On Monday, the High Court in London delivered its verdict on the case brought against the government by Palestinian rights group, al-Haq over its arms trade with Israel. At Tees Valley Monitor, we have awaited this event with some interest, not only for its intrinsic significance, but because we have, in recent weeks, canvassed the opinion of Tees Valley MPs on the issue.
In the event, the High Court found in favour of the government, and rejected the al-Haq case that the UK government, by allowing components for F-35 fighter planes to be sold to Israel, is complicit in Genocide in Gaza. As for our inquiries to local MP’s the result was a resounding ‘prefer not to say’, a fact that we find disturbing in its own right.
Our inquiry began with an email from a group of human rights lawyers – the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) – detailing their support for al-Haq against the government. In support of al-Haq’s legal challenge, Amnesty International had circulated a draft open letter to parliamentarians, inviting them to sign. That letter, signed by 65 parliamentarians, was sent to the government on 16 May. One of those who signed this document was Middlesbrough and Thornaby East MP, Andy McDonald. The remaining six Tees Valley MPs did not do so, which is what prompted us to write to them to ask for their views on the case made in that letter (having first checked with Amnesty International that they had indeed presented the draft document to all MPs).
Andy McDonald has been openly critical of the government’s actions over the Israel-Palestine conflict, having been suspended previously for making statements in public in support of the Palestinian cause. He has also raised questions about it in the House of Commons.
No Comment
Redcar MP, Anna Turley, replied to our inquiry stating that as she is a government whip she is unable to comment in an individual capacity on this issue. The five remaining MPs did not reply at all. We then checked the parliamentary record (Hansard) to see if any of them had made any contribution to debates on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but none had.
So, what’s the issue that none of them want to talk about? In brief, components for American F-35 fighter jets are manufactured in the UK and supplied into a pool to which Israel has access. It is asserted in various quarters that Israeli military operations constitute genocide against the civilian population in Gaza. Our understanding of the government’s defence of its actions is that it does not directly supply components to the Israeli military, and whether or not Israel is guilty of genocide is for the courts, not parliament, to decide.
GLAN, on the other hand, reports that the government’s lawyers argued in the High Court that it is for parliament, not the courts, to decide on the issue of genocide, thus directly contradicting what had previously been stated in the House of Commons. Enough controversy to give our local MPs pause for thought you might imagine. But if it has, they are keeping it strictly to themselves. All of which raises questions, not about the Israel-Palestine conflict, but about what the electorate is entitled to know about the opinion of its elected representatives.
As Labour rebels lined up to oppose the government’s welfare bill this week their names were published and easily accessible. That, however, is the opposite case to that of the al-Haq challenge. When those rebel MPs’ names were published, they knew that this information would immediately be in the public domain. On the other hand, as we discovered in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, they do not do requests. But should they?
We should point out that the issue here is not the preserve of MPs. Our experience of approaching local council leaders for comment is similar – initial requests are generally ignored; questions submitted a freedom of information requests are answered evasively.
We acknowledge that politicians work in a difficult environment. Subjected to distrust, trolling, hate speech and death threats, it is perhaps little wonder that they are on the defensive. But that defensive attitude breeds only more distrust. We approached our local MPs for comment on a topic that was legitimate, non-trivial and in the public interest. Their silence can be interpreted in various ways – an unwillingness to provide their trolls with another meal, hubris, indifference, laziness, sycophancy. All are possible. As for us, we interpret their silence as “this is none of your business”. And we beg to differ.
Controversy at Glastonbury
The issue of comment on the Palestine-Israel conflict exploded again at the weekend with controversial remarks about the Israel-Palestine conflict made by performers at Glastonbury. In the furore that followed the BBC’s broadcasting of one of those performances, a few voices, including James O’Brien on LBC and Marina Purkiss on Channel 5’s Jeremy Vine, have pointed out that the heat generated by the Glastonbury incident is in inverse proportion to the gravity of the danger facing the people of Gaza. Many of the Glastonbury outraged have little or nothing to say about that conflict.
EnterStockton West MP, Matt Vickers, who posted a statement on X expressing his outrage at the Bob Vylan comments and the BBC’s broadcasting of them. Yet, when approached by Tees Valley Monitor, he had been unwilling to comment to us on the issue of the government’s conduct over arms supplies, thus providing a perfect illustration of the problem highlighted by Marina Purkiss and James O’Brien:
But the unwillingness of our local MPs to communicate on the issue of arms sales is evidence of a wider problem, one which, coincidentally, is discussed at length in a recent report by the think tank, Demos, on the crisis of liberal democracy.
