Balfour project submission to the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) inquiry into UK policy on Palestine/Israel

Posted: 20th February 2025



I hope you can find time to read the evidence we have submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) inquiry into UK policy on Palestine/Israel. It is hereand reproduced below, with the FAC’s permission. If you agree with our submission, please consider forwarding it to your MP.

It is an attempt to encourage our MPs and thus our Government to adopt a policy based on international law independent of the US Administration, which has already shown its contempt for basic rights and law by advocating the ethnic cleansing of 2.2 million Palestinians from Gaza. My email of 10 Februaryoffered a view on how our Government should respond.

Please also consider attending our half-day conference from 2pm on 8 May: “The Rule of Law: the route to a better future for Palestinians and Israelis”. We can accommodate 200 people who book tickets for the event at King’s College London’s Strand campus and many more on-line. Confirmed speakers include Lady Hale (former President of the UK Supreme Court), Blinne Ni Ghrálaigh KC (an Irish barrister who represented South Africa in its genocide case application to the ICJ) and Dalal Iriqat (a prominent Palestinian professor from Ramallah). You can sign up here. 

With very best wishes,

Andrew Whitley
Chair of trustees, Balfour Project
 Written evidence submitted by the Balfour Project Charity (IPC0039)
Question: What is the UK’s role in finding a resolution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians?
The Balfour Project
The charity’s aims are educational. It sheds light on Britain’s role and responsibilities from before the 1917 Balfour Declaration through the Mandate period and up to today. It seeks to advance equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis by making the right of both peoples to national self-determination in accordance with international law integral to British Government policy. Britain recognised Israel in 1950 and should recognise the state of Palestine now, while working with partners to uphold international law consistently and proactively.
Executive summary

  1. Britain’s history in the region gives us a unique responsibility to work with partners for a just peace, guided by the rule of law – a constant British interest. No one, and no state, can be above the law. Further Israeli illegal annexation of Palestinian land it occupied in 1967 must be prevented.
  2. This is an asymmetric conflict: strong against weak. Lawless violence has become the norm. That is both wrong and very dangerous. It needs to change. Safety for Israelis and Palestinians will require mutual security. Today, to avoid complicity in ongoing war crimes, Britain must suspend arms transfers to Israel.
  3. The Israeli people achieved national self-determination over 70 years ago. Israel’s future wellbeing, and regional stability, lie in Palestinian self-determination alongside Israel, with mutual security, ending the 1967 Occupation peacefully as required most recently by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
  4. The two-state solution will remain UK Government policy. Our Government should now recognise the State of Palestine on pre-June 1967 lines, uphold international law with consequences for those who break it, and use our influence and convening power to promote with partners a realistic vision of peace with justice that can endure. We should defend UNRWA and other UN institutions working tirelessly on the ground. We should work with the like-minded in Israel, Palestine and internationally – and challenge spoilers.
 
 
Argument

History

  1. Our history gives us both a unique responsibility and deep experience to work – with partners – to resolve this conflict. In the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Britain promised land which was not its own to give to a people who then constituted a small fraction of the indigenous population. Britain also promised no harm to the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish majority – a promise not kept. During the British Mandate period up to 1948, according to the distinguished British Zionist historian Sir Martin Gilbert, British policy flip-flopped but was consistent in one regard: to prevent the emergence of representative institutions for as long as there was an Arab majority. This was contrary to the Mandate Britain received from the League of Nations. Then, Britain was the power in the land. Now, Britain exercises influence for that very reason. More is expected of us. While the past teaches us to be modest with our promises, it also gives us cause to contribute disproportionately to the work for a solution of lasting peace with justice.
 

A dramatically asymmetric conflict

6.   The 7 October 2023 Hamas attack was a war crime, as is hostage-taking. As I write, however, Israel is using unbridled power – military, political, economic – to crush and starve the Palestinians – men, women and children – in Gaza and to annex swathes of the West Bank, facilitating settler violence which goes unpunished. One legacy from the British Mandate is detention without trial – administrative detention. Israel has just abolished it for Israelis, but not for Palestinians, over 3,000 of whom are locked up without charge, often for years. Worryingly, the Israeli Government is not listening to its US and European friends, including the UK, despite the severe decline in its standing internationally – particularly in the Global South. The charge of Israeli genocidein Gaza is before the International Court of Justice. Amnesty International has concluded that the charge is justified. A former Israeli Defence Minister condemns ethnic cleansing in North Gaza, where people are starving. He is courageous, and right.

