The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr )
With permission, I would like to make a statement on Israel and
Gaza.
Over seven months since the horrors of 7 October, there is no end
to the current conflict in sight. This Government want to bring
the conflict to a sustainable end as soon as possible, but as so
often with conflicts of this nature, the question is not about
our desire for peace, but rather about the best means of
achieving it. We continue to believe that the fastest way to end
the conflict is to secure a deal that gets the hostages out and
allows for a pause in the fighting in Gaza. We would then have to
work with our international partners to turn that pause into a
sustainable permanent ceasefire.
Building momentum towards a lasting peace will require a number
of elements, including removing Hamas's capacity to launch
attacks against Israel. It was a deal of that kind that secured a
pause in the fighting before Christmas—the only such pause since
Hamas's horrific attack. It was that approach that the United
Nations Security Council endorsed just last month, following some
effective British diplomacy.
A deal with Hamas for a pause in the fighting would involve
exchanging hundreds of Palestinian prisoners charged with serious
acts of terrorism in return for the hostages' release. I do not
underestimate how difficult that must be for the Israeli
Government, but it is the best way forward that we see right
now.
We continue to work closely with the United States and partners
in the region to support such a deal. We do not believe that the
International Criminal Court prosecutor seeking warrants will
help in that regard. As we have said from the outset, we do not
think that the ICC has jurisdiction in this case.
A deal as I have described offers the best prospects of reuniting
more hostages with their families; the anguish for them is
unbearable. I am sure that the whole House joins me in holding
the family of Nadav Popplewell in our thoughts at this deeply
distressing time. We are still working intensively to establish
the facts after the awful video that his Hamas kidnappers
released last week. The Foreign Secretary met the family last
week to hear more about their ordeal at first hand. Likewise, we
send our condolences to those families whose loved ones the
Israeli authorities stated last week had died.
At the same time, the toll on civilians in Gaza continues to
rise. Images from the strip give us some sense of what they
endure: civilians piling belongings on to a cart led by a donkey,
or seeking to scrape together a meal in a makeshift shelter. We
have seen appalling attacks on aid convoys and UN offices by
Israeli extremists, and the tragic deaths of UN and other
humanitarian personnel in Gaza.
We keep in close contact with Sigrid Kaag, the UN humanitarian
co-ordinator, and we condemn all attacks on aid workers and
support the United Nations' call for an independent
investigation. The Government of Israel have previously set out
publicly their commitment to increase the flow of aid into Gaza
significantly, but we need to see far more. The Prime Minister
impressed the urgency of that on 30 April. In the past 10 days,
the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Israeli Ministers Ron Dermer
and Israel Katz. He has called on them to implement in full
Israel's aid commitments. We want to see: humanitarian aid
allowed to enter through all relevant crossing points, including
in Rafah; critically needed goods flowing in, particularly fuel
and medical supplies; effective deconfliction processes to ensure
that aid can be distributed safely and effectively; critical
infrastructure restored and protected; evacuations for all those
eligible; concrete action to protect civilians and minimise
casualties; and, as Israeli Minister Benny Gantz said over the
weekend, more planning for reconstruction and a return to
Palestinian civilian governance of Gaza once the fighting has
ceased.
We remain absolutely committed to getting aid into Gaza to
alleviate the suffering, and we are working with a wide variety
of other Governments and aid agencies to deliver aid by land, sea
and air. I am delighted to confirm to the House that we have now
successfully delivered British aid on to Gaza's shore using the
Cyprus maritime corridor, which we and our partners—notably, the
United States, the United Arab Emirates and Cyprus—made
operational just last week. We have committed almost £10 million
in funding. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay is acting as a
logistics hub for the operation.
We have now delivered more than 8,000 shelter coverage kits
alongside aid from the US and UAE, with more aid to follow in the
coming weeks including hygiene kits and forklift trucks. Work to
develop other effective partnerships for the delivery of aid
continues. is in Qatar today,
discussing a health partnership for Palestinians so that a
British medical training agency can support doctors and health
practitioners treating Palestinian patients.
We know that much, much more aid is required, but that delivery
by land remains the quickest and most effective option, so we
continue to work closely with Oman to maximise the aid delivered
via the Jordan land corridor. I pay tribute to all those aid
workers, military personnel, diplomats and medical professionals
who are involved in Britain's efforts to save lives and alleviate
the suffering of civilians in Gaza. I confirm to the House that,
last week, intense efforts by the Foreign Office led to the
departure from Gaza of three British aid workers who were at risk
from an outbreak of fighting.
As the fighting continues, we estimate that around 800,000
Palestinian civilians have fled from where they were seeking
shelter in Rafah to other parts of the southern strip. The extent
of this displacement is why we have been clear that we would not
support a major Israeli military operation in Rafah, unless there
was a very clear plan for how to protect people and save lives.
We have not seen that plan. We and 13 of our partners, including
France, Germany, Italy and Australia, set out our concerns in a
detailed letter to the Israeli Government.
After more than seven months of fighting, it is becoming
difficult to imagine the realisation of a lasting peace, but
Britain continues to try to build momentum towards that goal.
That will require not only the release of all the hostages and an
end to the current fighting, but the removal of Hamas's capacity
to launch attacks against Israel; Hamas no longer being in charge
in Gaza; the formation of a new Palestinian Government for the
west bank and Gaza; and a political horizon for the Palestinians,
providing a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state
solution. That is what we continue to strive towards: peace and
security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. I commend the
statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
4.11pm
Mr (Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The
conflict has now gone on for 226 days. That is 226 days of
destruction; 226 days of Israeli hostages still in chains; 226
days that have led to 35,000 Palestinian deaths; and 226 days
where the risk of further regional escalation worsens every day.
We will keep repeating our call until it happens: there must be
an immediate ceasefire, as this House supported through Labour's
motion and as demanded by the United Nations Security Council
resolution. Diplomatic pressure must now go into overdrive to
bring the fighting to an end.
