(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Brendan O’Hara, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I put on record my thanks to the Speaker’s Office for working so hard to ensure that we have time for the debate this afternoon? Given the pressure on time, and in order to allow as many Back-Bench speeches as possible, I will not take any interventions.
In his book, “One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This”, the Egyptian-Canadian novelist and journalist Omar El Akkad wrote:
“The moral component of history, the most necessary component, is simply a single question, asked over and over again: When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power? What makes moments such as this one so dangerous, so clarifying, is that one way or another everyone is forced to answer.”
That question will have to be answered. That may not be today or even this year, but at some point all of us, particularly those who hold positions of power or have a public platform, will have to answer that fundamental question: which side were we on? Were we on the side of justice, or did we side with the powerful?
When asked, each of us will have to answer: did we speak up for the tens of thousands of Palestinian women and children who were killed; did we use our platform to actively oppose the forced displacement of millions of Palestinians from their homes and communities as they were reduced to rubble, and condemn unequivocally the collective punishment imposed on an entire population when the basics necessary to sustain life—water, electricity, food and medicine—were deliberately withheld from them; or did we, either by what we said and did, or by what we did not say and did not do, side with the powerful, look away because it was in our political or financial interests so to do, and give political cover and legitimacy to the Netanyahu regime as it carried out its genocide while our Government supplied it with the weapons and military intelligence to do so?
The Hamas attack of 7 October was utterly appalling, and no right-thinking person could excuse or condone what happened that day. Neither, however, could any right-thinking person excuse or condone the Israeli response, which has been not just disproportionate, but brutal and relentless. Israel’s response has been carried out in such a systematic manner that, in my opinion, no reasonable person could deny that what we have witnessed in Gaza over the past two and a half years constitutes genocide.
The Government have denied, and continue to this day to deny, that it is a genocide. It is a decision that the Government will have to explain, and with which they will have to live. Today, however, I am not here to play ping-pong with the Government on the legal definition of what does and does not constitute genocide.
Instead, I want to focus on the mountain of evidence that says there is at least a serious risk of genocide occurring, and that serious risk should have triggered the UK’s legal obligation to act under the terms of the genocide convention, as explained by the International Court of Justice in its 2007 Bosnia ruling—an obligation that comes into effect long before any determination of genocide has been made by a court. The standard of serious risk is designed to be an early warning that ensures that states and international bodies act to prevent a genocide from occurring. In the case of the Palestinian people of Gaza, the UK has clearly and undeniably failed abjectly to meet its legal responsibility when alerted to there being a serious risk of genocide.
When the UK signed the genocide convention in 1948, it promised to prevent and punish this most heinous of crimes. Now, with more 71,000 people dead and 200,000 people injured, Gaza reduced to an uninhabitable wasteland, its population in the grip of a man-made famine and its medical infrastructure obliterated, hundreds of journalists murdered, water and electricity used as a means of coercion and punishment, food and medicine denied to the starving and the dying and the repeated forced displacement of millions of civilians, it is surely beyond any dispute that the minimum requirement for the UK to act to prevent and punish the crime of genocide has been met.
Arguably the most damning indictment, however, is that more than 21,000 children have been killed by the Israel Defence Forces since October 2023. Let us not forget that in November 2023 the UK Government formally intervened in the case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar at the ICJ to argue for changes to the definition of genocide that included lowering the threshold when damage was inflicted on children. If it is appropriate for the UK to intervene to protect children from the bombs and bullets of the Myanmar military, why is it not appropriate for it to intervene to protect Palestinian children from the bombs and bullets of the IDF?
Of course, genocide is not and never has been about numbers. The numbers killed, while shocking, do not in and of themselves necessarily prove genocide; there are other methods, including
“deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”
That is why it is important that we look at what else has happened in Gaza since October 2023. Over the past two and a half years, Israel has obliterated the agricultural sector; the fishing industry has gone; the road network has been wrecked; agricultural wells have been demolished; most crop land and greenhouses have been rendered unusable; the vast majority of livestock have been killed; and the vitally important and culturally significant olive tree crops have been targeted and destroyed.
Such is the devastation that a Guardian journalist on board a Jordanian air force plane wrote:
“Seen from the air, Gaza looks like the ruins of an ancient civilisation.”
And he added that Gaza was razed by an Israeli military campaign that has left behind a place that looks like the aftermath of an apocalypse. That does not happen by accident, and it is impossible to view this as anything other than a premeditated attempt to erase Palestinians from their land by making it impossible for human life to survive.
By any measure, collectively, all of that constitutes unimpeachable evidence that there has been a serious risk of genocide. And that should have triggered a UK Government response to prevent that becoming a full-blown genocide, but is has not. It is not as if the Government can say that they did not know or that they were unaware, because, time and again, statements made from that Dispatch Box, including from the former Foreign Secretary and the current Prime Minister, have conceded that they knew exactly what was happening, but they have chosen to do nothing about it. They have accepted and have publicly condemned the siege tactics, the denial of humanitarian assistance, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, the use of evacuation orders, the denial of water, food and electricity, the targeting of journalists, the destruction of healthcare, the astronomical number of civilian casualties, and the deliberate dehumanising of the Palestinian people.
In their own words, the Government have denied undeniable proof that war crimes are being carried out, that mass atrocities are being carried out, and that civilians are being denied the basics to maintain life. A quick trawl of Hansard will reveal that as far back as January 2024, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), said that
“85% of the population are displaced and millions face the risk of famine.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 622.]
Two months later he said that
“famine in Gaza is imminent... but what distinguishes the horror in Gaza from what has come before is that is it not driven by drought or natural disaster; it is man-made.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 806.]
And in May 2024 he said that
“aid is reportedly being blocked and northern Gaza is now in full blown famine”.—[Official Report, 7 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 443.]
A year later, in May of 2025, he openly acknowledged Israeli war crimes against the civilian population when he said:
“The whole House should be able to utterly condemn the Israeli Government’s denial of food to hungry children. It is wrong. It is appalling.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 927.]
And then he continued that
“what we are seeing is inhumane, it is deadly and it is depriving Gazans of their human dignity.—[Official Report, 21 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 662.]
It is there in black and white. The Government have acknowledged it. And the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition in October of 2023, acknowledged that serious risk, saying:
“Civilians must not be targeted. Where Palestinians are forced to flee, they must not be permanently displaced… International law is clear. It also means that basic services, including water, electricity and the fuel needed for it, cannot be denied.—[Official Report, 23 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 593.]
And as Prime Minister he said:
“We continue to see mounting evidence of appalling atrocities against civilians and unacceptable restrictions on humanitarian access.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 806.]
There are so many more examples of the Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary and other Ministers admitting from that Dispatch Box that Israel was using food as a weapon of war, that it had manufactured a famine, that it was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, that it was committing war crimes, and that it was stripping Gazans of their human dignity. Yet it remains the official position of the UK Government that none of that—none of it—meets the threshold for there being a serious risk of genocide.
I ask the Minister whether we are being asked to believe that, even when the Israeli Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, said:
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed… We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly”.
