Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

I call Abtisam Mohamed, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, the Government for allocating time for it, Members from across the House for supporting the application, and 32,000 constituents for writing to their MPs and asking them to attend and speak on this important issue. Two embattled generations have grown up in the ashes of the collapse of the Oslo accords. What little hope was cultivated then—the promise of two states, of dignity and of democratic rights for all—has been replaced with abject misery. This is how injustice survives: not through one dramatic moment, but through gradual acceptance, the lowering of expectations and the repetition of the same statements while the reality on the ground continues to change. For years, successive British Governments have said that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law, that settlements undermine peace and that they threaten the viability of a two-state solution, yet the settlements continue to expand. I pose to the Government the simple question that sits at the heart of this debate: if settlements are illegal, why have we not banned trade with them outright? What exactly is it that we are waiting for? Why do we continue to maintain a status quo that has rewarded Israeli expansionism while punishing Palestinian aspiration—a status quo that has expected Palestinians to quietly accept that their humanity, rights and self-determination must always play second fiddle?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a powerful speech; she always holds up a moral compass to us all in this place. Does she agree that those who deny access to medical treatment to children as young as four—who, while waiting for medical treatment, get to the point of near-fatal dehydration—and those who deny cancer patients in their thousands access to medical care in these settlements, are and should be defined as terrorists? If these settlers should be defined as terrorists, is it not incumbent on us and this Government to strain every diplomatic and every technological sinew to ensure that not one single pound of our money is spent enabling this behaviour?

I agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a powerful point. Some time ago, the Palestinian ambassador, Dr Husam Zomlot, reminded parliamentarians that Gaza, East Jerusalem and the west bank are not separate issues, but all parts of the same national story. They may be separated, occupied and besieged, but they are all connected by the same struggle for freedom. Together, they are the beating heart of one state of Palestine—a state that the UK, our Government, has quite rightly taken a historic step to recognise. Yet, although we have recognised Palestine in its entirety, we have failed to make that recognition a meaningful reality through any follow-up action. The expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank has seen almost 500,000 acres of Palestinian land appropriated since 1967. In the last year alone, more than 120 checkpoints and obstacles have been installed to control Palestinian movement. More recently, the E1 settlement plan, which was approved by the Israeli Government, includes just short of 3,500 housing units. It includes the construction of a new neighbourhood, a new employment and commercial zone, and a new bypass road, which is for Palestinians only.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. She points out that Conservative and Labour Governments have for decades recognised these settlements as illegal, and now things are worse than ever. We have recognised Palestine, which is a good thing, but with the expansion plan and the promised further occupation, it is surely inconsistent for us not to have a complete ban on illegal settlement goods. If not now, when?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The new bypass road, which is for Palestinians only, will reroute Palestinians and seal off the E1 corridor permanently. This is a state-wide strategy that uses every civilian and military means to appropriate land, isolate Palestinians and make a Palestinian state impossible to realise.

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. As somebody who first voted in this place to recognise Palestine in 2014, I think it is absolutely imperative that we realise a two-state solution if we are ever to see peace and prosperity for either Israel or Palestine. Does she agree that the very conduct she is talking about puts that two-state dream at risk, and that that is why it must stop?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why it is essential that we are having this debate and that there must be a ban on trade. I will not take further interventions now because I have to make progress. The annexation has accelerated so fast that today 750,000 settlers are believed to be living on occupied Palestinian land. Their presence each year robs the Palestinian economy, which is largely agricultural, of over £38 billion. Water in the west bank is extracted disproportionately to sustain Israel and Israeli settlers. Seventy per cent of grazing land in the occupied territories is systematically denied to Palestinians. Olive orchards are regularly set on fire. Toxic waste is dumped on their crops to destroy their economic future—I could go on. Between 2009 and 2020, Israeli settlers in area C received 22,000 building permits; for Palestinians, the figure was just 66. When Palestinians build their homes, their presence is rendered illegal and they are often slapped with demolition orders. Settlers, however, can have their illegal outposts given full legal status by the Israeli Government. In the last two years alone, 3,500 Palestinians have been displaced in the west bank. That is over 80 communities. This is an Israeli Government-backed policy reaching far and wide across the west bank.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I will, and it will be my final intervention.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I did give her advance notice that because of the rescheduling of the debate, I would seek to intervene on her. As she knows, I visited the area a year ago, and the whole situation is unacceptable; in fact, the Foreign Secretary has already referred to the current circumstances as “settlement terrorism”. Does she agree that taking action on this is about not just cast-iron sanctions on trade but financial services and visas, including visas of British citizens who serve in the Israel Defence Forces?

