🇵🇸 Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

• ICJ Advisory Opinion on Israel’s Occupation Discussed: The debate focused on the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion, which declared that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful and should end as soon as possible.

• Demand for UK Government Action: Brian Leishman and other MPs urged the UK government to recognize the illegality of Israel’s occupation and to call for Israel’s compliance with the ICJ’s findings, including evacuating settlers from Palestinian territories.

• Calls for Sanctions and Trade Restrictions: MPs suggested imposing sanctions on Israel, banning the import of goods produced in illegal settlements, and suspending trade privileges with Israel until a thorough review of UK-Israel relations is conducted.

• Ethnic Cleansing Concerns: Several MPs condemned recent statements by the US President about ethnic cleansing in Gaza, emphasizing the need for the UK to oppose such actions and support Palestinian rights to self-determination.

• Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza: The debate highlighted the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, with calls for an immediate and lasting ceasefire, the release of hostages, and unhindered humanitarian aid.

• UK’s Historical and Moral Responsibility: MPs pointed out the UK’s historical role in the region and stressed the need for the UK to lead internationally in supporting a peaceful resolution and justice for Palestinians.

• Debate on Arms Sales and Military Support: There were strong calls for the UK to end arms sales to Israel, including dual-use items, and to ban the export of items that can be weaponized, such as drones.

• Support for Two-State Solution: While some MPs supported a two-state solution as essential for peace, others argued that recognizing Palestine as a state is a necessary step toward achieving this.

• Government’s Response: The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs Minister reiterated the UK’s commitment to international law and mentioned ongoing considerations of the ICJ’s advisory opinion. The Minister also announced a full suspension of relevant export licenses to Israel but did not commit to further immediate actions requested by MPs.

The parliamentary session on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories showed significant disagreement on multiple fronts, as expressed by various Members of Parliament. Here is a detailed analysis of the disagreements observed during the session:

1. Legal Status of Occupation: There was a clear divide on the legal interpretation of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories. Brian Leishman and several other speakers, such as Imran Hussain and Kim Johnson, supported the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion, emphasizing the illegality of the occupation and urging the UK to take action based on this ruling. In contrast, Jim Shannon expressed a different perspective, arguing that the ICJ’s measures were ‘deeply flawed’ and emphasized Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas, highlighting a disagreement on the validity and implications of the ICJ opinion.

2. Israel’s Actions and International Law: There was significant contention regarding Israel’s actions and compliance with international law. Many speakers, including Ayoub Khan and Jeremy Corbyn, criticized Israel for alleged violations, including apartheid and genocide, and called for sanctions and bans on trade with settlements. Wendy Morton, however, expressed concerns about drawing moral equivalences between Hamas and the Israeli government, showcasing a divide in viewing the actions of both parties under international law.

3. UK’s Policy and Actions: There was noticeable disagreement on the UK’s policy towards Israel and Palestine. While several Members, including Neil Duncan-Jordan and Andy Slaughter, pushed for stronger measures against Israel, such as banning settlement goods and enforcing arms embargoes, the Minister, Mr. Hamish Falconer, emphasized the complexity of the situation and the UK’s commitment to international law without committing to immediate action. This indicates a disagreement on the urgency and specifics of policy responses.

4. Recognition of Palestine and Two-State Solution: There was also disagreement on the approach to achieving peace, specifically around the recognition of Palestine and the feasibility of a two-state solution. Calum Miller called for immediate recognition of Palestine, arguing it is essential for a two-state solution, whereas Wendy Morton maintained that recognition should only come at a point conducive to peace, suggesting a fundamental disagreement on timing and strategy.

5. Humanitarian and Security Concerns: The session revealed differing emphases on humanitarian aid versus security concerns. Speakers like James MacCleary and Jas Athwal focused heavily on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the need for unhindered aid, while Jim Shannon emphasized Israel’s security needs and the threats posed by Hamas, illustrating a divergence in priorities.

Overall, while there was some consensus on the importance of a peaceful resolution and adherence to international law, the disagreements in interpreting legal rulings, assessing actions under international law, determining UK policy, and prioritizing humanitarian aid versus security were pronounced, making the session highly contentious. This level of disagreement justifies a rating of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5.