Did that not trigger within the Government the thought that perhaps there was a serious risk of genocide? Finance Minister Smotrich said:
“Gaza will be entirely destroyed; civilians will be sent to...the south…and from there they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries.”
Did that not trigger the thought that, perhaps, there was a potential risk of genocide occurring? The Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, said:
“It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible”.
Did that not suggest to the UK Government that perhaps Israel’s response to the atrocities of 7 October was going to be disproportionate, brutal and illegal; and that continuing to sell weapons and maintaining a “business as usual” relationship with Tel Aviv might put us in grave danger of breaching our obligations under the genocide convention?
Despite Israel making its intentions unambiguously clear from the very start—that it was going to ethnically cleanse Gaza, would do so using whatever means necessarily and would do so indiscriminately—it appears that the UK Government made the political choice to deliberately ignore their obligations so that they could continue a business-as-usual relationship with Netanyahu’s Government.
I will finish where I began, with that powerful quote from Omar El Akkad:
“When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power? What makes moments such as this one so dangerous, so clarifying, is that one way or another everyone is forced to answer.”
This UK Government and the Government who preceded them have chosen to side with power over justice, and history will judge them accordingly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Because I want to get everyone in before we finish at 5 pm, all Members are on a three-minute speaking limit.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for bringing forward this most important debate.
This is a debate on an obligation to assess the risk of genocide. Who could disagree with that? There has been a terrible war in Gaza, and although there is a ceasefire, loss of life continues. It was sparked by the 7 October attack in 2023 and the taking of the hostages, which was the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. This was not a war of Israel’s seeking. The aims of the war were to secure the release of the hostages and to prevent Hamas from ever repeating their attack, which they had promised to do on many occasions. As the Chief Rabbi said,
“If Hamas lays down its arms there will be no fighting… If Israel were to lay down its arms there would be no Israel.”
Genocide is a legal description of the intentional, systematic destruction in whole or in part of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as defined by the 1948 UN genocide convention. The concept was defined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer from Lviv/Lwów/Lemberg—much in the news—in the aftermath of the war. I first heard of Lemkin in the marvellous book “East West Street” by Philippe Sands, who will deliver tonight the Alf Dubs lecture in Battersea.
“Intent” is the crucial word. Britain and its allies are not accused of genocide for the strategic bombing of Germany, despite the hundreds of thousands who were killed. It is a matter for a court to decide on genocide, and despite the many debates about it in this Chamber, we can all agree that this is not a court.
We know that there has been massive loss of life and destruction in Gaza, but I simply cannot believe that it was the stated intention of the Government of Israel to completely destroy the population of Gaza. We do not have any means of independently verifying anything, since we are left to rely on news from the Hamas-led Health Ministry and the Israel Government’s spokespeople. I directly asked the President of Israel, Mr Herzog, twice about allowing in independent journalists, such as those from CNN or the BBC, and I was twice informed that it was too dangerous. Is that still the case? I doubt it now that there is a ceasefire.
The word “genocide” has been used to rally protest all over the world, but we have seen where some of that has led. If we allow this most significant of words to be bandied about with such certainty, do we not risk undermining the words that are needed to describe the Holocaust, which was the intentional and systematic murder of 6 million European Jews by the Nazis; the Rohingya being expelled en masse, raped and slaughtered; the Uyghurs being subjected to mass internment, forced sterilisation and cultural erasure; or the mass murders in Rwanda?
Genocide is a quite specific crime, and frankly it is not my belief that this was the intent of the Israel Defence Forces. But I do agree that there is an obligation for this to be assessed.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
We are witnessing in Gaza a catastrophe that was not only foreseeable but preventable. For over two years, the UK Government have hidden behind legal sleight of hand while a genocide has unfolded in Gaza. The definition of genocide set out in article II of the genocide convention is precise. It involves specific acts
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
First, article II(a) prohibits killing members of such a group. As of January of this year, 71,500 Palestinians have been killed, including 570 aid workers and 1,700 health workers. That is not collateral damage; it is the destruction of a people and it is sickening.
Just yesterday, during the current supposed ceasefire, the BBC reported that at least 20 Palestinians, including several children and a paramedic, had been killed and almost 40 others wounded in Israeli strikes in Gaza, according to hospitals in Palestine. The response from the Israel Defence Forces stated that they had carried out “precise strikes”—so precise, apparently, that they had to further state,
“The IDF is aware of the claim that several uninvolved civilians, including a medical staff member, were hit in the strike.”
That is a familiar trope that they have used throughout the conflict. If those were the reactions of our own military, the standards we would apply in investigation and response would be rigorous and likely lead to court martial because it is not even close to our, rightly, highly robust rules of engagement rooted in moral integrity.
Secondly, article II(b) prohibits
“Causing serious bodily or mental harm”.
We know that over 143,000 people have been injured, with many maimed for life, and the population has been subjected to torture and arbitrary detention. Thirdly, and perhaps most damningly, article II(c) prohibits
“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”.
Amnesty International has found that Israel has systematically destroyed life-sustaining infrastructure, including water, sanitation and energy grids. By creating a so-called buffer zone, Israel has razed 59% of agricultural land in that area and, as of last month, 81% of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged, and all the while it has severely restricted vital aid and supplies. This is the deliberate erasure of the means of survival, which has led to widely reported and verifiable famine.
When Israeli leaders describe Palestinians as “human animals” and speak of “flattening Gaza”, and then proceed to destroy 19 hospitals and block essential aid, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is the “intent to destroy” the group, as per the definition. Even now, despite the UN commission of inquiry finding in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide and Amnesty International confirming that the genocide continues despite the October ceasefire, the UK refuses to act.
History will judge this Government and this Parliament for their—
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I am honoured to serve as co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group.
We face a stark legal reality: the UK’s duty to prevent genocide is triggered the moment a serious risk becomes evident. The International Court of Justice made that clear in January 2024. Judge Joan Donoghue stated that the Court found
“a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights of Palestinians under the Genocide Convention.”
The Court issued provisional measures directing Israel to prevent genocide—measures that Israel has ignored.
Words matter too. Israel’s President Herzog declared,
“It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible.”
Under international law, such statements are evidence of intent. The UN commission of inquiry confirmed that the ICJ’s provisional measures placed all state parties on notice of a serious risk of genocide in Gaza, triggering legal obligations on third states, including the UK. As its chair, Navi Pillay, stated,
“Israel has flagrantly disregarded the orders for provisional measures from the International Court of Justice…and continued the strategy of destruction of the Palestinians in Gaza.”
Yet in September 2024, UK Government lawyers concluded that there was no serious risk of genocide occurring. That defies the Court, the commission and the law.
The UK itself has argued that genocide is not limited to killings, but includes forced displacement, serious bodily or mental harm and deprivation of food, particularly when children are targeted. Despite that, the UK has failed to acknowledge the risk, failed to respond to the ICJ or the commission and failed to act as it has elsewhere. I ask the Minister what evidence would be required to accept the risk of genocide if neither the ICJ nor the UN commission of inquiry suffices, and why, when the UK has argued that acts against children and forced displacement are indicators of genocidal intent, it has not applied that standard here.