UK policy and lessons to learn

  1. For over 40 years, UK policy has been to aspire to two states as the optimal and just solution for both peoples, for the region and for the world. This bipartisan policy has been constantly reiterated, and so is unlikely to change in the near future. It is legitimate however to ask our Government to go beyond verbal support to act in a manner consistent with that policy, i.e. to do everything possible to preserve the prospect of two states, and to challenge those who wish to destroy it. The current Prime Minister of Israel is committed to destroying it, by maintaining Palestinian divisions and the annexation of occupied territory through illegal settlements and integration of those lands into Israel proper. This fact has long been evident, and helps to explain the failure of the last serious US effort to facilitate Israel/PLO negotiations when John Kerry was Secretary of State (2013-14). The British Government of the day was strongly supportive of Kerry, who opted not to set public parameters for the negotiations, including a firm timetable, for fear that Mr Netanyahu would not engage. That was a mistake. Britain overestimated the ability of the US to influence Israeli policy. The US tendency to go solo – to monopolise the negotiating effort – is unwise. The US is necessary, but not sufficient to deliver an outcome. Repeatedly, the PLO found that the US was not even-handed. What was ostensibly a proposal put to the Palestinians by an “honest broker” had actually been pre-agreed by the US with Israel. There is need for a wider effort, engaging the Palestinians, the US, Europe, the GCC and particularly Jordan and Egypt, with whom Israel has formal peace treaties. If Israel declines to negotiate, that cannot be the end of the matter. Concerted pressure will need to be exerted, to preserve the dwindling hopes of Palestinians that one day they will be able to exercise freely their inalienable right to self-determination, in common with all peoples of the world.
 

The rule of law and accountability

  1. The primacy of law is a direct, constant British interest, as well as a universal value. No one, and no state, can be above the law. The wellbeing of the UK is heavily dependent on a rules-based system both at home and abroad, with negative consequences for those who break the rules. We are a medium-sized nation needing to trade freely in the world. It matters to us that we uphold the law and expect others to do likewise. Applying the law to this conflict includes applying the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits the transfer of people from the occupying power onto the land of the occupied people and demands that the occupier protects the rights of the latter. Israel’s settlements in today’s East Jerusalem (which includes a large swathe of the West Bank formally annexed after 1967) and the rest of the West Bank are illegal. In March 2025 the Swiss Government plans to hold a meeting of all High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, including Britain, to examine how best to uphold the Fourth Convention in the context of Israel’s actions. Our Government should play its full part in this important meeting, to ensure a robust outcome. Applying the law also includes heeding and actively upholding the Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice – most recently its Opinion of 19 July that the Israeli Occupation of 1967 is unlawful and must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible. No state should do anything which could serve to prolong the Occupation. Most surprisingly, although our Government did not dissent from the ICJ’s main findings, the Government’s assessment of UK obligations arising from that Opinion is still awaited, five months on.
  2. Applying international law rigorously to this conflict is a strong UK interest and contributes to a sustainable, objective way forward. The ICJ is clear that the Occupied Palestinian Territory is just that – Palestinian land unlawfully occupied by Israel. The Opinion effectively draws the borders of the state of Palestine, along the pre-1967 Green Lines, to be changed only by agreement between the two parties as equals. It is the responsibility of all states not to prolong the Occupation by any means. That includes any engagement with illegal settlements and those who sustain settlements.
Our Government should share the Irish Government’s view that settlements = annexation and emulate Ireland’s decision to ban trade and any other engagement with settlements. 

UK to recognise the state of Palestine now, on pre-June 1967 lines

  1. Our Government’s position on recognising the state of Palestine is untenable. It is based on a false premise: that there is any chance of Israel/PLO negotiations leading to two states in the foreseeable future. Mr Netanyahu and the leader of Israel’s opposition both rule it out. In the last four Israeli election campaigns, no major party argued in favour of negotiations to end the Occupation. Recognition of Palestine should not be contingent on non-existent negotiations. It is a political decision now to acknowledge the equal national rights of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, demonstrating parity of esteem for both. Over 140 states have recognised Palestine, including virtually all of the Global South.
  2. William Hague said in 2011 that Palestine fulfils the criteria for statehood, “subject to the Occupation”. The ICJ advises that the Occupation is unlawful and must end as rapidly as possible. It must certainly not prevent UK recognition, overdue and now needed to:
  • confirm our Government’s enduring commitment to equality in two states by validating the second state in the two-state solution
  • give a lead to partners including France, Australia and New Zealand to do likewise
  • propose an alternative to permanent Occupation and discrimination
  • offer hope to all those in Palestine and Israel who seek peaceful coexistence and equal rights.
  1. The United Kingdom recognises states, not governments. So it will recognise the entity which is to be vacated by Israel “as rapidly as possible” – the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Not Fatah, not Hamas, not any faction, but the Palestinian state. By recognising, we confirm our confidence in our long-standing policy: that we mean it.
  2. The proposal for British Government recognition of Palestine is timely, but not new.
The Commons voted decisively in favour in 2014. Recognition was advanced by the
Lords Committee on International Relations and Defence in its 2nd report of Session 2016-17 “The Middle East: Time for New Realism” (para 270): 
 
“A negotiated two state outcome remains the only way to achieve an enduring peace that meets Israeli security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation that began in 1967, and resolves all permanent status issues. We condemn the continuing Israeli policy of the expansion of settlements as illegal and an impediment to peace. The Government should give serious consideration to now recognising Palestine as a state, as the best way to show its determined attachment to the two-state solution”.   
We hope that the Committee will endorse this recommendation.