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The first act should be that we seek to stem trade from the settlements; the other points are valid ones that must be explored. Let us imagine two children born in the same land: one is born in an Israeli settlement; the other is born in a Palestinian community—perhaps one of the 58 refugee camps scattered across the nearby region. They may be separated by only a few miles, but they will grow up under entirely different systems. One will enjoy unrestricted freedom of movement, infrastructure investment, dependable access to healthcare, free-flowing water, the right to be educated, legal protections and state support. The other may face military restrictions, checkpoints, demolitions, land seizures and profound uncertainty about their future. They will both have the same dreams, the same hopes, the same potential, yet one will grow up benefiting from a system of privilege while the other experiences the consequences of occupation. These two children will be governed by two different sets of laws, one civilian and one military. I am sure everyone will be able to guess which child is which. These waves of injustice will keep flowing, over families, over communities, over generations. How is it possible that two children in the west bank can have such different experiences, yet still there is denial that it is apartheid? Across Europe, action is starting to take shape. Ireland has moved forward towards a ban on settlement goods. Spain has already implemented a ban. The Belgian Council of Ministers is expected to agree the detail of a ban tomorrow and for it to be in place by the end of this year. Belgium has also asked the European Commission to bring proposals to the Foreign Ministers meeting on 13 July. The Netherlands has begun moving beyond a policy of simple discouragement and has tabled a legal instrument to ban settlement trade. These countries have looked at the same legal questions and the same settlement expansions. They have the same international obligations as we do, but they have concluded that words alone are not enough. The UK remains hesitant, which should concern us all because our Government do have the tools to act. The issue is not capability, but political will. Some will argue that it is too complex to enforce a ban and that our system of not allowing tariff preferences for settlement goods works perfectly well. It does not work, and it puts us on a collision course with our international legal obligations. Ministers cannot in good faith say that it is impossible to ban settlement trade, not when the UK’s current trade agreement with Israel already depends on identifying whether goods qualify as being of Israeli origin. Complexity is not an excuse to hide from our international obligations. In fact, the complexity is why a ban is needed. Settlement goods are routinely mislabelled, mixed into supply chains and rerouted to obscure their origin. According to a major Global Echo study, 17% of Israeli goods that are either sold, supplied or advertised in the UK are actually from illegal settlements. In the last week alone, my office has identified products from 12 different companies based in the occupied territories being sold online or physically in our shops and markets. Most of them are marked as Israeli products, so the differentiation system we depend on does not stop the goods entering this country; it only allows us to slap a tariff charge on them. Those tariff charges actually mean nothing because the Israeli Government offer incentives to settlers. They give out millions in grants to companies to cover the costs of doing business from an illegal settlement. I remind the Minister of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of July 2024. It includes an obligation not to aid or assist the illegal occupation, and to take steps to prevent trade and investment relations that sustain it. When I have written to companies such as Barclays and JCB about their links to Israeli settlements, they offer very little concern, but if our Government were to take stronger action to compel them not to do business in illegal settlements, we would see that action. We would see them sever their links with illegal settlements. Others say that European countries find it difficult to enforce their bans, and that may make our job even more difficult. However, the question is not about new enforcement powers, but about utilising existing ones. There are enough instruments already to seriously disrupt illegal activity wherever it is happening. I need only point to the successes of legislation such as the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, through which much more complex sanctions have been applied in much tougher circumstances. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK did not say that sanctions were too complicated; we relished identifying Russian-linked assets. We did not say that economic pressure was pointless because Russia would just ignore it; we acted because we rightly believed in the principles at stake. What answer does the Minister have to the accusations of double standards that we constantly hear? If the Government believe that international law has meaning, it should be applied consistently. In years to come, will we have the words to explain that we saw the warning signs, we recognised the damage being done, and still we chose to hesitate? Will we really be able to look back and say that we did enough? There are only so many times that Members can hear the same holding responses repeated at the Dispatch Box by Ministers. The Government say that they support international law, that settlements are illegal and that they support a viable Palestinian state, so what does it mean if we can identify the problem and yet we refuse to take the necessary steps, and refuse to move beyond discouragement and expressions of concern? The time to legislate for a ban on trade with illegal settlements was decades ago, and now it may be too late to do anything. We must demonstrate that Britain’s commitment to international law is measured not only in what we say, but in what we do, because if settlements are illegal, Britain should not be trading with them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on the tone of her speech, and I agree with her motion. I could give a speech on dry, legalistic grounds, which in themselves are completely obvious, to show why we should have a trade ban with illegal settlements—because of the Geneva convention, or because of the fact that these settlements rely on international trade. The case is overwhelming, but I want to be more emotional. I am a Conservative MP. I am not the sort of person who goes on marches, or who chants about a Palestine from the river to the sea. I am also realistic about the fact that Israel is surrounded by enemies. I am profoundly philosemitic, and profoundly immersed in Jewish culture—I read the Old Testament every day and that sort of thing. I have been to the site of the music festival; I have wept at the appalling pogrom against our Jewish brothers. So I am emotional, and I am entirely in favour of the right of Jewish people to defend themselves. But this is so different. I have been to the west bank; I have seen what is going on there. This is profoundly wrong. People who have merely tilled their land for 2,000 years are being bullied and forced out. Even when we went there, we were confronted with armed settlers. This is outrageous. The whole House should cry out against it with one voice, and the Government should take action. That is why the motion is so important. I am appealing to my Jewish friends, and to so many good, honest, reasonable people who detest what is going on at the moment. They are entirely in tune with Jewish culture, but unfortunately the Netanyahu Government are bound by right-wing extremists, and by people who care nothing about human rights and who have this weird and ridiculous notion that because 2,000 years ago that land was perhaps held by Jewish people—we are not even certain of that—they have a right to go in and force out people and destroy their lives. I appeal to moderate Jewish people: this must stop. The Israeli Government could stop it tomorrow, couldn’t they? And if the whole world acted with one voice, I think we could put sufficient pressure on them. But just imagine, dear colleagues, if this stopped tomorrow. I will leave you with this thought: if there were no more illegal settlements, if no existing settlements were expanded, and if the Palestinian people were allowed to live in peace and freedom like everybody else, would not the skies lift? Would not Israeli people feel that they could live in peace? We cannot have endless war. Empires come to an end. The Israeli Government cannot just destroy the Palestinian people with the misguided notion that that will give them security. It will give them no security; there will be endless war, endless hatred. Let us in the House say that we believe profoundly in a unity of the human spirit. There should be no Muslim, no Jew, no Christian—we are one people, and we demand that the Palestinian people, like all other peoples on Earth, have a right to their own nation.