History will judge whether we acted when the warning signs were crystal clear. I urge the Government to acknowledge the risk and meet their legal duty to prevent genocide.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
All of us are here in this Chamber because of the horror we have at the events of 7 October, and the atrocities that have taken place thereafter and that continue to take place. Many of us are also here because of a profound sense of shame—shame at the way the last Government and this Government have conducted themselves throughout this entire affair. Among the many shames that we will all have to bear is the Government’s reluctance to vigorously and assertively participate in the international rules-based order which we built to prevent exactly this kind of eventuality.
As other Members have said, I do not understand what the Government think the ICJ was doing when it ruled that there was a plausible case for genocide. Did they not think that it was triggering exactly the obligations that other Members have mentioned? Those obligations are not rhetorical; they are operational, real, obligatory. We have to act to prevent; we cannot facilitate. Yet time and again, the British Government have done absolutely nothing. From arms to intelligence sharing and diplomatic cover, we have continued as normal.
I am left wondering what it is this country stands for, because it is not just on this obligation that there has been nothing. On the torture convention, even when the reputable Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem has just published a report saying that Israel is running
“a network of torture camps”,
there has been nothing from the British Government, notwithstanding their international obligations. On the settlements in the west bank, a hundred parliamentarians wrote to the Government and the ICJ has ruled, yet the Government have done the bare minimum they could get away with to enforce those obligations. There are even the individual cases we have seen on our telephones and on social media: Dr Adnan al-Bursh tortured to death; Hind Rajab, who the world heard as she lay dying in a car, left alone at the age of six; the ambulances ambushed; the hospitals flattened; the schools crushed. Even when British citizens are slaughtered—surely we have an obligation to them if we do not feel that we have one to anybody else—the Government have done nothing. This is a monstrous abdication of duty.
In this regard, the law is not unclear. The facts are not hidden. Daily, we hear Israeli Ministers boasting about what is being done in Gaza. What is missing is political will. It is about time that the Minister and his superiors realised that history does not just judge what Governments do; it judges what they allow.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We have seen UK recognition of Palestine become a reality and a Gaza ceasefire under Labour, but still 70,000 Palestinians have been killed—a figure now accepted by Israel—including 500 people since the ceasefire. We have seen repeated forcible displacement and whole neighbourhoods gone. Is this genocide, like Srebrenica and Rwanda? The ICJ will take years to determine that, but the UN commission of inquiry and the International Association of Genocide Scholars say yes. How does Joe Public decide? With 37 non-governmental organisations, including Oxfam, effectively banned and international media excluded, the external mechanisms that should help us make that assessment are gone. Targeted measures are rendering it impossible to judge. The civilian/combatant line is blurred given the deaths of women and children, making the IDF claim that it always minimises casualties questionable.
The very risk of genocide raises Britain’s obligations under the 1948 convention to prevent genocide or risk complicity.
Although we have allowed children to travel to the UK from Gaza for medical care, and allowed students in, we have also seen Gazan hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, universities and refugee camps destroyed. That biblical devastation is man-made.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
We are here to discuss genocide. As my hon. Friend says, 20,000 children have been killed, 95% of hospitals have been destroyed, and food has been blocked to the point of famine. Does she agree that the House of Commons—and, indeed, the world—cannot stand by and let that happen?
Dr Huq
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He used to work for Save the Children, which has also been de-registered—the shame of it. We must act.
There has been a systematic discrediting of the UN. United Nations Relief and Works Agency buildings have been destroyed, and Francesca Albanese has been accused of being a witch and sanctioned by the US. And what has been proposed in place of the UN? The Gaza board of peace, headed by Donald Trump, which costs $1 billion to join. The board has zero Palestinian representation, but Putin, the President’s son-in-law and Netanyahu all have seats, and its founding charter does not mention Gaza. The UK must not give that vanity project any credence.
Extremist Israeli Ministers have been sanctioned and 30 arms licences suspended, but, as the facts worsen on the ground, we must ramp up our support for real peace efforts, as opposed to grubby real estate deals that are void of international law and bypass Palestinians. Even the ceasefire negotiators were bombed in Qatar. Of course, the acts of Hamas on 7 October must be condemned, but Netanyahu’s war cabinet has since gone way beyond self-defence. Starvation, and the erasure of the international presence to gather evidence on what might or might not be a genocide, must set off alarm bells and requires urgent action for us to be on the right side of history. We must say no to the board of peace. We need a toughened sanctions package and arms embargo, and a full ban on trade in settlement goods—not just the present situation of tariff reductions.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The recent events we have seen unfold in Gaza have been horrific. They are without doubt some of the worst atrocities to have taken place in modern times, carried out by Israel and centred in one small region. The targeting of civilian infrastructure has caused maximum suffering for the civilian population. Medical professionals have been imprisoned. As recently as last month, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that 1,700 aid and health workers have been killed.
Now, during a period of ceasefire, the Israeli Government continue to severely restrict the entry of nutritious food, medical supplies and materials to repair and rebuild civilian infrastructure, and over 400 Palestinians have been killed. Palestinians continue to face famine and forced displacement. Their homes are flattened and their friends and family killed.
Upwards of 250 journalists have been killed. Entire news crews have been wiped out by airstrikes and targeted shootings. The people sent to the frontlines to document and report are struck down beside those they tried to help. I urge the Government to take proactive steps to secure the release of Palestinian medical professionals held in Israeli prisons—they should be free to care for the injured and sick—and to guarantee the safety of journalists reporting in Gaza. Without people to document the unfolding events in conflict zones, we are left without the evidence necessary for reconciliation, civilians are left without the first safeguard of international law, and aggressors feel a sense of immunity.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that the Israeli Government have committed a genocide in Gaza, and that those responsible must be held to account. Looking forward, we have a responsibility to protect those in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Government have been too slow in reacting to events in Palestine and the west bank. They must step up to their duties under international law by acknowledging the risk of genocide.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Questions of genocide are among the gravest that Parliament must consider, and I thank the many constituents who have written to me in advance of this debate. In the case of Gaza, the International Court of Justice ruled two years ago that there is a “real and imminent risk” of genocide. The Court is still deliberating, with a final judgment expected next year, but in the meantime, this risk requires action.
In the short time I have, I would like to focus on one of those actions. There is a strong case for the Government to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements on the west bank. No further legal judgment is needed to do that. Although global attention has focused rightly on Gaza, settlement expansion, land confiscation and violence have continued on the west bank and in East Jerusalem. More than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed there, and economic activity linked to settlements risks undermining the UK’s long-standing position on their illegality and on the viability of the Palestinian state. The Minister has been clear that settlements are illegal, and I thank him for meeting me to talk about this previously.
The mechanism exists to do this. The UK-Israel trade agreement already differentiates settlement goods, denying them preferential tariffs—postcodes are already provided to show exactly where goods come from. The Government should now consider moving from differentiation to prohibition, using legal tools already available under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, as we have done in relation to Crimea. There is legal precedent, and there is the technical ability to do it.