The Demos Report “Upgrading Democracy”
A report from the cross-party think tankDemos(published 2 July), entitled Upgrading Democracy: A new deal to repair the broken relationship between citizen and state, discusses the need to find better ways for citizens to interact with the state in order to stem the rising tide of Trump-inspired populists who aim to undermine democracy. The report’s conclusion is that
“The new deal [mandatory voting] starts with politicians committing to listening differently to the very broad range of citizens, and demands that citizens engage in a radical reset of our democracy. This new deal between society and democracy, between citizen and state, is the reset it needs. It is the defibrillator to restart our democratic culture.”
Which is nice, but arguably a bit optimistic. While the ‘politicians listen – citizens engage’ line of argument sounds plausible, we think that a key component is missing which is the duty of politicians to engage with the public. As the present case amply demonstrates, MPs communicate entirely on their own terms. While that persists, we have to question what would motivate citizens to engage more fully in democratic processes, and thus protect us from the rise of autocratic leaders. What do citizens have to gain by it if politicians can stonewall them at will? In our view, by contrast, the ‘democratic reset’ begins with politicians’ duty to communicate, not simply to listen.
Paradoxically, the lack of candour by MPs leaves Tees Valley mayor, Ben Houchen, as possibly the most transparent of Britain’s politicians. Having been criticised for being overly secretive in the past he now submits to public questioning both on Radio Tees (next one today, Thursday 3 July) and also shortly, on 23 July, in live session (This is first such session and we wait to see if, like the radio broadcasts, questions will not be preselected. If so, then Houchen may have become a model of transparency and accountability in British politics).
But with regard to the silence of MPs over Gaza, it may yet come back to haunt them. The High Court’s verdict was that “It is not for a domestic court to decide whether the decision of the executive on that issue is in accordance with unincorporated treaties operating on the plane of international law."
In other words, as reported elsewhere, the issue has been handed back to ministers, and potentially therefore to parliament. A Guardian report quotes Sara Husseini of the British Palestinian Committee:
“Now the courts have kicked the issue back to the ministers, it is a matter for MPs and the electorate to hold the government to account.”
It is possible that we may all finally get to hear what our MPs think. Should the issue be debated in the House of Commons, there is a question that MPs might usefully ask of the BBC. In its 30 June report,Israeli strike on Gaza seafront cafe kills at least 20 Palestinians, witnesses and rescuers say, it states that “Videos posted by activists on social media appeared to show the moment a missile, reportedly fired from an Israeli warplane, struck the area.”
Was that warplane one that the UK supplies components for?
No Comment:
Tees Valley MPs
and the War
in Gaza
Photo by Emad El Byed on Unsplash
Scott Hunter
3 July 2025
On Monday, the High Court in London delivered its verdict on the case brought against the government by Palestinian rights group, al-Haq over its arms trade with Israel. At Tees Valley Monitor, we have awaited this event with some interest, not only for its intrinsic significance, but because we have, in recent weeks, canvassed the opinion of Tees Valley MPs on the issue.
In the event, the High Court found in favour of the government, and rejected the al-Haq case that the UK government, by allowing components for F-35 fighter planes to be sold to Israel, is complicit in Genocide in Gaza. As for our inquiries to local MP’s the result was a resounding ‘prefer not to say’, a fact that we find disturbing in its own right.
Our inquiry began with an email from a group of human rights lawyers – the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) – detailing their support for al-Haq against the government. In support of al-Haq’s legal challenge, Amnesty International had circulated a draft open letter to parliamentarians, inviting them to sign. That letter, signed by 65 parliamentarians, was sent to the government on 16 May. One of those who signed this document was Middlesbrough and Thornaby East MP, Andy McDonald. The remaining six Tees Valley MPs did not do so, which is what prompted us to write to them to ask for their views on the case made in that letter (having first checked with Amnesty International that they had indeed presented the draft document to all MPs).
Andy McDonald has been openly critical of the government’s actions over the Israel-Palestine conflict, having been suspended previously for making statements in public in support of the Palestinian cause. He has also raised questions about it in the House of Commons.
No Comment
Redcar MP, Anna Turley, replied to our inquiry stating that as she is a government whip she is unable to comment in an individual capacity on this issue. The five remaining MPs did not reply at all. We then checked the parliamentary record (Hansard) to see if any of them had made any contribution to debates on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but none had.
So, what’s the issue that none of them want to talk about? In brief, components for American F-35 fighter jets are manufactured in the UK and supplied into a pool to which Israel has access. It is asserted in various quarters that Israeli military operations constitute genocide against the civilian population in Gaza. Our understanding of the government’s defence of its actions is that it does not directly supply components to the Israeli military, and whether or not Israel is guilty of genocide is for the courts, not parliament, to decide.
GLAN, on the other hand, reports that the government’s lawyers argued in the High Court that it is for parliament, not the courts, to decide on the issue of genocide, thus directly contradicting what had previously been stated in the House of Commons. Enough controversy to give our local MPs pause for thought you might imagine. But if it has, they are keeping it strictly to themselves. All of which raises questions, not about the Israel-Palestine conflict, but about what the electorate is entitled to know about the opinion of its elected representatives.
