Military Co-operation with Israel

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of military collaboration with Israel.

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. My speech for today’s important debate was written and completed yesterday. My arguments were factually and systematically constructed, and at the core of my speech was essentially the pursuit of truth, with very little emotional rhetoric. I woke up this morning just before dawn, like millions of other Muslims around the world, to begin fasting for another day with some food and water, when news broke of yet another violation of yet another peace deal, as Israelis rained down bombs on makeshift shelters, slaughtering men, women and children. Perhaps like me, those men, women and children were preparing for their day of fasting, but now they will never see another sunset.

The question is this: have we provided those lethal bombs, or the parts for the aircraft that are dropping them, and has our intelligence sharing led to the slaughter of a further 400 people last night? I beg the Minister, “Please do not sit here and say we are doing everything we can,” because that will add insult to injury. I accept that no one in the Labour Government has openly called for the Israel Defence Forces to be given a Nobel peace prize, but we have not even summoned the Israeli ambassador to express our concerns or contemplated economic sanctions because, in the words of our Foreign Secretary:

“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.” —[Official Report, 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 152.]

I say to the family of the children who were burned alive last night that I am sorry; the Government say that we cannot afford to lose the money.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important and timely debate. He is right to refer to the Israeli airstrikes that killed over 400 people last night, shattering the fragile ceasefire and violating international law. He will also know that this has happened against the backdrop of the last two weeks, when we have seen a siege and blockade of Gaza, denying the people there food, water and electricity, which is collective punishment and in itself a war crime under international law. Does he agree that the silence of the international community is unacceptable? It is not a choice to act. The international community, including the UK, has obligations under international law and the UK Government must meet those obligations by imposing immediate sanctions on Israel.

I concur with the hon. Member completely. In the words of Martin Luther King:

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Against that backdrop, let us continue. As I mentioned, today’s debate has been secured on no other premise than to find the truth. At this moment, the global order that we helped to build stands on the precipice of collapse. If we, as one of its architects, fail to uphold the principles that we established, we will also be complicit in its destruction. No one voted me in to resolve the conflict in the middle east overnight singlehandedly, or expects me to do so, but what the British people in their millions are demanding—rightfully and unequivocally—is moral clarity, a strategic commitment to ending hostilities and the absolute assurance that our nation is not complicit in facilitating war crimes.

Today’s debate will not delve into the historical archives of the conflict, which date from Balfour onwards—the Nakba, the occupation and the consistent humiliation, or the Hamas atrocities of 7 October. Instead, this is a legal and moral inquiry into our nation’s military co-operation with Israel in the face of credible allegations, including of genocide, now before the International Court of Justice. The ICJ has ruled that the occupation is illegal and warned that Israel’s actions in Gaza may constitute genocide. Under international law, the UK has an obligation not only to refrain from facilitating those crimes but to prevent them actively. Yet despite that duty, our country continues to engage in military co-operation with Israel. The question before us is very clear: are we upholding the rule of law?

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government have introduced arms export licence suspensions, which target any weapons that might be of British origin that would be used in Gaza, but are attempting to balance that with the needs of the IDF to defend itself against acts of aggression—for instance, the Iranian missile attacks in other theatres in which the IDF is operating?

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; that is something I will come on to. The question is very clear: are we upholding the rule of law or are we complicit in its erosion? Too often we speak in numbers. Tens of thousands are dead and millions displaced, but as the saying goes:

“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”

Before we proceed, I want us all to pause not to cite figures, but to honour lives lost—two specifically. Shaban al-Dalou was a 19-year-old software engineering student who had already been displaced five times. The eldest of five siblings, he had memorised the entire Quran and was just days away from his 20th birthday when an Israeli airstrike hit the Al-Aqsa hospital compound. The world witnessed the horrific image of Shaban attached to an IV bag, his body burning alive. His mother, the woman who had nurtured his every single dream, was killed alongside him. For a crumb of solace they were buried together in an embrace.

