The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday
2 September. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of
Darlington) (Lab): “With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a
Statement on the Middle East. On taking office in July, I told the
House that this Government's priority in the region will be to
advance the cause of peace. That continues to be our mission on
every front: in Israel, in...Request free trial
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Monday 2 September.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth
and Development Office ( of Darlington) (Lab):
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on the
Middle East. On taking office in July, I told the House that this
Government's priority in the region will be to advance the cause
of peace. That continues to be our mission on every front: in
Israel, in the West Bank, in Lebanon, in the Red Sea and, of
course, in Gaza, where we need an immediate ceasefire, the
protection of civilians, the immediate release of all hostages
and more aid getting into Gaza.
Over the summer, we faced the prospect of full-scale war breaking
out between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel. On each of my three
visits to the region, including alongside my right honourable
friend the Defence Secretary and, most recently, my joint visit
with French Foreign Minister Séjourné, I have urged Lebanese
Hezbollah, the Lebanese Government and Israel to engage with the
US-led discussions to resolve their disagreements diplomatically
and to reach a peaceful resolution through the implementation of
UN Security Council Resolution 1701.
As we continue to work with our allies and partners to push for a
diplomatic solution, we none the less stand ready for the
worst-case scenario, including the potential evacuation of
British nationals. Our message to those still in Lebanon remains
clear: leave now.
Our common goal of peace in the Middle East will never be lasting
until there is safety, security and sovereignty for both Israel
and a Palestinian state. We must all keep at the forefront of our
mind the pain, the anguish and the horror this conflict has
caused for so many ordinary civilians: the victims of the 7
October atrocity; the hostages and all those still enduring
unimaginable suffering, whether they are hoping to see their
loved ones again or are mourning their loss, as the tragic events
of this weekend illustrate, with the recovery of the bodies of
six murdered hostages; the Israeli people still
living under rocket fire, not only from Hamas but from other
hostile actors explicitly dedicated to Israel's annihilation, and
fighting an enemy in Hamas whose appalling tactics endanger
countless civilian lives; and the innocent Palestinians, with
tens of thousands killed in the fighting, their numbers growing
by the day, including distressing numbers of women and children.
Many mothers are so malnourished that they cannot produce milk
for their babies, and families are struggling to keep their
children alive. Disease and famine loom ever larger.
Heroic humanitarians are putting their lives on the line to help
others, including the brave aid workers I met from the United
Nations agencies and at the Palestine Red Crescent Society
warehouse I visited alongside France's Foreign Minister last
month. Indeed, last Thursday, the UK led a session at the United
Nations Security Council encouraging a continued global focus on
the protection of civilians in Gaza, including the need for
action on polio.
The escalation we are now seeing in the West Bank, as well as in
Gaza, is deeply worrying, with many communities facing settler
violence amid an ongoing occupation, and so many on either side
of this terrible conflict convinced that the world does not grasp
the reality of Israel's predicament, or the depth of Palestinian
suffering.
Throughout my life, I have been a friend of Israel: a liberal,
progressive Zionist who believes in Israel as a democratic state
and a homeland for the Jewish people, which has the right both to
exist and to defend itself. But I believe also that Israel will
exist in safety and security only if there is a two-state
solution that guarantees the rights of all Israeli citizens and
their Palestinian neighbours, who have their own inalienable
right to self-determination and security.
As concern at the horrifying scenes in Gaza has risen, many in
this House, as well as esteemed lawyers and international
organisations, have raised British arms export licensing to
Israel. After raising my own concerns from opposition, on taking
office, I immediately sought to update the review. On my first
appearance as Foreign Secretary in this House, I committed to
sharing the review's conclusions.
We have rigorously followed every stage of the process
established by the previous Conservative Government. Let me first
be clear on the review's scope. This Government are not an
international court. We have not, and could not, arbitrate on
whether or not Israel has breached international humanitarian
law. This is a forward-looking evaluation, not a determination of
innocence or guilt, and it does not prejudge any future
determinations by the competent courts.
However, facing a conflict such as this, it is this Government's
legal duty to review export licences. Criterion 2C of the
strategic export licensing criteria states that the Government
will
‘not issue export licences if there is a clear risk that the
items might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of
international humanitarian law'.
