Israel and Palestine

With permission, I would like to make a statement on Israel and Palestine. I do so as a proud British Jew, someone with the deepest gratitude to the state of Israel for giving a home to my grandmother after she lost her husband, my grandfather, and 60 other family members at the hands of the Nazis. I remember visiting her in the 1970s in Tel Aviv and seeing the life and sanctuary Israel had provided. Indeed, some of my most joyful childhood memories are of picking oranges as a kid on the kibbutz where my cousins lived. My personal story and that of thousands of British Jews is one of the many reasons why I say to anyone here or around the world who questions Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people: you are wrong, and we will call you out whenever you engage in that attempt at the erasure of Israel. I know what the trauma of Hamas’s terrorist atrocity of 7 October meant and still means to people across Israel and to Jews across the world. It was a murderous act by a murderous terrorist organisation designed to massacre and instil fear across a whole population. The events of 7 October make plain the grave threats that Israel faces, and it has every right to defend itself. We should not only condemn those threats but act against those who carry them out. Iran continues to threaten Israel and Jews across the world. We have already designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and we will do more on Iran’s proxy groups. Today I can announce that we are sanctioning Lebanese Hezbollah’s financing arm, Al-Qard Al-Hassan. Iran must never have a nuclear weapon, so we are also acting this week, alongside our allies, to report Iran to the UN Security Council for its nuclear violations, and I can announce today that we are reimposing major economic sanctions on Iran in line with the European Union and the United States. Tackling those threats is just one of the important shared national security interests we have with Israel, on which we will continue to co-operate. I know, too, that so many members of the Jewish community now live in fear in the face of rising antisemitism, including here in the UK. Last week we commemorated the anniversary of the Heaton Park attack, when Jews were murdered at their place of worship simply for their religion—an outrage that was followed by antisemitic attacks in Golders Green, including on the Hatzola ambulances. The everyday life of Jews in Britain is deeply affected by the climate that such hate creates. When I went to school in the 1980s, I did so without fear. Today we need to face the truth: that is not the case for thousands of Jewish children across the UK—children who have to go to a school with security guards outside it. No child should have to go to school facing that, and no teacher should face antisemitism either. Whether it happens in our schools, universities or workplaces, online or on our streets, antisemitism is a scourge and an evil. We are rightly putting in place an additional investment of £250 million for community security, but we all have a responsibility to do more. As part of this, I will in October host representatives of the J7—the countries across the world with the largest Jewish populations. We will meet in the UK to discuss the different ways we can work across borders to tackle antisemitism, including tackling online hate. I am proud of my Jewishness and unwavering in my support for the state of Israel, and there is absolutely no contradiction between that and my support for the state of Palestine—indeed, quite the opposite. The two-state solution is based on an explicit belief that the only route to security for both peoples is to live side by side in peaceful co-existence, with freedom, security and self-determination. Securing the two-state solution in its fullest form is the north star of this Government’s policy and, indeed, of successive British Governments over decades. It is precisely this belief in the rights and freedoms of the Israeli and Palestinian people that leads many, including me, to a deep sense of shame about what has unfolded in Palestine under the eyes of the international community. In Gaza, we have seen the most unimaginable trauma and suffering in the last three years—death, destruction and dehumanisation on an appalling scale; a stain on the conscience of the world and of this country too. And in the west bank, we have seen the clear attempt to, in the words of Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich, “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”. There is a deeply painful contrast between our professed commitment to a two-state solution and the reality on the ground in Gaza and the west bank. I pay tribute to my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), for their tireless efforts on this issue, as well as to the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). We should always be proud that it was a Labour Government who took the historic step of recognising the state of Palestine, but the Prime Minister is right to say that the Labour Government have not done enough in the face of what is happening, so today marks the beginning of a new approach—an approach that not only calls out injustice and suffering, but acts. In taking this stance, I make a very clear distinction that is crucial for us all in this debate: our argument is not with the people of Israel, with whom the UK has unshakeable bonds; our argument is with the conduct of its Government. I also want to say emphatically to people in Britain and across the world: holding British Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli Government is antisemitism, plain and simple. What we seek today is to salvage the only course for peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians: the two-state solution. Let me start with the situation in the west bank. At the time of the Oslo peace accords in 1993, around 270,000 settlers lived in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Today it is some 770,000. More settlements have been approved under the four years of this Israeli Government than in the previous 20 years. Let us spell out what that has meant for Palestinian communities: houses bulldozed; roads and public infrastructure destroyed; families displaced from their homes, community by community, family by family, person by person. Sixty-five Palestinian communities have been completely expelled since 2023—a total of over 4,000 Palestinians have been evicted from their homes due to settler violence and state actions. In August, we saw the crossing of a long-standing red line: the issuing of E1 tenders for over 1,200 homes. I visited a community in the area covered by E1 in 2014. The Bedouin communities I met in Khan al-Ahmar had lived on that land for generations. E1 proposals would evict them and place settlements directly between East Jerusalem and the west bank, cutting through the heart of Palestine. Let us be absolutely clear what this means: the creation of a set of facts on the ground to make the two-state solution unviable. On top of official state policy, settler terrorism is rampant. The UN reports an average of six violent settler attacks against Palestinians per day this year—the highest on record. Let us take one example: in al-Mughayyir, 20 miles north of Jerusalem, settlers have encircled the village and mounted a campaign of intimidation, largely under the protection of the Israeli military. Families in the village are increasingly cut off from accessing their land, squeezed into ever smaller areas, and have olive trees uprooted and livestock stolen. In the same community, just last week, two teenagers were shot when settlers entered the village under police and military escort. Both died before reaching hospital. Five teenagers from their school have now been killed this year. Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, has described what is happening as “A violent and criminal effort…to ethnically cleanse territories in the West Bank.” The former Minister of Health and retired brigadier general from the Israel Defence Forces, Ephraim Sneh, has said: “This is ethnic cleansing, to put it simply.” Ethnic cleansing is defined by the UN as “a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.” The British Government agree that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the west bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists. All too often, the Israeli Government have turned a blind eye to that—and, worse, members of that Government have made statements and taken actions to support the forced displacement of Palestinians. I recognise the gravity of saying this, but the truth is that it is the least the people who face such suffering deserve, and it should be the prelude to justice. For a long time, the British Government have rightly said that settlements are illegal, but we have remained silent on the question of the legality of the occupation as a whole, which in 2024 the International Court of Justice concluded was unlawful. Today, I announce that the official view of the British Government is that the occupation is unlawful, because of Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its intention to extend permanent sovereignty and its expansionist agenda via illegal settlements. Our position is not just an overdue statement of reality; the Government believe that the unlawfulness of the occupation should be reflected in the economic relationships we choose to have with the occupied territories. I do not believe that the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops and supermarkets, so I can announce today that we will introduce an import ban on goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories. To do so, we will introduce a new comprehensive sanctions regime, working with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, with appropriate religious exemptions. As part of this regime, we will go further. We will take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing or real estate for settlement expansion. To those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements, let me say this: you will face the full force of UK sanctions. Settlements are illegal. They should not be promoted in our country. Earlier this year, shamefully, just a few miles from here, we saw an expo advertising illegal settlement land. We must and we will ensure that that never happens again, so we will ban the advertising in the UK of illegal settlements. The sanctions regime will target illegal settlements and settlement expansion, not Israel. We will continue to support important and valued trade with green-line Israel precisely because we support the two-state solution, including security and prosperity for Israel. For that reason, I wholeheartedly oppose the BDS—boycott, divestment, sanctions—campaign. The legislation I have announced today will be in place within six to nine months, and we will also take more immediate steps. Today, we are sanctioning a further set of extremist settlers who have supported or incited acts of violence against Palestinian communities. I can also announce that we are extending the existing global human rights regime such that it will enable swifter action to deter settlement expansion, including—crucially—seeking to prevent the development of E1. I also want to address the question of arms sales. We have already suspended over 30 arms licences used by the IDF in Gaza. That suspension remains fully in place. We will now also refuse all licence applications for arms and other exports that materially contribute to the occupation—in effect, a double lock against arms sales. That means the ban on such exports will now remain in place for as long as the occupation persists. To advance the two-state solution, we also need viable and effective Palestinian governance, so I urge the Palestinian Authority to accelerate reform, and I urge Israel to lift its withholding of revenues, which is frankly financially crippling the provision of essential services in the west bank. The set of measures I have announced represents a clear message to the Government of Israel, to the Palestinians in the occupied territories and to the world that we will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution. I turn now to Gaza. The horror of 7 October appalled the world and had terrible echoes of the centuries of persecution of the Jewish people: men, women, children and babies killed, mutilated and tortured by Hamas terrorists; people murdered while seeking to protect their families; young people massacred at a music festival; and