To:

• The Rt Hon Mr David Lammy M.P., Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs of the United Kingdom
• Sir William Patey KCMG, LL.D., Chair of the Labour Middle East Council
• Mr Hamish Falconer M.P., Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

The following report comes from the Next Century Foundation, a British policy think-tank working primarily on the Middle East. In this report we commend the new government and ask it to recognise, or at least commit to the early recognition of, the State of Palestine. We also ask for the appointment of a Special Envoy for Reconciliation in the Middle East. We ask that UNRWA funding be restored. We ask that Britain stand ready to commit peacekeeping troops if asked and announce that commitment. Further that Britain promote a Madrid 2 multilateral conference to be hosted by the Arab states. And encourage immediate Presidential elections for Palestine.

Executive summary:

As we embark on this new chapter in our nation’s leadership, and following the Foreign Secretary’s first visit to Israel and Palestine, it matters that the new government should have a clear and active position on the complexities of the Israel-Palestine war. A substantial proportion of the British public, including traditional Labour voters, care deeply about this issue because their commitment to peace and human rights compels them to take a proactive stance. It is the right thing to do not only based on the humanitarian argument but also because of the human values we stand by to resolve conflict and promote peaceful coexistence.

This report draws on consultations with Israeli and Palestinian experts as well as those from Britain and from the wider Middle East, including an in-person conference held in London earlier this month. The eleven recommendations are:

• • Recognise the State of Palestine
  • Appoint a Special Envoy
  • Support and Convene Grassroots Dialogue
  • Revive the Anti-incitement Committee
  • Include Broader Security in the Strategic Defence Review
  • Restrict (And announce the existing limits on) Weapons Exports
  • Restart the Former Level of UNRWA Support
  • Proactively support the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002
  • Support a New Madrid Conference
  • Plan Post-conflict Reconstruction
  • Stand with Democracy

Introduction:

The war raging in the Middle East has cost the Labour government dear. Disappointment over the strength of calls for a ceasefire has translated into anger in many areas, as reflected by the loss of five parliamentary positions to candidates with an “end the war” agenda, and there are particular expressions of frustration among Muslim communities.

A clear approach to the issue is essential, especially taking into consideration the historic responsibility of the United Kingdom towards both the Jewish (the Balfour declaration was incorporated in the League of Nations Mandate founding document), and Arab peoples (promises made during and after World War One and the U.K. authored UNSCR 242).

While the US remains the country with the most influence over the broader conflict, the UK has important relationships with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, as well as the other key players in the region (Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf states) and has at times been able to influence US policy. Addressing this longstanding conflict will also be vital to the UK’s broader credibility as a country that upholds international law and the rules-based order; assists with international conflict prevention and resolution, and engages effectively with the Global South.

The actions we propose do not involve taking sides with either Israel or the Palestinian people. They promote a third way that encourages cooperation toward a peaceful and beneficial future solution for every party involved. We have heard the need for solutions from both sides of the debate. These ideas promote mutual working together towards a shared positive future solution:

Recognise the State of Palestine

The United Kingdom should recognise Palestine, following the example of Sweden, Spain, Norway, Slovenia and Ireland. We are impressed by the government’s King’s Speech assertion that, “It is committed to a two state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state”. The House of Commons has already voted in favour of recognition.

We acknowledge that recognition by an internationally significant player like the United Kingdom would be controversial. But it is also an opportunity for British leadership, as US proactive engagement is likely to dwindle until after the election.

• ALTERNATIVELY: If immediate recognition of a Palestinian state is a step too far, the UK could, at the very least, commit in advance (possibly in the context of an official visit) to the recognition of Palestine as a state concurrent with the recognition of Israel as a state by one of the lead Gulf Cooperation Council nations that have yet to recognise Israel, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the Sultanate of Oman. This would make Britain a game-changer.

Ultimately it will be Israel’s recognition of a future Palestinian state that will be the most important factor, but if a critical mass of countries around the world recognise Palestine, it will strengthen the hand of those inside Israel who still understand that a two-state solution is in their interests, and will make it increasingly difficult for their more hardline rivals to argue that a Palestinian state can be prevented forever.