Labour has been opposed to an Israeli offensive in Rafah for
months. The UK Government should now work with the United States
to try to prevent a full-scale Rafah offensive, by being clear
that they will assess UK exports and, if it goes ahead, join our
American allies in suspending weapons or components that could be
used in that offensive.
When we last met on this subject, I asked the Deputy Foreign
Secretary to confirm whether he or the Foreign Secretary had
received from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
officials any assessment or policy advice—not legal advice—that
the threshold had already been met. He dodged the question, and
did not answer. I repeat that question to him today. The whole
House will be interested in his response.
Last November in this House, the Deputy Foreign Secretary
appeared to row back on Boris Johnson's shameful abandonment of
the International Criminal Court when he said:
“It is not for Ministers to seek to state where the ICC has
jurisdiction”.[—[Official Report, 14 November 2023; Vol. 740, c.
513.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=740&ColumnNumber=513&House=1&ExternalId=359AF69F-08CF-4B2A-A470-3985005FC765)
The Prime Minister followed up in December when he said:
“we are a strong and long-standing supporter of the International
Criminal Court.”[—[Official Report, 6 December 2023; Vol. 742, c.
336.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=742&ColumnNumber=336&House=1&ExternalId=E3C0C667-AABA-437F-BE7C-91683A6D5904)
But in today's statement, the Government have backtracked,
U-turning on one of the Britain's most fundamental principles:
respect for the rule of law. Labour has been clear throughout
this conflict that international law must be upheld, the
independence of international courts must be respected, and all
sides must be accountable for their actions. I ask the Minister
very simply: does he agree?
Arrest warrants are not a conviction or a determination of guilt,
but they do reflect the evidence, and the judgment of the
prosecutor about the grounds for individual criminal
responsibility. Labour's position is that the ICC chief
prosecutor's decision to apply for arrest warrants is an
independent matter for the Court and the prosecutor. Does the
Minister agree? Labour believes that the ICC's independence must
be upheld and respected, and that it is right that the conduct of
all parties is addressed by the Court. Does the Minister agree?
Labour believes that the focus of politicians should be on
achieving an immediate ceasefire, in order to end the war in
Gaza, free the hostages, alleviate the humanitarian crisis and
create a pathway towards a lasting political solution. Does the
Minister agree? Labour believes the UK and all parties to the
Rome statute have a legal obligation to comply with orders and
warrants issued by the ICC. Democracies that believe in the rule
of law must submit themselves to it. Does the Minister agree?
Labour supports the ICC as a cornerstone of the international
legal system. That support applies regardless of the Court's
focus, whether it is in Ukraine, Sudan, Syria or Gaza. Does the
Minister agree? This gets to the heart of a simple question. Does
the Conservative party —the party of Churchill, who was one of
the founders of our international legal framework—believe in the
international rule of law or not?
Mr Mitchell
I start by assuring the shadow Foreign Secretary that the
Government's answer to his final question is, as he would expect,
yes. It is worth stating that if one looks carefully at his
high-flown oratory this afternoon, we do not see very much
distinction between the positions of His Majesty's Opposition and
the Government, as I will set out.
The right hon. Gentleman starts off by saying that this is day
226 of the incarceration of the hostages, of the destruction that
has taken place, and of the risks of escalation. I completely
agree with what he says. He says that the diplomatic pressure
must rise. I can tell him that the diplomatic pressure is intense
on all counts and in all places. He says that we must work
closely with the United States of America. Let me assure him that
we are working intensively and closely with the United
States.
The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the advice we receive, and
suggests that I dodged the question on the earlier occasion. I
certainly had no intention of doing so. I can tell him that we
receive all sorts of advice from all sorts of places, but we do
not—as is the custom and practice, as he knows well—disclose our
legal advice. We are always careful to follow it meticulously;
that is my answer to his question.
The right hon. Gentleman asks: is this a matter on which the
International Criminal Court should act independently? My answer
is that of course it is, but we do not necessarily have to stay
silent on what the court is doing, and we certainly are not doing
so. On his question about the letter from a former Prime
Minister, as we have said from the outset, we do not think that
the ICC has jurisdiction in this case. The UK has not recognised
Palestine as a state, and Israel is not a state party to the Rome
statute.
As I say, if we split away some of what the right hon. Gentleman
said today from the oratory that he customarily displays in this
place, we see that the positions of the Opposition Front Bench
and the Government remain very closely aligned.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
(Rutland and Melton)
(Con)
My condolences go to all the families who, over the last few
days, have received the most devastating news—news that their
loved ones have been murdered—and also to the Popplewell family,
who have received heinous treatment from Hamas, including the
publication of that outrageous video. Last week the Select
Committee pushed the Minister for the middle east to do more to
secure proof of life of those who are being held hostage, and
that remains our call.
I welcome the effort on the maritime port—it is good that that is
now in place—but it will be unable to function come September
owing to the changes in the tide, so this is a short-term
solution. Since 6 May, when the Rafah offensive started, only 40
trucks have gone through the Kerem Shalom crossing. In Rafah no
fuel has gone in, no medical evacuations have taken place and aid
agencies have started to suspend the sending in of their own
people, which is extremely concerning. When will the Rafah
crossing reopen, and will the Erez West crossing finally accept
aid, not just through Jordan but also through Ramallah, because
otherwise the amount of aid that is needed will simply not get
in?
Mr Mitchell
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her questions. She
has made the point about proof of life before, and as she knows,
my noble Friend Lord Ahmad has been pursuing that issue—in direct
response, I think, to her Committee. She made the very good point
that the maritime option will continue only as long as the sea
conditions are satisfactory, and that emphasises the importance
of getting aid in by road; the ability to do that is one of
Britain's specific demands of the Israeli Government. She also
pointed out that Rafah has effectively been closed for the last
few weeks, and drew attention to the great difficulties that that
causes. We hope very much that there will soon be a deal between
Egypt and Israel to put that right.
Mr Speaker
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
(Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
We are on a very dangerous road if we believe that the rule of
law is something from which a Government can pick and choose.