Palestinian civilians—Palestinian children—have endured extraordinary suffering, displacement, hunger, trauma and loss. They are entitled to not only charity but the protection guaranteed under international law. A ceasefire alone is not enough. The absence of bombs is not the presence of justice. Without reconstruction, accountability, justice and a viable political and economic path, the suffering will continue.
I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the UK will now support the collection and preservation of evidence of war crimes that will be needed for the justice system to do its work, and when the Government will introduce the legislation that is needed—perhaps secondary legislation—to stop trade with illegal settlements on the west bank, in line with the UK’s stated policy and international legal obligations.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The question was asked at the start of this debate, “Whose side are we on?” Let me make something very clear: I am on the side of the people who suffered one of the most horrendous terrorist attacks on 7 October 2023, when their citizens were raped, burnt, taken into captivity and killed in cold blood, and their killers boasted about it and stuck it on the internet. I am on the side of those people who since then have suffered the most sectarian abuse because they are Jews and happen to live in this country.
Members have asked how we can ignore the ruling of the International Court of Justice. First, it has not said there was any intent. Secondly, the judge who decided in that case was twice a candidate for Prime Minister of Lebanon, with the support of a terrorist group, so I do not think we can see the International Court of Justice as an independent body here.
The fact is that Israel took every attempt to reduce the civilian casualties in Gaza. One only has to look at the ratio of civilian casualties in Gaza to those in Iraq or Afghanistan and the actions that Israel has taken, even putting its own soldiers at risk by leafleting, telephoning and using UN co-ordination to say when it will strike and withdrawing some of its strikes when it did. Who put the civilians in harm’s way? Hamas made it quite clear that civilians being killed would put blood into the veins of resistance. That is the kind of enemy Israel is up against. Even if there were an investigation, I do not think it would find that Israel was reckless in the way it has responded to a terrorist attack on its own civilians.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
There is never any justification to kill the number of civilians that have been killed. This is a genocide, and it is not just the ICJ that said it. What about the UN special rapporteurs, UN independent experts, the UN commission of inquiry, and Amnesty International? What about Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and the 600 senior lawyers in the UK, including Lady Hale and Lord Sumption, and many others who call it a genocide?
Sammy Wilson
Hamas would disagree with the hon. Member, because Hamas boasted that the killing of civilians would help to increase the resistance and put some fire into it. Before accusations are made against Israel, let us look at the record of Hamas on putting civilians in harm’s way, and basing their rockets and firing points in hospitals, schools, civilian infrastructure, and therefore inviting the retaliation, based on the fact that Israeli armed forces had to take action. The rules of engagement were such that even the former supreme chief of NATO was able to observe that when it came to the way that Israel engaged the enemy in Gaza, its standards were higher than what we would have expected even of the British Army in such circumstances.
My concern is this: the motion, and this demand—
Sammy Wilson
No, I will not give way. This demand will be used to justify the intimidatory marches that we see week after week throughout the United Kingdom. It will be used to justify the barricading of Jewish businesses, the banning of Jewish students and academics from universities, and even the banning of Israeli sports fans from sporting events in the United Kingdom. This is part of the campaign to justify the sectarianism, which is now creeping into the debate in the United Kingdom—
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for laying out so powerfully the extent to which our Government have failed in their responsibilities to assess the serious risk of genocide, and our legal obligation to act under the genocide convention. Since the latest US-brokered so-called ceasefire took effect, Israeli forces have killed more than 500 Palestinians. The genocide is far from over.
Comrades from across the House will rightly speak about accountability today, so I will focus on our complicity. I am extremely concerned by the Government’s apparent move towards unblocking the already insufficient 29 out of 350 arms licences to Israel that were suspended in September 2024. It was the Government’s own assessment that there was a serious risk of British-made weapons being used in violation of international law, yet on 12 January 2026, in an interview with The Jewish Chronicle, the Secretary of State committed to revisiting both UK-Israel trade discussions and the decision to pause arms export licences, adding that the two matters were “intrinsically linked”. Such a claim is entirely at odds with the Government’s legal obligations under the UK’s own strategic export licensing criteria and international law, including the genocide convention. In addition to the continuous supply of spare parts enabled by the F-35 carve-out, last month three new F-35s were transferred from the UK RAF station at Mildenhall to Israel. Palestinians continue to be failed by our Government, and the Government must not renege on their arms export control criteria now that Gaza is away from the front pages.
If the Government were to weaken their commitment to international law in order to secure a trade deal, that would frankly be shameful. I said in June during my Adjournment debate that this Government’s approach to export licensing was deeply troubling. Seven months after questioning the Minister’s claim about so-called third-country re-exports, I am still awaiting a response. This week I have written again to the Government about the changes to arms licences and the F-35 transfers. I sincerely hope that a reply will come more promptly.
The testimony of Mark Smith, former diplomat and policy adviser at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, sheds light on the disturbing level of access and influence that the arms industry holds over Government decision making. That influence buys Government complicity, and makes a mockery of international law to safeguard profits. As he put it,
“the system is not designed to hold itself accountable—it is designed to protect itself at all costs.”
I once again call on the Government to suspend all arms exports to Israel.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for getting this debate and to all those who have spoken in it. We are having this debate against a background where 71,000 people are known to be dead in Gaza as a result of Israeli bombardment, with many thousands of bodies lying under rubble that will no doubt become the foundations of the casinos and hotels that the Trump plan is visiting on the people of Gaza.
I had the privilege of attending the South African application under the genocide convention at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. It was a deeply moving experience hearing the South African application and the bravery with which they put it and thinking, “This is the country that threw off the yoke of apartheid and had the courage then to stand up for the Palestinian people, facing genocide as they are.” The conclusion by the eminent judges was that there was a credible case that genocide had been committed, and they are going through many details on it.
Following that, last year I introduced a ten-minute Bill in the Chamber calling for this country to set up its own tribunal of investigation on its participation in arms sales to Israel and the bombardment of Gaza. Unsurprisingly, it was blocked. Through the Peace & Justice Project, I then established our own independent Gaza tribunal, which we held over two days in Church House Westminster. I was joined by Shahd Hammouri and Neve Gordon, who assessed a great deal of detailed evidence.
In the one minute and 15 seconds left to me, I cannot go through that evidence, but I will simply say this. There was powerful evidence of doctors in tears because they did not have the equipment to deal with the horrendous injuries that they were asked to deal with in hospitals without electricity, anaesthetic, antiseptic or even clean water. The legal evidence given and the evidence given by former Foreign and Commonwealth Office official Mark Smith was very powerful, as was the evidence about the supply of weapons to Israel through RAF Akrotiri. The matter has now been taken up by a group of UN member states in the Hague convention, who will carry on with it.
Let me conclude with this. As was pointed out earlier, this country was involved in supporting and establishing in the 1920s the International Court of Justice. We pride ourselves on being the custodians of international law and order. This country is making itself complicit in the genocide of the people of Palestine by its supply of weapons. It is time to stop.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for bringing forward this vital debate.