people abducted from their homes. As the 20-point peace plan for Gaza sets out, that is one of many reasons why Hamas can play no role in the future governance of Gaza. They must decommission their weapons and dismantle their terrorist infrastructure. Israel has the right not to live in fear of vile terrorism, and the Israeli state has the right to protect its people and defend its territory, but that cannot justify what has happened in Gaza. Over 70,000 people have been killed, at least 20,000 of them children—20,000. The vast majority of the population is displaced—nearly 2 million people—and they are now penned into just one third of the territory. Lifesaving humanitarian aid and access has been routinely blocked. Hospitals and clinics have been destroyed. Over 60% of homes are in ruins. International humanitarian law imposes clear rules for states fighting wars, including to ensure access to food and medical supplies, to avoid mass displacement of civilians and to avoid the targeting of civilians. Serious and intentional violations of that law, if proven, amount to war crimes. What has occurred, including the actions of the IDF, has been examined in depth by a number of organisations, including the UN independent international commission of inquiry. The conclusions of these reports represent increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed, and we support legal processes to determine that. On the question of genocide, the UK has always supported full, robust and fair judicial processes to consider allegations, with final determinations made by competent courts before the British Government reach a conclusion. That has been the case for all of the genocides since the 1948 genocide convention: Rwanda, Srebrenica, Cambodia and acts against the Yazidi people. That will remain our policy. It is right that this issue has been brought before the ICJ, and I want to make it clear that we support the court in coming to its determination. Accountability for what has happened in Gaza matters, but even more urgent is action to address the ongoing crisis, because today in Gaza the death and suffering continue. Nearly a year ago, a ceasefire was declared, yet over 1,200 Palestinians have been killed since, and the people of Gaza are experiencing a totally avoidable humanitarian catastrophe that I am afraid is driven by the decisions of the Israeli Government. Last week, I talked to courageous doctors and humanitarian aid workers who have served in Gaza. It was a heartbreaking conversation. They recounted children dying waiting for medical treatment, people forced to live next to open sewage and without shelter, and food insecurity rampant. I am sure the whole House agrees that that is unconscionable, so I pledge that we will continue to do everything we can to provide all the humanitarian support possible to help the people of Gaza. UK-supported hospitals in Gaza will enable around 800,000 medical consultations this year and essential health services for patients. UK expertise will deliver care to over 1,000 child amputees. We recently welcomed another wave of students from Gaza coming to study in Britain, and we will welcome more. But in truth, unless Israel changes course, the situation will remain dire, so we are taking further steps both by ourselves and with others. Our extension of the global human rights sanctions regime will enable us to target those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law, whether in Gaza or anywhere else in the world. At the UN General Assembly in New York later this month, we will shine the clearest and harshest spotlight on what is happening and what must change. With Jordan, we will convene countries across the world to lead a call for action on health and humanitarian access. We will also lend the UK’s voice to the growing global alliance of countries, led by Arab partners in the region, calling for the full implementation of the US-led 20-point plan, the rejection of extremism and a lasting end to the cycles of violence. As we implement the policy measures I have announced today, we will continue to assess the Government of Israel by their actions. We want to see a new approach in both Gaza and the west bank. Today we refuse to be bystanders to further suffering and to the destruction of the two-state solution. We call out what is unlawful. We act on the import of goods from illegal settlements. We ban advertising of illegal settlements. We act on services to prevent new settlement expansion. We act on settler violence. We support accountability for what has happened in Gaza, and we pledge to galvanise the international community to confront the ongoing and urgent humanitarian crisis. Above all, we say: Britain is not silent in the face of deep injustice, nor is it powerless. Today we act in concert with others in a broad international coalition. I can tell the House that today, France and Canada are announcing, alongside Britain, that they will ban the import of goods from illegal settlements, joining the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Spain and Norway, which have either banned goods or are in the process of doing so. Many other countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden—are pledging today that they will support further action. That is what Britain can achieve, leading with others, and it is in our fundamental national interest, because if there is one lesson of recent decades, it is that we will never have stability in the middle east without a two-state solution. It is also the case that if we fail to stand up for the values that this country has long held and fought for, we lose credibility and influence in the world. My parents came to this country as Jewish refugees, and found sanctuary and a country that stood up for the rule of law, freedom and self-determination. Those are the values this Government are standing up for today, and I truly believe that the vast majority of the British people, including in our communities with ties to the region, are united in their desire to see humanitarian suffering end and all sides commit to a durable peace process. Just as we want Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side, we have to live out those values in Britain. Jews in Britain, Muslims in Britain, and people of all faiths and none have a right to live without prejudice or fear. We need a Britain that upholds its values at home and around the world, a Britain that fights against oppression and suffering wherever they occur, and a Britain that stands up for what is right. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. As we meet today, let me start with what we agree on. We agree that illegal settlements are wrong. We all agree that groups of settlers have been guilty of outrageous abuses of ordinary Palestinians and crimes against innocent civilians. We agree that some Israeli Ministers have indulged in hateful propaganda and incitement. We agree that the current path is leading Israelis and Palestinians towards a darker, more dangerous future. We agree that Hamas’s terrorist atrocity of 7 October left many Jews in Israel and around the world afraid and vulnerable. We agree that the suffering in Gaza is horrific. But we also agree that those who praise Hamas and other terror groups or see them as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people are wrong, that payments to those who are killed while attacking Israeli civilians are wrong, and that those who call for the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state and the murder of its citizens with cries of, “From the river to the sea,” are wrong. Ignoring the victims on all sides and putting at risk the viability of the two-state solution is wrong. This is not about Israel alone, and it certainly is not about reducing the complexity of the region to a single sentence. Sadly, the Government are in the process of doing just that. When they recognised the state of Palestine, only recently, they did so against the laws we ourselves have defended since 1933, in contravention of the Montevideo convention and of the principles we have set out. When they sanctioned Israeli Ministers, they failed to make the case to many others, including the European Union, and today they are enacting a policy that the Foreign Office knows will not work. The Government also know that this policy will harm innocents. Just 13 weeks ago, two Ministers of this Government—the right hon. Members for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant)—wrote to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), rejecting this very policy as the economies of Palestine and Israel are too interconnected—innocent Palestinians and Israelis will suffer. Still this Government are pressing on in haste, despite warnings from the Labour Benches from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) and from the Government’s own reviewer of terrorism legislation that turning Israel into a pariah risks sectarian division in our own country and a further rise in antisemitic violence on our streets. As the Foreign Secretary knows, others are waiting. The Israeli election is in just seven weeks, and many have correctly argued that this action will help the extreme candidates’ campaigns, not those who are making the moderate argument for a united Israel. In the week before Rosh Hashanah and the high holy days, the Government are acting without prudence, introducing sanctions that are both light and serious. They are light because they will not actually target settlers—as the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations has said—but will be stretched to include all Israeli and Palestinian businesses, leaving many without opportunity, including those who make the pharmaceuticals that keep many British patients alive. They are serious because they risk what the Foreign Secretary has himself condemned: encouraging sectarianism and antisemitism at home, and discouraging co-operation abroad. As such, I have six questions for the Foreign Secretary. First, on the coherence of the policy, can he confirm that the advice from his Department on the practicality of sanctions has changed so dramatically that these sanctions will in reality be targeted, not area as previously stated? Secondly, what conversations has he had with wider partners and allies to co-ordinate a full international action that might actually work, and why will he not wait for the result? Thirdly, what assessment has he made of the impact on domestic security and community cohesion in the United Kingdom, barely a year since the first antisemitic murder in our country in generations? Fourthly, what assessment has he made of the impact on our security partnerships with both Israel and the United States, which have kept Iranian regime-backed murderers off our streets for the past few years? Fifthly, what instructions has he given to the enforcement bodies to ensure that Parkinson’s, myeloma and multiple sclerosis patients will still get the drugs that keep them alive? Finally, will he let us know now what instructions he has given to the Foreign Office for the accreditation of diplomats to the Palestinian embassy should Hamas win the elections in November and send their own envoys here under diplomatic immunity? We have seen growing antisemitism in the United Kingdom, and we have seen increasing violence against Jewish targets. The Conservative party will always reject the hate-filled sectarianism that we have seen on our streets. We can—and where appropriate, should—criticise the Israeli Government, and still defend the right of the Jewish people to a home. I place on record my and my party’s deep sadness at the violence we have seen in recent months and years, our commitment to the right of Palestinians and Israelis to live in dignity and peace, and our recognition of those who have been victims over generations. None of us here rejects the Government’s stated aim that we must do everything we can to end the cycle of violence, and we welcome the sanctions against Al-Qard Al-Hassan and the condemnation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. However, I am sorry to say that this Government are wrong. As the Foreign Office has previously stated, this policy will damage the interests of innocent Palestinians, Israelis who condemn settlements, and the British people. What we reject is not the intent, but the performative politics and acting without wide support that leaves our envoys weaker and their voices irrelevant. We know, from our own history, that we do not make peace from just one side, and nor do we make it alone.