It is with regret that I inform the House today that the
assessment I have received leaves me unable to conclude anything
other than that, for certain UK arms exports to Israel, there
exists a clear risk that they might be used to commit or
facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian
law.
I have informed my right honourable friend the Business and Trade
Secretary. Therefore, he is today announcing the suspension of
around 30 licences, from a total of approximately 350, to Israel,
as required under the Export Control Act 2002. These include
licences for equipment that we assess is for use in the current
conflict in Gaza, such as important components that go into
military aircraft, including fighter aircraft, helicopters and
drones, as well as items that facilitate ground targeting. For
transparency, the Government are publishing a summary of our
assessment.
Today, I want to underline four points about these decisions.
First, Israel's actions in Gaza continue to lead to immense loss
of civilian life, widespread destruction to civilian
infrastructure and immense suffering. In many cases, it has not
been possible to reach a determinative conclusion on allegations
regarding Israel's conduct of hostilities, in part because there
is insufficient information either from Israel or other reliable
sources to verify such claims. Nevertheless, it is the assessment
of His Majesty's Government that Israel could reasonably do more
to ensure that life-saving food and medical supplies reach
civilians in Gaza, in the light of the appalling humanitarian
situation.
This Government are also deeply concerned by credible claims of
mistreatment of detainees, which the International Committee of
the Red Cross cannot investigate after being denied access to
places of detention. Both my predecessor and all our major allies
have repeatedly and forcefully raised these concerns with
the Israeli Government.
Regrettably, those concerns have not been addressed
satisfactorily.
Secondly, there can be no doubt that Hamas pays not the slightest
heed to international humanitarian law and endangers civilians by
embedding itself in the tightly concentrated civilian population
and in civilian infrastructure. There is no equivalence between
Hamas terrorists—or indeed Iran and its partners and proxies— and
Israel's democratic Government, but to license arms exports to
Israel we must assess its compliance with international
humanitarian law, notwithstanding the abhorrence of its
opponents' tactics and ideology.
Thirdly, this is not a blanket ban or an arms embargo. The
suspension targets around 30 of approximately 350 licences to
Israel in total, for items that could be used in the current
conflict in Gaza. The rest will continue. The action we are
taking will not have a material impact on Israel's security. This
suspension covers only items that might be used in the current
conflict. There are a number of export licences that we have
assessed are not for military use in the current conflict and
therefore do not require suspension. They include items that are
not being used by the Israel Defense Forces in the current
conflict, such as trainer aircraft or other naval equipment. They
also include export licences for civilian use, covering a range
of products such as food-testing chemicals, telecoms, and data
equipment. This suspension will not prejudice the international,
collaborative, global F35 programme that supplies aircraft for
more than 20 countries, which is crucial to wider peace and
security. Indeed, the effects of suspending all licences for the
F35 programme would undermine the global F35 supply chain that is
vital for the security of the UK, our allies and NATO. Therefore,
the Business and Trade Secretary has exempted these licences from
his decision.
Fourthly, the Government will keep our position under review.
Commitment to comply with international humanitarian law is not
the only criterion in making export licensing decisions. We will
continue to work with our allies to improve the situation.
Foreign policy, of course, involves tough choices, but I will
always seek to take such decisions in line with our principles
and I will keep the House updated, in line with my previous
commitment.
We do not take this decision lightly, but we note that, on
previous occasions, Ministers from all parts of the House—Labour,
Conservative and Liberal Democrat —chose not to license exports
to Israel. In 1982, Margaret Thatcher imposed a full arms embargo
and an oil embargo on Israel as it fought in Lebanon. Conflicts
in Gaza prompted to suspend five licences in
2009, and chose not to issue new licences
while conducting a review in 2014. Like them, this Government
take seriously their role in applying export licensing law,
reflecting the published criteria and the specific circumstances.
But let me leave this House in no doubt: the UK continues to
support Israel's right to self-defence in accordance with
international law.
