There was a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on Gaza and Humanitarian Aid instigated by one of the new Independent MPs, Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr), elected in the wake of the Gaza conflict.
Westminster Hall debates do not make policy but give MPs a chance to register their concerns.
This is Barry Gardiner's contribution from They Work for You
As politicians, we talk of the international rules-based system, by which we
mean the World
Trade Organisation and the United Nations, but often we do so only when it
suits our position. When it does not, we ignore it. That is why it is crucial
that we grasp the legal implications of the decision promulgated on 19
July this year by the International
Court of Justice. It settled the law in its advisory opinion on the
legality of Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory.
The opinion came from a request by the United
Nations General Assembly in December 2022, and I believe it carries immense
weight. It is the interpretation of our world’s highest court of law as it
relates to the occupation of Palestine.
The court ruled that the occupied Palestinian territory is to
be considered a single territorial unit, which means that the failure to
recognise Palestine as a state is now out of step with international law. On 10
September, Palestine took its seat at the 79th session of the General
Assembly of the United Nations. It is not yet a full member, because it has
been blocked by the United States, but it has the right to submit proposals and
amendments. The Government
of the UK still does not recognise the Palestinian state, and I believe
that that is now incompatible with international law.
The court ruled that settlements and outposts in the west
bank and East Jerusalem
were unlawful. It does not matter that Israeli law considers settlements to be
lawful; they are not, and they should be evacuated. The court ruled that
Israel’s exploitation of natural resources in settled land was also unlawful.
The court ruled that Israel occupied Gaza. It ruled that it occupied the west
bank and East Jerusalem. It ruled that that occupation was unlawful. It ruled
that the occupation must be brought to an end.
That also means that, in its actions, Israel must behave not
as a warring nation state against another warring state, but as an occupying
force, with all the obligations that entails about its conduct, including
ensuring that aid can get through to all who need it. Israel ought to cease its
unlawful activities, halt all new settlement activity and provide full
reparation for the damage caused by its wrongful acts, which includes returning
land, property and assets seized since the occupation began in 1967 and
allowing displaced Palestinians to return to their original places of
residence.
The court made it clear that other states also have
obligations. It emphasised that all states are required not to recognise the
illegal situation created by Israel’s actions in the occupied territories. That
means that they should not engage in trade, investment or diplomatic relations
that would entrench Israel’s unlawful presence. The advisory opinion is a
landmark in the legal and political struggle over the fate of the Palestinian
people and the integrity of international law. It highlights the obligations of
all states, including the United Kingdom, to ensure that the rule of law
prevails. We are all duty bound not only to act in the interests of justice and
human rights, but to uphold the very principles of international law. That is
the law. It is clear. It has been authoritatively stated by the court. What is
not clear is whether Governments will abide by it. The law can state, the court
can rule, but none of it brings about anything unless the power of enforcement
lies behind it.
In the UK we are very fond of saying that we respect the
international court and the international rules-based order. My challenge to
the Minister
is this: show it.