😢 Military Co-operation with Israel

• Tragic Airstrike: The debate was triggered by an Israeli airstrike that killed over 400 people, violating a ceasefire and prompting urgent discussions on the UK’s military collaboration with Israel.

• UK Military Support Questioned: Concerns were raised about the UK’s potential role in the conflict, including the supply of lethal bombs and aircraft parts used in the airstrikes, and the sharing of intelligence with Israel.

• Legal and Moral Inquiry: The debate focused on whether UK military cooperation with Israel, in light of credible genocide allegations at the International Court of Justice, aligns with international law and moral standards.

• Arms Export Licenses: Despite a partial suspension of arms export licenses to Israel in September 2024, the UK continued to approve new licenses, including those for F-35 fighter jet components, which are critical to Israeli airstrikes.

• Surveillance and Intelligence: The use of UK airbases in Cyprus for surveillance and intelligence operations related to the conflict was highlighted, with questions raised about the legality and ethical implications of these activities.

• Humanitarian Impact: The blockade of Gaza, denying food, water, and electricity, was described as collective punishment and a war crime, with calls for immediate UK action to stop arms sales and impose sanctions on Israel.

• International Law and Obligations: The UK’s obligation under international law to prevent genocide and other serious violations was emphasized, with criticism of the government’s continued military support to Israel.

• Calls for Ceasefire and Aid: There were strong appeals for reinstating the ceasefire, releasing hostages, and ensuring the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, with criticism of Israel’s actions and calls for diplomatic efforts.

• Two-State Solution: Many speakers supported a two-state solution as the pathway to peace, urging the UK to recognize a Palestinian state and halt arms exports to Israel to encourage negotiations.

• Debate Conclusion: The session concluded with a plea to prioritize moral duty over political loyalty, emphasizing the importance of standing on the right side of history and advocating for justice and peace in the region.

The session exhibits a moderate level of disagreement among the Members of Parliament (MPs), warranting a rating of 3 out of 5. This level of disagreement is evident from several instances throughout the transcript where differing views and arguments were presented about the UK’s military collaboration with Israel and its implications. Here are the key points that justify this rating:

1. Contrasting Views on Arms Exports and Military Cooperation: Several MPs, including Shockat Adam and others, strongly criticized the UK’s military cooperation with Israel and questioned the morality and legality of continuing arms exports. For example, Shockat Adam emphasized the need to prevent the UK from being complicit in war crimes and genocide, pointing out that UK-made components are used in F-35 jets that have been involved in airstrikes in Gaza. In contrast, Luke Akehurst defended the cooperation, arguing that it ensures the safety of the UK and benefits Israel’s defense against threats like Iran and Hamas. This clear division illustrates a significant disagreement on the ethics and strategic value of the UK’s military support for Israel.

2. Disagreement on the Application of International Law: There was disagreement on whether Israel’s actions and the UK’s military collaboration align with international law. Jeremy Corbyn highlighted that the UK’s acknowledgment of Israel’s potential breach of international law did not lead to a cessation of military support, suggesting a disagreement with official policy. Conversely, the Minister for the Armed Forces, Luke Pollard, maintained that while there are concerns about Israel’s conduct, the UK’s support remains steadfast, especially in the context of NATO and broader regional security, indicating a different perspective on the balance between legal concerns and strategic imperatives.

3. Debate on Surveillance and Intelligence Sharing: The usage of RAF flights for surveillance and the sharing of intelligence were contentious issues. Shockat Adam and others questioned the transparency and legality of these activities, particularly their continuation during ceasefire violations. In contrast, Luke Akehurst viewed these operations as justified for hostage rescue and counter-terrorism efforts, demonstrating a disagreement on the purpose and ethical considerations of these operations.

4. Call for Policy Changes vs. Status Quo: Proposals for policy changes, such as suspending arms exports or imposing sanctions, were put forward by MPs like Andy McDonald and Siân Berry, who argued these steps were necessary to prevent war crimes and support a two-state solution. These calls for action were met with resistance from MPs like Jim Shannon and Luke Akehurst, who defended the current level of military collaboration and argued against restricting Israel’s defensive capabilities.

5. Tone and Intensity of Disagreement: While the disagreements were often intense, they remained largely within the bounds of parliamentary decorum. MPs acknowledged each other’s sincerity and the importance of the debate, which suggests a level of respect despite the disagreement. Interventions, while frequent, were mostly used to challenge or seek clarification on points raised, rather than to engage in personal attacks or escalate the disagreement beyond the policy issues at hand.

Overall, the session’s disagreements were significant and centered around critical issues related to military collaboration with Israel, yet they did not escalate into personal conflicts or derail the debate’s focus on policy and legal considerations. This balance of robust disagreement with maintained decorum supports the rating of 3.