To many of us, it has always been abundantly clear that what is taking place in Palestine does indeed constitute a genocide. Since the Israeli attacks began in 2003, more than 70,000 people have been killed and entire bloodlines have been wiped out. We have witnessed targeted attacks on civilians and journalists, the forced displacement of people from their homes, the obstruction of humanitarian aid, the weaponisation of starvation and the destruction of vital civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools and universities. Taken together, those actions demonstrate a clear and deliberate attempt by the Israeli Government to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their land.
Since the ceasefire was announced in October, hundreds more Palestinians have been killed. Aid continues to be blocked from entering the region, and there are severe restrictions on the number of sick and wounded people permitted to leave for medical care. Let me be clear: even if Israel had fully complied with the ceasefire agreement, ceased all attacks today and allowed the unconditional flow of aid into Gaza, none of that would undo the suffering already inflicted on the Palestinian people or negate the fact that what has taken place constitutes a genocide.
It is vital that we use the correct language. History will not describe what is unfolding in Palestine as a war, an invasion or just an occupation; it will describe it as a genocide. The questions that future historians will ask are, “Why did the international community fail to recognise it? Why did we do nothing to stop it?” There is a growing body of evidence and a clear consensus among UN experts, human rights organisations and genocide scholars that Israel has committed and continues to commit acts of genocide. The UK has a legal obligation not to aid or assist violations of international law, including a duty to take all possible measures to prevent genocide once a risk has been identified, yet we continue to sell arms to Israel that are undoubtedly being used to attack civilians. I therefore hope that, when the Minister responds, he will explain why the Government believe that it is acceptable to continue the sale and trade of arms that aid Israel’s actions, including with illegal settlements.
It is our moral duty, as a nation with historical responsibility in the region, and as advocates for human rights, to ensure that the Palestinian people are granted the justice, freedom and dignity they deserve.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) for securing this important debate, and I highlight that this is only the second time that a Backbench Business debate on Gaza has taken place in this Chamber.
The reaction of the UK Government since they came into office has been, at best, supine, or at worst, grossly negligent. They have responded to UN independent international commissions of inquiry in other contexts, such as Ukraine—and rightly so—but they have failed to do so on Gaza. Back in September 2025, the UN’s “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory” found that Israel had committed a genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
On 2 October, as part of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I voted in favour of a resolution on the “devastating humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza. Paragraph 8 of the resolution referred to the UN Human Rights Council’s finding that genocide was taking place, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and it highlighted the obligation of all state parties to prevent genocide under article 1 of the UN convention. Would the hon. Gentleman also welcome a comment from the Minister on the UK’s response to that Assembly resolution?
Seamus Logan
I completely agree with the hon. Lady.
In recent days, we have learned that the IDF has admitted its role in the death of at least 70,000 Palestinians. Meanwhile, Secretary-General António Guterres warns us that, as we enter 2026, the clock is ticking louder than ever, with conditions on the ground in Palestine remaining perilously fragile.
Only yesterday, a UN committee mandated to promote the realisation of Palestinian rights reaffirmed calls for a two-state solution, which Secretary-General Guterres endorsed as the only viable path towards achieving long-lasting peace and security between Palestine and Israel. However, in this context, at least another 449 men, women and children have been killed by Israeli forces during the so-called ceasefire.
Why can the UK Government not see what the UN can? Why do they accept the UN’s reports on Ukraine, but not Gaza? Why do they not accept the conclusions of UK-based lawyers, including Supreme Court justices, who signed a letter to the Prime Minister in May last year to confirm that a genocide is being perpetrated?
I wish to turn to the letter that I and 57 other parliamentarians have signed, led by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), explaining to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade that we are extremely concerned by the Government’s apparent move towards unblocking arms licences to Israel, which they had suspended in September 2024, and the transfer of new F-35s from a British airbase. This is at odds with the Government’s international legal obligations, including the genocide convention. I hope the Minister will be able to explain that decision, given the ongoing violation of the ceasefire by Israeli forces in Gaza, which is continuing the genocidal horror of these past two and a half years.
When talk of peace involves the perpetrators of violence and not the violated—not the voices of those who have lost so much on all sides—war crimes will go unpunished and festering wounds of injustice will lead to further conflict. The Prime Minister, as a former human rights lawyer, must understand that. Why then, given everything that we know, and all that we have witnessed, do his Government remain in a state of ambivalence on assessments of genocide under international law in Palestine? Does the clue to the answer lie in this Government’s protection of trade and diplomatic ties to Israel and the US?
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
What the Palestinian people have endured is cruel, inhumane and completely unacceptable. We know that, last year, it was an Israeli Government blockade that led the United Nations and others to declare a famine in Gaza. We know that the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu for war crimes. We know that more than 90% of the homes across Gaza have been damaged or destroyed.
The UN’s “Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory” concluded that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza strip under the 1948 genocide convention, and human rights organisations such as the International Association of Genocide Scholars—which has already been mentioned—Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Oxfam have expressed the view that genocide has been committed by Israel under international law. Israel has also recently revoked the licences of 37 international NGOs.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
From working with the Norwegian Refugee Council, including my constituent Amelia Rule—who is its head of shelter and settlements—I know the vital work that charity is doing. As my hon. Friend has said, though, in January it was banned from operating in Gaza, along with 36 other NGOs and aid organisations. This move is plainly an attempt by the Israeli Government to circumvent international institutions and accountability. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government and the international community should attempt to use all their influence and leverage to push for that ban to be rescinded, so that aid organisations such as the Norwegian Refugee Council can continue their lifesaving work?
Warinder Juss
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
It seems quite clear that the reason the licences have been revoked is to prevent aid from going through, which leads to the assumption, at least, that there might be a risk of genocide taking place.
The UN genocide convention requires states
“to prevent and to punish”
genocide. I will repeat the definition in article II of the convention, which is that genocide is any act
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”—
I emphasise the words “in whole or in part”—
“a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
We cannot stand by and pretend that it is for an international court to decide whether or not genocide has occurred in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and we cannot turn a blind eye as innocent Palestinian people continue to suffer. We are fortunate to have enough distinguished lawyers in this House to decide whether there is at least a risk of genocide having occurred and to conduct that risk assessment, as has been requested in this debate. When do we decide that enough is enough? When do we decide that enough innocent people have been killed and enough suffering has occurred for us to consider that an ally of ours, Israel, may be committing genocide under international law, and to take decisive, concrete action to prevent that genocide by the Israeli Government?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing today’s debate. In June last year, I secured a debate in Westminster Hall on the same topic, and the arguments that I set out at length then still hold; indeed, they have been deepened and strengthened by events since. The Green party has long been clear that the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza constitute genocide, but I agree with the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) that it is important to be clear about language, so I will make very specific arguments with respect to the genocide convention.
Under the convention, the UK has a legal obligation to assess the risk of genocide, and to act to prevent it when that risk is clear. Article I specifies that the contracting parties undertake
“to prevent and to punish”
genocide. By definition, prevention has to happen before an event has happened, or before it is completed; it cannot wait for a court case after genocide has conclusively taken place. Does the Minister therefore accept that the UK has a duty under article I of the genocide convention to prevent genocide when a serious risk is identified?