The Father of the House got the timing bang on without my having to put a time limit on him, but I will now put a five-minute limit on speeches.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for her powerful speech, and it is an absolute honour to follow the Father of the House. On the west bank, settlement expansion continues in violation of UN Security Council resolution 2334. That includes the E1 project that aims to cut the west bank in half, and separate East Jerusalem. Last month, Israel approved 2,000 settlement housing units across the west bank, bringing the total approved this year to over 6,000. Those settlements continue to destroy historic Palestinian communities, any chance of long-term peace and a two-state solution. They are also accompanied by staggering levels of violence, and co-ordinated attacks on civilians and religious sites, facilitated by a culture of impunity. According to the UN, there has been an average of six attacks every day against Palestinians in the west bank since the start of 2026. A recent report from the UN Secretary-General highlighted a steep rise in attacks by settlers on Palestinian children, reportedly often supported by Israeli security forces. It is part of a surge of settler aggression across the west bank, driven by the dynamics of Israeli politics. We know that elections in Israel must be held by the end of October at the latest, and as things stand, Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right bloc is facing the prospect of defeat. The radical settler elements in the coalition are scrambling to impose facts on the ground in the west bank before the elections. Throughout 2025 and the first half of this year, the creeping de facto annexation of the west bank has increased greatly, driven primarily by farm outposts, which require none of the planning and construction work of older settlements. According to a report published on Monday by Kerem Navot, and its fellow activist organisation Peace Now, farm outposts now control more than 100,000 hectares, which is 18% of the entire west bank. Nearly one third of that wholesale seizure took place in 2025.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for laying out her remarks so clearly—much better than I could have done—and to the Father of the House. Emotion rightly comes into this debate. We are not just legislators, and we need to bring that sense of feeling. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) is right to highlight not just that the settlements are happening, but that the aggression, backed up by the Israeli Government, exacerbates the issue. Does she have any hope that, realistically, any election in Israel will change that, and does she agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central that we need to act internationally to resolve this? I do not have faith that an election in Israel will stop this happening.

