to aid delivery through Ashdod and Erez, as well as Kerem Shalom and the Jordan land corridor. Israel made a number of significant and welcome commitments on those points, as well as on approving more types of aid, but fulfilment of those commitments is vital and we are monitoring developments closely.

Turning to arms export licences, the last Conservative Government reviewed advice about the situation in Gaza and Israel, and our assessments left the UK’s position on arms export licences to Israel unchanged. Our position in government was in line with that of many of our partners, which have also not taken the decision to suspend existing arms export licences to Israel. The Labour Government’s decision to announce an arms embargo on the day on which Israeli hostage families buried six of their loved ones, and weeks after an Iranian attack in which we helped to defend Israel, is difficult to swallow. Weeks later, Iran attacked again.

Decisions such as that have broader geopolitical implications, and we must be clear that there is no moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel. Our assessment was that the Government’s move was designed to satisfy their Back Benchers while not defending Israel, but it looks to have failed on both counts. Particularly in light of the subsequent direct attack by Iran, the decision was evidently poorly timed and ill judged. Labour has suspended export licences as Israel fends off threats from a terror group proscribed by the UK, as well as from Iran. That is despite the Government confessing that it has not been possible to reach a determinative judgment on allegations regarding Israel’s conduct of hostilities.

Returning to the subject of the future, we recognise that an effective Palestinian authority could have an important role to play in building a lasting peace and progressing towards a two-state solution. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton spoke with the new Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mohammad Mustafa, and offered the UK’s support for implementing much-needed reforms. Indeed, we are very clear that the Palestinian Authority needs serious reform to its education and welfare policies, and it needs to show democratic progress. Just as the Palestinian Authority must act, so must Israel. That means releasing frozen funds, halting settlement expansion and holding to account those responsible for extremist settler violence.

To conclude and to reiterate, we continue to want to see a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza, the release of the hostages, and more done to get humanitarian aid to innocent Palestinian civilians. Ultimately, we want to be able to lift people’s eyes to the brighter future and regional peace.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for securing this debate, and to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for leading it. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. They have represented their views and those of their constituents, many of whom I know have signed these petitions with sincerity. With your forbearance, Mr Pritchard, and recognising the many pages of questions I have received over the course of the afternoon, I will try to make progress with my speech before taking interventions.

I recognise the tone both of the petitions and of the questions and contributions this afternoon. I think the House is united in wanting to end the agonies in Gaza, return the hostages, end the violent expansion of settlements, and secure a two-state solution. That is my work and the work of this Government, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for highlighting how different our approach is from that of the Government who preceded us. When we became the Government, we called for an immediate ceasefire. On my first day as a Minister, we restored funding to UNRWA. We have now provided £41 million to UNRWA, recognising its vital work.

We have taken a different approach on questions of international law in relation to the ICC and the ICJ, and in our votes in the UN Security Council. Even when resolutions have been defeated, we have been clear on our commitment to international humanitarian law and the need for a two-state solution. In relation to sanctions on settlers and settlements, we have taken far-reaching action, which I shall cover briefly in my speech.

I would like to say something, given how strongly many of our constituents feel about the issues. I am a Labour Member and Minister, and other Labour MPs send me the videos the photos and the many reports that I know constituents see every day, as so many people have referred to. I see them too. As a Labour Member and Minister, I am never far from the reality of the situation. I am grateful to my colleagues for helping to ensure that that is the case.

I will turn briefly to the petitions that we are debating, trying to give substantive answers to both, then I will take interventions. First, on the call for immediate recognition, I want to I want to make it clear that this Government are unequivocal in their support for recognition and of a two-state solution. Palestinian statehood, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said, is the right of the Palestinian people; it is not in the gift of any neighbour, and it is vital, as was set out, that the people of the west bank and Gaza are given the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state.

We are committed to recognising a Palestinian state, and we will do so at the time most conducive to the long-term prospects for peace. We must take that step when we think that it will make the greatest contribution to bringing about the reality of a sovereign Palestinian state, alongside a secure Israel, which I know is the end goal we all agree on.

Many Members have referenced the decisions of allies. We watch those carefully and discuss the issues diplomatically, as one might expect. Simply saying a thing does not make it so, however, and this Government are driving their efforts towards the practical questions: creating the conditions necessary for a two-state solution to become a reality. The Prime Minister reiterated that commitment and his support for reforms to the Palestinian Authority—mentioned by a number of Members—when he met President Abbas in September.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about our support for Israel’s security. Of course, that remains steadfast, as it does for Israel’s right to self-defence against terrorism and state threats. However, as we have said repeatedly, Israel must do that in accordance with international law. We have taken decisive action against extremist Israeli settlers who undermine the viability of a two-state solution and we have called out the unacceptable rhetoric of some Israeli Ministers.

