Davey, Bruce and Younger-Ross on Gaza

• [Jan 15]: ' . . THIS is already a strategic defeat for Israel. I believe that we are seeing Hamas strengthened, not just in Gaza but on the west bank and elsewhere . . '

• Edward Davey (Shadow Foreign Secretary; Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): Sir Gerald Kaufman has made a powerful speech containing a great deal of knowledge and feeling. While I may not choose all the words that he chose, I entirely share many of his sentiments, and particularly agree with his point about the arms embargo. All the Liberal Democrats agree with him on that point of substance.

I also agree, however, with much of what the Minister said. I thought that he had the balance right in some of his criticisms of Hamas, which were very valid and must be made-were, indeed, made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. He was right not to shirk from using the word "disproportionate" to describe the Israeli action. But I urge the Government, in their discussions with the Israeli Government, to make clear that we in the House of Commons consider the Israeli action to be a disaster for Israel. It may achieve some tactical victories in destroying Hamas infrastructure, it may succeed in killing Hamas fighters and it may even reduce the frequency of some of the rocket attacks, but I believe that this is already a strategic defeat for Israel. I believe that we are seeing Hamas strengthened, not just in Gaza but on the west bank and elsewhere. I think we are seeing serious international damage done to the reputation of Israel. I really am very sorry about that, and hope that Israel will begin to realise that it is happening.

When I visited Israel and the west bank last November and talked to people at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and to Dr. Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority, there was a feeling that Hamas was beginning to lose the PR war and the support of many Palestinians, and was becoming isolated internationally. It was not being seen as delivering, and even on the streets it was being opposed by increasing numbers of Palestinians. The effect of the Israeli action has been to reverse that in just a few days.

The Israelis ought to know better. Hamas is an organisation that enjoys martyrdom, and seeks it for many of its activists. Unfortunately it is strengthened by that, despite all the efforts of the Israelis to put their side of the argument-and there is a side. We all know of the horrendous nature of the rocket attacks on Ashkelon and Sderot, for instance. We know about the civilian casualties-about the 311 children killed, the 76 women killed, the 1,459 children wounded. Numbers like that are unacceptable, and we should say loud and clear to the Israelis that this does their case no good whatsoever.

There is suffering on a scale that I do not think we have seen in recent times. There is a humanitarian catastrophe, with a lack of food, clean water, electricity and medicine. Blockades are preventing people who are wounded from seeking treatment. There is trauma for children and families. This is something that we cannot sit back and allow, and our voice should be loud against it.

Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Minister; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat): My hon. Friend has made the point that the Israelis are not learning lessons, and that their actions strengthen not just their enemies but their enemies who are extremists. The invasion of Lebanon led to a strengthening of Hezbollah, and not just in Lebanon: Hezbollah posters were seen in Ramallah for the first time. Is that not a lesson that the Israelis need to learn?

• Edward Davey: I fear that my hon. Friend is right. According to the assessments that I have seen of what has happened to Hezbollah's strength in Lebanon, it has already been politically strengthened and is now being militarily strengthened. It is rebuilding its arsenals, which is completely contrary to the intentions of the Israeli attack. I am not sure if there are direct parallels with the attack on Hamas in Gaza, but I think that, certainly in terms of the politics of the situation, the Israeli invasion is very counter-productive.

Julian Lewis (Shadow Minister, Defence; New Forest East, Conservative): The hon. Gentleman is making a very sensible argument about how terrorist organisations-and in the case of Gaza, a terrorist regime-deliberately try to provoke overreaction from their enemies, but I think he should pay more attention to the following aspect of the Israelis' point of view. I doubt if they ever thought they were going to win a propaganda war in the current situation, but let us consider it in relation to the invasion of Lebanon. That met with a similar degree of opposition worldwide, but is it not the case that there was an element of delayed deterrence in that the rocket attacks from that part of Israel's neighbourhood have almost died away completely? Should we not recognise that if the primary purpose of the current Israeli action is to stop the rockets, they may be making the calculation that it is worth losing a propaganda war in order to achieve that?

• Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman studies these issues in great detail and has a great deal of knowledge and understanding of them, but I fear that the reduction in the number of rocket strikes from southern Lebanon-indeed, there has been a period of calm there-is not necessarily because Hezbollah cannot fire the rockets, but because it is choosing not to do so and is biding its time. Therefore, I do not think the case the hon. Gentleman makes is necessarily backed up by the fact that rockets have not been fired.

I do not think Israel has a real solution to the endgame in Gaza. What is the objective? We hear three different options from Israeli commentators and politicians. The first-and perhaps the most realistic-option is that they want to teach Hamas a lesson, get some good ceasefire terms and get the rockets stopped. To a certain extent, that would seem to be a reasonable objective, but the problem is that Hamas would claim a victory in those circumstances; it would be strengthened, and it would, therefore, get more legitimacy as a result of this escapade than it ever had before. This action is very counter-productive, and there is a danger that even if Israel gets that outcome, with some messy ceasefire terms, the legitimacy and strength of the Palestinian Authority of President Abbas will be seriously undermined, and the Israelis may find that they end up having to talk to Hamas, which is something they have refused to do for many years.

Some Israeli politicians put forward a second objective: that they want to destroy Hamas, to replace it in Gaza with Fatah, and to have the peace talks only with Fatah. While people might think that is a desirable objective in many respects, it is so unlikely as to be ridiculous. The idea that a movement such as Hamas can be defeated in a military sense is nonsense. Hamas does not just exist in Gaza; it exists in people's minds-it exists in the west bank. Therefore, that is a ludicrous objective-although we do hear it being put forward.

I also think Fatah is too weak to take control in Gaza if Hamas were defeated. That is partly because of some of Hamas's appalling activities in executing Fatah activists, but it is also because Fatah lost the political support of many people in Gaza. I fear that if the Israelis defeat Hamas, rather than it being replaced by Fatah, there would be something far worse: there would be the danger of some al-Qaeda-type offshoot taking its place. That would set back the cause of peace many years.

A third, and possibly even more ludicrous, option is being touted around by some commentators: that Israel could force Egypt to take responsibility for Gaza. That is madness, but it is being advocated. President Mubarak simply would not agree to that. One problem is that this action is undermining him; it is playing into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. What does Israel want? Does it want a radical Islamic Government in Cairo? How damaging would that be to Israel's security? But if it continues along this path, that is what will happen. It has simply not thought this attack through.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Independent): In terms of dealing with the unintended consequences, is there not also a danger of spreading the loss of political security, even for us in this country? Are we being asked to underwrite the risks that our constituents now face as a result of this irresponsible behaviour by Israel in Gaza?

• Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I shall come on to that later. I just want to deal with one other explanation for this particular conflict that one hears from some Israelis. Some people argue that because Iran is getting closer to obtaining nuclear weapons and because, in its appalling way, it funds and supports Hamas, nuclear weapons would get into Gaza and Iran would use it as a launching pad. I have heard that argument advocated by, among others, Binyamin Netanyahu. There is no doubt that Iran is a serious threat-I understand how and why such people see Iran as an existential threat-but linking Iranian nuclear weapons and this attack on Gaza is a theory that is not backed up by any evidence or, crucially, by any logic.

First, it is not clear that Iran would need Hamas to launch a nuclear attack if it were minded to do so; unfortunately, Iran has far too many other options. Secondly, exploding a nuclear device anywhere in Israel would not be a particularly clever act for people who care about Palestinians to carry out. This is a small territory, so it is beyond me why Hamas, which is fighting for Palestinians, would want to kill Palestinians and see the fallout spilling out all over Gaza and the west bank. We have to say to the Israelis, who are making this bizarre argument, that it does not justify their actions, because it does not stand up to any analysis.

Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood, Independent Labour): A number of hon. Members have said that Iran is funding and arming Hamas. Could anyone explain how Iran gets the primitive explosives into Egypt, up to Rafah and through the tunnels in order to make these primitive rockets? How do such weapons possibly come from Iran? This is just a scare story, for which there is absolutely no evidence.

• Edward Davey: I do not agree with the right hon. Lady. Some of the rockets being used by Hamas, such as the Katyusha and Qassam rockets, are primitive and appear to be made within Gaza. However, some of the Grad rockets and others that have been used genuinely appear to have come from Iran.

Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed, Liberal Democrat): My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the dangers to Israel in the current strategy, but I think that he is looking too hard for explanations. Most ordinary Israelis want somebody to do something to stop the rockets, and they have been told by their leaders that not only is this action more likely to reduce the amount of rockets, but Hamas is much more likely to seek some kind of peace settlement if the military action continues. Unless the international community offers Israel a better option, many Israelis will continue to believe that.

• Edward Davey: I certainly agree that the international community needs to offer a better peace settlement, but the Israeli people are being told these things by Israeli politicians-I am not making them up-who are seeking election next month, and they are confusing the argument. We need to enter that democratic debate to tell the Israelis, "These are not excuses. They are not justifications. They are completely wrong.

Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside, Labour): Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that two months ago President Ahmadinejad told Hamas that Iran would continue to support it until Israel was obliterated?

• Edward Davey: Of course one is very concerned about many of the statements that President Ahmadinejad has made over the years, but I do not think that is relevant to this particular battle and the way in which Israeli is going about it. I believe that friends of Israel-people who believe in Israel's right to exist and want to support Israel-have to be very frank with her at these times, because she is making such an historic mistake. In doing that, we must put strong pressure on Israel, as well as on Hamas, to stop its actions. Israel needs to know that it is not just dealing with words; we will take actions and there are consequences to what she is doing.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Work and Pensions Minister; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat): rose-

• Edward Davey: No, I will not give way for a while. Israel needs to be reassured that we are with her against the Hamas rockets, but she needs to know that we will not stand by and see her jeopardise her own long-term future. We need to put pressure on Israel for another reason: the rest of the world needs to know that we mean it. The truth is that this action is radicalising, and will radicalise, people across the world. They are being radicalised not just against Israel, but against the west. They are blaming us too, as happened with the disastrous war in Iraq. For our security and global security, we need to use foreign policy to prevent a further spurt in the growth of extremism throughout the world.

What should that pressure be? We started with a resolution from the United Nations Security Council. We strongly welcome that, and the Government's role in securing resolution 1860. We wish that it had come sooner, and we wish that there had been no United States abstention, but it is clearly a step in the right direction. However, we need to go further, and Liberal Democrats have argued from almost the beginning of the conflict that there are two measures that the Government should take. The first is suspension of the new upgraded EU-Israel co-operation agreement, and I was pleased that the European Union agreed to that yesterday afternoon. Interestingly, when my right hon. Friend Mr. Clegg first proposed that on 30 December, the Foreign Secretary said that he was naïve. It now seems that he was not so much naïve as right. The Government and the EU should lead public opinion, but their decision eventually to suspend that new agreement suggests that they are following public opinion, so the measure is not as powerful as it should be.

Our second proposal for action is an arms embargo. It is inconceivable for Britain to send arms to Israel now. How can we condemn its action as disproportionate, as the Government have done, when we are willing to send arms? That is ludicrous. Even if the Government reject that embargo proposal, as it appears they will, the House needs to be assured that arms control policy on Israel is being strictly enforced.

Marsha Singh (Bradford West, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• Edward Davey: No, I will not give way. On Monday, the Minister gave me some reassurance, but we need to hear more about how we are monitoring the use of British arms that are sold to Israel and how the inspection process works. The Minster should give more detail. Will he also tell us how we can be assured that arms that we sell to other countries-whether the United States or elsewhere-do not end up in Israel's hands? We sell components for F-16s to the United States, which we know it has sold to Israel. There are concerns, and I hope that the Minister will reassure me.

Paul Rowen (Shadow Work and Pensions Minister; Rochdale, Liberal Democrat): Does my hon. Friend agree that a third area in which the UK should take a lead is in ensuring that the Security Council refers the atrocities on both sides-by Hamas and by Israel-for proper investigation as war crimes, because they are unacceptable? I agree that Britain should lead public opinion and not follow it. It is clearly unacceptable that more than 1,000 people have been killed-the UN headquarters in Gaza was bombed today-and nothing is being done about it.

• Edward Davey: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, although I would not necessarily use all his words. However, we need an investigation. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary early this week, following his statement on Monday that the Government support an investigation as soon as possible. I am grateful for the Minister's elaboration on that, but I urge him or his colleague, when responding to the debate, to say a little more. He rightly said that the investigation would have to wait until there is a ceasefire, but who does he envisage carrying out the investigation, and under what remit?

Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Defence; Westbury, Conservative): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• Edward Davey: I shall give way, but this is the last time.

Andrew Murrison (Shadow Minister, Defence; Westbury, Conservative): I am sure that most hon. Members agree that Israel has a right to defend itself against almost uniformly hostile neighbours, and that we must view arms exports in that light, but does he agree that a litmus test might be the veracity of the story from Israel that white phosphorus has not been used as a munition? That is the Israeli army's line, and if it is true we might take one view, but if it turns out to be false, as the UN is saying, we might have to take an entirely different view.

• Edward Davey: Our position on an arms embargo is not related to the use of white phosphorus, but to the need to get a ceasefire and to put pressure on Israel to move towards that ceasefire. The use of white phosphorus should be the subject of an investigation, because, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, white phosphorus can be used in a way that is against international law, particularly if it is used against civilians, and that would have to be investigated.

We also need to be putting pressure on Hamas. We should use our contacts, particularly in Damascus, to urge Hamas to come to the negotiating table and to push for a ceasefire. Hamas needs to know that unless it makes it clear that it will end violence, it will not get the legitimacy that it seeks in the eyes of the outside world.

If we use the tools of diplomacy to put pressure on Israel and Hamas we can bring about a ceasefire more quickly. I know that an awful lot of democratic action from our Government and others is under way and we hope that that will be successful as soon as possible. Many of us suspect that there will miraculously be a ceasefire in the run-up to next Tuesday and the inauguration of the next President of the United States. That is perhaps a happy timing, but it might also explain why Israel took this action at this time. Let us hope that we can bring about the ceasefire before next Tuesday, because with every hour and every day more people are dying, more children are dying and more people are suffering.

After the ceasefire, we need to redouble our efforts for a permanent peace settlement. The Minister was quite right to say that this is not just about the last few weeks, but is about months, years and decades. When I was in Israel and Palestine last November, I spoke to Dr. Fayyad, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, who is central to the peace negotiations on the Palestinian Authority's side, and to Dr. Tal Becker, the policy adviser to Tzipi Livni, who is in the room during the negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and was in the room during the Camp David negotiations. The message I got from both sides was that they were making real progress with the negotiations. Some of the substantive detail was being taken forward. They were both saying the same thing to me, even though they were not in the same room at the same time, which I took as rather a good sign.

There are some substantive positive developments, but they are not well known, because the parameters within which the negotiations are being undertaken means that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That means that press releases about the progress that has been made cannot be issued. I was convinced by both sides, however, that there has been progress. However, the problem is that behind the secret progress the Palestinian Authority of President Abbas have not been able to show progress on the west bank to the wider international community or the Palestinian people. The economic progress that Tony Blair has been trying to pursue as a middle east peace envoy has not really happened. The improved security that we have sought is in place in Jenin but in few other places.

Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire, Conservative): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• Edward Davey: No, I want to finish. Most importantly, the freeze on settlements that was crucial to the Annapolis agreement has not happened. Illegal settlements continue. That has seriously undermined the peace negotiations and seriously undermined President Abbas. What I fear most of all is that that episode has cut the legs from under President Abbas. I hope that I am proved wrong but I think that the Israelis have made a serious error and they will rue the day that they decided to take this action.

• . . Malcolm Bruce (Gordon, Liberal Democrat): I am pleased to speak after two of my colleagues on the Select Committee on International Development, the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), both of whom made very pertinent contributions in their own way. Importantly, we on the Committee, which has produced two reports on the occupied territories, have been increasingly depressed at the deterioration of the situation over a long period, and we are obviously horrified at the current situation.

The Department for International Development allocated $10 million for emergency relief, mostly through UNRWA, on top of £243 million that has been allocated over three years to support aid and development in the occupied territories of Palestine. However, not a penny of that money would have been needed if there had been peace. That money could have been spent in parts of the world where poor people need it just as much. It is frustrating for us that aid resources are being channelled in that way-not for development, but simply for first aid-and that conflict is costing our taxpayers.