In April, British fighter jets intercepted Iranian missiles aimed
at Israel, preventing significant loss of civilian life. We
supported robust action against the Iranian-backed Houthis in
Yemen, who have attacked Israel directly as well as
Israeli-linked shipping. Iran should be in no doubt of our
commitment to challenge its reckless and destabilising activity
in the region and across the world. We will continue to work hand
in glove with our international partners to stand up to Iranian
aggression and malign activity wherever it is found, and we
continue to hold Iran to account, including through extensive
sanctions.
Today, we are doing so again. We are announcing new sanctions on
four Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps force targets, which have
a role in supporting Iranian proxy actions in Iraq, Syria, and
Lebanon. Through the UK's dedicated Iran sanctions regime we have
sanctioned more than 400 Iranian individuals and entities.
Through our work with partners, we are exposing and containing
Iran's destabilising weapons development, where soon we will be
introducing further regulations to bolster existing bans on the
export of goods and technology significant to Iran's production
of drones and missiles.
Let me be clear: we will continue to work with Israel and our
partners to tackle the threat from Iran across the region. This
Government will continue to stand for Israel's security, and we
will always do so in a manner consistent with our obligations to
domestic and international law. I commend this Statement to the
House”.
3.46pm
(Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the
Government for the Statement yesterday, but I found their
position deeply disappointing. The Foreign Secretary produced no
evidence that Israel is in fact breaching humanitarian law as it
goes about its legitimate right of self-defence following the
barbaric Hamas attack. To announce this on the day that funerals
were taking place for the latest six hostages who were brutally
executed by Hamas shows a profound sense of doing something at
the wrong time.
The Government have decided to suspend less than 10% of the arms
export licences and the UK supplies only about 1% of Israel's
defence equipment, so it is clear that, thankfully, this decision
will have no material impact on Israel's ongoing military
operations. However, the process of doing this has caused a rift
with our US allies and has alienated no less a person than the
Chief Rabbi, as well as many other western Governments.
The Government now found themselves in a strange position. Only a
matter of weeks ago, the Royal Air Force helped to shoot down
Iranian missiles aimed at Israel, but they are now revoking some
of the export licences that allow Israel to obtain the equipment
to defend itself from those same missile attacks. It is clear to
me that the reasoning behind this shameful announcement is
nothing to do with humanitarian law and everything to do with
appeasing a vocal, left- wing, pro-Hamas minority which resides,
unfortunately, on Labour's Back Benches in the House of
Commons.
(LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government's decision in the Statement. I
consider it balanced and welcome not only the Statement but the
summary that was published. It means that this Government are
aligned with the previous measured decision taken in 2014 to
ensure that the United Kingdom does not issue licences where
there is a valid concern about potential breaches of
international humanitarian law. I believe that the rationale
behind the Government's decision is sound.
However, can the Minister confirm that this position is not final
and that the process is dynamic? The Statement relates
specifically to the IDF, and I note and share the Government's
view that nothing in these measures puts at risk Israel's right
to self-defence as an independent state and ally of the United
Kingdom. Concerns have been raised, both by the United Kingdom
Government and previously by the United States State Department
review, about other elements of the Israeli Government.
Some actions have included using civilian matériel to bulldoze
civilian areas in Gaza to make them uninhabitable. This is a
breach of an occupying power's responsibilities. Some of this
equipment was manufactured in the United Kingdom.
These Benches agree that much more needs to be done now to ensure
that life-saving aid is provided to Gaza. The latest reports by
United Nations OCHA for August have reported that only 69
trucks—not the minimum of 500 a day—are getting into Gaza. Some
of this is obviously the responsibility of Hamas, which needs to
be roundly condemned for preventing aid being distributed through
its disruption, but there is also responsibility on
the Israeli Government to
ensure that there are no unnecessary blockages. I raised this
issue with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, month after month, and I
hope that the Minister will agree.
It has also been profoundly depressing that Hamas has prevented
the International Committee of the Red Cross having access to
those who have been hostages. But it also must be of concern
that, as has been raised, the Israeli Government have
refused access by the ICRC to places of detention for Palestinian
prisoners. This cannot be. This is 2024, not 1924.