As Members have said, settlement expansion and violence have reached record levels. The Israeli Government seized more of the west bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years; that is completely unacceptable. We recently sanctioned three illegal outposts and four organisations that have supported and sponsored violence against communities in the west bank. Those sanctions are focused not just on the violence, but on the settlements themselves, which are contrary to international law. We will continue to take action necessary to challenge those who undermine a two-state solution. On the questions asked about sanctions, I am afraid that I will not provide—in a way that Members will be familiar with—a commentary on whom we may target with sanctions, but I reassure the Chamber that we will continue to take the action necessary.

Let me turn to the call in the second petition to revoke all licences for arms exports to Israel. I recognise the strength of feeling. It is why on day one, we commissioned a review into Israel’s commitment to and compliance with international humanitarian law and we took decisive action where the review found possible breaches. On 2 September, the Foreign Secretary announced that decision to Parliament, and it followed a conclusion of the clear risk of items being used in violation of IHL. Let me be clear: that is not a partial suspension; it is a full suspension of all licences for equipment for use in military operations in Gaza.

I will come to the F-35 points shortly, but on the remaining licences that are not in relation to the F-35s, they are for body armour for journalists and NGOs; equipment for re-export to close allies; and items utilised for training and never intended to see conflict. Those are the remaining military licences to Israel. In my view, it is not right to suspend those when there is no clear risk that they could be used in the ongoing conflict. The majority of licences to Israel are not to the Israel Defence Forces and not for military equipment. Under this Government’s watch, there are no extant licences that could be used by Israel to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the Gaza conflict. All of this is subject to the measures set out in Parliament excluding exports to the global F-35 programme from the scope of the suspension. Some Members have questioned that, but let me be clear about the Government’s view: suspending F-35 licences could not be done without prejudicing the F-35 programme.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) asked how that is consistent with the law and referred to some of the opening speeches in the ongoing judicial review. I will not comment in great detail on the judicial review, which is considering these legal questions in greater detail. The section of the arms trade treaty to which he referred asks us to tend to questions of international peace and security. We have been clear in the House, and I am clear again today, that to bring down the F-35 programme would have significance to international peace and security and to our broader strategic role in NATO, and would affect western equipment support for Ukraine. This is not an arbitrary decision that we have taken. We will keep this and all aspects of our policy under close review.

Will my hon. Friend please accept from the people who make this argument that there is strength in it? The issue is the end user of the F-35 programme. There is no suggestion that the UK should withdraw from the programme entirely, only that there be a block on the end user. Those F-35s are delivering the 2,000-pound bombs that are rending asunder civilian communities in Gaza and we must play our part in making sure that does not happen any longer. Will he please accept that?

I want to be clear to my hon. Friend and to everybody here that the direct selling of F-35 parts to Israel has now been suspended; it is indirectly that we are not in a position to determine the end user. Members are saying that we could determine the end user. I reiterate the Government’s position that the global supply chain is critical to the operation of the F-35 programme and that we cannot suspend licences to end users in the way that my hon. Friend would like without imperilling that.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being characteristically generous. As I understand it, we cannot track F-35 parts because we have signed a contract that basically renders us blind when they leave our borders. Technically, it is possible; the Ministry of Defence has said that. The issue the Minister has to address is that article 7 of the arms trade treaty is very clear that if there is an overriding risk of a breach of IHL, exports should not be made. His Government’s own submission to the courts is that that risk exists. We cannot have it both ways.

My right hon. Friend is making two distinct arguments. One is that we know who the end user is but cannot practically stop it, but we can also maintain the F-35 programme. The Government’s position is that we cannot take action on the global spares pool without bringing the F-35 programme into peril, which would have implications for international peace and security. That is the position of the Government. On the article of the arms trade treaty to which he refers, it is clear that consideration needs to be given to international peace and security. It is on that basis that we have set out our position.

Another Member asked me about the legal advice. We have set out the legal position as clearly as we possibly can—more clearly than any previous Government has on such a decision. It is being tested in the courts. We are proceeding with the utmost transparency on these questions.

Is it not the case that the review itself was drawn very narrowly, focusing just on Gaza, and did not look at the west bank? We know that there are violations and other issues in the west bank, and that they are getting worse and worse. Will the Government consider increasing the scope of their review to include the west bank, and perhaps conducting it again, given that everything is under review? I rather suspect that more than 30 export licences might be suspended if the west bank were included.

I can confirm to the hon. Member that, with the exception of the position with F-35 that we have just discussed, I have satisfied myself that the review conducted in relation to Gaza also covers the licences for arms that could be used both in the west bank and in the conflict in Lebanon. I have satisfied myself that the suspension announced on 2 September would cover the—

Will the Minister give way?

I am conscious that I have hardly a minute left, so I will wrap up and try to provide some time—

Order. At the discretion of the Chair, if the Minister is so minded, he can continue to talk for beyond 10 minutes, given that we have time because some colleagues have left. However, I am aware of his busy schedule, so it is entirely in his hands.