I pay tribute to John Ging and the UNRWA team in Gaza, who are not only supporting the Gazan people through this time, but effectively sharing their suffering. UNRWA has given us detailed day-to-day information on just how horrific the situation has been. Bad and intolerable as the situation has been over the past two years, what has happened in the past three weeks has escalated the suffering, stress and humanitarian trauma to the civilian population beyond anything that can be justified by any provocation. Indeed, I am appalled at Members of this House trying to justify that degree of disproportionate action. Those 322 children have absolutely no responsibility for anything that has happened, and they are now dead. The House should acknowledge that we cannot stand by and accept that.

Not only that, but comments have been made about the role of Hamas. Hamas was democratically elected, and however much we might dislike it or condemn some its utterances and many of its actions, the actions of the past few weeks are likely to make Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank more likely not only to support Hamas rather than less, but even to begin to wonder how they will ever live in an independent Palestinian state alongside an Israel that behaves in the way that it has behaved in the past two or three weeks. It is important to recognise that if we do not take firm action and give a lead in delivering a proper peace process, we may well create a united Palestinian unity, albeit one under Hamas. Then the international community will have to determine how to deal with it.

Our Committee did not agree on how we should deal with Hamas, but most of us took the view that we had to engage in some way. The irony is that the United Kingdom has a long history of doing precisely that kind of thing. We had to deal with Mau Mau, with EOKA and with the IRA. No agreement was ever achieved other than by talking to those groups before agreeing the conditions for concluding an agreement. That seems to be a lesson that we can reasonably take from history.

In a very good statement on Monday, the Foreign Secretary said that the United Kingdom "supported resolution 1860-to uphold the standards on which Israel and the rest of us depend."-[ Hansard, 12 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 23.]

However, I would suggest that that resolution goes further than that. This is the crucial point that the Foreign Secretary was making. It is not just that Israel must recognise its responsibility as a legitimate state and a member of the United Nations, with all the obligations that that entails. The point is that the international community, particularly the United Kingdom, which played such a crucial role in creating the state of Israel, would be tainted by association with breaches of international law, flagrant disregard for UN resolutions and the possible perpetration of war crimes if we failed to ensure that a member state with which we are closely associated complied with international law on terms that we subscribe to. If we fail to act, we will be tarnished with collective guilt by association.

That is what our citizens are saying so strongly to the Government. They feel that they share responsibility for the conflict, and they want the Government to accept their responsibility to use their initiative, in concert with others, to try to ensure a resolution. Surely we have to seize an opportunity from the worst and darkest hour. All this death and conflict-and the possibility, as my hon. Friend Mr. Davey said, that Israel has made a tactical error-can be turned around if the new Administration in the United States, with a lead from the United Kingdom and Europe, say that Hamas has to recognise the mistakes it has made, that Israel has to recognise its responsibility and, above all, that we all have to recognise that the Palestinian people should not be exposed to this degree of suffering in future. We have to ensure that the regime that operates in Israel and the Palestinian states is designed to give prosperity, peace and a functioning state to Israel and Palestine, because the alternative is the disintegration of the entire region.

• . . Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Minister; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat): There have been a number of excellent speeches this afternoon. I commend Mr. Mullin for making some excellent points and I should like to bring light to what was said by Clare Short, who spoke with passion about the reality on the ground in Gaza.

Mr. Swire touched on the historic nature of the issue, and a number of Members have tried to clutch at some point at which all this started. There is a great temptation for some to say that it all started when Hamas, or whoever, started firing rockets into Israel. That is a very simplistic way of looking at this conflict, and it takes us nowhere.

A couple of years ago, I visited Jerusalem and Bethlehem. In Bethlehem, I bumped into an old lady on the streets and was introduced to her as a British Member of Parliament. She said, "I'm glad you've come because you need to sort out the mess that you started." In some people's view, the history of the problem goes right back to the 1920s. To argue that a person is guilty for this or that action takes us nowhere.

I wish briefly to discuss a small incident that affects a constituent of mine, and then touch on a general point about war crimes. On 30 December 2008 at about 05:30 hours EMT, an aid ship, the MV Dignity, was 53 miles off the coast of Israel when it was rammed by a coastguard cutter vehicle from the Israeli navy. It bore a Gibraltar flag and therefore sailed with British protection. There were 16 passengers on board, and aid to be taken to Gaza. There were three doctors-one Irish, one English, and one Palestinian. Also on board was Cynthia McKinney, an American Congresswoman, and reporters from CNN and al-Jazeera. The ship was organised by the Free Gaza Movement.