Who can forget the face of Hind Rajab, a six-year-old girl who was trapped in a car with five of her dead relatives, their bodies riddled with bullets? The whole world heard her call for help—a voice scared but full of hope. Rescuers from the Palestine Red Crescent Society responded. Unfortunately, they too were killed. These are not statistics; these are human lives. Let us take time to look at their faces. The question before us again is: did we as a nation facilitate those crimes?

Following this, in September 2024, our Government acknowledged that Israel was at clear risk of not complying with international humanitarian law and admitted that there was a risk that UK arms exports might be used to commit serious violations. Yet according to Campaign Against Arms Trade, potentially £100 million-worth of military equipment has been approved for export to Israel, including spare parts for F-35 fighter jets that require continuous maintenance to remain operational, therefore constantly requiring spare parts. Furthermore, exports of F-35 parts are covered under what we call an open general licence, which allows unlimited exports to all approved partners worldwide., so we will never know the real numbers. Given that more than 15% of every F-35 is made in the UK, Israeli airstrikes would simply not be possible without British components.

I thank the hon. Member for securing such an important debate. It was horrifying and heart-wrenching to wake up this morning to see more than 400 innocent Palestinians being killed, including children, bringing the death toll to over 48,000. Does he agree that Israel is not using weapons to defend itself, but rather using them against innocent Palestinians? It is time the Government took action to stop selling arms so that international law is not broken any further.

In addition to the 400 the hon. Member mentions, we have seen close to 50,000 Palestinians killed, the majority of whom have been women and children. In addition to the manufacture and supply of F-35 parts, it appears that RAF Marham in Norfolk has been used at least seven times to send spare parts directly to Israel. Since declaring a so-called suspension of arms exports, the UK has issued 34 new licences, including those for essential aircraft components. I ask the Minister directly: which licences were suspended in September 2024, which licences remain suspended, and why have the Government refused to publish details of arms exports between July and September 2024?

Our military co-operation extends beyond arms sales; it is operational, especially when it comes to using our airbase in Akrotiri, Cyprus. In one year alone, from December 2023 to November 2024, the UK conducted 645 surveillance and recon missions, which amounts to almost two flights a day. Interestingly, during the same period, the US moved heavy transport aircraft carrying military equipment to Akrotiri, and the RAF subsequently conducted daily cargo flights from Akrotiri to Tel Aviv. We have been told that those flights were for surveillance and hostage rescue, but if that is the case, we must ask why we used RAF Atlas C1 aircraft, which are large enough to transport military vehicles and helicopters.

Does the hon. Member not accept that in the unlikely event that RAF transport aircraft had been carrying something as large as a helicopter or a military vehicle from Cyprus to Israel—it is the first time I have heard that allegation—we might have seen evidence of such helicopters or military vehicles of British provenance? The Israel Defence Forces have no need of such equipment. They have far more equipment than the British armed forces do.

That is the question that I wish to be answered. Were we involved, directly or indirectly, in the Israeli operation in Nuseirat in June 2024, when 276 Palestinians were killed at the rescue of four Israeli hostages? Critically, has our intelligence been used to conduct air strikes? If so, under article 25 of the Rome statute, is the UK now legally complicit in war crimes?

Does my hon. Friend agree that allying with Israel while it carries out a genocide will bring about the end of the international world order as we know it?

I completely concur with the hon. Member’s timely intervention. The Government claim that they provide intelligence only when they are satisfied that it will be used in compliance with international law, but what independent due diligence has been conducted to verify that? If hundreds of UK flights have taken place over Gaza, what have we witnessed? What crimes, if any, have we seen? In the light of what happened this morning, why has the RAF continued to deploy Shadow R1 surveillance flights towards Gaza, when a stipulation of the ceasefire explicitly forbids surveillance operations? Is that not a violation of the spirit of the ceasefire agreement? Can the Minister confirm that the Israeli armed forces will not use surveillance supplied by the RAF flights during a hostage exchange in future attacks on Gaza?

