On the 10th of October 2024 Barry made a speech in Westminster Hall where he argued that the UK’s position on Palestine is “incompatible with international law”.
Barry affirmed the importance of the UK in living up to its self-proclaimed reputation in following international law. He called on the government to recognise the state of Palestine and to do all it can to ensure it does not condone or support the “illegal” occupations in Gaza and the West Bank.
The decision made by the International Court of Justice on the 24th of July 2024 carries “immense weight” and it must be respected - Barry Gardiner.
The speech that Barry made to Parliament had to be shortened due to time restraints. You can read the full version of the speech here:
A week from today I will go to share a meal with my friends. I am hoping it won’t rain. Because we’ll be eating outside under a makeshift shelter of three walls with only branches for a roof. They always decorate it beautifully with gourds and fruits, but I will be taking my warmest coat with me because, it is a Sukkah. And a sukkah has to be open to the elements.
Importantly it should have a view of the stars. In Jewish culture it is partly a harvest festival, but part of it is a festival of Hope. It is part of a Jewish culture that I have always admired. Indeed, at one time I even spent a year studying Hebrew. (I was very bad at it.) But I say this because I want to draw a very clear distinction – between the richness of Jewish culture which I admire; and the paucity of Israeli government policy which I abhor.
It is an important distinction, but it is one which is all too often lost in our contemporary political debate. As politicians, we often operate within the bounds of pragmatism – for which too often we mean what we think is publicly acceptable to our voters. Sometimes though, we make appeal to a wider authority. We talk of the International Rules Based System by which we mean the World Trade Organisation or The United Nations. But often we only do so when it suits our position and when it does not, we ignore it.
That is why I believe it is crucial that we grasp the legal implications of the decision promulgated on the 19 July this year by the International Court of Justice. It settled the law in its advisory opinion on the legality of Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This opinion came from a request by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2022.
I believe the opinion carries immense weight. It is the interpretation of our world’s highest court of the law as it relates to the occupation of Palestine. Before I begin my analysis of the judgement, let me say in this week when we have been remembering the appalling events of October 7th that I condemn all unlawful killing. It makes no difference who commits it or what their motivation was.
International humanitarian law stands. Terrorism is terrorism and a war crime is a war crime regardless. Now to the judgement. In simple terms, the Court was asked to assess the legal consequences of actions taken by Israel over decades and how those actions impact the legal status of the occupation.
Additionally, the Court examined what legal obligations arise for other states and for the United Nations in response to this situation. The court ruled that the Occupied Palestinian Territory is to be considered a single territorial unit. This means that the failure to recognise Palestine as a state is out of step with settled international law. On September the 10th Palestine took its seat at the 79th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
It is not yet a full member because that has been blocked by the United States, but it has the right to submit proposals and amendments. The government of the UK still does not recognise the Palestinian State. I believe that is now incompatible with international law.
The court ruled that settlements and outposts in the West Bank and East Jerusalem were unlawful. It does not matter that Israeli law considers settlements to be lawful. They are not; and they should be evacuated. The court ruled that Israel’s exploitation of natural resources in settled land was also unlawful. The Court ruled that Israel occupied Gaza. It ruled that it occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It ruled that this occupation was unlawful. And that it must be brought to an end.
This also means that Israel must behave not as a warring nation state against another warring state, but as an occupying force with all the obligations that entails about its conduct, including ensuring that aid can get through to all who need it. The legal consequences of these findings for Israel are clear. The Court’s decision is clear. Israel ought to cease its unlawful activities. Halt all new settlement activity, and provide full reparation for the damage caused by its wrongful acts. This includes returning land, property, and assets seized since the occupation began in 1967 and allowing displaced Palestinians to return to their original places of residence.
But the implications of the judgement are not just for Israel. They impact other governments They impact our own. The Court made it clear that other states also have obligations. The Court emphasized that all states are required not to recognize the illegal situation created by Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories.
This means that they should not engage in trade, investment, or diplomatic relations that would entrench Israel’s unlawful presence. This advisory opinion is a landmark in the legal and political struggle over the fate of the Palestinian people and the integrity of international law. It highlights the obligations of all states, including the United Kingdom, to ensure that the rule of law prevails.
We are all duty-bound to act, not only in the interests of justice and human rights but to uphold the very principles of international law. That much is the law! It is clear. It has been authoritatively stated by the court. What is not clear is whether governments will abide by it! You see the judgement of the court is only effective if a sanction is available.
The law can state. The court can Rule. But none of it brings about anything unless the power of enforcement lies behind it. In the UK we are fond of saying that we respect the International Court system and the International Rules Based Order.
My challenge to the minister is this: Show it!