Tony Vaughan

It is always a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing this timely debate. The attack on innocent Israelis on 7 October was horrific, and the hostages who were taken must be released unconditionally. Israel unquestionably has the right to defend itself against such an atrocity. However, more than a year on, the situation in Gaza is grave. I cannot add to the statistics and harrowing testimonies described by other hon. Members. It is indeed an “unrelenting dystopian horror”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) said. I want to make a few remarks about the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of July this year, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) described. As I understand it, the UK Government are formulating their response. One important element of the ICJ’s advisory opinion was the finding, in paragraph 279, that “all the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have the obligation, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.” The Court was therefore clear that ensuring that international humanitarian law is respected by Israel is a legal requirement on parties to the fourth Geneva convention, which include the UK. As I understand it, the UK’s position is that it has no obligation to ensure respect by other states in conflicts to which the UK is not a party. In the light of the ICJ advisory opinion and in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, that notion is not, or is no longer, a legally sustainable position in international law, nor is it right more broadly. There are many reasons why that ought already to have been clear, but the ICJ advisory opinion puts the issue beyond reasonable dispute. The UK should consider that we have an obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with international law. As a lawyer, I respectfully suggest that is the correct interpretation of the international rules and that, taking this approach, the UK would have to demand more of Israel to give effect to the advisory opinion, specifically with regard to the timing and details of Israel’s withdrawal from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as in relation to recognition by the UK of a Palestinian state. I therefore urge the UK Government to publish their response to the ICJ’s advisory opinion as soon as possible, and ask the Minister to confirm the timing for that. I also urge them to adopt the internationally accepted approach to their obligations, which I have outlined, if they have not already done so.