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his response. It is our first time opposite each other at the Dispatch Box, so let me congratulate him on his appointment—he has a proud record in Parliament as Security Minister and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and brings great expertise to this House. However, I profoundly disagree with his conclusions. At the beginning of his speech, he mentioned a number of things that we agree on, and it is important to highlight those. I will answer his specific questions in a moment, but the underlying problem of his position is this. He supports the two-state solution with great vigour; he believes in the two-state solution; he sees the two-state solution being destroyed before our eyes; and I am afraid his prescription is to do nothing about it. There is a choice that we face in this. Do we stand by? Are we bystanders to the end of a long-established Government policy, and indeed the only hope for security and stability in the middle east, or do we act? We have chosen to act, and I think that the country—most of the country—will be with us, because we cannot simply stand by. Let me now deal with the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. I say this with the greatest respect to him, but the voices that I listen to more than his on the Palestinian people are those of the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and Palestine’s ambassador to the UK. Both of them have been urging us to act, and have been urging us to act for a long time. I think that this is a profound point: their voices are incredibly important in this debate. I utterly reject the idea that we want to make Israel a pariah state. I could not have been clearer in my statement about our friendship with the Israeli people, and indeed our wish to have trade with Green Line Israel, but, in a sense, we have to take a view about the occupation. If the occupation is illegal, do we want to maintain, at the level of principle, normal economic relationships? We say no. The right hon. Gentleman apparently says yes, which I think is a mistake. Is this a coherent policy? Absolutely. As I said, it will take six to nine months to come into place, and we will have discussions with Members of the House and others, but it is a SAMLA—Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—based sanctions regime. There are sanctions regimes involving a number of other countries. Will it be geographic? It will be in relation to the import ban. It will be focused on the settlements in the occupied territories, and we will absolutely ensure that it does not hit green-line Israel. The right hon. Gentleman says that we should act with others. We have assembled a very wide international coalition precisely to act with others. As for community cohesion, it is incredibly important, but the point—the absolute core—is that surely we must all accept what I said in my statement. We can disagree with the Government of Israel. We can take action with the Government of Israel, and at the same time be absolutely steadfast in protecting Jews across Britain and across the world. We cannot let these debates be confused. I am confident about our intelligence and security partnerships, which I talked about in my statement. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about medical supplies, and so on; they will absolutely be protected. Let me finally say—to all Members—that one fact that has been most apparent to me in my seven weeks or so in this job is that Britain is a highly respected partner across the world. Britain has influence. Britain has reach. We cannot take the view of Britain that we are powerless in the face of injustice, and today we say that we are not powerless; we can act.