I agree, and I will come on to that point in a moment. Recourse to the law has been cut off almost entirely for Palestinians, particularly since another settler extremist, Ben-Gvir, was made National Security Minister. The violence is horrific, and it must end. The Government have been clear that we oppose the expansion of the settlements, which are a violation of international law, and I welcome the sanctions on individual settlers and settler networks that the Foreign Secretary announced last month. However, my constituents have been clear that we must go further.

As well as the ban on trade with settlements that we are debating, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government now need to spell out exactly how they will seek to dissuade those who might engage in the E1 project, which would be so damaging to the prospects of a two-state solution?

I agree. We must hold Israel to account for its actions, and we must end all trade with the illegal settlements. Those settlements do not build themselves; they require money and trade, and they are backed by the Israeli Government. That is the only way we can ensure that we are not financially legitimising violations of international law. I understand that there are complexities in banning that trade, but I share the belief of many of my constituents, and other Members, that the violence has continued at a rate that demands a proportionate response from the international community. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions the Government have had with international partners to better understand their plans to ban trade with illegal settlements? As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central mentioned, bans are in the process of being introduced in the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland and Spain. No law is perfect—absolutely not—but that does not mean we should not work on banning trade with the illegal settlements.

I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful speech. She talks about international law; does she agree with me on the importance of applying it consistently? In particular, given that the UK has rightly imposed sanctions and trade restrictions elsewhere—notably on Russia—does she agree that the same measures need to be applied to the Israeli Government’s illegal settlements on Palestinian territory?

I do agree. The statistics that I referred to must remain in our minds as we focus on illegal settlements, which are rapidly eroding the prospects for peaceful co-existence and a viable independent Palestinian state. Finally, I say to the Minister that it is imperative that we avoid the real prospect of doing too little, too late.

In the interests of time, I will focus my speech on four key areas, having waited nearly 10 months for a response to a letter that I sent to the Minister in which he neglected to answer the questions posed. First is the issue of complexity. The Government argue that it is just too complex to differentiate between goods produced in green-line Israel, legitimate Palestinian goods and those from illegal settlements. However, the Minister is acutely aware that the UK free trade agreement with Israel already requires settlement goods and those from green-line Israel to be differentiated. At the same time, the UK’s trade agreement with the Palestinian Authority means that Palestinian goods have completely different import codes, so the UK should already be distinguishing between goods. Therefore, why is it too complex to implement a ban on illegal settlement goods when, as was mentioned, the Government can apply complex trade sanctions relating to territory in Ukraine illegally occupied by Russia, including an outright ban on goods imported from Crimea?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those points. I, too, have engaged in written parliamentary questions and oral questions to try to understand why it is apparently so difficult to distinguish between goods from the illegal settlements, which the Minister for the middle east—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer)—said quite clearly should not be traded, and goods from Israel proper. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as long as that differentiation is not made effectively, there is no incentive for Israel to differentiate its goods and to stop hiding settlement goods behind those from Israel proper?

I completely agree with the hon. Member. That point could be made the other way round: if Israel cannot differentiate its goods—or it is hiding goods among others—why do we not just ban all goods until Israel proves otherwise? That would be a way to deal with it.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I assure the Father of the House that the passion he feels finds a strong echo in my part of the world, where the cultural memory of being driven off the land is still very strong. The Father of the House said that he would avoid dry, legalistic points, but I agree with the hon. Member that that is what the UK Government are doing: using dry, legalistic points. Does the hon. Member agree that the UK Government should do as other countries have done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) pointed out, and go all-out by imposing a complete ban and then dealing with the legalities afterwards?