Article II sets out a range of acts that, if
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”
a specific group, constitute genocide. Five acts are specified; only one of them needs to be occurring for it to be concluded that genocide is taking place, and there is very widespread agreement that at least four of those acts are happening in Gaza. They include
“Killing members of the group…Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”
and
“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
What else is cutting off water and preventing the delivery of food, lifesaving medicines, fuel and power? The fourth is
“Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”.
The wholesale destruction of healthcare in Gaza is clear evidence that this is occurring.
It is not just me or the International Court of Justice who says that; the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Médecins Sans Frontières, Amnesty, B’Tselem, Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, the UN commission of inquiry and hundreds of British lawyers say it, as we have heard. Why does the Minister not accept the conclusion of that wide swathe of people that genocide is indeed taking place, or at least that there is a plausible risk, which therefore entails his obligations under article 1?
Article III(e) of the genocide convention specifies that complicity in genocide is punishable. Let us be clear about UK complicity: we have the export of arms, including F-35s, the sharing of intelligence and continued participation in settlement trade, which is participation in the proceeds of crime—that is, land seizure. What more evidence do the UK Government need that genocide is taking place and that we are complicit in it before they take the long-overdue actions that are in their power?
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this debate and for so clearly and accurately setting the scene. The awkward truth for many in this Parliament is that genocide has occurred in occupied Palestine for decades, and the silence from the international community has allowed and enabled Israeli Governments to persecute and oppress the Palestinian people. It has emboldened Netanyahu and his murderous regime to commit the genocide that we have all witnessed in Gaza.
Israel commits different types of genocide. Last November I was fortunate enough to be in the west bank, and I heard of the cultural genocide that is taking place, with students and lecturers unable to go to university because of roadblocks and checkpoints. I heard about the universities, colleges and schools that have been flattened throughout Gaza, with lecturers now giving classes in tents as makeshift classrooms. How on earth do we expect Gaza to be rebuilt when Palestinians are unable to be educated?
Netanyahu’s Government have also by design crippled the Palestinian economy by impacting on Palestinians’ ability to trade, making them reliant on Israel for goods, produce and, ultimately, their very survival. Israel uses economic terrorism as a tool of subjugation. With the seizures of Palestinian farms, and by making it almost impossible for those who remain to trade, Israel impoverishes Palestinians. There is a concerted international effort to normalise Palestinians’ reliance on Israel to be the provider of lifesaving aid, while making it near impossible for Palestinians to be self-sufficient, driving Palestinians to starvation.
As well as this collective punishment of Palestinians, another goal of this broader plan is to impose capitalism through the imperial project that the Israeli Government promote. That is all wilfully aided by western democracies. Shame on any Government of any party of any nation who have allowed and been complicit in these awful atrocities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If interventions are made, not all colleagues will get in. Please consider that.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this crucial debate. As he said, any person of conscience can and must condemn both the illegal actions of Hamas on 7 October and the illegal actions of Israel in its response for the 850 days since that horrific day.
Despite the plausible risk of genocide inflicted by Israel upon the Palestinian people having been identified by the ICJ, the UN and multiple other agencies and experts, successive UK Governments have consistently refused to acknowledge that risk, and they have failed in their obligations to take immediate, proactive measures to prevent a genocide of the Palestinian people.
Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back Hind Rajab, her six family members or the two paramedics who tried to save her. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the 2,700 family bloodlines wiped out at Israel’s hands, or the relatives of more than 6,000 sole survivors. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions genocide or not, it will not bring back the parents of a new generation of Palestinian orphans created through Israeli slaughter, such as the three-year-old Wesam, who was left with a lacerated liver and kidney after an Israeli airstrike that killed her five-year-old brother, her pregnant mother, her father and her grandparents.
Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the almost 300 journalists assassinated for trying to report Israeli war crimes in real time. Whether the UK Government call Israel’s actions a genocide or not, it will not bring back the more than 100 Palestinian hostages executed in Israeli detention centres in the last two and a half years. I regret that I do not have time to pay tribute to each and every individual murdered by the genocidal Israeli regime, who will not be affected by this Government’s decisions.
The point is that accepting the irrefutable and serious risk of genocide would oblige the UK to hold Israel accountable. It would save lives in the present by creating legal obligations for the UK Government to cease arms exports, impose sanctions and prosecute those committing war crimes.
I end my speech with a quote from Francesca Albanese:
“The ongoing genocide in Gaza is a collective crime, sustained by the complicity of influential Third States that have enabled longstanding systemic violations of international law by Israel. Framed by colonial narratives that dehumanize the Palestinians, this live-streamed atrocity has been facilitated through Third States’ direct support, material aid, diplomatic protection and, in some cases, active participation.”
The UK has aided and abetted this genocide—
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The reason we are here is that there is a profound responsibility on us, as Members of Parliament in particular, to ensure that our Government act in accordance with international humanitarian law. There are two questions that we need to pose time and again. First, what evidence would it take to convince the Government that there is a risk of genocide? That means evidence not that there is genocide, but that there is a risk of genocide. Secondly, what process should the Government use to determine that?
On the first question, I am absolutely perplexed as to why the evidential methods that we have used in the past, when we have determined that there have been genocides, are not simply being accepted by the Government at the moment, given the loss of life—the 70,000, as has been said—and the way in which the genocide has been perpetrated. There are the attacks on health workers and doctors, with 1,700 killed that we know about, and at least 100 who have been imprisoned, tortured, denied access to medical facilities, and even to their own families.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
John McDonnell
No, I cannot accept any interventions.
There is also the number of journalists killed—more than 300—because part of this genocide is to prevent the reporting of the genocide. And, yes, there is the forced movement of people, with 9,000 prisoners in Israeli prisons, 100 of whom have died in the past two years. That is the evidence we present time and again. It is the same kind of evidence we have used in the past to determine genocide, so why is it not acceptable now?
The second question is about the process. I will just say to the Minister that time and again we have had these debates. People have lost confidence in the process that the Government are using to arrive at their determination of whether there is a risk of genocide. I am afraid that not only have Members of this House and the wider public lost confidence in the internal processes, but that is what is forcing people out on to the streets and into forms of direct action, because they have lost confidence in the Government’s own objective assessment.
I therefore suggest this to the Minister: why not establish an independent commission? Use people such as Philippe Sands and others, and let the House determine who sits on that commission, so that they can report back to the Minister on the evidence available. I think that the Government, once they see the evidence, will have to accept that there is at least a risk of genocide, and that will have to determine their actions. Some of those have been set out today: the end of trade, the end of the arms sales, and the prevention role that we have to play in securing peace and justice for the Palestinian people—and yes, for the Israeli people—for the long term.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Since the beginning of this latest catastrophe, following the horrors of 7 October, those of us who have been asking for balance, respect and nothing more radical than a justice-based international order have been castigated, and some of us have even been criminalised. We are now 26 months into this horror, and we are still asking for the same thing. We are pleading for the principles on which we as a country agreed following two wars—after humanity confronted its own capacity for evil and promised, “Never again.” We built structures to ensure that this would never happen again, yet Gaza has stripped away any remaining illusion that this rules-based order still exists.
