Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
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.
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—