Unlike the Government, we very much welcome the decision of the
International Criminal Court to issue warrants for the arrest of
the Hamas leaders Sinwar, al-Masri and Haniyeh for crimes against
humanity and war crimes committed on, and subsequent to, 7
October. We have always unreservedly condemned the appalling
Hamas attacks, the murders and the hostage-taking, and we repeat
our call for the immediate release of the hostages.
Given the ferociously disproportionate Israeli response, which
has seen 35,000 dead, 100,000 injured, tens of thousands of
children orphaned, civilian infrastructure in ruins and the
cutting off of food, water, electricity and medical supplies, we
also welcome the ICC's filing of applications for warrants for
the arrest of both the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin
Netanyahu, and the Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes
and crimes against humanity. The ICC says that it has evidence,
including interviews with survivors and eyewitnesses, that shows
that Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the
civilian population of Gaza of what they need to survive. It has
referred specifically to Israel using starvation as a weapon of
war, and intentionally directing attacks against a civilian
population. All these are acts that constitute a crime against
humanity. The ICC has also confirmed everything that we have said
about the crimes of 7 October, and Israel's use of collective
punishment and ethnic cleansing in response to those crimes.
For eight months, this Government have told us that they cannot
make an assessment of breaches of international humanitarian law,
but they have today—because it suits them—made an immediate
assessment of the decision of the International Criminal Court,
whose panel of experts consists predominantly of UK lawyers,
simply because they do not agree with it. It is shameful and
unforgivable that for eight months this Government have chosen to
deny the evidence of their own eyes, and have given political
cover and munitions to Israel. We have to assume, sadly, that if
today does not put an end to the UK licensing of arms exports to
Israel, absolutely nothing will.
Mr Mitchell
The position in respect of the ICC is simply not as the hon.
Gentleman set out. The ICC has not done what he suggested; it has
done nothing of the sort. He suggested that it had already found
the answer to these allegations, but the truth is that the
pre-trial chamber needs to consider the evidence, and to then
reach a judgment. Let us not jump through all these hoops at once
when they are simply not there to be jumped through.
Like the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Gentleman asks
whether we are playing fast and loose with the rule of law. We
are certainly not, and I hope that he will attend the main debate
today, when he will see exactly what the Government think about
the rule of law in all cases. Just because someone supports the
role of the ICC, it does not mean that they have to be devoid of
a view on what it is saying, and the Government are giving their
view. As I said, we do not believe that seeking warrants will get
the hostages out, get aid in or deliver a sustainable ceasefire,
which remains the UK's priority.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
I ask this question in my personal capacity, not as Chair of the
Intelligence and Security Committee. In general, I am a strong
supporter of the work of the ICC. The terrorist attack was
undoubtedly designed to provoke an overreaction by the Israelis
and to polarise societies, and it has succeeded in both those
aims. May I ask the Minister to encourage the House to read the
ICC's statement in full? Helpfully, it is available online. May I
urge people with a partisan view on either side of this atrocious
issue to seriously take on board what the ICC is saying about the
activities of the side they support, as well as those of the side
they oppose?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend makes a good point about ensuring that the
debate is informed by facts, not rhetoric.
(Brent Central) (Lab)
I am a little bit confused. The Government have previously said
that they will not endorse any military operation in Rafah
because it would be against international law. The Minister has
said today that that would be the case unless there was a very
clear plan on how to protect people and save lives. What has
changed?
Mr Mitchell
Nothing has changed at all. We have repeatedly made it clear that
we cannot support an attack on Rafah without seeing a detailed
plan. Clearly, that means a constructive plan that abides by IHL
on all counts.
Sir (Northampton North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a grotesque
overreach by the ICC? Courts, too, must act within the rule of
law, and the jurisdiction of a court is not for itself to judge.
The statute of Rome, which set up the International Criminal
Court, clearly delineated the powers of the Court. The US and the
UK have both previously said that the ICC does not have
jurisdiction. Under its founding charter, it can only act against
a sovereign state that is a signatory. The US, Israel and dozens
of other countries are not signatories, and Gaza is not a
sovereign state. Putting aside any purported evidence for a
moment, the Court does not have jurisdiction, and like any other
court, such as a traffic court or a magistrates court, it has to
act within its powers—the powers set up for it by the
international community. Is it not true that the ICC is acting
outwith its powers and, sadly, setting itself up as a political
court?
Mr Mitchell
I have made clear our position on the ICC. On what my right hon.
and learned Friend says, many people will agree with what Benny
Gantz said this morning:
“Placing the leaders of a country that went into battle to
protect its civilians in the same line with bloodthirsty
terrorists is moral blindness”.
Sir (Knowsley) (Lab)
Many of us, from all parts of this House, have supported the
right of Israel to exist and, consequently, its right to defend
itself over many years, and we have also condemned as appalling
the atrocities that were carried out by Hamas on 7 October, but
as the Minister said in his statement, after seven months of
fighting, it is becoming difficult to imagine the realisation of
a lasting peace; I agree with him on that. Does he not agree that
until Israel realises that it has to listen to its friends, in
this House and around the world, and take responsibility for its
own actions, our support for it will decline rapidly?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman accepts that Israel has the right to
self-defence, but says that it must exercise it within
international humanitarian law. He makes the important point that
we have to lift people's eyes to what a future settlement based
on a two-state solution will look like when this appalling
catastrophe is over. A great deal of work is going on behind the
scenes with regional partners, with great powers and through the
United Nations to ensure that we can lift people's eyes and that
there is a deal to be done that will, at long last, draw the
poison from this terrible situation.
(Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Facts are important, and the facts have not changed since 7
October. It is Hamas who embed themselves in civilian areas, use
civilian institutions and put their own people at risk in this
conflict. It is Hamas who have committed rapes as a weapon of
war. It is Hamas who are still holding innocent civilians
hostage. And it is Hamas who went into Israeli communities on 7
October and butchered 1,200 people, including slicing the breasts
off women and the limbs off children. On the other side, we have
the democratic, liberal state of Israel with an independent
judicial process and a Supreme Court that is respected
internationally and that the ICC is supposed to respect. Yet
there are people in here who, from day one, have done very little
to call out some of the other behaviour and everything to hold
Israel to a standard they do not hold others to. That is why the
Czech Prime Minister and the—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr )
Order. Please can everybody focus on a question? I am not quite
sure that I heard a question there—[Interruption.] I think the
Minister has heard enough to respond.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend speaks with great passion and feeling on this
subject, and I think he might be one of those who agree with what
Benny Gantz said this morning. I have read into the record
exactly what he said, and I think there will be large numbers of
people, both in this place and outside, who will think that what
Benny Gantz said made a lot of sense.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
The Cyprus maritime corridor is welcome, but it risks acting as a
fig leaf for the fact that there is not enough aid getting into
Gaza. The Colonna report found that the Israeli authorities had
yet to provide proof of their claims that UN staff in Gaza were
involved in terrorist organisations. The UN Relief and Works
Agency is the only serious organisation capable of supplying aid
to those Palestinians in Gaza who are innocent. Why will the
British Government not follow the lead of our Australian,
Canadian and European allies and reinstate funding to UNRWA?
Mr Mitchell
As far as maritime access is concerned, the hon. Gentleman is
right to say that the best solution has always, from the
beginning of this, been access by road. That is by far the
easiest, quickest and least expensive way of getting aid to
desperate people. He is entirely correct about that.
In respect of the Colonna report, we are still waiting for the
Office of Internal Oversight Services report from the United
Nations, and I am advised that there has been good co-operation
between the United Nations and the Israeli authorities on that.
On UNRWA, as I have said, we are waiting for that report. The
House should expect that we will be restoring funding to ensure
that humanitarian support is available through that mechanism,
but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the
appalling events that were revealed in connection with UNRWA
staff, and we must complete the process that I set out.
(Gloucester) (Con)
The Israeli war Cabinet looks divided. The chief of staff is
pressing for a “day after” strategy, the Defence Minister has
outlined his concerns, and the former Defence Minister and chief
of staff, Benny Gantz, has asked to see the Government's post-war
plan for the Gaza strip and wants it to include six strategic
goals, all of which look very similar to our own goals, as my
right hon. Friend has outlined. Perhaps he would care to comment.
The former Defence Minister has threatened to resign if the plan
is not announced by 8 June. Will he have to resign, or is there a
chance that there will be a plan on which both he and we can
agree?
Mr Mitchell
I very much hope that my hon. Friend is correct in saying—and,
indeed, hoping—that there will be a plan. His perceptive question
shows that there are many voices in Israel, and the fact that he
quotes two such senior figures—one seeking to know the “day
after” strategy, and the other wanting to see a post-war
plan—underlines the response I gave a moment ago to the right
hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir ). We have to lift people's
eyes to the fact that this dreadful conflict will come to an end,
and we will then need to have a plan to ensure that the future is
very different from the past. I remind the House that the
tremendous progress made in the Oslo accords took place on the
back of the intifada. Out of great darkness, we must ensure that
a proper plan comes forth.
(Poplar and Limehouse)
(Lab)
Can the Minister explain how his Government can possibly justify
continuing to support a military campaign that has involved the
denial of electricity and basic services to civilians; the
starving of civilians and the blocking of aid; the bombing of
civilian infrastructure; the forced displacement of millions; the
killing of journalists and aid workers; and the killing of
civilians, including large numbers of children, on an
unprecedented scale?
Mr Mitchell
We do not support that. What we support is Israel's right of
self-defence, but it must be carried out within international
humanitarian law.
(Bracknell) (Con)
There is a danger that the scope and timing of the ICC's arrest
warrants might somehow imply moral equivalence, but it is quite
clear that the fighting should stop. What does the Minister think
will be the impact of those warrants?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes a most interesting point. This smacks of an
unworthy, indeed ludicrous, sense of moral equivalence between a
murderous, proscribed terrorist organisation and the
democratically elected Government of Israel, who are seeking to
protect their citizens and recover their 124 remaining
hostages.
(Vauxhall)
(Lab/Co-op)
When we talk about the role of the ICC, it is not about whether
it is moral but about making sure that a democratic state falls
within the rule of international law. An estimated 35,000 people
have been killed and 132 hostages are still being held. The Arab
League has now called for an immediate ceasefire and the
deployment of a UN peacekeeping force in the west bank until a
two-state solution is negotiated. Will the Deputy Foreign
Secretary answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member
for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which he failed to answer, on the
offensive in Rafah? Will we join our American allies in
responding to that by stopping the sale of all war
components?
Mr Mitchell
That is not what the American Government have done. They
suspended one shipment, but they have not stopped any other
supply. To answer the first part of the hon. Lady's question, the
Government continue to seek a pause in the fighting, which could
lead to a sustained ceasefire, as well as to getting the hostages
out and aid in.
Mr (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary speaks about a ceasefire, getting
the hostages out, getting the aid in and resuming the talks, but
will he address the bigger picture? Behind Hezbollah, the Houthis
and Hamas sits Iran, which is arming and training these extremist
non-state actors. As much as we debate the possible long-term
governance and security solutions for Gaza, they are unlikely to
stand the test of time until the challenge of Iran's disruptive
proxy influence across the middle east is challenged.
Iran's destabilising foreign policy is determined by the
President, the Supreme Leader and the Foreign Minister, two of
whom were killed in a helicopter crash at the weekend. It is
clearly for Iran to determine who replaces them, but will we
advance our own robust policy in standing up to Iran's proxy
influence? Otherwise, we will never secure lasting peace in
Gaza.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend the former Chairman of the Defence Committee
is right about the malign influence of Iran through its
proxies—Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis—on the situation in the
middle east. We hope that Iran will cease to disrupt in the way
that it does through its proxies. It may well be that the events
of the weekend offer an opportunity for a reset.