Let us be clear about what we are discussing today. As defined in international law, genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a people because of who they are. Measured against this definition, the Government’s position on Gaza is not cautious; it is morally incoherent. At least 71,000 Palestinian men, women and children have been murdered. We have witnessed this in real time, yet we are told to wait and not to jump to conclusions. Where were the systems that were meant to guide us when humanity crossed the line once more?
Let us start with the media, the purveyors of the truth. Foreign media are not allowed into Israel, so what has happened? Three hundred Palestinian journalists have been killed. One of them was Anas Al-Sharif. Before he was murdered, he said:
“I never once hesitated to convey the truth exactly as it is…hoping that God would bear witness against those who stayed silent in this world”.
Staying silent is precisely what too many people have done.
What of the international rules-based order? The International Court of Justice is hearing a genocide case. Advisory opinions have been issued, and the law is trying to work, yet when the International Criminal Court seeks accountability, which is what it has done before, the response is not support but hostility. Sanctions are imposed, and threats are made. In fact, our Foreign Secretary allegedly threatened the ICC’s chief prosecutor by saying that accountability would be like dropping a hydrogen bomb. I ask plainly: are international courts only legitimate when the accused are Africans?
Journalists have been killed, courts have been intimidated and international law has been subverted to feed a genocide. More than 1,500 aid workers have been killed. Surgeons have been crying in front of the children they are trying to save. If they were in this country, they would be able to save those children, who are dying right in front of them. This is just daily life in Gaza, and we have no political will.
I will end with this. This weekend I watched “The Voice of Hind Rajab”, which is about a six-year-old who became the voice of the children of Gaza. She was trapped in a car with her family. She cried out to the world that night, “It’s getting dark. Please come and save me.” Nobody came for her. It is getting dark for the world, and we must lighten up the world for them.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this important debate. Like many Members, I have received many emails from my constituents, and I speak today to give a voice to their concerns.
It is difficult to put into context the sheer scale of death and destruction that we have seen in Gaza over the last two years. We all know the figures: one in every 33 people has died since the start of the assault, and over 90% of homes have been damaged. As the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) highlighted, behind the statistics are real human stories. We have heard from doctors in Gaza who have been operating without anaesthetic and performing emergency C-sections on women without painkillers, and there has been a rapid increase in child mortality. We have heard of children who have been shot by snipers not once, but twice. It is sometimes easy for us to become desensitised to what we are seeing, but we must not stop calling it out.
The world-respected peace charity Doctors Without Borders has been banned from operating in Gaza and the occupied west bank following its refusal to hand over a list of its staff. What does it mean if lifesaving organisations that carry out work in war zones are being banned? The UK must be very clear about this. As a signatory to the genocide convention, we have a legal obligation to call out and prevent genocide, as do the other 153 states that ratified the treaty. For the treaty to be effective, and for us to stop not just this but future genocides, we must speak with one voice. We must listen when the United Nations tells us that
“Israeli authorities and Israeli security forces committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.”
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a Select Committee Chair, for giving way in this important debate. As she points out, one in every 33 people in Gaza has been killed and one in every 14 has been injured. Does she agree that the sheer colossal scale of the assault on the Palestinian people demonstrates the mass and indiscriminate nature of the action, and indicates a clear risk of international law violation and genocide?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important intervention. I think that is what we are all trying to get at, and Members from right across the House want answers on that.
It is imperative to listen and act when such respected bodies speak with one voice. It is vital to our ability to stop future genocides. Genocide is not something we can recognise only when it is politically convenient; we must call it out, without fear or favour, whenever and wherever it is occurring. What we are seeing in plain sight in Gaza meets the definition of genocide. I urge the Minister to listen to the powerful voices from across the House—in the way he has listened to us on the many occasions when he meets us to hear about our constituents’ concerns—because there must be a reckoning for what is happening before our eyes, and history will judge us for anything less.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Andrew George to speak for two minutes.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) on bringing this issue to the House. I was worried that we would concentrate primarily on the jurisprudence—on the merits of the arguments over whether the threshold in the definition has been reached. We are politicians and do not have—I certainly do not have—the skillset to make such an analysis. I find that arguments are advanced, as they were by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley)—very eloquently, of course—that engage in the political sophistry of the issue itself, and that worries me.
The bottom line is that what has been happening in the middle east is appalling, and the level of death and destruction has shocked the world. Of course, the horrors of 7 October 2023 were absolutely appalling, but we all need to reflect on the overwhelming response of the Netanyahu regime, which has taken such advantage of the opportunity for retribution. This is not just about the mass murder in Gaza itself but, as Members have said, about the murder of our aid workers, including Cornish aid worker Jim Henderson. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said that the strikes have been careful, but they have not been careful; the strikes have been indiscriminate and certainly amount to clear murder.
I just hope that the Government will stop doing the minimum they can get away with—stop the trading, stop the excusing, stop the support of the Israeli regime—because it is in the interests of the international world order, of the Palestinians and Palestine, and of Israel itself to get this sorted.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you very much. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to speak for just a few minutes.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
What we have witnessed in Gaza is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe. It has been a catastrophe both for the hostages who have endured Hamas’s brutal captivity and for the millions of Palestinian civilians whose lives, homes and communities have been devastated by Israel’s military offensive, so let me be absolutely and unequivocally clear about the Liberal Democrat position. Alongside global NGOs, aid organisations, Israeli human rights organisations and the UN commission of inquiry, we consider there to be credible evidence that the actions of the Israeli Government in Gaza during the military campaign have amounted to genocide. For the avoidance of any doubt, Hamas are a terrorist organisation whose crimes on 7 October were acts of mass human atrocity that we continue to utterly and categorically condemn.
Given that reality, what matters now is accountability on all sides, which is why access to Gaza for journalists and human rights organisations is so fundamentally important. I am reminded that British journalist Ed Vulliamy exposed the existence and brutality of Serb- run detention camps in Bosnia. His reporting later contributed to the proceedings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, forming part of the evidentiary record for prosecutions that included findings of genocide. It is imperative, therefore, that we do not allow evidence in Gaza to disappear, damage to be cleared away or truth to be lost before accountability can be pursued.
However, accountability in itself is not enough, and that must sharpen our focus on what is required to move beyond the repeated cycles of violence. Only genuine progress towards a two-state solution can deliver lasting security and dignity for Palestinians and Israelis, so the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to rule out ever participating in Trump’s board of peace. Reconstruction must be co-ordinated by the United Nations with the involvement of the Palestinians, who have been excluded from Trump’s proposals. Aid must be allowed in at scale and rapidly. Hamas must be disarmed; there is no place for a genocidal terror group to take part in Palestine’s future. The UK should ban all trade with illegal Israeli settlements. Finally, the UK must deepen its engagement with the Palestinian Authority following the recognition of the state of Palestine.
