Government in denial about what constitutes genocide, says Labour MP
The Government 'is in denial about what constitutes a genocide' in reference to Israel's actions in Palestine, a Labour MP has said.
Brian Leishman also described as 'appalling' a statement from Foreign Secretary David Lammy where he ruled out 'any discussion of sanctions' against Israel as 'just not correct'.
The MP for Alloa and Grangemouth criticised the Government's response in the Middle East during a Westminster Hall debate on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs).
In July, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion that ruled Israel should pay reparations to the Palestinian people, Israel's policies violate the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the creation of Israeli settlements are illegal under international law.
In May 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-defence minister Yoav Gallant.
Mr Leishman told MPs: 'The ICJ advisory opinion is significant because it adds to the growing international consensus that Israel is committing the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians.
'And that language is extremely important, because the international community has, and continues to, witness annexation, occupation, segregation and apartheid.
'The world is the witness of crimes against humanity and while the UK Government is in denial about what constitutes a genocide, millions of our own citizens, Amnesty International, and many nations from the international community are not.'
He added: 'The hard truth is that the UK needs introspection. To look at what we have done and what we continue to do to allow these dreadful acts of death and destruction to happen with impunity.'
During Foreign Office questions in January, the Foreign Secretary said: 'Israel remains an important ally. We have an important trading relationship, worth £6.1 billion last year and involving 38,000 British jobs. I am sorry; any discussion of sanctions is just not correct.'
Intervening on Mr Leishman on Wednesday, Independent MP for Leicester South Shockat Adam asked if he agreed that Mr Lammy's refusal to implement sanctions against Israel 'because we have a £6.1 billion trade deal is an absolute abhorrent statement'.
Mr Leishman replied: 'Quite simply yes, I'm in agreement it's an appalling statement and I would like to think our country is frankly better than putting a pounds and pence figure on the cost of humanitarian disaster and genocide.'
Labour MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley Tahir Ali said a two-state solution could only be achieved 'if the UK Government recognises both states'.
He said: 'By recognising one state you can never achieve a two-state solution. It's almost saying that we agree with Netanyahu who simply wants a one-state solution.
'That is not the way forward for a peace process and it should not be taken lightly what is being said and our denial is almost a complicity in that agenda.'
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson Calum Miller said the UK should observe the rulings of the ICJ and ICC.
He said: 'We think it is irresponsible for Conservative members to say, as they often do in the chamber, that these are foreign courts.
'They may be located overseas but they have legitimate jurisdiction over the UK because previous governments, both Conservative and Labour, have consented to this.
'Trying to portray them as a threat to UK sovereignty is not only false but damaging as it undermines the likelihood of other states accepting their jurisdiction.'
Foreign Office minister Hamish Falconer said the Government is taking its time in considering the ICJ opinion because of the 'complexity and novel elements' involved.
He said: 'Honourable members will appreciate that such an important decision necessarily takes time and careful consideration.'
Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth Debbie Abrahams intervened to ask if the decision would be made before a conference of contracting parties to the Geneva Convention in March, to which Mr Falconer said would 'not be drawn on precise timings'.
A number of MPs said the Government needs to condemn comments made by US President Donald Trump when he claimed 'the US will take over the Gaza Strip' and turn it into the 'Riviera of the Middle East'.
Mr Falconer said: 'The UK has always been clear and we remain clear we must see two states with Palestinians able to live and prosper in their homelands, in Gaza, in the West Bank.
'There must be no forced displacement of Palestinians nor any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip.'
Mr Falconer concluded by reiterating the Government's 'commitment to international law', stating they are continuing to consider the ICJ opinion 'with the seriousness and the rigour that it deserves'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How much is the benefits bill really being cut by?