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
As I understand the Government's position on the International
Criminal Court, it is because Israel was not a signatory to the
original treaty and because Palestine is not a sovereign state
that the Government do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction.
That leads us to a place where anyone can opt out of the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court at any time.
That is a terrible place for the Government and for us as a
country to be. If the Minister does not agree with that, will he
at least agree that the letter from the 12 United States Senators
to the ICC, where they said,
“Target Israel and we will target you”
and that they would ensure that
“all American support for the ICC”
is withdrawn, is not a place that this Government will ever be
in?
Mr Mitchell
Of course, the Americans are not a member of the Court, whereas
the United Kingdom is. The point the hon. Gentleman makes is an
important one because, in this debate about these terrible events
and the appalling consequences resulting from them, it is
important that everyone chooses their language with care.
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary rightly draws attention to the false
moral equivalence inherent in the ICC's statement between the
actions of sovereign, democratic Israel and the most brutal
activities of a terrorist organisation. Does my right hon. Friend
agree that such false moral equivalence is always drawn by the
enemies of Israel as a way to delegitimise the Jewish state? Does
he share my concern with this move by the ICC not just because of
the succour it gives terrorist groups elsewhere around the world,
but because of the risks within it for ourselves and our troops
as they go about defending our interests around the world?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend expresses himself, as always, with great
lucidity. It is important that that message is not sent. That is
why I repeated what Benny Gantz said and why I said, in response
to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (), who is no longer in his
place, that I think the sense of moral equivalence is
repugnant.
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
On 5 April, the Foreign Secretary called for an independent
inquiry into Israel's killing of seven aid workers, including
three Britons. I have repeatedly raised Israel's, and
particularly the Israel Defence Forces', lack of accountability
and examples of misconduct with the Minister. It is clear that
here, as in other areas, the Government are backtracking on the
limited assurances given, despite investigations by the BBC,
among others, showing that IDF misconduct continues, despite
pledges and commitments to the contrary from Israel. Does the
Minister believe that Israel should investigate itself,
regardless of the horrors committed—yes or no?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Lady will know, Israel has the rule of law and the
ability to investigate those matters, but she is entirely correct
to say that the Foreign Secretary made it clear that we expect a
detailed independent investigation. Israel has taken a number of
steps. She will have seen the acts that were taken against those
who were responsible for the decisions made in those attacks, and
she will be pleased to know that we are considering, with our
allies, the best way to inject further independence into that
investigation.
(Bolton North East) (Con)
My constituents in Bolton are livid today, because they have seen
through the International Criminal Court that there is evidence
that
“acts were committed…to use starvation as a method of war”,
along with violence; evidence of the collective punishment of the
civilian population of Gaza; and evidence that
“Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the
civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable
to human survival.”
Never mind being on the right side of history; will we ensure
that we are on the right side of the present?
Mr Mitchell
The fact that the prosecutor has applied for arrest warrants to
be issued does not directly impact UK licensing decisions, for
example, but we will continue to monitor developments as part of
our assessment process. Once again, I am grateful to my hon.
Friend for acting as such a brilliant conduit between his
constituents and the Government, and for his work on the
issue.
(Dulwich and West Norwood)
(Lab)
In the face of disgraceful attacks on aid trucks at the Gaza
border, the Israeli Security Minister is reported to have said
that he believes it is not protesters who should be stopping the
trucks, because
“it's the cabinet that should be stopping the trucks.”
That view cannot be allowed to stand. Will the British Government
sanction the violent protesters who are destroying aid, and their
supporters within the Israeli Government?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Lady will know, we have not been shy about
sanctioning some of the settlers who have been involved. We do
not talk about future sanctions across the Floor of the House,
but she may rest assured that we are very alert to the
opportunity for doing more on that. She repeated what had been
said by one senior Israeli official about the position in Rafah;
she will know that is not the position of most of the senior
Israeli members of the Cabinet and it is certainly not the
position of the British Government.
(Ipswich) (Con)
No organisation, international or otherwise, is beyond reproach
and always gets things right, so of course we can question what
the ICC has come out with. What I find disturbing is the ICC
report talking about an almost exact equivalence between the
leaders of Hamas, who carried out the most disgusting, brutal and
deliberately targeted attacks on 7 October, and the leaders
of—not a few rogue elements within—Israel. Does the Minister
agree that it is important to have solid, accurate data? We keep
hearing data from the Hamas-led health authority, but over the
weekend we have had very different data. Does the Minister agree
that it would help the debate if we had accurate data as soon as
possible?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is entirely right. He will have seen, as I have,
comments over the weekend about the accuracy of figures,
particularly the very great likelihood that figures about women
and children who have died during the conflict are not accurate
at all. His point about moral equivalence, which has been made
during the statement, is one that will be widely shared, both
inside and outside the House.
(Dundee West) (SNP)
The International Criminal Court—the highest criminal court in
the world—has applied for arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime
Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defence Minister, Yoav
Gallant, for the war crimes of murder and the deliberate
targeting of civilians, crimes against humanity, and deliberate
starvation as a weapon of war against the people of Gaza. It is
unequivocal. Do the UK Government accept that they must now do
three key things: first, they must reconsider their unequivocal
support of Israel by immediately suspending arms sales; secondly,
they must call for an immediate ceasefire; and finally, they must
restore funding to UNRWA so that it can deliver emergency
humanitarian aid?
Mr Mitchell
On his first point, I simply do not think now is the time to make
those decisions about what we have heard from the ICC. It would
be premature. A pre-trial chamber now needs to consider the
evidence and then reach a judgment, so I cannot go with the hon.
Gentleman on that point. On UNRWA, I have made very clear where
we stand. I hope the aid that was delivered by UNRWA with British
support will be delivered in the future. I hope that UNRWA will
be able to accept all the reforms that we are requesting that
would enable us to do that. As I have said, we are not in the
position that we are withholding funding at the moment because we
have fully funded our commitment to UNRWA up to the start of this
month. The hon. Gentleman says that we should cease our support
for Israel. We have been very clear that Israel must abide within
international humanitarian law, but equally that we understand
that Israel has the right of self-defence.