 

Defending UN agencies, primarily UNRWA

14. Israel is making a strenuous effort to force the collapse of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the only agency capable of delivering humanitarian aid at scale in Gaza. This is unacceptable; our Government needs to say so, and work with partners to dissuade the Israeli Government from implementing Knesset legislation due to come into effect on 29 January 2025. These laws would make it impossible for UNRWA to work in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The consequences of its potential collapse would be disastrous for British interests in the region, and for those of our close ally, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Mutual security is key

  1. Israel has by far the strongest armed forces in the region – but the exercise of unfettered military force in the absence of a pacific diplomatic strategy has not made the people of Israel safe. Unilateral security involving the repression of another people does not deliver safety. Mutual security, with international guarantees and support, especially for the weaker party, must be an integral part of a lasting, just peace. Now, Britain should suspend all arms transfers to Israel and other forms of military cooperation with Israel’s actions in Gaza, to avoid complicity in ongoing war crimes.
 

The role of the Palestinian Authority

  1. The Palestinian Authority (PA), created under the 1993 Oslo Accords, remains the internationally recognised Palestinian body in the West Bank with civil powers in Areas A and B, and civil and security powers in Area A. Our Government regards the PA as the legitimate authority in Gaza. However, the credibility of the PA has been consistently undermined by Israel’s refusal to transfer legitimate tax revenues and constant military incursions by the IDF leading to arrests, injury and death of civilians and destruction of property. The lack of an electoral mandate for the President since 2009 and the Legislative Council since its suspension in 2007 has further estranged them from the population. New elections across the entire OPT are required but cannot take place under current conditions, given the destruction of much of the Gaza Strip and forced displacement of almost its entire population of 2.3 million. Additionally, all political factions need to be brought together under a revitalised Palestine Liberation Organisation. When elections are held, provided they are judged to have been free and fair, the results must be respected by the international community – unlike what transpired in 2007. Civil society organisations must also be included in consultations to ensure that the widest possible range of groups in what is a young and well-educated population is able to participate in decisions over strategies for future negotiations with Israel.
 
Who are our partners for a just peace?
  1. The UK is well placed to play a convening role, maintaining good relations with many of the interested parties. Notwithstanding today’s deep polarisation, trauma and mutual antipathy, there remain Israelis and Palestinians committed to peaceful coexistence and equal rights. They need and merit encouragement. The US is a key actor, but President Trump’s 2020 “Vision” was, for many, a non-starter – including on its proposed annexation by Israel of large swathes of the West Bank. France, our fellow permanent member of the UN Security Council, is a natural partner. The European Union is split on Israel/Palestine and has proved unable to move forward collectively on policy. But there is scope for Britain to shape a coalition of the willing – including Ireland, France, Spain, Norway and Sweden – with Commonwealth partners such as Australia and South Africa.
  2. Our Government should be ready to challenge the spoilers opposed to its vision of peace with justice and equal rights. Unfortunately, on the Israeli side the spoilers are currently in office. It should also be prepared to take concrete action to demonstrate robust support for the two-state solution such as through a ban on the import of settlement goods and introducing conditionality in Britain’s relations with Israel pending its adoption of policies conducive to bringing about a lasting peace.

Conclusion

  1. The immediate need is for a complete end to hostilities in Gaza, the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian detainees, and the provision of massive humanitarian aid, followed by reconstruction on the scale of the Marshall Plan for Europe after World War II. Nothing less will suffice. The task is immense and urgent. Palestinians rightly fear another “Nakba,” the flight and expulsion of over 700,000 of their number from what is now Israel in 1947 – 48. Our charity believes that the Government possesses more leverage with Israel than it has chosen to exert to date. We argue for a policy which both addresses immediate requirements and looks ahead, based firmly on international law. We recommend:
    • immediate recognition of the state of Palestine, giving a lead to others; o no trade with settlements or involvement of UK businesses in supporting the illegal occupation;
    • no arms transfers to Israel, to avoid UK complicity in war crimes; o upholding the rule of law and ensuring compliance with the advice and rulings of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court;
    • a leadership role in providing strong political and financial support for UNRWA, which must continue to play its indispensable role in Gaza, the West Bank including East Jerusalem, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
  2. The next four years will make or break our Government’s policy of support for two states. It is already at severe risk of breaking. Inertia will break it. The steps we commend are designed to preserve the prospect – however distant – of peaceful coexistence with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians: an outcome profoundly in the interest of us all.

Andrew Whitley
Chair, Balfour Project
[email protected]
www.balfourproject.org 
30th December 2024

Find out more – call Caroline on 01722 321865 or email us.