At last! I am so very happy to see a British Government—a Labour British Government—finally doing the right thing and taking a strong stance against the illegal building of settlements in the occupied territories of Palestine, no longer a bystander wringing their hands. The Foreign Affairs Committee called for this unanimously over a year ago. As I look around the Chamber, I see so many people who have spent years campaigning, and there are many more outside the House. We are all smiling today. Britain has an absolute obligation to take a strong, clear stance on this issue, as a country that played such a pivotal role in the establishment of Israel during our mandate but has frankly failed in the protection of the interests of the Palestinians. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on taking such a brave stance, and on his powerful and moving statement. I am so proud that this has finally happened; but could Ministers and officials meet my Committee and me, and some of our officials, to discuss whether we can implement these sanctions as quickly as possible?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her words, and I pay tribute to her. Let me also do what I should have done in my statement, and pay tribute to Members in all parts of the House who have been advocates of this issue—I see them behind me, and opposite me as well—and to the people outside the House whose voices have been heard in this debate. My right hon. Friend and I have had good discussions about these questions, and I look forward to working with her and her Committee on matters including the speedy implementation of the plans that I have announced.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Let me also thank him for sharing the painful history of his family. I know that that will echo with many Jewish families in the UK, including those in my constituency. Let me strongly associate myself and my party with the Foreign Secretary’s clear statement that robustly challenging the illegal actions of this extremist Israeli Government is compatible both with staunch support for the rights of the states of Israel and Palestine to exist and with resolute support for the rights of British Jews to live free from the scourge of anti-Jewish hatred. For years, Liberal Democrats called for the proscription of the IRGC. We will work across the House to support the rights, freedoms and security of the British Jewish community. The recent scenes from Palestine should horrify every Member of this House—the abhorrent violence against Palestinians; families, awoken by soldiers breaking down the doors of their homes, evicted; the accelerated annexation of the west bank, spurred on by the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich; attempts to destroy the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state through E1 settlement construction; and the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The two-state solution is being fatally threatened. That is why today’s announcement is greatly welcomed from these Benches, but is also long overdue. Liberal Democrats have called for a trade ban for years, and have asked the Government to declare Israel’s occupation in Palestine unlawful. It is also right that the Government have included services in this ban, with those financing or facilitating settlements now facing legal consequences. The Foreign Secretary has billed today’s announcement as a reset in our relationship with Israel. This requires a vision for that future relationship. We want a relationship with Israel based on shared liberal values, but that requires the Israeli Government to recognise their obligations under international law, and not ride roughshod over them. The Foreign Secretary supports the role of the International Court of Justice in the determination of war crimes and genocide. Will he explain how the Government are providing resources to allow the ICJ to complete its work in reaching a judgment? I also welcome the clear statement, long overdue, that the Government accept the ICJ’s 2024 opinion that the occupation is unlawful. Will the Foreign Secretary publish the Government’s assessment of the duties that this creates for the UK? I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s candour about the fact that the Government have previously failed to do enough. Today’s measures cannot simply be symbolic; they must be robust, enforceable and sustained for as long as necessary. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us in more detail how enforcement measures would be implemented in response to any violation of these bans? He says that the ban on arms exports will endure as long as the illegal occupation. Will he confirm that that will apply to all arms exports, including F-35 parts? Will he spell out more clearly what he means when he says that the existing global human rights regime will be extended? Parties on both sides of the House have been united in our support—with international partners—for a two-state solution. It is this outcome that will bring peace, security and stability to the Palestinian and Israeli people. As we approach an autumn of elections in Israel and Palestine, so critical to the future prospects for peace and justice, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he will insist that the Palestinian Authority hold to the timetable for elections in November, and that they will be free, fair and open to all parties? Before the elections, will he work with international partners to ensure the disarmament of Hamas? Will he also commit himself to conveying clearly and with no ambiguity to the Government of Israel that the UK will stand up against breaches of international law, and that there will be consequences when they occur? This extremist Israeli Cabinet has repeatedly acted to erase the prospects of a viable state in Palestine. In doing so, it has furthered a pattern of violence and destruction. Today must be the day that the UK says, “Enough is enough.”

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the measures we are announcing today, and I recognise his advocacy on this issue over a sustained period. Let me deal with his questions in turn. We fully support the work of the ICJ, including in the so-called South Africa case. We have previously submitted to the Court on the question of Myanmar, which I think will help inform some of its deliberations, and we look forward to the ICJ continuing its work. The hon. Gentleman refers to the ruling of unlawfulness. That is where we have taken a view as a Government that the occupation is unlawful. We concur with the conclusions of the ICJ. It is a matter of principle what we then do across our economic relationships, and today I have announced the measures that we are taking. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of arms, and I talked in my statement about the double lock. I want to take on his point on the F-35s. To be clear with the House, we stopped providing direct parts to Israel’s F-35 programme in October 2024, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) when he was Foreign Secretary. The only provision we make now is indirectly to the global supply programme. I am afraid that those who say we should stop supplying parts to the global supply chain are actually advocating the downing of the whole programme, which is crucial to our NATO and other allies. I want to be clear about that. Obviously, our ruling on legality is an important one. We will continue to keep all our responsibilities under review, including in relation to the F-35 programme, but I wanted to set that out for the hon. Gentleman. We are extending the global human rights regime to international law. We think this will be another important tool that we have to take action, because the sanctions regime did not previously apply to breaches of international humanitarian law. As we set about our sanctions regime for settlements in the occupied territories, this will give us a faster tool to act, and I am very happy for us have discussions about that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must provide support for reform of the Palestinian Authority, that Hamas must disarm and cannot be part of a future Government in Gaza as part of the 20-point plan and, let us be frank, that we need to accelerate the implementation of the 20-point plan. There was some hope when the 20-point plan was produced but, frankly, the situation in Gaza is unspeakable, and the plan is not being implemented as it should be. I end by saying to the hon. Gentleman and Members of all parties that I want to work with people across the House who have worked on this issue over a long period, so that we get the legislation right and get our action right. As much as is possible, I think we can be united on this.

