Asked by
of Manor Castle
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and
Development Affairs what assessment he has made of Israel's
compliance with the summary order regarding Gaza issued by the
International Court of Justice on 26 January, and what assessment
he has made of the implications for the United Kingdom's
obligations, particularly with regard to arms exports.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Affairs ( of Chipping Norton) (Con)
We respect the ICJ's role and independence; it is up to the court
to monitor Israel's compliance. We have noted our concerns
previously about this case, which we do not think is helpful in
the goal of achieving a sustainable ceasefire. While there has
been some progress in some areas of humanitarian
relief, Israel must do more to
make good its promises, and I am pressing them on this,
directly.
I regularly review advice about the situation in Gaza. Our
position on export licences remains unchanged but, of course, we
keep this under review.
of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his Answer but of course, events have
moved on since my Question was laid. The ICC prosecutor has made
applications for five arrest warrants, alleging war crimes and
crimes against humanity by senior Hamas leaders, the Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israel's Minister of
Defense. The prosecutor was advised to do so unanimously by an
independent panel of experts—our own noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy
of the Shaws, among them—which has set out why it thinks there
are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr
Gallant have committed war crimes and crimes against
humanity.
Surely it now obvious that the UK should immediately at least
suspend arms exports licences to Israel given the
clear risk that continuing them would put the UK in breach of
international law. Surely the Minister will confirm here that the
UK accepts the jurisdiction of the court in this case, under the
Rome statute that the UK helped to write and, of course, agreed
to.
of Chipping Norton (Con)
What I would say to the noble Baroness is that the last time I
was asked to make a political declaration outside our normal
process of reviewing arms export licences, and to simply say that
we would not sell any more arms to Israel
just a few days later Iran attacked Israel with a hail of
over 140 cruise missiles. That position of acting outside our
normal processes would have been completely wrong.
Let me answer very directly on the ICC's announcement yesterday.
I do not believe for one moment that seeking these warrants will
help get the hostages out, help get aid in, or help deliver a
sustainable ceasefire. As we have said from the outset,
because Israel is not a
signatory to the Rome statute, and because Palestine is not yet
recognised as a state, we do not think that the court has
jurisdiction in this area.
I would go beyond that and say that, frankly, this is mistaken in
terms of position, timing and effect. To draw a moral equivalence
between the Hamas leadership and the democratically elected
leader of Israel is just plain
wrong. It is not just Britain saying that; countries all over
Europe and the world are saying that.
On timing, I point out to your Lordships' House that the ICC was
about to embark on a visit to Israel which
some of us had helped to arrange, and at the last minute decided
to cancel that visit and simply go ahead with its announcement.
It is not normally for the ICC to think about the effect, but as
it clearly thought about the timing, maybe it should also think
about the effect. As I have said, it will not help get the
hostages out, and it probably makes change in Israel less likely.
(Con)
I am very pleased with what my noble friend has just said. Does
he also agree that if we and the rest of the West were to suspend
arms sales, it would allow Hamas to regroup and return to the
destructive and ghastly behaviour we witnessed on 7 October?
of Chipping Norton (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. Britain and America
are obviously in completely different situations in terms of arms
exports to Israel Our exports are
less than 1% of the total, so not a meaningful amount, whereas
the United States is a far bigger provider. As I said, I think
acting outside our proper processes and guidelines —we have a
process of going through Israel's commitment, capability and
compliance with the rules laid out in our export criteria—would
not be the right thing to, for the reasons I have given.
(LD)
Does the Foreign Secretary recall that in the 2014 conflict
between Israel and Hamas,
during which there were just over 2,000 Palestinian casualties,
he agreed with us on these Benches? As Prime Minister, he decided
to pause military equipment licences to Israel on
the basis of a disproportionate response by the Israeli military.
That was the normal procedure, which he has referred to. Do we
take it now that his view is that the current Israeli military
response is proportionate?
Will the Foreign Secretary reassure me that, notwithstanding any
of his opinions about the ICC, we will honour every obligation
that the United Kingdom has signed up to in the Rome statute?
