motion would support for this motion would further remove that ever thinning the veil of legitimacy that the uk's continued support gives to israel merciless war in gaza and it would show the beleaguered and battered people of palestine that we do care and that we have not forgotten them. and calling for an immediate ceasefire would also be a pivotal moment in the campaign to stop uk arms sales to israel because if a south african foreign minister said last week that the decision to stop the fighting in gaza is in the hands of the countries that supply israel with their weapons. and who knows, it might actually help some of the uk's political establishment and those seeking to aspire to the position to locate their moral compass.

he refers to a way of stopping the conflict, but does he not agree with me that the only way of a certain way to end this conflict is by a mass releasing the hostages, including the nine—month—old baby? and if thomas released the hostages straightaway, that is what we should be talking about? i straightaway, that is what we should be talking about?— be talking about? i think the very first sentence _ be talking about? i think the very first sentence i _ be talking about? i think the very first sentence i said _ be talking about? i think the very first sentence i said was, - first sentence i said was, "we utterly condemn the hamas attack and implore them to release the hostages." but there has to be a pathway to reaching that. the shadow foreign secretary, when he said that this would not bring about a ceasefire, was right, but to try and downplay the importance of this motion does not serve him well. and i do suspect that these moments do not come around very often, as he knows. and he understands only too

well the importance of tonight's vote. because it is moments like these, it is moments like these which shape the ethical identity of a country. and it is the decisions we take now which will reverberate down the decades, and they will define who we are and what we stand for. and that is why we are calling so clearly and unambiguously for an immediate ceasefire. because anything else presupposes that there can be a military solution to this conflict. and any other form of words threatens to give credence to israel, deploying its massive military capability in the gaza strip, will somehow be enough to destroy hamas. in reality, as everyone knows, and in the history tells us, the only possible solution to this crisis is a political

solution. to this crisis is a political solution-— to this crisis is a political solution. ., , ., solution. for the purpose of clari , solution. for the purpose of clarity. i _ solution. for the purpose of clarity, i could _ solution. for the purpose of clarity, i could understand l solution. for the purpose of i clarity, i could understand his argument better if he were talking about what the americans seem to call a temporary ceasefire, to see if more hostages could be released. but he appears to be calling for an unconditional ceasefire, which, and i see people nodding, which would leave all the hostages at the mercy of hamas and does not that put israel in the position where previously they have had to release 1000 people who had been criminally convicted to get one soldier back? and one of the people they released was the person who organised the hamas atrocities on the 7th of october? i hamas atrocities on the 7th of october? . ~ ., ., ., , october? i thank the honourable memberfor— october? i thank the honourable member for that. _ october? i thank the honourable member for that. i _ october? i thank the honourable member for that. i am _ october? i thank the honourable| member for that. i am absolutely clear that there has to be a roadway, there has to be a path towards peace, and that has to start with an immediate ceasefire. if it

doesn't, then there is no pathway. i will address directly the issue of humanitarian pauses in a moment, but mr speaker, when the snp last called for a vote on a ceasefire on the 15th of november, the death toll in gaza stood at 11,320. already, a heartbreaking number of people killed. just yesterday, john hopkins university, the london school of hygiene and tropical medicine released an analysis which showed that if this conflict continues on the same trajectory, there will be between 50 8000—75,000 additional civilian palestinian deaths in the next six months. —— 50 8000—75,000 so we know categorically what the consequences of an action will be, and no one can in the future claim that they did not know or did not

understand the consequences of what they were doing tonight. i’m they were doing tonight. i'm crateful they were doing tonight. i'm grateful for _ they were doing tonight. i'm grateful for him _ they were doing tonight. i�*m grateful for him for they were doing tonight. in grateful for him for giving way. does he agree that while some rules may be more malleable than others, the rules of international law are very clear on self defence and that the use of self defence must be proportionate? and on any view, 30,000 civilians dead, the majority of whom are women and children, is excessive and not proportionate. i think my honourable friend for that, she is absolutely right. the danger that we have is that we accept israel's response as being the new norm. with the danger that everybody across the world, it is terrifying, across the world, it is terrifying, a terrifying example to set and a terrifying precedent. ithank a terrifying example to set and a terrifying precedent. i thank her for that intervention. to address

the point from earlier on from the honourable member, if no one can argue with any credibility on what they used to call, and some people still do, humanitarian pauses, that convoluted idea of an organised, fixed term pause in the killing, one which would allow emergency aid into gaza only to have the carnage resume at a prearranged date and time. and i think that should be seen for what it always was, a smoke screen for politicians to hide behind while waiting to see which direction the wins of public opinion might blow. well, we have seen the way that public opinion is blowing across the world and here in the uk, with millions taking to the streets and polls showing 75% support plus for an immediate ceasefire. and the

harsh reality is that the government, having expended so much political and diplomatic capital on defending and justifying israel's prosecution of this war, now finds itself stuck on the wrong side of global opinion. and consequently, the uk's international reputation has been so diminished that when the process of finding a just, lasting peace in the region it does begin, the uk will struggle to play a meaningful part. so if this government cannot see the long—term damage that it is doing, then it is “p damage that it is doing, then it is up to this house to tell them, by demanding that immediate ceasefire. an immediate ceasefire which has already been endorsed by pope francis, the archbishop of canterbury, the moderator of the general assembly of the church of scotland, the archbishop of york,