I wholeheartedly welcome this well-rounded statement from the Foreign Secretary, and put on record my thanks to the new Prime Minister for the hard yards that I know he has put in over recent days and weeks. It is not enough to recognise the state of Palestine and then stand idly by while illegal settlers destroy the Palestinian state and the Palestinian economy. I have to correct the shadow Foreign Secretary: he did not give an accurate representation of the correspondence between Ministers and my Committee. But when Ministers came before us on 15 July, they did tell us that they lacked the legal power to fully implement the proposals that the Foreign Secretary has made today. Can he confirm to the House that he is taking on new legal powers in order to implement the full ban that he is proposing on goods, services and investment? That is what is needed to give the measures full effect, full force and real teeth, and we know that nothing less will do.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his great advocacy and for our conversations on this issue. I can confirm that there will be a new sanctions regime that covers settlements in the occupied territories, under the SAMLA regime. That is what will give us the powers to take action on both goods and services, and he is right to say that action on both is necessary if we are to have an effect. I come back to the point that this is partly about what goods we should accept in this country, but truthfully, our trade with the settlements in the occupied territories is relatively small when it comes to goods. I believe that we can make a real difference to settlement expansion through the action on services, and we will be working to make sure that happens.

I call the Father of the House.

Those of us who love the Jewish people and faith know that the reason why they have overcome all the empires that have tried to destroy them is that they are primarily people of the book and not the sword, but what is happening in the west bank is violent and egregious. It is worse than stopping the two-state solution; it is ethnic cleansing. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Israeli Government could quite easily differentiate between general trade and trade to these illegal settlements? Does he agree that there is no reason, when our country fully supports the right of Israel to defend itself, why this should affect our intelligence relationship? As the longest serving member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, I am proud to say that I absolutely and fully support what he is doing today, because it is about standing up for freedom, for morality and for justice for all people in this world.

I thank the Father of the House for his words. I read his extremely eloquent contribution to the Back-Bench debate on these questions that took place in July, and I was incredibly moved by his words in that debate. He is absolutely right in the way that he talks about these issues. He is absolutely right to say that he and I consider ourselves deep friends of Israel. That is absolutely consistent with and, I would argue, necessary for what we are doing today, because there can be no security for the people of Israel without a two-state solution. The actions of its Government over the past few years has not made Israel more secure; they have made it less secure, and that should trouble all friends of Israel across this country and across the world.

Order. I appreciate how important this statement is, but questions must be short. Foreign Secretary, please keep your answers short too.

I welcome the entirety of this statement, particularly the acceptance of the ICJ advisory recommendation that Israel is illegally occupying Palestine. The ICJ recommendation is broad and damning. It is not just about settlements; it is about taking Palestinian natural resources, forced transfer, taking Palestinian land, taking their goods and taking their businesses. It is also about stopping Palestinian trade and the free movement of people, and about imposing Israeli laws on the Palestinian people. Has the Foreign Secretary given any consideration to moving a motion at the UN Security Council to protect Palestinian rights? Is he doing anything to support the Palestinian Authority to be able to govern effectively? Is he doing more to urge Israeli politicians and the Israeli Government to enable journalists and politicians to enter Gaza, so that we can see for ourselves exactly what is going on?

My hon. Friend has played an incredibly important role in the advocacy on these issues, including through the International Development Committee, and I take all her points on board. One of the things that we will seek to do through events that will take place at the United Nations—not just the conference we are holding with Jordan, but other events that we will be announcing shortly—is precisely to try to get at these issues. The situation in Gaza is so urgent and so desperate that we must do everything we can to act.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this action is unlikely to affect the policy of the Netanyahu Government? As I hardly need to remind him, Israel is a parliamentary democracy. Has he reason to believe that this action might affect the policy of the Israeli Opposition, and did he have any contact with the Israeli Opposition parties before coming to that conclusion?

Absolutely; we talk with all partners in Israel. I do not want to in any sense interfere in that election. The election is for the Israeli people to make their own decisions about their future. I have set out the policy of the British Government, and I have made it clear that our quarrel is not with the Israeli people, but with the policies of the Netanyahu Government. I said something in my statement that I would just highlight to the right hon. Member, which is that we will assess the actions of any Israeli Government in the future whether on Gaza or the west bank.

I place on record my support for the Foreign Secretary for taking this strong stance today. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, “At last!” Finally, we can breathe, but we still cannot breathe like the Palestinians deserve to be able to breathe while they are still being occupied, and it is so welcome that our Government have taken this position. The situation needed Britain to lead, and today Britain has led. I am equally proud of our Government for taking this stance. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain needs to continue to show this leadership to ensure that the two-state solution happens and that the Palestinians are free of occupation?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I again praise her for her work on this issue. I am grateful for the kind words about my statement, but I feel a deep sense of humility when compared, for example, with people I have met such as the doctor—a British paediatrician—who was going to Gaza to try to help children and people who are sick. There are so many people in our country who have not only campaigned on this issue, but actually gone there and tried to make a difference, and I think we should recognise them today.

Many of my Jewish constituents have very grave concerns about the conduct of the current Israeli Government. However, Israel is the Jewish homeland, and I think many of them are concerned about the content of the statement, the highly political tone of the briefing around it and its timing before Israelis themselves can decide in an election—a democratic election. In all of that, the message they are getting is that the current Government no longer regard Israel as a friend, and that heaps pressure on an already beleaguered Jewish population. What does the Foreign Secretary say to my constituents, many of whom are simply giving up on this country?

I do not agree with the right hon. Member. I respect his point of view. I think we have to distinguish in this debate, as I have said, between Jews in Britain and indeed across the world and the Israeli Government, but we also have to distinguish between the Israeli people and the Israeli Government. There is a whole diversity of opinion in Israel on these questions. I just want to say on the election, because it was raised by the shadow Foreign Secretary as well, that I obviously listened to those people who said, “Let’s wait. Let’s wait even longer.” I do not believe we can wait. I believe the situation is too urgent. Look at E1, where the tender finishes before the election. If I can put it this way—I do this carefully—we cannot outsource our political and moral responsibilities to the Israeli Opposition. It is our responsibility to decide what we accept, what we consider legal and what we do.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I am supportive of further measures on sanctions against the current extremist regime in Israel, in concert with our international allies. As we approach the Jewish high holy days, however—and to protect the religious freedom of British Jews, who bear no responsibility for the actions of the Israeli Government—I would like some assurances from him that there is sufficient clarity on imports, particularly agricultural products such as etrogim, which are a feature of the festival of Sukkot, so that there are not unintended consequences of the implementation of today’s announcements as they take effect.