The situation in the West Bank is obviously of great concern, and
the Statement highlights that. There have been 150 Palestinian
children killed in the West Bank, and we have now seen the
expansion of outposts. I am sure the House is aware that outposts
are different from settlements because outposts are illegal
under Israeli law, but their
expansion is now happening with impunity. Will the Government
consider the widening of the very welcome sanctions against
settlers to those who are providing facilitation, empowerment and
financing for the expansion of outposts? These Benches have
called for those in government in the coalition to be sanctioned,
so will the Minister reassure us that there is no limit to the
consideration of who will be sanctioned to ensure that there is
no impunity for breaches of Israeli law when
it comes to outposts?
Finally, I share with many the terrible horror of the families of
those who have been hostages. The news over the weekend was
devastating. I met Rachel Goldberg-Polin during my visit to the
region in February. Her humanity and that of her family were
profound, and anyone who watched her eulogy at Hersh's funeral
will have seen that. It touched everybody's hearts. She told me
in my meeting that she had sympathy and affinity with the mothers
of Palestinian children who have also been harmed as a result of
this conflict. She told me that there is no competition of pain
and tears, just a lot of pain and tears. What actions are the
Government taking with our allies to ensure that any ceasefire
agreement can be brought about speedily to ensure that those
remaining hostages are released and the suffering of the
Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank can come to an end?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth
and Development Office ( of Darlington) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. This Government
are completely committed to upholding international law. On day
one in office, the Foreign Secretary commissioned a thorough
review into Israel's compliance with international humanitarian
law, given the grave concerns about the conduct and consequences
of the war in Gaza for civilians. The UK's robust export
licensing criteria state that the Government will
“not issue export licences if there is a clear risk”—
not if this has happened, but if there is a risk—
“that the items might be used to commit or facilitate serious
violations of international humanitarian law”.
On completion of that review, this Government concluded that a
clear risk did exist. This means that, under the criteria, we are
required to suspend certain export licences for items that could
be used in the current conflict in Gaza.
This decision is none the less a matter of deep regret. Alongside
our allies, we have repeatedly communicated to the Israeli Government our
concerns regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and that
review found that those concerns had not been addressed. We are,
remain, and will always be, fully committed to Israel's security
against threats from Iran and other regional actors. We
demonstrated this in April, as the noble Lord said, when a
British fighter jet intercepted an Iranian missile. But our
priority remains, as the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat
Benches said, achieving a ceasefire in Gaza that will see those
hostages released, civilians protected, and aid finally flood
in.
3.55pm
(Lab)
My Lords, the distinction between offensive and defensive weapons
is very difficult to discern if you are in a war zone and in a
country facing thousands of rockets every day from Hezbollah,
such that you have had to evacuate 60,000 of your citizens from
the north and from around Gaza. You begin to wonder why Britain
is stopping this rather small amount of arms being delivered, in
what is a major propaganda coup for Israel's enemies. Is it not
perverse that, at a time when Britain says it will defend Israel
against attack by Iran, it is also limiting Israel's ability to
defend itself? It is irrational—and is it not wrong?
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is not irrational because it is about complying with
international law and our own commitments. The UK remains fully
committed to Israel's security against threats. This Government
supported that approach in opposition, and we have also taken
action against threats from the Houthis. The suspension is
targeted just at items for use in military operations in the
current conflict in Gaza.
The Lord
My Lords, I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for holding
together the trauma of the Israeli hostages and
their families and communities, and that of the families and
communities of Gaza.
I am very concerned that, as has been said by the noble Lord,
Lord Purvis, we do not lose sight of the Palestinians in the
Occupied Territories of the West Bank. I had the painful
privilege of visiting there very recently and I was deeply
perturbed, not least by the growing settler activity and, as has
been said, the illegal settler outposts, including the abhorrent
attack and subsequent dispossession of the Kissieh family of
Palestinian Christians near Bethlehem. Will the Government take
action on this as well as on the issue of arms licences?
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the situation in Gaza is horrifying and we are all
appalled by the scale of civilian casualties. From the Prime
Minister down, we have repeatedly urged Israel to improve aid
access, minimise civilian casualties and engage seriously with
negotiations for that ceasefire deal. Our priority remains
achieving a ceasefire in Gaza that will see the hostages
released.