scotland's catholic bishops, the catholic bishops of england and wales, the church of england's house of bishops, the muslim council of britain, the quakers, the leaders of the methodists of the united reformed church, the lutheran world federation, the un secretary—general, the un general assembly president, unicef, the world food programme, the world health organization, save the children and medecins sans frontieres, oxfam, action aid, international rescue committee, action against hunger, care international, medicalaid action against hunger, care international, medical aid for palestinians, the council for arab— british understanding, in islamic relief, christian aid, war on want, the carter centre, war child, unite the carter centre, war child, unite the union, unison, the kings centre, world vision, wateraid, tearfund, street child, star network, please direct, and scores and scores more

of churches, ngos, charities and individuals who have seen israel completely abandon international humanitarian law by imposing their collective punishment on a defenceless civilian population. a civilian population in whichjust 16 weeks an estimated 18,000 palestinian children have been left without a single living relative. will be... the only way we can ensure a permanent end to the cycle of violence is by facilitating a palestinian state alongside israel. the main block character this is prime minister netanyahu who has doubled down on his opposition to an independent palestinian state. does my honourable friend agree that the uk must show strong opposition to netanyahu's plan by unilaterally

recognising the state of palestine as a matter of urgency? i recognising the state of palestine as a matter of urgency?— recognising the state of palestine as a matter of urgency? i could not auree as a matter of urgency? i could not agree more — as a matter of urgency? i could not agree more with _ as a matter of urgency? i could not agree more with my _ as a matter of urgency? i could not agree more with my honourable . agree more with my honourable friend. absolutely, the united kingdom has shown a dereliction of duty towards the palestinians, and we have been very, very supportive and will continue to be supportive of a palestinian state. but all of those organisations and individuals and churches that i listed, they will not ignore the evidence of their own eyes. nor will they turn a deaf ear to the cries of suffering palestinians. and neither should we. mr speaker, the palestinian poet mahmoud darwish wrote, "in silence, we become accomplices. but when we speak, every word has the power to

change the world." so as i bring these remarks to a close, i want to share with the house the words of those being forced to live through this hell every single day. 30—year—old islam lost three of his four children, along with his mother, two of his sisters and both of his brothers when a missile hit their home. islam said, "my family spent days trying to dig the remains of the dead out of the rubble. the body of my brother to leo was found 200 metres away from the house due to the power of the strike, in pieces. my children's small bodies were torn to pieces. " his surviving sister added, were torn to pieces. " his surviving sisteradded, "my were torn to pieces. " his surviving sister added, "my brother mohammed was only recognised by his hair. nothing was left of my brother khalil apart from his hand." the

30—year—old physiotherapist who lost his wife and three children aged five, four and just three months, along with both of his parents and his sister, when a missile hit their home. he said," it took me four days to retrieve the body of my daughter either from the rubble. to retrieve the body of my daughter eitherfrom the rubble. she to retrieve the body of my daughter either from the rubble. she was only recognised by the clothes she was wearing." that same blast decapitated his five—year—old daughter. he said when the war started, "i had only one mission in life, to protect my children. i wish i were with them when the house was hit. my body survived but my spirit died with my children. it was crushed under the rubble with them." and that is why, that is why tonight really matters. that is why it will be times like these for which we are all remembered. we will be

remembered for what we did and for what we chose not to do. and for decades hence, people will say to us, "you were there." and they will ask is, "what did you do?" and some will have to say, "they chose to engage in a debate of semantics over sustainable or humanitarian pauses. while others will say that they chose to give netanyahu both the weapons and the political cover he required to allow him to prosecute his relentless war. but some of us, some of us in this house can say, "when we saw 30,000 innocent people killed, when we saw almost 100,000 innocent people injured, when we saw tens of thousands of traumatised children with physical and mental damage that will last for the rest of their lives, when we saw 2 million people displaced from their

homes, when we sought refugee camps bombed, when we saw hundreds of journalists killed, when we see hospitals reduced to rubble, when we saw places of worship and the people sheltering in them attacked, and when we saw ambulances which had been sent to rescue children being hit by missiles with those rescued children still inside, at that point, we will say that we chose to do everything we possibly point, we will say that we chose to do eve him we ossibl listened to the international court ofjustice when they determined there were plausible grounds that israel is in the process of committing genocide. we listened to the anguished pleas of innocent palestinians begging for our help to make it stop. and we listened to the anger of millions of people from across these islands, and then we used our immensely privileged position as members of this house to demand an immediate ceasefire. so by

supporting the snp�*s motion tonight, calling for that immediate ceasefire, this house can put itself on the side of peace, it could put itself on the side ofjustice, it can put itself on the side of the people, and it can put itself on the right side of history. the people, and it can put itself on the right side of history.— right side of history. the question is as on the _ right side of history. the question is as on the order... _ right side of history. the question is as on the order... order! - right side of history. the question is as on the order... order! can . right side of history. the question is as on the order... order! can i | is as on the order... order! can i just— is as on the order... order! can i just say— is as on the order... order! can i just say to — is as on the order... order! can i just say to members clapping, i have a list _ just say to members clapping, i have a list and _ just say to members clapping, i have a list and i— just say to members clapping, i have a list. and i can rule who speaks wear! _ a list. and i can rule who speaks wear! 50— a list. and i can rule who speaks wear! so i— a list. and i can rule who speaks wear! so i think we need to hear a debate, _ wear! so i think we need to hear a debate, no! — wear! so i think we need to hear a debate, not a debate in society! the question— debate, not a debate in society! the question is_ debate, not a debate in society! the question is as on the order paper, i call question is as on the order paper, i cal! david _ question is as on the order paper, i call david lammy to move the amendment a in the name of the leader— amendment a in the name of the leader of— amendment a in the name of the leader of the opposition. shadow secretary— leader of the opposition. shadow secretary of state!