These are treaty obligations when it comes to those who would be
arraigned by the ICC.
of Chipping Norton (Con)
There is a bit of a difference between 2014 and now.
A noble Lord
Why?
of Chipping Norton (Con)
I will tell you why. Today is day 227 of the hostages still being
in captivity, including British citizens. All of this relates to
what happened on 7 October. There was no “7 October” in 2014, so
we are in a different situation. Of course we respect the
independence of the ICC, but just as we respect its independence,
it should respect the independence of politicians in not suddenly
losing their voice and all their opinions about these things. I
have a very clear view about what has happened, and I have been
happy to share it with your Lordships' House.
(Lab)
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord is supporting the
independence of the ICC, which is vital, but I hope he can truly
find his voice. The UK supported UN Security Council Resolution
2417, which states that
“unlawful denial of humanitarian access”
and the act of “wilfully impeding relief supply” should be
condemned. The noble Lord said on the BBC that
Israel has not had a
clean bill of health”
on allowing humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. Does he accept
that Israel is in breach of
that resolution, and if he does, does he not think that is a
breach of international humanitarian law?
of Chipping Norton (Con)
The noble Lord is right: I absolutely did say, and I repeat, that
we have far from given Israel a clean bill of
health on this issue. Not enough has been done to get aid in. We
have had some recent promises, which are encouraging, about 500
trucks a day, about the opening of Ashdod port, and about the new
pier adjacent to the beach in Gaza. Some of those promises are
being fulfilled: Ashdod is open, the pier is working, and aid is
being delivered, including British aid. But some of the promises
are not being kept, and no one has been tougher on the Israelis
than me in direct call after call and message after message about
having to meet their obligations.
We have not given them a clean bill of health, but there is a
world of difference between that and issuing arrest warrants at
the same time as you are doing so for Hamas, and drawing this
moral equivalence. It is not just the UK that takes this view.
The Germans have said that simultaneous applications for arrest
warrants gives the false impression of an equation. The Americans
have called it outrageous. The Italians have called it totally
unacceptable. The Austrians have said:
“The fact however that the leader of the terrorist organisation
Hamas whose declared goal is the extinction of the State
of Israel is being
mentioned at the same time as the democratically elected
representatives of that very State is non comprehensible”.
The Czechs have said that it is appalling and completely
unacceptable. I do not want to get too political in your
Lordships' House, but the odd man out, in many ways, is the party
opposite, which seems to be saying that it supports the ICC in
every way.
(Lab)
Answer my question.
of Chipping Norton (Con)
I have answered your question.
(CB)
While fully supporting Israel's right to defend itself and fully
supporting its desire to degrade Hamas' military capacity, would
the Foreign Secretary not agree that there is a legitimate worry
about the use from the very beginning of the campaign of these
2,000-pound bombs, which, in a very densely populated area, are
so difficult to use in a way that is both discriminate and
proportionate?
of Chipping Norton (Con)
I agree that, while Israel has the right to
defend itself, to try to deal with Hamas and to prevent 7 October
happening again, it is important, as we have said throughout,
that Israel complies with
international humanitarian law as it does so.
(Con)
Does my noble friend the Foreign Secretary share my concern that
the continuing withholding of the now $430 million under the
Israel-Norway Accord, which is largely from Palestinian tax
revenues, fatally undermines the authority of the Palestinian
National Authority? What more can he do to ensure that money gets
to them, and quickly?
of Chipping Norton (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. One of the most important
things we can do in trying to bring this conflict to a conclusion
is to work on the political measures that are going to be
necessary to deal with these problems. One of them is to
strengthen the Palestinian Authority, which needs the money
that Israel is holding back
from it. We have pressed the Israelis about that again and again.
I would still say to the Israelis that you cannot fight something
with nothing. You may not think the Palestinian Authority is
ideal; you may think that it fails in many respects; but you need
to find a partner that is not Hamas that you can work with in
Gaza on the West Bank, and that partner should be the new
technocratic government run by the Palestinian Authority.
