My Lords, the Minister, being a good Scot, will perhaps know the Scottish Gaelic welcome, “One hundred thousand welcomes”. I am happy to join in repeating the welcome to him. He has already referred to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which is part of the deployment. A little further on in the Statement, the Secretary of State said:

“Four RAF flights carrying over 74 tonnes of aid have landed in Egypt. I am considering whether RFA Argus and RFA Lyme Bay can support medical and humanitarian aid provision”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/23; col. 211.]

Has that decision been taken? If not, does not the deterioration we see on a daily basis in relation to medical and humanitarian aid suggest that, if it is to be taken, it ought to be taken fairly quickly?

My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of Caabu, the Council for Arab-British Understanding. I welcome the noble Earl to the Dispatch Box and offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia. If he speaks as well as he writes, we will do very well out of him.

There is no shortage of issues for this debate, as we have already heard. In welcoming the future noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to the office of Foreign Secretary, I at least have hope of a more productive dialogue with the European Union, but I suspect that the most urgent issue on his agenda will continue to be the plight of the Palestinians living, or attempting to live, in Gaza.

Let me repeat the two imperatives with which I began the last time we discussed this issue. First, there is no place for anti-Semitism, either in public or private, in our country. Secondly, Israel has a right to take proportionate action to protect its citizens and territory in light of the vicious, callous and barbaric attack of Hamas. But we, in turn, are entitled to question the exercise of that right.

Proportionality depends on circumstances. Let me offer this clarification: action in self-defence must be proportionate in method, but the results of any such method should themselves be proportionate. There are terrible and continuing events by the action of Hamas, but the Government of Israel do not have carte blanche. If you rely on international law for the advantage it gives, you cannot ignore the obligation it creates in return.

It is said on behalf of the Israeli Government that the damage to life, limb and property as a result of their military action can be described as “collateral”. It does not seem collateral to those who have been injured, and even less so to those members of families where whole generations have been lost. What does the euphemism “collateral” mean? I suggest that it cannot be used to describe severe damage that is known to be inevitable. The more damage done to civilians and property in Gaza, the greater the risk that similar organisations and countries sympathetic to Hamas may seek to intervene.

We should now ask what victory will look like. Who will take responsibility for the homeless, the recovery of the injured and the rebuilding of Gaza? The cost of reconstruction, social and physical, is increased by every action of so-called “collateral damage”. A military solution will not resolve these issues, but who would come to a political conference? Hamas, if defeated, is unlikely to do so, and Israel if victorious will see no reason to do so either.

Gaza will be a wasteland—just the circumstances Hamas will try to exploit for recruitment. Would it not be an irony if the present action became a recruiting sergeant for the terrorist organisation Hamas?

The truth is that the least-damaging outcome would be a ceasefire as soon as possible. That would ensure an opportunity for hospitals to be properly serviced and their patients properly cared for—no more pictures of premature babies fighting for their lives. For the preservation of the life, limb and dignity of the Palestinians in Gaza, there is no valid option other than a ceasefire.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of Caabu, the Council for Arab-British Understanding. I welcome the noble Earl to the Dispatch Box and offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia. If he speaks as well as he writes, we will do very well out of him.

There is no shortage of issues for this debate, as we have already heard. In welcoming the future noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to the office of Foreign Secretary, I at least have hope of a more productive dialogue with the European Union, but I suspect that the most urgent issue on his agenda will continue to be the plight of the Palestinians living, or attempting to live, in Gaza.

Let me repeat the two imperatives with which I began the last time we discussed this issue. First, there is no place for anti-Semitism, either in public or private, in our country. Secondly, Israel has a right to take proportionate action to protect its citizens and territory in light of the vicious, callous and barbaric attack of Hamas. But we, in turn, are entitled to question the exercise of that right.

Proportionality depends on circumstances. Let me offer this clarification: action in self-defence must be proportionate in method, but the results of any such method should themselves be proportionate. There are terrible and continuing events by the action of Hamas, but the Government of Israel do not have carte blanche. If you rely on international law for the advantage it gives, you cannot ignore the obligation it creates in return.