(Crawley) (Con)
In March, the Foreign Affairs Committee visited a number of aid
distribution centres in the Egypt-Gaza border area, and we heard
accounts of how some of the aid going into Gaza would be stopped
because of the potential dual use of equipment for not just
humanitarian reasons but potentially, by Hamas, military and
terror reasons. Will the Minister update the House on the
percentage of those trucks that are now getting through to
deliver that aid?
Mr Mitchell
The number of trucks getting through is wholly inadequate. That
is one reason why we have made 12 air drops—11 by the Royal Air
Force—and it is why we now have the maritime corridor.
Restrictions on what can be transported by truck into Gaza were a
significant problem to begin with. That particular aspect has
eased as both sides have understood each other's position on what
is being taken into Gaza, but I am afraid that the amount of
humanitarian support getting in by truck is still woefully
inadequate.
(Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
New polling by YouGov shows that 73% of the British public
support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and 55% support the UK
suspending arms sales to Israel for the duration of the conflict.
Does the Minister recognise that his Government are elected to
represent the people of Britain, and will they finally represent
the majority of the people in Britain by calling for an immediate
ceasefire in Gaza and suspending all arms sales to Israel?
Mr Mitchell
On arms sales, the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not for the
whim of a politician at the Dispatch Box to decide for or
against; there is a proper process to be followed based on legal
advice, and he would not expect Ministers to deviate from that
entirely proper way of judging these things. We all want a
ceasefire, but we want a sustainable ceasefire. That is why the
Government have consistently pressed, as endorsed by a United
Nations resolution, for a pause in the fighting to get the
hostages out and allow aid in. That would be the way to lead to a
sustainable ceasefire, as a precursor to a longer-term deal. The
British Government will continue, I hope with his support and
that of others on the Labour Benches, to prosecute that
endeavour.
(Kingston upon Hull West and
Hessle) (Lab)
How can the Minister argue that his Government respect
international law when he denies the jurisdiction of the ICC in
this conflict?
Mr Mitchell
I have not denied the position of the ICC; what I said is that we
are at an early stage in the process, and cannot reach those
judgments at this point.
Mrs (Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab)
We must not forget that civilians and their children are the
innocent victims of this war. The UN says that 800,000 people
have been forced to flee Rafah since 6 May. In Gaza, there is
clearly nowhere left that is safe, so will the Minister explain
what he thinks the consequences should be for any all-out attack
on Rafah and any forced displacement of civilians?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is correct that about 800,000 people have now left
Rafah. Through the pier, we managed over the weekend to get in
8,000 shelter kits, enough for around 40,000 people, but we are
part of a growing consensus that is trying to provide support.
The Israeli defence force warned 400,000 people to leave. Almost
double that have left, and we are doing everything that we can to
support them in their new locations. As I have repeatedly made
clear, we will not and cannot support an attack on Rafah without
seeing a detailed plan, and we have not seen a detailed plan.
(Islington North) (Ind)
Could the Deputy Foreign Secretary tell us in specific terms what
military flights are taking off from Akrotiri to Israel? Are the
Israel Defence Forces using Akrotiri? Are the US forces using
Akrotiri? What is the nature of the overflying of Gaza by the
RAF? Is surveillance information being sent to the IDF in
response to that? In short, what is the military relationship
between Britain and Israel at the present time?
Mr Mitchell
The right hon. Gentleman is an extremely senior Member of this
House, a former leader of the Labour party, and he well knows
that we do not comment on security information across the Floor
of the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr )
May I ask Members again to focus on the question please? Please
also remember that you have to have been here for the entirety of
the statement to ask a question—I am taking your word on
that.
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab/Co-op)
Other countries have now suspended arms sales. Other countries
have restored the funding going forward to UNRWA. Why are we now
leading from behind rather than leading from the front on this?
Should we not now do the right thing, suspend arms sales and
refund UNRWA?
Mr Mitchell
I think I am right in saying that no country has suspended
existing arms sales arrangements and agreements, but the fact
remains that we have our own regime in that respect. We act in
accordance with legal advice and we will continue to do so. In
respect of UNRWA, I have set out for the House the processes that
we are going through and the hon. Gentleman, like me, will hope
that those processes are successful.
(Leeds North West)
(Lab/Co-op)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary enjoyed referencing Mr Gantz a
number of times. Mr Gantz has set out his conditions for the end
of the war and a “day after”. In response, Prime Minister
Netanyahu's spokesperson said:
“The conditions set by Benny Gantz are empty words whose meaning
is clear: an end to the war and…establishing a Palestinian
state.”
It is very clear now that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants a
forever war and is opposed to a two-state solution for Israel and
Palestine. What are the UK Government saying to Prime Minister
Netanyahu to ensure that he understands where we and the
international community stand on this issue—as do many Israelis,
including members of his own Government? What action is being
taken against Gvir, Smotrich and the Prime Minister
of Israel, who are clearly trying to prolong the war in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
What the hon. Gentleman says underlines the fact that Israel is a
pluralist democratic society where there are different views. He
asked me what the British Government are saying to Prime Minister
Netanyahu, and I can assure him that both the Prime Minister and
the Foreign Secretary have frank, open and detailed exchanges on
those matters.
(St Albans) (LD)
It is the position of the Liberal Democrats that the UK
Government should give their backing to the ICC. If the
Conservative Government do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction,
which international institution or legal mechanism do they intend
to look to in order to ensure that any breaches of the law of war
on the frontline can be prosecuted?
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Lady knows, we make our own judgments on
international humanitarian law. We are quick to come to the House
if anything changes, but nothing has changed since the Foreign
Secretary made his comments in Washington, I think, in early
April. On the subject of the ICC's announcement today, I hope the
House will accept that it is premature to respond further before
the pre-trial chamber has considered the application for
warrants.
