Date: 2023-04-20
Chris Law: That is a very valid and good question, but right now I am particularly focused on the occupied territories, which of course are under the command of Israel. That is why I am pertinently directing my points to that today. In February 2022, Amnesty International published a report concluding for the first time that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians. Under international law--just to be clear, because most of us assume apartheid was solely in South Africa--apartheid is defined as systematic discrimination and domination, and inhumane acts committed in order to maintain that system. That is set out in the international convention on the suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheid and the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. This is not about politicising language: this is language that is respected in international law. Amnesty International's report is the result of more than four years of research and analysis, and I recommend that everyone in this room read it, as other international, Israeli and Palestinian organisations have previously drawn similar conclusions, including the respected Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, Yesh Din, Al Mezan and others. If the UK Government are serious about protecting the human rights of Palestinians, it is fundamental that the problem--the crime being committed against them--is first acknowledged, then investigated; that perpetrators are brought to justice; and that it is not allowed to continue. I will now move to the last part of my speech, which is the most pertinent point about where the UK stands: the UK Government are actively blocking action, and that is the biggest crime at all. Why do I say this? Let us look at the UK Government's position, which is that "we do not recognise the terminology about apartheid. Any judgment on serious crimes under international law is a matter for judicial decision, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies."--[Official Report, 13 December 2022; Vol. 876.] Let us follow that logic. Why is it that the UK Government have quite rightly called out war crimes being committed by Russia in Ukraine without any judicial decision, or called out in this House crimes against humanity--language that includes ethnic cleansing and, indeed, genocide--against Xinjiang by China? How can we pick and choose when we apply this logic? The UK Government must make a choice: they either unequivocally champion human rights around the world, or they turn the other way when it is not politically expedient to call out what they see. Here is the evidence that the UK is standing in the way of courts and other bodies making such a judicial decision. First, the UK stated its strong opposition to the International Criminal Court's Palestine investigation in 2021. How can the UK continue to oppose the investigation on the basis that it does not recognise Palestinian statehood, while at the same time allegedly respecting the independence of that court--which, incidentally, has ruled by majority that it has jurisdiction? Secondly, the UK voted against the Human Rights Council's resolution in 2021 establishing the current independent UN commission of inquiry on the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Finally, the UK Government voted against the UN General Assembly's resolution to request that the International Court of Justice provide an advisory opinion on the question of the legality of Israel's occupation, and only  last month, the UK and Israeli Governments signed the 2030 road map for UK-Israeli bilateral relations. The only pathetic concrete reference to Palestinian people in that document is this: "We will cooperate in improving Palestinian livelihoods and Palestinian economic development." Not a mention of those suffering human rights abuses, and not a slight glimmer of hope for them. The evidence is clear: the treatment of the Palestinian people is not primarily an economic or poverty concern, but one of systematic discrimination, erosion of human rights, and denial of identity and legitimacy. Therefore, under no circumstances can the UK Government continue to bury their head in the sand on this issue. As I have said throughout, silence is complicity.