I agree with the hon. Member, who pre-empts a point that I am about to come to. Again, the options are there. The Government are either unwilling or unable to deliver what other countries are already preparing to do—including bans—and to look at legalities later. Secondly, touching on the point made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), the Government repeatedly claim that other countries have been unable to bring forward a ban. That, too, is nonsense. For example, Spain is implementing a ban, and the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland are enacting legislation to do similar. Again, are the Government either unable or simply unwilling to abide by their own obligations under international law? Thirdly, I welcome the UK Government’s position—after having been dragged by their own Back Benchers—on recognising the state of Palestine, but we all know that that is utterly meaningless if there is not a viable state where the Palestinians can live.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this very important debate. May I put on record my constituents’ disgust at the actions of Israel in these settlements? Does the hon. Member agree with the Foreign Secretary’s use of the term “settler terrorism”, and that, if that is what we are seeing, we need a much more robust response by Government? If settlements are illegal, the goods are illegal, and we should not see them in this country.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I represent the city of Dundee, which is twinned with the city of Nablus in the west bank—I am also a member of that twinning association—and I have had thousands of constituents write of their disgust at the continued trade we do with illegal settlements and their continued expansion. Thirdly, as I said, I welcome recognition of the state of Palestine, but that is meaningless unless there is a land to live in. While the Government permit the existence of illegal settlements and continue to trade with them, they must acknowledge that that makes their stated policy of a two-state solution unachievable. After all, in case there were any doubt, Israel’s Defence Minister Katz stated that settlement expansion was “a strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state”.

The International Court of Justice ruled two years ago that Israel must end its occupation of Palestine, yet that occupation is increasing before our very eyes. Given that the UK is still supplying arms to Israel and has not introduced sanctions similar to those imposed on Russia, we are obviously not doing enough, so what else can the Government do to give the Palestinian people their land back?

I welcome my Celtic cousin’s remarks and I agree with her. On arms sales, one suggestion would be a recommitment to the Committees on Arms Export Controls that we once had and that I served on for seven years, which were dissolved two or three years ago. Such a Committee needs to be reinstated and what better opportunity than now, when we really need to scrutinise and examine what is being exported and in whose name. Returning to the two-state solution, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that as a result of the E1 settlement expansion plan “there will be no Palestinian state.” No need for clues, no need for second-guessing. I put it to the Minister yet again: are the Government unable or unwilling to take action? Their inaction only emboldens further settlement expansion and makes the UK complicit in Israel’s criminal behaviour against the Palestinian people. My fourth and final point is that it is all very well for the Minister to issue his condemnation, for the UK to “call on the Government to reverse these decisions” and for the Foreign Secretary to be “very clear” with Israeli Ministers, but without actions, as a result of the Israeli Government repeatedly ignoring these words, nothing will ever be achieved. Dithering must end and action must begin. What we are witnessing is the trading in misery, mayhem and murder of Palestinians, and their homeland continuously being stolen from them. When we do nothing, we are telling Israel that we support it wholeheartedly, and it shows how little we value Palestinian life. That is unconscionable and it is certainly not in my name or my party’s name, or those of the many thousands—indeed, millions—across these islands.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing the debate and speaking with so much passion about an issue that concerns us all. The ever-increasing number of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal—each and every one of them. Their purpose is clear: they are a means by which the Israeli Government can encourage land grabs, separate one Palestinian village from another, prevent the villagers accessing water and other utilities, and make it more difficult to map out a contiguous Palestinian state. They are also a way of intimidating Palestinians who find themselves surrounded by these fast growing and well-defended settlements. The level of violence instigated by the settlers has increased; more than 1,700 settler attacks causing causalities or property damage have been recorded across 270 Palestinian communities in the west bank in 2025 alone. On a recent visit to Israel and Palestine, our delegation saw the scale of the encroachment, the plans for further, larger settlements, and heard about examples of violence and intimidation for ourselves. We visited the village of Umm al-Khair, where Awdah Hathaleen was shot and killed last summer. Eyewitnesses and bodycam footage suggests that the perpetrator, who has never been charged, was a settler already sanctioned by the UK Government. While we sat in the open, speaking with villagers and playing football with the children, an IDF vehicle stopped outside our meeting and two, fully armed soldiers got out, had a casual look as they passed and slowly walked on, before returning the way they came. That was a minor incident, but let us imagine that it was our life, and we knew that the people living at the end of the street wanted our house and our land, and would do whatever it took to get it, with the full backing of their Government.

