L

Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)

Speaking in the House of Lords on 7 January 2026

Debate

Middle East and North Africa

Contribution

My Lords, the Statement contains the usual highly condemnatory statements on Israel’s behaviour, using very emotive terms such as unjustifiable and unforgivable. It spends eight paragraphs on Israel’s conduct but only 10 words on the other side of the issue, which are, “Hamas should disarm and allow a path to lasting security”—no emotive language and no criticism of Hamas. The Statement describes the ban on the 37 NGOs as “unjustifiable” but does not mention the actuality that the ban will take place in March if those NGOs do not disclose details of their staff and operations. Given that we know that UNWRA and other NGOs have been infiltrated by Hamas, why is it so unjustifiable that Israel requires this information, especially in the context of Hamas’s refusal to disarm and honour its side of the agreement? I ask the Minister whether she thinks there is a natural connection between Israel’s conduct and Hamas’s refusal to honour its side of the agreement. I have an additional question, on the matter of Alaa el-Fattah’s tweet. If the Government had done their due diligence, would he still have been welcomed back to the UK?

More from Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)

Other recent Hansard contributions by the same speaker.

About Hansard

Hansard is the official verbatim record of proceedings in the UK Parliament. Every word spoken in the Commons and Lords is recorded and published — this page is a single contribution from that record.

Partner sites