The United States has confirmed that all F-35 parts in the global spares pool are tracked by the US Government. Our Government have admitted that, too. Do the UK Government have access to that information? If not, why not, and have they asked for it? Do they know what proportion of the F-35 parts that the UK has exported to the global spares pool have ended up in Israel since October 2023?

I am happy to reply to my hon. Friend in writing on some of these questions of detail. On the F-35s, the Government’s position is that we cannot suspend sales to the global spares pool without bringing down the overall programme, and so the international peace and security elements to which I have referred are very much in scope.

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I return to recognition for a moment? The previous Government said that they would recognise Palestine when doing so best serves the object of peace. The current Government say they will recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process. I am struggling a little to see the difference between those positions.

There was a certain amount of sophistry in what the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said, which was that we cannot recognise Palestine when the hostilities are continuing. We do not recognise states based on which Government they have or what is happening there at the moment; we recognise states on the basis of the right to sovereignty, which Palestine clearly has. What is stopping the Government from recognising Palestine now, particularly given the Commons vote 10 years ago?

I recognise my hon. Friend’s long commitment to these issues. We are committed to recognising the state of Palestine at a point where we think it will make a contribution. I expect that he and many other Members will continue to press me on these issues for as long as this Parliament goes on.

We want to make a contribution to an advance of the position towards a two-state solution. As so many Members have said this afternoon, that feels horribly and dangerously distant at this time, but we think that the recognition of the state of Palestine can make a contribution to that process, and we want to see it on a more stable footing than we are at the current time.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not. I will try to conclude my remarks and give the hon. Member for South Cotswolds, who secured this debate, a chance to wrap it up.

I hope that Members will see that this Government have taken meaningful action to try to alleviate the suffering. I hear the strength of feeling from both the public and the Members in this Chamber. We will continue to do more. We are deeply conscious of both the agonies in Gaza and the coming of winter, and all the pressures that will bring.

On that point, will the Minister give way?

I will try to push on, if that is okay.

We have announced £112 million for the occupied Palestinian territories this year. We will continue to press for the vital services that civilians in Gaza and the west bank desperately need. That includes £13 million that the Prime Minister announced as our commitment to UNRWA when he met Commissioner-General Lazzarini on 11 December. As I understand it, he is the first ever Prime Minister to meet an UNRWA Commissioner-General.

We have continually supported hostage talks, and I welcome the reference that fellow Members have made to the British national who is still being detained by Hamas. We will continue to work alongside our allies and partners in the region, exercising every possible diplomatic lever to see the hostages immediately and unconditionally released.

As I said, we have imposed sanctions against those perpetrating and inciting human rights abuses against Palestinian communities in the west bank, and since July we have sanctioned three illegal outposts and four organisations. I welcome the comments from hon. Members about the importance of peace-building efforts.

The Minister has mentioned several times the three illegal outposts and four organisations. All outposts in the west bank are illegal. As a nation, why are we not taking much more strenuous action against all illegal occupation of the west bank and the occupied territories?

I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to reiterate this Government’s policy towards the west bank. It is occupied Palestinian territory: that is clear in international law, and there is no dispute about that. The sanctions that we imposed had quite far-reaching implications, including for organisations that are involved on a broad and structural basis in helping to construct settlements. I hope that there is no ambiguity about our position.

On that point, will the Minister give way?

I am going to push through to the end now.

Just last month, the Foreign Secretary chaired a UN Security Council ministerial meeting to focus international attention on the urgent need for a ceasefire and the release of all hostages. On 20 November, we voted in favour of the draft UN Security Council resolution on Gaza proposed by the 10 countries elected to the council. We reiterated our unwavering commitment to the vision of the two- state solution, in which two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace. That is what we, with our international partners, will continue to press for at every opportunity.

I thank the petitioners, especially Sandra, for their courage in bringing the petitions forward and for their commitment to peace. It was an honour to bring the petitions to Westminster Hall. I hope that we have done justice to the gravity of the issue and the seriousness of the dire situation facing all who are caught up in the appalling conflict in the middle east.

I thank colleagues for their thoughtful and knowledgeable contributions, and their compassion for the people of Israel and Palestine. I especially thank those colleagues who have shown over many years their commitment to the cause of peace in the middle east.

The stories we have heard this afternoon are harrowing, and the Government must take them seriously. I urge the Minister to engage directly with the proposals that have been made today, with the ultimate goal of securing an immediate bilateral ceasefire and a two-state solution, and to prioritise the resolution of the desperate humanitarian crisis over supply chains.

I hope that this debate marks not the end of the conversation, but the beginning of meaningful change. Let us not let this moment pass without action.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 653509 and 652949 relating to Israel and Palestine.