Israel-Palestine peace hopes threatened by polarization

It did not take long for the UK’s new Labour government to be hit with the dilemmas, and backlash, surrounding any decision on Middle East policy. Its announcement this week that it was to suspend 30 out of 350 current weapons export licenses to Israel, due to fears that UK law would be breached as there was a “clear risk” that the weapons may be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of humanitarian law, met with a furious reaction both domestically and abroad. Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s statement to Parliament was compounded by terrible timing, being made against the emotional background of the funerals of the six Israeli hostages murdered just days before.

The UK government’s action, and the response, has thrown a spotlight on the tortuous path Western democratic states now have to follow. Polarization is almost complete — there is little or no balanced common ground, making it difficult to express empathy for all victims, whether those of Oct. 7, their families and those affected, or those in Gaza and the West Bank. Sympathy for Israel is met with rage that genocide is being supported, while condemnation of Israeli actions must, it is claimed, bolster Hamas and terror.

Such has been the comeback on the arms decision. Senior Jewish organizations said the message sent was the wrong one at the wrong time and former Prime Minister Boris Johnson accused the government of “abandoning Israel.” In contrast, Amnesty International UK and lawmakers such as Zarah Sultana denounced the suspension as inadequate and said that all arms sales to Israel should be banned.

There is little or no balanced common ground, making it difficult to express empathy for all victims

Alistair Burt

Neither extreme is justified by the government’s position. Few focused on the heart of the issue: namely, how the government should perform its duty under UK law to examine arms exports in the light of international and domestic law, for which ministers are accountable to the courts. The law is not about who is involved in a conflict, or why. The foreign secretary made clear the UK’s support for Israel under external threat, expressed horror over Hamas’ murder of the hostages and called for the ceasefire that is necessary to end the suffering for all. The statement could have been made by any minister in recent times in similar circumstances, and the former governments of Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown all imposed such restrictions on arms to Israel.

But two new factors are affecting the equation. Firstly, the Labour Party’s sweeping electoral victory came against a background of it losing support among Muslim voters in heartland areas. Unprecedently, five new MPs, campaigning on Gaza in opposition to the Labour Party’s position, were elected in areas with a large Muslim population. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, as Labour leader, had fought a battle against antisemitism within his party and largely successfully restored relationships with the Jewish community, winning seats in constituencies with sizable Jewish populations. He now has to balance the two.

Foreign policy rarely features as an issue for most voters in the UK — apart from Brexit. But for key communities, an issue such as Gaza is overwhelming, producing bitterly divisive demonstrations and counterprotests, along with deep public unease and fear on the streets. The longer the Gaza crisis goes on, the more Western democratic politics, from swing US states to the cities of Europe, are going to be affected.

The tide of Gaza is steadily engulfing us all and we are seeing the options for peace being stolen

Alistair Burt

The second factor is that the polarization of the issue is being heightened from the usual baseline of Israel-Palestine rhetoric by the deliberate actions of the protagonists, who seem determined to avoid a ceasefire and continue the conflict for their own purposes, regardless of the catastrophe engulfing those who are suffering. You cannot execute innocent hostages, tortured and abused for months, and expect any right-thinking person to sympathize with your cause. You also cannot assassinate the leading negotiator of your opponents and expect to be taken seriously when you say you are looking for a mediated settlement.

The risk is increasing that the absence of an ability to take a balanced view of the conflict and the wider issues adds to the chance of war continuing until a trigger point is miscalculated or new facts on the ground are created that are impossible to negotiate away. Every child orphaned in Gaza is a new recruit for a movement dedicated to Israel’s eradication, while every hostage slaughtered adds to a settler’s or minister’s conviction that only an Israeli West Bank and a reoccupied Gaza offer a guarantee of security — despite all the evidence that neither of these positions will produce anything but generational grief.

We are where we are partly due to the intransigence of the political leaderships in Israel and Palestine over the years and partly due to the failure of the international negotiation processes of the past. The tide of Gaza is steadily engulfing us all and we are seeing the options for peace being stolen.

It is an axiom of diplomacy that you cannot want peace more than those involved. But in fact, yes, you can.

• Alistair Burt is a former UK Member of Parliament who has twice held ministerial positions in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office — as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State from 2010 to 2013 and as Minister of State for the Middle East from 2017 to 2019. X: @AlistairBurtUK