The ship left Larnaca, Cyprus, at 7 pm on the evening of 29 December. At 4.55 am on 30 December, it was about 70 miles off the Israeli coast when those on board saw big searchlights at the stern. For about 30 minutes, the searchlights hovered around them, occasionally being taken away and brought back on. Flares were put up into the air by the Israelis. Two gun boats had been circling them for this period, with no radio contact despite calls from the master of the Dignity. The Israelis turned off the searchlights and all went quiet. Then, without warning, there was a massive crash in the bow, the Dignity began to splinter and suffered severe damage to the bow. The Dignity began to take on water but, thankfully, was not sinking. The master of the Dignity immediately put out a mayday call but got no response. The Israelis eventually spoke, stating that those on board were terrorists and threatening to shoot at the Dignity. They demanded that the Dignity return to Larnaca, but it did not have enough fuel to do so. Eventually, the Dignity received help from the Lebanese and headed for Lebanon guided by the Lebanese navy.

That prompts serious questions about the conduct of the Israeli navy, in that it can make an unprovoked attack on a ship taking aid and supplies to the people of Gaza. If the Israelis genuinely thought that there were terrorists on board the ship, why did they not do what any British naval vessel would do-try to board it? Why did they not try to find out what was being carried on the ship? No-instead they rammed it, putting everyone's lives at risk. I know that the Foreign Secretary has promised to look into this incident, but I hope that there will be a full investigation. If these events are proved to be true, I hope that the Israeli ambassador will be called in to see the Foreign Secretary so that it can be explained to him that this is not acceptable behaviour and is against the laws of the sea.

Let me turn briefly to the issue of war crimes. If white phosphorous has been used-it looks very likely that it has-and one looks at the overall way in which the Israelis have hemmed in and treated the Palestinians in Gaza, they have committed war crimes. People will argue that it was a one-off, that it was an accident and they did not mean to do it, or that it was justifiable in the circumstances. However, if a nation has a track record of breaking international law in such incidents, one has to question what people's motives were and whether they really knew what they were doing. In Lebanon, 1 million unexploded cluster bombs were left lying on the ground, 90 per cent. of which were fired in the last 72 hours before the deal was done in New York and the start of the ceasefire. If that is not using cluster bombs as mines, I do not know what is, and that is a war crime.

• . . Bill Rammell (Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Harlow, Labour): With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had a good debate, but the division of opinion that it has revealed across all parties underlines the difficulty of securing a resolution of the problems in the middle east.

. . Mr. Davey made a balanced contribution. I think that when he said that the Israeli action was a disaster for Israel, he was at the very least advancing a powerful argument that needs to be listened to. There is, I think, a real risk that as a result of actions that are being taken, extremists will be strengthened and the moderates will be undermined. The hon. Gentleman referred to the European Union upgrade suspension. Let me make the position clear. Neither the European Commission nor the European Union more widely has made any decision on the future of the EU-Israel relationship. The context of the EU-Israel upgrade, as set out in the conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council in December, was that a backdrop of continued progress on the middle east peace process was important in parallel. The European Union will in due course rightly revisit the question of the upgrade, given that the context has clearly changed, but I strongly believe that for the present we should focus all our energies on securing and sustaining the ceasefire.

The hon. Gentleman also asked for reassurance on arms sales. Let me repeat what the Foreign Secretary said in the Chamber on Monday. Several Members referred to the arms embargos of 1982 and 1994, but they were established before the consolidated criteria introduced by the Government post-1997. We have some of the toughest arms export controls in the world. We do refuse export licences when we believe that they would be used for the purpose of internal repression or external aggression. I know that to be the case: as a Minister, I have refused such applications. We assess applications against the risk of licences being used in operations such as Operation Cast Lead. I think that that provides the reassurance that Members have sought.

Related Links

• • Powerless In Gaza: European Parliamentarians' trip. 6-11 November 2008. Jenny Tonge House of Lords 21.11.08