Many constituents have contacted Richard about both the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the hostages still held by Hamas. These are deeply troubling issues and while UK Members of Parliament do not determine foreign policy, they can raise concerns in the House of Commons and put questions to the Government about its foreign policy approach. However, ultimately, foreign policy decisions lie with the Government.
After the renewal of the active conflict, Richard expressed opposition to the military strategy pursued by the Israeli government and encouraged Parliamentary debate on this matter; including on plans to deliver humanitarian aid into Gaza and an economic strategy to help deliver a lasting peace there. Recently, Richard wrote to the Foreign Secretary about greater press access to Gaza and increased humanitarian aid and asked what action the UK Government is taking to apply pressure on Hamas to release the Israeli and Foreign National hostages it continues to hold captive. You can read Richard's letter to the Foreign Secretary here.
In response to the Prime Minister’s announcement to recognise a Palestinian state, Richard Fuller MP said:
The Prime Minister’s recently proposed pathway to recognising a Palestinian state sadly does not make sense to me. I have set out my thoughts and reflections on the proposal below:
- It is unilateral rather than part of a coordinated international strategy. The UK is doing this not as part of any wider diplomatic initiative but just because this particular British Prime Minister at this particular time thought it was a good idea.
- It appears more like a threat than an action. I don’t easily see why the UK unilaterally recognising a Palestinian state is the most effective way to influence Israel among many alternative measures available, such as an arms embargo, cessation of trade, or applying (much in vogue) tariffs. The Prime Minister could also recall our ambassador and dismiss the Israeli ambassador from the UK. I am not advocating any of these, but each is more concrete, if less theatrical, than the one chosen by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s proposal also does not require Hamas to release the hostages.
- It lacks clarity and coherence. What specifically is the Prime Minister proposing that we recognise? Is it a state based on 1967 borders? Does it include both Gaza and the West Bank? Right now, that looks more like two separate states than one as those areas are controlled by rival factions, Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank, who loathe each other. It seems like a symbolic gesture rather than a step toward peace.
- It may embolden extreme voices and be counterproductive - as I have mentioned to constituents who often ask for my views on the conflict at my Town Hall meetings, the Prime Minister’s decision has brought into the open what were previously behind-the-scenes differences with the United States: arguably the only country with any decisive influence on the Israeli government. I fear this clear exposure of differences will only embolden the more fanatical pro-Israel voices pressuring the Trump administration. Rather than supporting moderate, peace-seeking voices, this move could deepen divisions and provoke more hardline responses, both in the region and among international actors.
The UK, and the West more generally, have ceded moral authority by our inability to limit the suffering of the people of Gaza or to halt illegal settlements on the West Bank. Our Foreign Secretary quite rightly issued a strong statement on illegal settlements but what exactly is he proposing to do?
Domestically we haven’t been anywhere near vigilant enough to protect British Jews from intimidation on our streets or on social media.
I would welcome more positive, specific and concrete steps from the Prime Minister about how the UK can contribute to halting the humanitarian crisis, ensuring the hostages are released, eliminating Hamas and its repulsive supporters, and encouraging more moderate voices within Israel and the wider Middle East to create a peaceful and more secure future for Palestinians, Israelis and others living in the region.
This proposal, in my view, does little to advance peace for either Palestinians or Israelis and seems more symbolic than effective.