It is said on behalf of the Israeli Government that the damage to life, limb and property as a result of their military action can be described as “collateral”. It does not seem collateral to those who have been injured, and even less so to those members of families where whole generations have been lost. What does the euphemism “collateral” mean? I suggest that it cannot be used to describe severe damage that is known to be inevitable. The more damage done to civilians and property in Gaza, the greater the risk that similar organisations and countries sympathetic to Hamas may seek to intervene.

We should now ask what victory will look like. Who will take responsibility for the homeless, the recovery of the injured and the rebuilding of Gaza? The cost of reconstruction, social and physical, is increased by every action of so-called “collateral damage”. A military solution will not resolve these issues, but who would come to a political conference? Hamas, if defeated, is unlikely to do so, and Israel if victorious will see no reason to do so either.

Gaza will be a wasteland—just the circumstances Hamas will try to exploit for recruitment. Would it not be an irony if the present action became a recruiting sergeant for the terrorist organisation Hamas?

The truth is that the least-damaging outcome would be a ceasefire as soon as possible. That would ensure an opportunity for hospitals to be properly serviced and their patients properly cared for—no more pictures of premature babies fighting for their lives. For the preservation of the life, limb and dignity of the Palestinians in Gaza, there is no valid option other than a ceasefire.

My Lords, the Statement quite properly recognises the need for Israel to be proportionate in its response, but the law provides no definition of “proportionate”. Might I suggest a practical definition in the context of what we are discussing? The methods must be proportionate, but so too must be the outcomes of these methods. Particularly with regard to the second of these, are the Government satisfied that Israel is fulfilling its obligation?

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest: I am a patron of CABU, the Council for Arab-British Understanding.

Before addressing my general remarks, I want to make two imperatives. The first is that there is no place for anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom in either private or public life, and we should call it out whenever we see instances of it. The second imperative is the immediate and unconditional release of all the hostages.

I begin with a definition and, to some extent, pick up a point made a moment or two ago. Hamas is proscribed as a terror organisation, and by both its affiliation and conduct it justifies that judgment. We know that its members carried out acts of terrorism in Israel, only days ago. By its membership in the first instance and by its conduct, how else would you describe Hamas other than as terrorists? Its members are a lot more than militants, and that should be recognised universally in this country. Hamas killed at will. It took hostages who included—would you believe it?—the sick, the pregnant, children and the aged. The impact of its actions is global, because the Jewish family is not confined to Israel, as we know from the reactions from around the world.

The actions of Hamas were vicious and illegal, and Israel, by law, has the right to respond in defence of its citizens and territory. However, as was said by the Minister in his powerful opening, that response must be proportionate and openly seen to be targeting Hamas and to avoid civilians in Gaza. It is perhaps a more sensitive point, but I judge that any standing in the way of the supply of food, water and medicine when it is so obviously required would be seen as a challenge if not a breach of that proportionate principle.

It has been asked by some why Israel should be required to behave in a more restricted manner than Hamas. It is not about fairness; we gave up an eye for an eye long ago. These are the duties incumbent on democratic countries which claim—and in this case are entitled to—to honour humanitarian law.

However, civilian casualties are in their thousands on both sides—casualties which will be engraved on the history of Palestine and Israel. It need not have been this way. President Clinton brokered a deal between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. Promises were made, agreements were signed and hands were shaken, but it came to nothing. Arafat resiled from the agreement and, remarkably, Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a settler. The mantra that has been repeated down the ages has been that of the two-state solution. Surely neither Israel nor Palestine can ever again tolerate such bloodshed as they have tolerated in the last few weeks.

There is a crisis, but out of a crisis often comes opportunity. I am pleased to see that, right from the beginning, our Prime Minister has majored on the two-state solution. Let us be frank: to take that further there will be difficulties on both sides. For the Palestinians, there are anxieties about the illegal settlements and the status of Jerusalem. For the Israelis, there is the justified anxiety about their security and the continued challenge to it. There is no point in turning to the Balfour Declaration. It is of no use, not least because it is now interpreted by what its reader wants it to mean.

There can be answers to these apprehensions on the part of Israel and the Palestinians. For example, on the issue of security, Israel could be given security guarantees by members of the international community. For the Palestinians, there could be an end to the expansion of the settlement.

I leave your Lordships with this thought. What could be a better memorial for the children whose lives have been blighted, and in many cases lost, than an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians which brings an end to the strife which it has caused?