The government is set to plough ahead with its controversial welfare bill next week, which it says will slash billions from the benefits budget. Despite a sizeable - and growing - rebellion among Labour MPs ahead of a crunch vote on the bill in the House of Commons next week, Sir Keir Starmer has maintained there is 'a clear moral case' for welfare reform. Labour insists that by passing a new law that will cut the number of people eligible for PIP, as well as cutting and freezing the health component of universal credit, it will ensure the welfare system can support benefits claimants long into the future. That view is not one shared by a number of disabled people and campaigners, who have expressed concern the government's calculations on the number of people affected by the proposals will be significantly more damaging than expected. The government has said the cuts will save billions by 2029–30, making it the biggest cut to welfare in a decade. However, experts believe that the government's calculations are modest, and in turn, the implications of the cuts are far more wide-reaching. The government's official estimate is that welfare spending will be cut by £4.8 billion by 2029-30. This will come from tightening the eligibility criteria for PIP, a benefit which supports disabled people with their daily living and mobility costs. By restricting who is eligible, the government is estimated to save £2.3 billion per year by 2029-30. The government will also freeze universal credit health top-up payments until the end of its term in 2029-30, and halve the amount available for new claimants. This benefit is for people who may have a limited capacity to work because they have a terminal illness, a complicated pregnancy, or cancer. The government estimates it will save £1.8 bn per year by 2029-30. Another working-age benefit change will see the 'new style' employment and support allowance and 'new style' jobseeker's allowance merged into a single contributory "unemployment insurance" benefit in 2028/29. This new benefit will be paid at the same rate as ESA but, crucially, will be time-limited. Unless you are placed in the support group, payment is limited to 12 months, saving the government £0.7bn. An increase in the standard allowance of universal credit is the final factor at play. By raising the standard allowance of the benefit year-on-year, the government will sacrifice £0.5bn in savings. Earlier government announcements and some reports referenced a target of £5 billion in annual savings, but the most recent official figures and statements indicate the expected net saving is £4.8 billion by the end of the decade. According to the New Economics Foundation, the cuts will actually save the government closer to £6.7bn - not £4.8bn - a year by 2029-30. The think tank says the government did not include the potential impact of plans announced by the previous Conservative government to reform the work capability assessment (WCA) announced in autumn 2023. This policy would have changed the WCA to make it harder for people to qualify for a higher rate of universal credit on the basis of illness or disability. This would have saved the government £1.6bn and potentially pushed 100,000 people into poverty. These proposals were ruled unlawful by the High Court in January 2025. However, Labour has been accused of including in its spring statement assessment that it has effectively "spent" £1.6bn by scrapping potential savings that never existed - and, at the same, downplayed by 100,000 the number of people projected to be pushed into poverty. However, the Institute of Fiscal Studies thinks mapping the extent of the cuts is 'relatively uncertain, and believes the savings could actually be a lot less than the government thinks. 'The impact of reforms to assessment criteria is more difficult to predict than the effect of changes in amounts paid, as the way claimants approach the assessment is likely to change in response," the IFS said in March 'Previous governments attempting similar reforms have found that they have saved much less than hoped.' According to the government's independent financial watchdog Office for Budget Responsibility, spending on health and disability benefits is projected to increase in the coming years, regardless of any cuts in the coming months. Starmer made his feelings about the benefits bill clear in March this year when he described it as "unsustainable, indefensible and unfair". But just how big is it? According to the government's own spending figures, the previous Conservative administration spent £1,095bn in 2023-4, with £361bn of that figure allocated to welfare – close to a third of its overall budget. That included £141 billion on the state pension and £220bn on other welfare, like universal credit. Drilling down even further into the welfare budget, the £75 billion spent on sickness and disability benefits in 2023/24 is more than the total departmental expenditure on defence (£57 billion) and transport (£46 billion), but well below the figure for education (£111 billion) and overall health and social care spending (£221 billion), according to Treasury data. However, spending on the welfare bill is set to increase, with the OBR identifying two key factors. The first is higher spending on pensioners, which could increase by 29%. This is because of the UK's ageing population and the 'triple lock', which guarantees pensions will rise each year by whichever is highest: the annual rate of inflation, average growth in earnings, or 2.5%. The second factor is the rise in the caseload of people receiving health and disability benefits - the very reason Starmer is looking slash it in the coming years.