International law underpins our shared liberal values and, indeed, our British values. It exists to constrain power, uphold accountability and protect civilians across the world. I urge the Government to act now.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Before turning to the legal issues, it is important to begin with the fundamental moral reality of this conflict. I want to be clear: we welcome the release of the surviving hostages, who returned home to Israel after more than 730 days in captivity. They were abducted by Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, and held in utterly unimaginable conditions. We pray for the health and recovery of those who survived and for their families as they attempt to rebuild their lives after such trauma. With the return of the final hostage, our thoughts are also with the families of all those who will not be returning alive.
This conflict arose from the brutal massacre of civilians on 7 October 2023—the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history and the worst pogrom against the Jewish people since the second world war. If the current ceasefire is to lead to a long-term and sustainable peace, one principle must be non-negotiable: Hamas must no longer hold power and their terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Recent reports of violence between Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza underline precisely why Hamas cannot be part of Gaza’s future. Hamas govern through terror and repression and prioritise their own survival over the welfare of Palestinian civilians. The suffering in Gaza is directly linked to Hamas’s choices and their governance.
Much of today’s debate has focused on allegations of genocide, so let us be clear: we do not believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. That was the position of the previous Conservative Government and, to my understanding, it remains the position of the current Government. I hope the Minister will reaffirm that clearly in his response. Every innocent life lost is a tragedy, but the Israel Defence Forces do not deliberately target civilians; Hamas, in contrast, embed themselves in civilian areas, store weapons in schools and hospitals and use civilians as human shields. Israel’s stated objective is to dismantle an Iranian-backed terrorist organisation that threatens its very existence; Hamas’s objective is the destruction of the state of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state.
It has long been the British position that determinations of genocide are matters for competent courts, not unilateral political declarations. That is fundamental. I ask the Minister to confirm that that remains the Government’s position and whether he accepts that genocidal intent is not abstract in this conflict. The Hamas charter and the language routinely used by Iran and its terrorist proxies call openly for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews. Should we not be unequivocal in calling out those terrorist and genuinely genocidal ideologies, rather than misapplying that most serious of legal terms? It is precisely because genocide is the gravest of crimes that the term must be used with care, discipline and legal precision. The genocide convention was never intended to be reduced to a political slogan or applied without rigorous assessment of intent, evidence and context. To dilute that standard is not to protect international law but to undermine it.
There is much more I would like to talk about today, not least the current humanitarian situation. However, being conscious of time, I will conclude by saying that the Abraham accords remain a credible pathway to regional peace and that Saudi normalisation with Israel is central to that effort.
The Conservative party is clear about the future we seek. We are committed to a future in which terrorism has no place and Hamas are permanently removed from power. We are focused on what comes next: a safe and secure state of Israel and a Gaza that is rebuilt, governed responsibly, free from terror and capable of offering its people stability, dignity and hope.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) on opening this debate and on his contribution as the chair of the APPG. I thank every Member who has spoken with such clarity and conviction. These are incredibly important questions at a moment when questions of international justice are very much discussed, so I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I really do insist on accuracy in these questions.
To answer the question straightforwardly, as I did at length on 15 September in front of the Business and Trade Committee, the British Government have conducted an assessment on the risk of genocide in accordance with our international legal obligations. As I said yesterday, or the day before, from this Dispatch Box, we consider our international legal obligations to be of the utmost priority. Many hon. Members have asked me to attend to my conscience over the course of the last 90 minutes. I am confident that I, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole are serious about our international legal obligations and serious about the process and rigour that underpin them. I have confidence in that judgment not only because of the extensive scrutiny that it has received from the House, but because these questions have been tested by our own courts—most recently by the Court of Appeal in November and before that in September, when it considered the process of assessment explicitly.
Mr Adnan Hussain
The problem that we have is this question of accountability and transparency. Our domestic courts do not have the right footing to test whether the Government have truly got this right. It therefore falls to this House—to us as Members of Parliament—to assess whether the Government are right. The problem is that we do not have the details. We do not have the methodology. Who assesses it? At what time and date was it done? Will the Minister commit to at least disclosing that information?
Mr Falconer
I think I answered something like 105 questions related to these issues in front of the Select Committee in September. I am always grateful for the opportunity to describe matters in the House in greater detail, but, given the shortness of time, I might just turn to a few other questions of accuracy.
First, the International Court of Justice as not yet made a finding of genocide. It has made provisional orders. I agree with the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about the scourge of antisemitism, but I do not agree with the question that he raises about the independence and impartiality of the ICJ. It is a vital international institution. We need to see it do its work. We undermine it if we seek to jump to the end of that process. It will be for the Court to make a judgment. It is, of course, for the Government to consider our obligations and to make an assessment of risks, which we have already done.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Given what Minister said about adherence to international law, will he just put on the record why the Government have not responded to the advisory opinion of the ICJ for over 18 months now? Is it because the consequence of that response is that there would have to be sanctions against settlements, which are illegal under international law?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has paid close attention to these matters both over the past 18 months and before. I will answer his question, but we are under the pressure of time.
Let me also be clear, for the sake of accuracy, that it is simply not credible to suggest that the policy of this Government in relation to these issues is the same as the policy of the last Government. That, I am sure, was obvious from some of the remarks of the shadow Foreign Minister. I have stood at this Dispatch Box to recognise the Palestinian state and to announce sanctions three times, including against Israeli Ministers. Does that mean that the obligation on this Government to do everything that we can to address the horrors of Gaza is discharged? No, it does not, but we do the House no service if we pretend that the policy that I have been responsible for as the Middle East Minister was the same as the policy under the Conservative Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) asks a good question about the ICJ advisory opinion. Over the course of the last 18 months, the British Government have clearly made a fundamental change on their view of the legal position in relation to Israel and Palestine. We now recognise Palestine. It is in the context of Britain having changed its policy very significantly that we want to ensure that we respond to what is a far-reaching advisory opinion with the rigour and seriousness that it deserves. I know that I am testing my hon. Friend’s patience and the patience of the House with that answer, and I am sure that I will return soon to this Chamber, but I would not want to give the House or the public the impression that we have not taken significant steps in the course of that 18 months.
I would also like to bring to the attention of this House some of the recent developments in Gaza. These legal questions are incredibly important, and they have been considered by both the courts and the relevant Select Committees.
Fleur Anderson
On recent developments, my grandfather fought for our country in Palestine. There are reports that the IDF has destroyed a cemetery in Gaza containing graves of allied troops from both world wars. Would the Minister condemn that?
Mr Falconer
I would. From my own constituency, there are two privates—Private William Jordan and Private Wilfred Ogden—both in that cemetery who have now had their graves defaced.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Mr Adnan Hussain
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier on in the debate I referred to several organisations and individuals. Due to time constraints, I was unable to do so with full accuracy. In the interests of clarity and to keep the record of this House correct, I now seek to set the record straight.
I referred to the International Court of Justice. I clarified that it has found a plausible risk of genocide, triggering the clearest legal duty on all states to prevent it. I then referred to UN special rapporteurs, UN independent experts, and the UN commission of inquiry. They have all warned of genocidal acts and catastrophic intent. I referred to the 600 lawyers—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. No doubt, the record is now clarified. We cannot continue the debate. It is now 5.1 pm, and the debate is now over.