My hon. Friend asks a really important question—I am glad she did—and I said in my statement that there will be suitable religious exemptions from the import ban. Some hon. Members may wonder why it takes six to nine months to bring this in. It is precisely because we want to get it right, and getting it right means a proper dialogue with the Jewish community.

I have to say that I shed a tear—not necessarily at the sanctions part of the statement, but the part where the Government said that the occupation is illegal. Ever since my election as the first British-Palestinian MP, I have stood up to ask that question in statements such as this—I do not speak for the people of Palestine; I speak here for the people of Oxford West and Abingdon, but I could only ever speak for myself—and, frankly, I felt gaslit every single time I could not get a straight answer, so for that I say thank you. Now that Britain is standing tall on the world stage again—the United Nations was founded in Westminster in 1946, and we are applying international law without fear or favour again—how does the Foreign Secretary intend to work with Members across this House so that we can all play our part in ensuring that that institution and ours stand tall forever more?

If I may say so, I find the question the hon. Member asked and what she said incredibly moving, and I am very glad she asks that question. Let me say to her and Members across this House that I undertake to work together on these questions. I know that a lot of work has been going on before I became Foreign Secretary, including with Ministers, but I think there now is a real opportunity to work together across parties, and I say from this Dispatch Box that I will make sure that happens.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which I know has the support of British Jewish organisations such as Yachad and Progressive Judaism. I was with the Father of the House when, in an incident he has talked about, gun-wielding settlers came to visit us while we were in the west bank, and they had British accents, which is distressing. The Secretary of State said in his statement that this is a “prelude to justice”. Will the Government consider looking at universal jurisdiction so that British citizens who are supporting the illegal occupation will face the full force of the law?

I think we have sent a clear message today about those involved—businesses and individuals—in settlement activity. I will look at the point my hon. Friend has raised and write to him.

This is a sad day for the UK-Israel relationship, given the risks of what the Foreign Secretary is doing. Affecting the Israeli elections by making even moderate politicians even more hawkish is a huge risk. Equally, this is strengthening the Arabs’ view that suddenly they can actually destroy the state of Israel, and indeed giving a victory to the BDS movement, which will look at full sanctions. He will know that it is very difficult to differentiate between products and services on either side of the green line, and this runs the risk of a full boycott of Israeli goods. What assessment has he made of the impact of his proposal, and what discussions has he had with his opposite number in Israel?

There were a lot of questions there, but I really do utterly reject the premise of the hon. Member’s question, which is that this is somehow about the destruction of the state of Israel. Actually, my real fear is that the path the Israeli Government have embarked upon is undermining Israel’s security. I say to him very gently that it must be possible for us as a House, at the level of principle, to understand the difference between green-line Israel—within the 1967 borders—and the occupied territories. If we conclude that the settlements and the occupation are illegal, the right thing to do is to act.

On behalf of all communities in Glasgow South West, I thank my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for their global leadership. That leadership means we call the atrocities in the west bank terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and that we continue to support the Gazans—with full fervour—with anything they require. On Gaza, he knows that many of my NHS colleagues have worked and served there, so may I ask him to continue to support them, and to provide medical aid not only by bringing children here, but by making sure there is better infrastructure closer to home?

I thank my hon. Friend for the conversations we had in the run-up to this statement. I make this open offer to people across the House: the Minister for the Middle East, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), and I will work with Members in the run-up to the work we will do at the UN General Assembly. We have an important opportunity at UNGA to try to make a difference with the situation in Gaza. I look forward to working with him and others across the House on that question.

May I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his words? They were overdue, but they are welcome. More than 1.4 million people in Gaza are acutely food-insecure, yet the flow of essential goods faces significant restrictions, and Gaza is systematically denied the essential items it needs for long-term sustainability. People can buy an egg, but not a fertilised egg. They can bring in a potato, but not a potato tuber. What assessment have the Government made of whether the current interpretation of dual-use restrictions in Gaza is compatible with Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law?

The hon. Lady raises such an important point. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East was at the Al-Arish checkpoint, where he saw supposedly dual-use goods being blocked from going in. My answer is that the way that dual-use goods are being blocked is appalling. One’s only conclusion is that it is a strategy. It is deeply disturbing. I call on the Government of Israel to stop blocking the many entirely innocent dual-use goods that could make a difference to the people of Gaza.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for lifting the mood of the whole House. We are no longer bystanders wringing our hands; we are doing something active, and I thank him for that. I met Dr Nick Maynard this week. He is a surgeon in Gaza, and it is clear that the health professions have been deliberately targeted, with more than 2,000 killed. There is even a new word for it: healthicide. Will the Foreign Secretary meet me and some doctors to discuss how we can prevent this happening?

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that the number of aid workers and health workers killed in Gaza is appalling and dreadful. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East and I are happy to meet him and others—particularly in the run up to UNGA, but also beyond—because we need to try to make a difference.

I, too, applaud the Foreign Secretary for finally taking some assertive, confident steps to deter Israeli ambitions in the west bank, but I am perplexed as to why he is waiting nine months. The diggers may well have started in E1 by then. So, first, can he just explain in a little more detail why he is waiting so long? He has got a majority; let us get on with it. Secondly, has the Foreign Secretary made it clear to the Israeli Government that if this deterrent does not work, he is willing to take further steps and this is not the end of the story? Thirdly, I welcome his embrace, finally, of the strength of international law. Does he recognise that the security of Israel, Palestine and the United Kingdom stands in the impartial application of international law across the world? Will we see a pushback against American attacks upon the institutions that underpin international law? Finally, as part of the accountability that he has talked about, can we please have a UK-led investigation into the murder of our own citizens who worked for the World Central Kitchen? The Israeli Government have declined to conduct a criminal investigation, and officers of the IDF who were involved in that operation have been out in the media boasting that they would do it again.

The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on this issue. I will quickly clip through his questions, knowing the constraints on time, Madam Speaker. I agree with him on the World Central Kitchen. It is appalling that the investigation has been closed down. When one hears what happened in that incident, it makes one’s blood run cold, frankly. In the end, it amounted to a cold-blooded killing, in my view. On international law in general, we need to uphold international law, and we say that to all our partners. On timing, let me just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I want to do this as quickly as possible. We have to get it right for some of the reasons that have been discussed in this House—whether that is religious exemptions or making sure that we do not hit green-line Israel—but we want to do it as quickly as possible. If we can do it quicker, we will. I look forward to cross-party discussions on these questions. The other thing I would say to him is that our extension of the global human rights sanctions for international humanitarian law breaches will allow us to act more quickly, including on some of the things that could be captured in goods and services action.