UPI
23 minutes ago
- UPI
Israel, Iran and the last crusade for peace
Protesters march against U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war in downtown Los Angeles earlier this month. After this past weekend's strike by U.S. Air Force B-2 bombers and Navy Tomahawk missiles on Iran's Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear facilities, a fragile cease-fire has been put into place between the two nations. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo June 24 (UPI) -- Last weekend's strike by U.S. Air Force B-2 bombers and Navy Tomahawk missiles on Iran's Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear facilities has brokered a cease-fire between Iran and Israel. That this cease-fire is fragile is an extreme understatement. The reason is that the two most fundamental casus belli -- Iran's intent to destroy Israel and the future of its nuclear ambitions -- have not been addressed yet. No matter how one views the president, that there is even a patina of a lasting cease-fire present is a remarkable achievement even though its half life may be hours or days. And Donald Trump's brusque assessment that both Israel and Iran do "not know what the [expletive] they are doing" may be reversed. Both may know exactly what they are doing. The cease-fire gives both belligerents a chance to regroup, rearm and reconsider what comes next. For Iran, that leadership knows better than anyone how much or how little damage was done and whether or not the president's claims that its nuclear facilities have been obliterated are accurate. Preliminary satellite photographs show that a number of trucks arrived and left Fordow before the attacks. This suggests that fissile material and even some centrifuges may have been removed and are safely stored elsewhere. One important question is whether or not Iran or Israel is better off with and profits more from the cease-fire than the other. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can claim victory should the cease-fire last, he is stuck with the war in Gaza. Regardless of the rationale for retaliating for the heinous October 7th Hamas attacks that killed over 1,200 Israelis, Netanyahu's campaign is destroying Gaza as a viable place to live. That will become an issue again. The Israeli public no longer needs to fear missile and drone attacks at least for as long as the cease-fire lasts. This is the first time probably since 1948 when the public was at such danger from attack. This is, at least, a relief. Iran can regroup and reconsider its options. It can reconstitute its military and its chain of command. It cannot rebuild its air defenses that were destroyed, certainly for the short-term. And it cannot replenish in sufficient numbers its stocks of long-range ballistic missiles and drones that were either fired against Israel or destroyed in the air or on the ground. Reports that Iran could seek a nuclear weapon from Russia or North Korea are pure rumor and exceedingly unlikely. So what's next? Can the Gordian knot-like problems of Iran recognizing Israel and abandoning its plea for annihilating that country and forgoing much or all of its nuclear industries, especially those for peaceful purposes, be resolved? If they cannot, then the life expectancy of the cease-fire is at great risk. And the wars in Gaza and Ukraine still are ongoing. President Trump can call for negotiations between Israel and Iran, sustaining the cease-fire while these take place. But time is critical. It is unclear how long both belligerents will restrain themselves while a broader peace agreement is negotiated. One possibility is that they will not and hostilities could resume if one side sees an advantage in breaking the cease-fire. Regardless of outcomes that will determine the consequences of the cease-fire, for the moment, this is an unprecedented moment. However, the euphoria of the seemingly success of the U.S. attack can be clouding objectivity. Enthusiasm may not be justified. And given Trump's need for adulation, all the credits and well-dones could exaggerate the realities that will follow. Last week's column speculated that should the Iran-Israeli conflict be resolved, what Trump has termed the "12-day war" could lead to a lasting peace. While I, along with others, have many doubts given the history and need for a nation that has not been invaded or occupied to make such a volte-face, at least the possibility -- however slim -- exists. That means, Mr. Trump, for you to achieve your aim of bringing a real peace in the Middle East, Iran must accept Israel's existence and forgo all threats about its destruction. Should Iran be allowed to maintain peaceful uses of nuclear energies, intimate surveillance is vital. And this must be credible to and believable by Israel. To say that the chances of this optimistic scenario taking place are unknown and unknowable is understatement on steroids. But make no mistake. Even if the probabilities are one in a thousand, should peace follow, it could be the last crusade. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist; senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company, and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with Field Marshal The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.
Bloomberg
28 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Starmer Vows to Hold Welfare Vote in Face of Labour Revolt
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer doubled down on plans to vote on welfare reforms next week even after the number of Labour lawmakers threatening to rebel swelled. After 106 Members of Parliament with the ruling party initially put their names to an amendment that would kill the government's bill implementing unpopular cuts to disability payments, another 15 signed up overnight, with one MP withdrawing. If all opposition parties vote against the bill, that's more than enough to defeat Starmer's administration in a vote on Tuesday.