The war has taken the lives of an unprecedented number of aid workers, including three British nationals who were killed while working with the World Central Kitchen humanitarian convoy. Their families have repeatedly requested video footage from our own Shadow R1 surveillance aircraft, which was operating above Gaza at the time. The Government have refused to release it. Similarly, on 27 May, when at least 45 Palestinians were killed in Rafah, another UK surveillance aircraft was in operation. Again, the footage has not been released. Why? What is being hidden, if anything? If we are confident in our innocence, why the secrecy?

Finally, there is now mounting suspicion and evidence that UK facilities in Gibraltar are being used for the facilitation of armed shipments, harbour services, and jet fuel supplies for vessels transporting weapons from the US to Israel. Can the Minister please clarify the usage of Gibraltar in the war effort?

We must confront the bigger picture. The UK helped to build the modern international legal order, but we risk dismantling it today. International law is not a game of pick and mix, where we enforce it in one case —namely African despots—and ignore it in another. By allowing Israeli exceptionalism, we threaten to undermine the very concept of international law itself.

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, and I ask them to keep to an informal limit of about three and a half minutes, please.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this timely debate. We need to consider the potential vicarious liability of the UK state in military activities in Palestine and the middle east.

The murder of more than 400 Palestinians in Gaza last night must outrage us all. In the past fortnight, the passage of aid through Israeli checkpoints has been denied, leaving the Palestinian population in Gaza with less food, less water and fewer vital medical supplies. Israel’s rejection of the ceasefire and its extreme military action overnight has escalated the killing of civilians in Gaza, including women and children. It is a reasonable assumption that those airstrikes were conducted at least in part with F-35s, for which the UK continues to manufacture parts and supply maintenance parts. Will the Minister clarify whether they were used on this and previous occasions?

Despite the partial suspension of arms export licences to Israel, the Government left a deliberate loophole in place, allowing the export of F-35 parts to Israel via the global spare parts pool. In addition, the Government have issued at least a further 34 arms export licences to Israel since the original suspension—more than they originally blocked. According to new arms export licensing data published by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, the Government approved an open licence for components for combat aircraft. That licence appears incompatible with the Government’s supposed commitment not to supply military equipment that could be used in Gaza.

From reports of the High Court case between Al-Haq and the Business and Trade Secretary, we have been made aware that the Government continued sending F-35 fighter jet components to Israel despite knowing that there was a clear risk that they could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is more likely that F-35s were in use to shoot down Iranian drones, cruise missiles and other projectiles that were fired at Israel? Israel needs to use that platform to defend itself, given that it has faced two of the largest barrages of weapons fired at civilian targets since world war two.

As my hon. Friend has mentioned on several occasions, Israel is perfectly entitled to defend itself against Iranian attacks. It can have all the arms it wishes for, and it has the protection of other people from around the region, but the prerequisite is that it observes international humanitarian law in respect of the Palestinian people and that it vacates the illegally occupied west bank. Those are the conditions on which it should receive support.

Since the Government announced their partial suspension of arms export licences but maintained exports to the F-35 global supply pool, I have asked in the main Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in written questions whether they are engaging in discussions with F-35 partner nations about whether the supply of F-35s and spare parts to Israel could be suspended. They have made no effort to address that matter in the House, other than to claim that they cannot take action on the global spares pool without bringing the F-35 programme into peril, which would have implications for international peace and security. Preventing UK arms exports—specifically F-35 jets, which are dropping 2,000 lb bombs on Gaza with UK-made components—from being used in war crimes by Israel against Palestinians is in no way a threat to international security in Ukraine or elsewhere.

The US and the UK have actively constructed a false dichotomy in which the lives of Palestinians are pitted against the lives of other civilians. Continuing to transfer F-35 components to Israel is a violation of the UK’s domestic and international legal obligations, which include the strategic export licensing criteria, the arms trade treaty, the Geneva conventions and the genocide convention. Will the Minister say whether the F-35 joint programme office could control material movement based on part or number configuration? Will the UK consider raising with partner nations the need to temporarily suspend sales of parts to a nation that, last night, murdered several hundred civilians in Gaza? Will he state the legal implications for the Government if it is concluded that the F-35s have been used to pursue war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide against the Palestinians?