Mr (Slough) (Lab)
The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which has
today applied for arrest warrants against Prime Minister
Netanyahu, the Hamas leader and others, must be respected.
Contrary to what the Deputy Foreign Secretary said earlier, I
must correct the record for him: he said that
“we do not think that the ICC has jurisdiction in this case.”
The Israeli Government have ignored, for the past three months,
the motion passed by the UK Parliament, as proposed by the Labour
Party, for an immediate ceasefire and are instead planning a
full-scale offensive on Rafah, which would be a humanitarian
catastrophe. Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary confirm whether, if
that planned assault does go ahead, the UK Government will
suspend arms or component sales to Israel?
Mr Mitchell
It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to seek to correct the
record, but his repetition of what I said was absolutely correct,
and we have said it since the outset, so he should not be
particularly surprised by it. I cannot foretell what the
consequences will be in respect of Israeli actions, but I can
tell him the position of the British Government on an operation
in Rafah: that does not respect international humanitarian law,
which is why we have said that we cannot support it unless we see
a detailed plan.
(Oldham East and
Saddleworth) (Lab)
Labour believes that international law must be observed. As such,
we want the sale of arms and components to be suspended, and we
want the perpetrators of violence against innocent civilians,
whether Israeli or Palestinian, to be held to account. I am still
unclear on what the Deputy Foreign Secretary and his Government
believe. Do they believe in upholding international law?
Mr Mitchell
It should come as no surprise to the House that of course the
Government not only believe in international humanitarian law but
seek to uphold it. I have set out clearly in the House on a
number of occasions exactly how we carry out our duties in that
respect, and I hope that that will give the hon. Lady confidence.
In respect of the International Criminal Court, she is jumping
too far ahead. We have set out the limited decision that has been
made and announced today, and we should not jump ahead of it.
(Manchester, Withington)
(Lab)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary said earlier that
“The House should expect that we will be restoring funding”
to UNRWA. It sounds like the Government have made up their mind.
If that decision has been made, and given the absolutely
horrendous humanitarian situation in Gaza, why do we not just get
on with it? If there is any chance that funding will not be
restored, what are the Government doing as an alternative plan to
get humanitarian aid in?
Mr Mitchell
The Government operate through other agencies as well as UNRWA.
We have been very close indeed to the World Food Programme,
through which an enormous amount of humanitarian aid is
distributed. On UNRWA, we will go through the stages that I have
set out clearly to the House. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured
that, from my discussions with the United Nations
Secretary-General in New York just over a week ago, UNRWA is
funded for the moment, and we hope that our own funding, subject
to the results of the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services
inquiry and the implementation of the Colonna report, will be
restored.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
On the jurisdiction of the ICC, the Government's statement is out
of step not just with the prosecutor but with the impartial
independent panel of experts on international law from whom he
sought advice. That panel consisted largely of lawyers from this
jurisdiction—by which I mean England and Wales, and not my own in
Scotland. Here is what they said, and I want the Deputy Foreign
Secretary to tell me what part of it is wrong:
“The Panel agrees with the Prosecutor's assessment that the ICC
has jurisdiction in relation to crimes committed on the territory
of Palestine, including Gaza…under article 12(2)(a) of the ICC
Statute. It also agrees that the Court has jurisdiction over
crimes committed by Palestinian nationals inside or outside
Palestinian territory under article 12(2)(b) of the Statute. The
ICC therefore has jurisdiction over Israeli, Palestinian or other
nationals who committed crimes in Gaza or the West Bank. It also
has jurisdiction over Palestinian nationals who committed crimes
on the territory of Israel, even though Israel is not an ICC
State Party.
The basis for the Court's jurisdiction is that Palestine,
including Gaza, is a State for the purpose of the ICC Statute.
The ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber has already ruled that the Court's
jurisdiction extends to Palestine, as a State Party to the ICC
Statute, on this basis.”
That is the opinion of an illustrious list of mainly English
lawyers, with the exception of my dear colleague Baroness Helena
Kennedy, who is of course a Scot, although she is at the English
Bar. Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary, who I see has one of the
Law Officers sitting beside him, tell me which part of that
opinion is wrong?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. and learned Lady is an immensely distinguished advocate
and lawyer. She will have read the letter signed by no fewer than
600 lawyers that broadly agrees with what she has said, but she
may also have read the letter from—I think—1,000 lawyers that
disagrees with it. That shows that there are many different
interpretations of this matter; hers is one, and as I have set
out, the view of the Government is another.
(Halifax) (Lab)
Does the Deputy Foreign Secretary not recognise the damage that
is being done to the UK's standing around the world, and to the
rules-based international order and international humanitarian
law, by his Government's refusal to accept first the ICJ ruling
and now that of the ICC? He has said that he does not believe
that the ICC prosecutor seeking warrants will help, but at what
point will he accept that the situation could not get any
worse?
Mr Mitchell
The point we have always made is that we do not think it is
helpful for the Court to intervene in that way at this point,
because the main purpose is to get the hostages out and food and
humanitarian resources in. That is the position that the British
Government take; of course we respect the Court, but that does
not mean that we cannot give our view on what the Court does.
Sir (Rhondda) (Lab)
I rather agreed with the comments made about the ICC by the Chair
of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member
for New Forest East (Sir ), but I would gently point out
that I do not think there is a single Member of this House who
supports the actions of Hamas on 7 October—in fact, every single
one of us has rightly condemned them. For that matter, even very
long-standing friends of Israel have offered criticisms of the
actions of the Israeli Government over these past few months, as
have many Israelis.
Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary clarify something for me? He has
suggested that 800,000 Palestinians have had to move out of Rafah
in the past week or so. He has also suggested that not enough
humanitarian aid is getting through, which is because the Israeli
Government are refusing to let it through. He has also said that
the Israeli Government have a right to defend themselves—we all
agree with that—but within the bounds of international
humanitarian law. Who is to judge that international humanitarian
law if it is not an international court? Surely it cannot just be
a set of politicians sitting in the Foreign Office making it up
in their own minds.