As Labour rebels lined up to oppose the government’s welfare bill this week their names were published and easily accessible. That, however, is the opposite case to that of the al-Haq challenge. When those rebel MPs’ names were published, they knew that this information would immediately be in the public domain. On the other hand, as we discovered in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict, they do not do requests. But should they?
We should point out that the issue here is not the preserve of MPs. Our experience of approaching local council leaders for comment is similar – initial requests are generally ignored; questions submitted a freedom of information requests are answered evasively.
We acknowledge that politicians work in a difficult environment. Subjected to distrust, trolling, hate speech and death threats, it is perhaps little wonder that they are on the defensive. But that defensive attitude breeds only more distrust. We approached our local MPs for comment on a topic that was legitimate, non-trivial and in the public interest. Their silence can be interpreted in various ways – an unwillingness to provide their trolls with another meal, hubris, indifference, laziness, sycophancy. All are possible. As for us, we interpret their silence as “this is none of your business”. And we beg to differ.
Controversy at Glastonbury
The issue of comment on the Palestine-Israel conflict exploded again at the weekend with controversial remarks about the Israel-Palestine conflict made by performers at Glastonbury. In the furore that followed the BBC’s broadcasting of one of those performances, a few voices, including James O’Brien on LBC and Marina Purkiss on Channel 5’s Jeremy Vine, have pointed out that the heat generated by the Glastonbury incident is in inverse proportion to the gravity of the danger facing the people of Gaza. Many of the Glastonbury outraged have little or nothing to say about that conflict.
Enter Stockton West MP, Matt Vickers, who posted a statement on X expressing his outrage at the Bob Vylan comments and the BBC’s broadcasting of them. Yet, when approached by Tees Valley Monitor, he had been unwilling to comment to us on the issue of the government’s conduct over arms supplies, thus providing a perfect illustration of the problem highlighted by Marina Purkiss and James O’Brien:
But the unwillingness of our local MPs to communicate on the issue of arms sales is evidence of a wider problem, one which, coincidentally, is discussed at length in a recent report by the think tank, Demos, on the crisis of liberal democracy.
The Demos Report “Upgrading Democracy”
A report from the cross-party think tank Demos (published 2 July), entitled Upgrading Democracy: A new deal to repair the broken relationship between citizen and state, discusses the need to find better ways for citizens to interact with the state in order to stem the rising tide of Trump-inspired populists who aim to undermine democracy. The report’s conclusion is that
“The new deal [mandatory voting] starts with politicians committing to listening differently to the very broad range of citizens, and demands that citizens engage in a radical reset of our democracy. This new deal between society and democracy, between citizen and state, is the reset it needs. It is the defibrillator to restart our democratic culture.”
Which is nice, but arguably a bit optimistic. While the ‘politicians listen – citizens engage’ line of argument sounds plausible, we think that a key component is missing which is the duty of politicians to engage with the public. As the present case amply demonstrates, MPs communicate entirely on their own terms. While that persists, we have to question what would motivate citizens to engage more fully in democratic processes, and thus protect us from the rise of autocratic leaders. What do citizens have to gain by it if politicians can stonewall them at will? In our view, by contrast, the ‘democratic reset’ begins with politicians’ duty to communicate, not simply to listen.
Paradoxically, the lack of candour by MPs leaves Tees Valley mayor, Ben Houchen, as possibly the most transparent of Britain’s politicians. Having been criticised for being overly secretive in the past he now submits to public questioning both on Radio Tees (next one today, Thursday 3 July) and also shortly, on 23 July, in live session (This is first such session and we wait to see if, like the radio broadcasts, questions will not be preselected. If so, then Houchen may have become a model of transparency and accountability in British politics).
But with regard to the silence of MPs over Gaza, it may yet come back to haunt them. The High Court’s verdict was that “It is not for a domestic court to decide whether the decision of the executive on that issue is in accordance with unincorporated treaties operating on the plane of international law."
In other words, as reported elsewhere, the issue has been handed back to ministers, and potentially therefore to parliament. A Guardian report quotes Sara Husseini of the British Palestinian Committee:
“Now the courts have kicked the issue back to the ministers, it is a matter for MPs and the electorate to hold the government to account.”
It is possible that we may all finally get to hear what our MPs think. Should the issue be debated in the House of Commons, there is a question that MPs might usefully ask of the BBC. In its 30 June report, Israeli strike on Gaza seafront cafe kills at least 20 Palestinians, witnesses and rescuers say , it states that “Videos posted by activists on social media appeared to show the moment a missile, reportedly fired from an Israeli warplane, struck the area.”
Was that warplane one that the UK supplies components for?