Order. Asking more than one question just denies other colleagues the opportunity to contribute.

The Foreign Secretary and the new Prime Minister have shown leadership and moral courage by introducing these sanctions. I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s support for the International Criminal Court’s case on genocide in Gaza. What discussions will he have with allies to encourage more countries to support the ICJ’s judicial process to bring about justice for Palestine?

We are strong supporters of the ICJ and the work it does on this question and a whole range of others. To bring together his question and the question from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), it is very important that we uphold the work of these courts.

We genuinely welcome this statement. The Foreign Secretary has hinted at this, but let me be clear: it is somewhere between heartbreaking and criminal that it has taken three years and 70,000 Palestinian deaths for the UK Government to finally arrive at this position. Already, however, we are hearing that elements within the FCDO are briefing that these sanctions are largely symbolic. Will the Foreign Secretary utterly refute that? Will he confirm that these sanctions are not fixed and that there can and will be further action, should Israel press ahead with this illegal expansion programme?

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that under the previous Prime Minister this Government recognised the state of Palestine. That was a major thing that we did. I praise my predecessors for that, and we also took action on arms licences. I do not completely accept the picture he gives. I do agree though, and the Prime Minister has said this, that we need to do more. That is what we have done today. I think the sanctions regime will make a substantive difference, and that is absolutely our intention. He is right that once we bring in the sanctions regime, we will, as always, keep its scope under review.

In July I led a debate on settlement expansion. I argued for international law to be respected and for the status quo to end. For far too long, we were told that a trade ban was too difficult—even impossible. For far too long, Palestinian lives have not carried the same weight as Israeli lives in British foreign policy. Palestinians deserve to have the exact same freedoms as Israelis. They deserve to live free from checkpoints, free from settler violence, free from occupation, and free from oppression. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his words, his action and, more importantly, the change of direction, and for showing that Britain can lead with a clear moral compass once again. Today is one of those rare moments when foreign policy can genuinely make a difference. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that international law can and must mean something once again? Will he confirm that the ICC arrest warrants still stand and that Britain will respect that policy?

I praise my hon. Friend for her work on this issue and for leading that debate. She is right that we are big supporters of the work of the ICC. More widely, she makes such an important point about upholding international law. It undermines our reputation globally when we fail to uphold international law. If we want to build strong alliances, we need to be consistent in our approach.

Can I welcome the moral, legal and ethical thread running through the Foreign Secretary’s statement that the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as the life of an Israeli child? He is right to talk about consensus on the two-state solution. Where there is not consensus is on the timing of recognition of a Palestinian state. He will know that eight Members on the Opposition Benches joined the Saudis, the French and the British Government in recognising a Palestinian state last September. I am glad there is also consensus, including from our Front Bench today, that we want to protect the viability of a future two-state solution. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is action that is now required to reconcile those two positions, so that we have a viable state in the future?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for the conversation we had on this issue the other night when we ran into each other, which I found incredibly useful and important. He is absolutely right. We cannot stand by; we have to act. This is partly about our psychology as a country. We are not powerless—particularly when we work with others.

I stood in a farm in the west bank and saw all the olive trees burnt and all the families in the village turfed out at knifepoint, so I really welcome this statement and the step-up of action on the settlements. I welcome the action on the sanctions, on arms sales and on justice. Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate a bit more on the crucial demand that Israel releases the revenues—the tax paid by Palestinian people to Israel—that are being withheld and cannot be spent on schools, hospitals and rebuilding? Can he say a bit more about what he will be doing on that?

Absolutely. These are issues that we raise with our Israeli counterparts. There are so many crises in Palestine, but this is a terrible crisis, which perhaps does not get the attention it deserves. The withholding of money, in its own way, is threatening the viability of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian state. Yes, they need to keep reforming, but Israel needs to release the funds.

I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement today. When I visited the west bank in 2022 with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), we met Palestinians whose homes and schools had been demolished to make way for settlements. It was utterly heartbreaking. The measures announced today are very welcome, albeit overdue. Will he tell the House what specific action he plans to take on British companies such as JCB, which facilitate that destruction—

Great company.

It finances some of our political parties in this country, but not the Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.]

Order. I do not need any contributions from those I have not called to speak. I call Munira Wilson to finish her question—quickly, please.

Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what specific action he plans to take on British companies that facilitate this destruction, given that we were told by a Trade Minister this time last year that there was guidance on gov.uk—that is all there was—and that such companies should be aware of the reputational risk?

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I think she will know that as we design a sanctions regime, we do not comment on individual companies in advance, but I think my statement was very clear: we do not want to see the construction, financing and so on of settlement expansion. That is the way we will think about our sanctions regime.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both the substance and the moral clarity of his statement today? Last weekend, Mike Huckabee, the United States ambassador to Israel, condemned Israeli settler violence as terrorism. Does my right hon. Friend therefore share the widespread concern that the IDF, rather than taking action to arrest these terrorists, is all too often to be seen watching—or even facilitating, as has been widely reported—while Palestinians’ homes are attacked and their properties seized?

My right hon. Friend speaks with enormous distinction on these and many other issues, and I thank him for his contribution. He is right. I urge Members in all parts of the House to read the accounts of what is happening in the west bank and what is happening in relation to the settlers. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that members of the IDF are anything other than complicit in what is happening—episode after episode that has been documented of what is actually happening on the ground.

I join that long list of UK Ministers who have raised, at the very highest level in Israel, the most egregious practices in the west bank, designed specifically to prevent a two-state solution, only for Israeli policy to double down. Accordingly, I congratulate the Secretary of State.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. His experience speaks to the frustration of Ministers on both sides of this House who have repeatedly tried to make a difference, pleading with Israeli Ministers to see what was going on and to act on it, and who have been rebuffed. That is what has led to today’s announcement.

I hope the whole House will join me in condemning the personal attacks and smears that the Foreign Secretary faced over the weekend. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister for the strong stance they have taken. Does he agree that the acts of violence perpetrated by the settlers in the west bank must be called out for what they are: settler terrorism designed to forcibly remove Palestinian communities?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The world’s eyes have rightly been on the crisis in Gaza. The world’s eyes have to be on that crisis and also on the appalling settler terrorism we are seeing in the west bank. I talked about it in my statement, but the fact that a former Israeli Prime Minister described it as ethnic cleansing should give people—not just in this House, but in Israel—proper pause about what is actually happening.