Mr Mitchell
To respond to the hon. Gentleman's last point, that is absolutely
not the case: Ministers take legal advice, including on
international humanitarian law, and act within it. We have been
very clear about where we stand; the Foreign Secretary made the
point in April, I think, in Washington. If anything changes, of
course we will tell the House, but we cannot act on the whim of
politicians or Ministers in the House: we act in accordance with
the law, and that is what we will continue to do.
(Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister said earlier that the Government condemn all attacks
on aid workers, and that they support the UN's call for an
independent investigation into the killing of aid workers in
Gaza. Is the Minister of the same view when it comes to the more
than 100 journalists who have been killed during the
conflict?
Mr Mitchell
Of course. We are appalled by the scale of the death and
destruction that has taken place, and what we say about
protecting journalists—which this House has always championed,
never more so than when my right hon. Friend the Member for South
West Surrey () was Foreign Secretary—applies
equally well.
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
I have listened very carefully to the Deputy Foreign Secretary,
and I have to say that I find his arguments wanting. It matters
that the ICC thinks that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the actions of senior Hamas officials amount to war crimes;
it matters that the ICC thinks that there are reasonable grounds
to believe that the operations authorised by Prime Minister
Netanyahu and his Defence Minister also amount to war crimes.
Given that the ICC prosecutor believes he has acted within the
Rome statute and that the UK is a state party to the ICC, will
the United Kingdom uphold any application in this territory if
requested by the office of the prosecutor?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is premature in seeking to ask the Government
to exercise any such judgment. As I said earlier in this
statement, now is not the time to make these decisions. We need
to wait for the pre-trial chamber to consider the evidence and
then reach a judgment.
(Strangford) (DUP)
Any loss of innocent life is truly horrific and is to be avoided
if at all possible. The latest UN reports indicate that Hamas—who
are murdering terrorists, as we all know—have inflated the
statistics for deaths in their areas; they have been proven to be
massively overstated. What steps can be taken to ensure that we
are all working with independently verified information, not
propaganda, given the fact that Israel has taken greater steps
than any other democracy in history to give warnings and
circumvent the loss of life as far as possible in this war?
Mr Mitchell
We do think that Israel must do more on deconfliction, but the
hon. Gentleman is right that the use of Israeli lawyers in
targeting and in the planning of military activity—not dissimilar
from what we do in the United Kingdom—is very important. I am
grateful to him for the balance that he has expressed, as he
always does.
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
This country used not only to respect but to champion
international law. The Minister's dismissal of ICC procedures
today confirms how far the Government have fallen from their
adherence to the rule of law. Why are the Government undermining
the Court and its British chief prosecutor as he attempts to call
those to account for war crimes, including extermination, murder,
hostage taking, starvation, targeting civilians and persecution
as a crime against humanity?
Mr Mitchell
I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman putting it that way. He is
an extremely distinguished lawyer, and I hope he will recognise
that the point I am making is that the House is rushing to
conclusions that are not merited at this stage in the
process.
Mr (Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Whatever opinion the Minister has on the subject of jurisdiction,
the arbiters on that as a point of law will be the judges of the
ICC. In the event that any or all of the warrants being sought by
the chief prosecutor, as announced today, are granted, can the
Minister confirm that the UK Government will render any
assistance necessary for their execution? Is that not what a
Government who respect the rule of law would do?
Mr Mitchell
Of course. What I can confirm is that the British Government will
always act in accordance with the law.
(Edinburgh East) (SNP)
There is now a perception that the level of evidence the United
Kingdom Government require to make a determination on whether war
crimes have taken place and to act on them seems to vary with
their attitude towards the country alleged to have committed
those war crimes. Does the Deputy Foreign Secretary not
understand the irreparable damage being done to the reputation of
the United Kingdom internationally as a defender of international
humanitarian law by this inconsistency?
Mr Mitchell
I simply do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of
what the British Government are doing. The British Government are
absolutely consistent: we always act in accordance with the rule
of law and will always continue to do so.
Mr (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
(Lab)
For the avoidance of any doubt among Government Members, I have
opposed Hamas since 2007. I opposed their atrocities on 7 October
and continue to do that, so there are no sides as far as I am
concerned; I think the actions taken by the IDF need to be
criticised as well, and it needs to be held to account.
The Deputy Foreign Secretary said to my right hon. Friend the
Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) that the ICC does not have
jurisdiction. He said to the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member
for Argyll and Bute (), that the pre-trial
chamber has not reached a decision. He said to the hon. and
learned Member for Edinburgh South West () from the SNP that we have
to wait and that this is not the right moment. Does he believe
that the ICC has jurisdiction on this issue? Will he give a
straight answer—yes or no?
Mr Mitchell
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's condemnation, over many
years, of Hamas. He has repeated what I have said to other
Members of the House this afternoon and, if I have understood
correctly, he is noting that I have been entirely consistent in
all those responses.
(Tamworth) (Lab)
What steps are the Government taking with our international
allies to help create the conditions needed for an immediate
ceasefire that can be observed by both sides?
Mr Mitchell
Britain was able, through some skilful and deft diplomacy, to get
everyone onside on the United Nations resolution that was
recently passed, which talked about a sustainable ceasefire. The
position that Britain has always held is that we need to get that
pause to enable us to get the hostages out and humanitarian
supplies in, in the hope that that pause would lead to a
sustainable ceasefire.
(Arfon) (PC)
Neither the USA nor China nor Russia are party to the
International Criminal Court. Does the Minister therefore
recognise that, as permanent members of the Security Council, the
UK and France have a special responsibility to support the ICC
and uphold international law?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that today I have been
careful to be very clear about our support for the ICC, but
equally to urge the House not to rush to judgment in a process
that has a number of stages.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr )
Order. I apologise to those Members who did not get in today. We
will take a note of your names and get you in at another time. We
must now move on.