Having been to the west bank many years ago, I know that that is not a new thing. Does the hon. Lady agree that the use by the IDF of artificial intelligence machine guns, which are trained on people using sponge-tipped bullets and tear gas, is a way of dehumanising Palestinian people as an attempt to make people abandon their homes? We should be working with international colleagues to stop these new technologies being used in civilian spaces.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I know that there have been such examples in Gaza, too. I raised that in a Westminster Hall debate almost two years ago, and I was reassured by the Minister that none of those drones are being produced in this country, which is at least a start. It is also clear that sexual violence is being used as a method of intimidating and humiliating women and girls in Palestinian villages. Some 70% of displaced families cite sexualised violence as the decisive reason for leaving their homes. Some 41 new settlements in the west bank were approved in 2025, and smaller unauthorised outposts are becoming an increasing feature on the landscape. Let us be clear: the settlements we are talking about are an integral part of the Israeli economic system. European imports of settlement products outweigh imports from Palestine, and we cannot as a country allow that situation to continue.

My hon. Friend is setting out very clearly the illegality of the settlements on the west bank, and the Geneva convention is very clear on this point. There are reports that properties on the west bank are now being advertised for sale, which is absolutely despicable. Does she share my outrage that the Advertising Standards Authority has been silent on this point until now?

I absolutely share that outrage, and I will mention it later in my contribution. We cannot as a country allow this situation to continue. We are out of step with so many of our European partners. We have declared Palestinian statehood, which is great, but we owe it to the people of that state to ensure, in whatever ways we can, that it can function as a state. Increasingly, we are seeing the economy of these settlements moving from agriculture into tourism, real estate, financial services, construction, transport, digital platforms and logistics. Any action we take must be applicable across the entire range of goods and services, and must cover any goods and services that facilitate, support or benefit economically these illegal settlements. A ban that simply covered agricultural products, for example, would just encourage the movement of activity into those other areas. We know that existing restrictions on trade have been neutralised, in effect. The Israeli Government operate a reimbursement scheme in respect of EU customs duties, and settlement goods are often being routed through Israel for repacking. As colleagues have said, what we need is an outright ban on the importation of settlement goods and on advertising such goods, too. If we cannot do that, we should ban Israeli goods until they can prove that they do not come from settlements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, if not now, when?

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), and it is always a pleasure to hear the gentle Yorkshire accent of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) raised in fierce defence of peace, justice and international law. Colleagues, let us make no mistake: while this country does need to rebuild its physical defences, in the end our defence lies in international law and the set of rules that we created after the second world war to decide how countries should peaceably settle their disputes. At the heart of the problem of international law at the moment sits the plight of the Palestinians, and if they sit at the heart of the problem, so do we. This debate is so important today because it is not just about the Palestinians; it is also about we Britons, the world we live in and the way we want the world to operate when it is in dispute. As has been illustrated in the debate so far, nobody in this Chamber believes that the way the Palestinians have to live at the moment is acceptable. Nobody who has stood in the middle of Hebron and seen Palestinians living in cages or watched them being dragged from their homes, their olive trees uprooted, run over with cars and detained without charge; nobody who has seen the guns, the checkpoints, the walls, the UN signs saying where people can and cannot go or the enormous so-called settlements—that makes them seem somehow quaint, like “Little House on the Prairie”, but they are fortresses, forcibly invading and stealing other people’s land; and more recently, nobody who has watched these psychopathic settlers, though they are more like terrorists, roaming across the west bank, terrorising innocent Palestinian families on a daily basis and setting ablaze entire villages, can think that this is acceptable.