It is welcome that the UK is finally banning trade with illegal settlements in Palestine and it is right that we no longer condone economic tolerance for these settlements, which fly in the face of international law and the sovereignty of Palestine. But if the sanctions are to be truly more than symbolic, can the Secretary of State tell us how the ban will be enforced and how we will ensure that goods from illegal settlements are not simply re-labelled, or services concealed within contractual sleight of hand, to get round his proposals?

Like all our sanctions regimes, fines and action will be taken against companies that breach them. We are widely known across the world for the strength of our sanctions regime. It is really important to underline the point that, by using the SAMLA powers, these will be tough sanctions, and it will be absolutely clear that there will be penalties for breaching them.

I strongly welcome the Government’s new sanctions, which are the right and moral approach to the crimes we have been seeing and continue to see in the west bank. The Foreign Secretary will have seen the comments from Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir that, in response to the sanctions, Israel should recognise Argentina’s claims on the Falkland Islands. Will the Foreign Secretary now make it clear that such threats will not stop the UK upholding international law and the right of people to self-determination, whether that is in the Falkland Islands or in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

Obviously, those comments are absurd and wrong. The Falkland Islands are British and will remain so because that is what the islanders want. Those comments show a complete lack of understanding and comprehension of the injustice and unlawfulness that is going on in relation to the occupied territories, because it is an occupation against the will of the people there. The Falkland Islands are British, as I say, because that is what the Falkland Islanders want.

Since the Foreign Secretary is not going to get the co-operation, fulsome or otherwise, of the Israeli state in differentiating goods and services made in the settlements from those that are assembled, repackaged, produced and grown in Israel itself, how is he going to distinguish the one from the other?

That will be the responsibility of British businesses and other businesses that want to import into this country. I want to underline this point. That is the point of the sanctions regime we are bringing in. Just to develop the point a bit more, it is likely to be based on the postcodes of where the settlements are. Companies will have to say that the goods they are bringing in do not come from those areas.

I support the Government’s complete opposition to the expansion of E1, and their opposition to the violent settlers who put the two-state solution genuinely at risk. I just want to press the Foreign Secretary further on his comments about BDS. What further specific details can he give this House that these measures will not be interpreted as support for that movement, or indeed—following on from questions from others—spill over into a de facto ban on other Israeli goods? We know that the BDS movement is supported by people who think that the Jewish people and the Jewish people alone have no right to self-determination.

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I also thank him for the conversations we have had in the run-up to the statement; they have been important. I will say a couple of things. We absolutely oppose the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel. This is about settlements in the occupied territories. In answer to the question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) on why this will take six to nine months, it is precisely to get the regime right so that it does not affect or impinge on green-line Israel.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. On behalf of my constituents, I am asking him not to overlook the Palestinian healthcare workers, including Dr Abu Safiya, who are being held in Israeli prisons, and for him to work to secure their release.

The hon. Lady raises a very, very important case, and I am glad that she has done. I am happy to look at it and will endeavour to do everything I can to make a difference.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his incredibly moving and courageous statement. He has been a friend of Israelis and Palestinians. When he was Leader of the Opposition, he and the Labour party recognised Palestinian statehood, and I am proud of the fact that this Labour Government have recognised Palestinian statehood. We know that at least 17 companies linked to illegal Israeli settlements were found to hold 125 UK public sector contracts worth £2.1 billion, so does the Foreign Secretary agree that without sanctions, we will not be able to take the necessary action to protect a viable two-state solution and ensure that we see the day when we have a Palestinian state?

My hon. Friend has been an incredibly powerful advocate on the issue for a long period of time, and I welcome her words. She is absolutely right: I am afraid that inaction is simply abdicating our responsibilities for what we see happening before our eyes, and what has been eloquently described by Members on both sides of this House. That is why we have taken this action, which is designed to make a difference and help to save the two-state solution.

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The middle east and north Africa contain multiple wars, protracted civil conflicts and severe humanitarian crises. Of the 193 UN member states, what exactly does the Foreign Secretary think explains the relentless focus—morning, noon and night—on the one Jewish state, a country covering just 0.01% of the world’s surface? Does he really think that all the antisemitic, Corbynista, activist crowd, and unintegrated, sectarian, immigrant groups, will again vote for his party if he panders to their unhealthy obsession?

I regret the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question, honestly. He needs to take a sober look at what has happened in relation to Israel and Palestine, and what is happening in Gaza and the west bank. From Members on his own side, as well as across the House, he has heard the huge injustices eloquently described. My view is that we need to be tackling injustice across the world, but we cannot ignore the centrality of Israel and Palestine—both our historic relationship with Israel and our responsibilities, and the suffering of the Palestinian people. Frankly, in terms of our geopolitical interests, we will never have stability in the middle east without a two-state solution. For all those reasons, it is right that we act.

Order. This session has been conducted with good tone and temperament, and that is how it should continue.

All of us want to see an end to violence in the west bank. The Government should challenge the Israeli Government, but also the Palestinian Authority. I find myself asking, “Will these sanctions bring peace any closer and how will they impact Britain?” Given that other anti-Israel measures have failed to have the impact that the Government seek, what difference does the Secretary of State think this new round will make? Given our deep trade relationships in areas like defence and health, as well as warnings about possible conflict with US policy, is there not a risk that British interests could be harmed as a result of this announcement?

I think the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is no. I want to correct him on one thing: these are not anti-Israel policies. This is about the occupied territories, which we as a Government, along with the ICJ, have found were unlawfully occupied—it is really important to say that. Once we decide that it is an unlawful occupation, I do believe that, as a matter of principle and morality, then other things follow about the economic relationships that we choose to have.

I warmly welcome the statement and thank the Foreign Secretary for taking this step. Yes, it has been far too long coming, and, yes, there is much more to do, but this is a significant statement, both in terms of recognition—the reality of the unlawfulness of the occupation—and in following through, with a promise to take action to ban trade with settlements. However, does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that, in the context of now years of genocide in Gaza—ever-accelerating ethnic cleansing in the west bank, as he has pointed out himself—waiting another six to nine months to implement these sanctions is still too long? We must speed up.

I thank the hon. Member for her kind words, and for her kind words behind the Chamber as we were coming in; they meant a lot to me. I want to do this as quickly as possible. Six to nine months is what I said in the statement, but if we can do it quicker, we will. We want to get this step right, because it is important that it actually makes a difference. It is also important to say—because it is, in a sense, the thing that will have got less attention today—that our extension of the global human rights regime to international humanitarian law violations will also help us to take action even more swiftly.