The UK is also deeply concerned by the ongoing IDF military
operation in the occupied West Bank, while recognising Israel's
need to defend itself against security threats. We are deeply
worried by the methods that have been deployed and by reports of
casualties and the destruction of infrastructure.
(CB)
My Lords, will the Minister address one of the points made by the
noble Lord, , in his compelling
observations? If it is really necessary and appropriate to make a
gesture of this sort—and it is no more than a gesture—is it not
remarkably insensitive and, indeed, insulting to our democratic
ally to do so on the very day when Israel is burying hostages who
were detained for 11 months in appalling conditions and then
brutally murdered in cold blood by Hamas?
of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is right in what he says about the brutal murder
in cold blood by Hamas, and we deplore it. The timing of this was
purely a consequence of the legal process that the Foreign
Secretary completed, yesterday being the first day that
Parliament sat. He was obliged to report his decision to
Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
(Con)
My Lords, why do His Majesty's Government not understand that
imposing an arms embargo on Israel plays into Hamas's hands?
Indeed, as has just been said, announcing this on the day when it
was discovered that six Israeli hostages had
been brutally murdered shows the Government's total insensitivity
and lack of care for the democratic state they claim to befriend.
This follows the Government's wholly wrong withdrawal of their
challenge to the decision of the ICC to issue a warrant for the
arrest of the Israeli Prime Minister
and their restoration of funding to UNRWA even though UNRWA
employees took part in the 7 October massacre. All this is a
powerful message to Hamas that that its terrorism will be
rewarded. This is not the way the UK should treat its friends and
allies. Will the Minister let me know whether this is just poor
judgment, ineptitude or something more sinister?
of Darlington (Lab)
I should make it clear to the noble Lord that this is not, as he
suggests, an embargo. It is a restriction on a very small number
of pieces of equipment and it is in order for us to comply with
international law. That is the extent of it. UK-Israel
co-operation on defence and security remains vital. We will work
together to deter malign threats from Iran, protect mutual
security interests and develop capabilities, ensuring critical
national infrastructure and mutual resilience in cyberspace. We
will work together. Israel is our ally. We support its right to
defend itself. This is not an embargo.
(LD)
I am sure that the Minister is aware that on 16 August an FCDO
official, Mark , resigned on the basis that:
“Ministers claim that the UK has one of the most ‘robust and
transparent' arms export licensing regimes in the world, however
this is the opposite of the truth”.
He went on to say:
“To export arms to any nation, the UK must be satisfied that the
recipient nation has in place robust procedures to avoid civilian
casualties and to minimize harm to civilian life. It is
impossible to argue that Israel is doing that”.
I am sure that the Minister will not comment on the case of Mr
, but can we be reassured that the
Government will apply the rules without fear or favour as to the
country in question?
of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is correct that I am unable to comment on the
case of an individual, but she can be assured on her latter
point. I invite her to read the summary that we published
yesterday alongside the Statement.
(CB)
We are of course all totally appalled by the scale of civilian
casualties. The question is, what is the real cause? Is it, as
Israel says, Hamas having dug itself into civilian areas—schools,
hospitals and so on—or is it the huge amount of weaponry Israel
has used, such as 2,000 lb bombs with a killing range of 800
metres? It is very important for the truth to come out in the
end. As soon as there is a permanent ceasefire, will the Minister
consider encouraging the UN to set up a fact-finding mission in
order that we get a more balanced view of what has been happening
on the ground? In the long-term, the truth of what has been
happening really matters.
of Darlington (Lab)
The discovery of the truth in these situations can take many
forms. The action the noble and right reverend Lord proposes
relies on us achieving that ceasefire and that, at the moment,
will remain the Government's priority.
(Con)
Will not the Minister accept that it is crucial for the future of
Israel that international law be upheld? We stand by Israel
because she is a country guaranteed by international law. That
means that we in this country have to make sure that we uphold
international law, which is why the Minister has put forward the
case that she has. It is also important to remind Israel that
international law defines the boundaries of Israel and that there
are actions that undermine international law. In circumstances
where there is very fierce argument on both sides, and where
there is no acceptance of Hamas's appalling behaviour, it is
still important for the future of Israel that we stand by
international law.
of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is completely right in what he says about
international law. We will continue to work closely with our
allies to promote international law in every area of policy. We
are working as hard as we possibly can, alongside many others,
most notably Qatar, to try to achieve negotiation, which is the
only way ultimately that we will get to the ceasefire that we all
so want to see.
