Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), and it is always a pleasure to hear the gentle Yorkshire accent of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) raised in fierce defence of peace, justice and international law.

Colleagues, let us make no mistake: while this country does need to rebuild its physical defences, in the end our defence lies in international law and the set of rules that we created after the second world war to decide how countries should peaceably settle their disputes. At the heart of the problem of international law at the moment sits the plight of the Palestinians, and if they sit at the heart of the problem, so do we. This debate is so important today because it is not just about the Palestinians; it is also about we Britons, the world we live in and the way we want the world to operate when it is in dispute.

As has been illustrated in the debate so far, nobody in this Chamber believes that the way the Palestinians have to live at the moment is acceptable. Nobody who has stood in the middle of Hebron and seen Palestinians living in cages or watched them being dragged from their homes, their olive trees uprooted, run over with cars and detained without charge; nobody who has seen the guns, the checkpoints, the walls, the UN signs saying where people can and cannot go or the enormous so-called settlements—that makes them seem somehow quaint, like “Little House on the Prairie”, but they are fortresses, forcibly invading and stealing other people’s land; and more recently, nobody who has watched these psychopathic settlers, though they are more like terrorists, roaming across the west bank, terrorising innocent Palestinian families on a daily basis and setting ablaze entire villages, can think that this is acceptable. Yet our country still sells them bulldozers, buys their goods and sells them financial services, and by those means, we financially support and help sustain this appalling situation, while hiding behind the fig leaf of complexity.

Therein lies a mystery that, I must confess, I have not been able to understand over the last couple of years. A third of the Labour party has put its name to a letter calling for a ban on trade with the settlements, yet the Government still do not move on this. Other countries across the world are instituting, or have instituted, bans. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, the complexity argument falls away when we look at Crimea. A ban is not too complex for Spain, Ireland or other countries. Presumably, it was not too complicated for the civil servants who drafted the ban on trade with Crimea, or any of the other trade bans we have used, with effect, over the years.

As the Trade Minister will know, for other reasons to do with trade, we have insisted on the labelling of goods. We have even gently warned businesses off goods from settlements. We heard stentorian words in the last statement—“Take care in trading; there may be legal risk”—but the Government have done everything except the obvious, which is to just ban that trade. The question I am left asking is: why? Why the reluctance? Why the hesitation? Nobody is buying the complexity argument; we do not buy it in any other circumstance of trade. If we want to ban modern slavery, or goods produced by forced labour, we oblige businesses that are importing to prove that they have not acquired goods produced in that way.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for his speech. Maybe I can answer his question. Perhaps it is because of a nostalgia for an Israel that no longer exists—an Israel that made the desert bloom. We now have a state of Israel that routinely breaks human rights law, busts human law, and creates a situation in which it is accused of genocide before the ICJ. This is not a state that anyone in this House, let alone on the Labour Benches, should have any sympathy for, because it undermines our ability to hold up international law. When we think about it, the state that now exists is ultimately one that everyone in this House should be able to condemn wholeheartedly.

[Kit Malthouse]

Strangely enough, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is probably the first time in our political careers that we have agreed. He puts his finger on the point that I am trying to make. This dispute involves our own security. We do not have to be pro-Palestine or pro-Israel to take that view, just pro-British, which everybody in this House should be, first and foremost. That involves being pro-international law, pro-peace and pro-justice; the dispute goes to the heart of that. He put his finger on the point that I was coming to. Nobody is buying the idea that the argument is practical, Minister.