(Con)
My Lords, I would like to develop that point. I think I speak for
the whole House, and for anyone who has met with the hostage
families, in recognising the nature of their pain and suffering,
and likewise, as one of those who have visited the region, in
recognising the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza. Many
innocent lives have been lost in this conflict, and the first
casualty of war, as we know, is truth. In pursuit of peace, could
the Minister update your Lordships' House on the specifics of the
negotiations that Qatar and Egypt have been conducting together
with the United States? Ultimately, these are what are needed to
deliver an end to this conflict. Also, for the medium and
long-term security of Israel and the future state of Palestine, a
solution must be worked in phases, starting with a ceasefire in
Gaza.
of Darlington (Lab)
The suggestion of an update on negotiations may well be helpful.
It is not something that I am in a position to provide now; it is
perhaps something worthy of a longer discussion when time allows.
I will definitely convey that suggestion to my colleague, my
noble friend Lord Collins, when he returns from his visit to
Rwanda.
(Con)
My Lords, I do not believe the action taken by this Government
has anything to do with international law. We see Hamas carrying
out war crimes on a daily basis. Does the Minister agree with me
that trying to defend the indefensible will not wash with the
majority of people in this country?
of Darlington (Lab)
I will let the people of this country decide what will wash and
what will not wash with them. This is not the indefensible. This
is sticking to, adhering to, international law. It is as simple
as that. We have been very clear about our continued desire to be
a close ally of Israel and our firm commitment to supporting
Israel in defending itself.
(Con)
Can I ask the Minister to what degree she thinks this
announcement will persuade Hamas to stop sacrificing its own
people in its genocidal quest to eradicate Israel and, indeed,
wipe it off the face of the earth?
of Darlington (Lab)
We repeatedly, wholeheartedly and consistently condemn the
actions of Hamas. Hamas is not the Palestinian people. It is an
organisation that has taken children and murdered children. There
is nothing more that we can say that we have not already said
that can more strongly convey our view or condemn the actions of
Hamas.
(Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests. In his
Statement, the Foreign Secretary—using interesting
English—said:
“This Government are not an international court. We have not, and
could not, arbitrate on whether or not Israel has breached
international humanitarian law. This is a forward-looking
evaluation”—
whatever that means—
“not a determination of innocence or guilt”.
I am not a lawyer—there are many eminent lawyers in this
House—but, as a result of “Perhaps/maybe Israel is doing this”,
the Government have made decisions on stopping these licences.
Could the Minister explain how they can make that decision based
on “perhaps/maybe”?
of Darlington (Lab)
Perhaps, unfortunately, the law requires that that is what we do.
The law does not require us to assess whether international
humanitarian law has been broken; the test laid down in
legislation in this country is about the risk that the equipment
we are selling may be used to break it. That is the legal test,
and this Government stick to the law.
Baroness of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister understand that one of the concerns
is that Israel is treated differently and held to a higher
standard than any other country in the world? I am delighted to
hear that international law is all-seeing and so on, but I have
noted how many arms sales there have been to Saudi Arabia, Qatar
and Turkey. Is the Minister really telling me that, every time
and his lawyers have looked at
it, they have said: “My goodness, Yemen is an absolute haven of
peace, and no humanitarian law has been broken”? I am just
suggesting that people are rather confused, and it feels
disingenuous and as though Israel is being punished, pointed at,
demonised and told that it is in breach of humanitarian law. It
is not—no matter what you say—it is defending itself. It is being
punished morally, even if the amount of arms does not really
matter.
of Darlington (Lab)
This is not about punishing Israel. Israel is our ally, and we
support it and support its right to defend itself. This decision
is consistent with the law we are obliged to follow. I
understand, of course, the point about Israel not wishing to be
treated differently. That is why the tone of the Statement
yesterday was as it was. That is why we are clear that this
decision is limited; it is not an embargo and is made with
regret.
|