A Special Envoy

The Israel-Palestine conflict is complex, and it will be a complex matter for the British government to thread their way through the multifarious difficulties to make the best possible contribution to a peace process. As a key step toward a peaceful resolution of the current conflict, the U.K. should consider appointing a special envoy for the Middle East Peace Process both to coordinate the actions of the government on the process and to take the lead in negotiating with foreign governments.

As the US ability to act as a mediator is damaged, this war could and should present an opportunity for Britain to come dynamically to the fore. The envoy would stand ready to act as an additional mediator and facilitator between the parties involved by opening a third way for peace other than the one offered by the two current interlocutors, the U.S. and the Egypt-Qatar track. The envoy should stress that it is in the best interest of the State of Israel and the Palestinians to proceed with negotiations so both can ensure their future as a defined and sustainable state. The alternative is two competing one-state visions that are bound to clash.

In Israel and Palestine, a partnership based on safety and security should replace the current reality on the ground that does not provide safety and security to either nation. Based on its own experience in the Good Friday Agreement and elsewhere the British special envoy could cooperate with the two sides to help achieve this goal.

Support and Convene Grassroots Dialogue

We believe that official efforts toward settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict could be materially assisted by work within civil society. Bringing grassroots organisations together to talk will help to rebuild empathy and trust based on a shared desire for peace – as was the case with the grassroots groups that helped create the conditions for the Good Friday Agreement. It could be part of the UK’s role to facilitate conversation between grassroots social groups representing different perspectives on the Middle East Peace Process: Israeli and Palestinian peace activists, with the possible addition of activists from Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States that have signed the Abraham Accords.

That conversation might include a structured series of workshops hosted by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), leading to establishing an agreed vision with follow-up discussions based on key ideas for the achievement of that vision. The aim would be to build trust/confidence between the different parties through developing a common understanding of shared (in)security issues.

Revive the Anti-incitement Committee

A trilateral US-Israel-Palestine anti-incitement committee was formed by the Wye River Accord, under the auspices of Ambassador John Wolff. President George W Bush discussed plans to “reactivate and invigorate the U.S.-Palestinian-Israeli Anti-Incitement Committee” at a summit in Jordan in 2003. It did not happen. Now might be a moment for Britain to restart a new incarnation of such a committee. It did good work. There are grave concerns about incitement that promotes hatred expressed by both Palestinians and Israelis. For example: Israelis are concerned by examples of demonisation of the Jewish people and the State of Israel in Palestinian school textbooks. Palestinians are concerned by the fact that Israel’s textbooks do not record the internationally recognized Green Line between Israel and the West Bank, implying that the entire area belongs to the State of Israel.

Include Broader Security in the Strategic Defence Review

We are encouraged by the government’s King’s speech commitment to, “Play its part in trying to secure long term peace and security in the Middle East”. Another action would be to convert the recently announced Strategic Defence Review to the Security and Defence Review, emphasising the importance of ensuring both security and peace wherever possible.

The impact of the Israel/Palestine issue on our National Security can be examined through this lens to help target UK policies. In this context, the United Kingdom should declare itself ready to contribute forces in the unlikely event that a peacekeeping force for Gaza emerges as the preferred course of action (a UN force being likely to be an anathema to Israel).

Restrict (and Announce Existing Limits On) Weapons Exports

The British government has already significantly reduced weapons exports to Israel due to existing criteria for the export of weapons not being met in recent months. The United Kingdom could leverage the situation by acknowledging the current reality, by clearly stating that the current reduction in the export of weaponry to Israel is a response to human rights concerns and that arms sales to Israel will resume at previous levels once human rights concerns have been met.

However, to maintain a balanced position, the U.K. government should reiterate its opposition to weaponry being smuggled, mainly via Egypt to the Gaza Strip. Without the uncurbed influx of ammunition and weaponry, both sides will find it easier to negotiate a cease-fire.

Restart the Former Level of UNRWA Support

On account of the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis, the Palestinian people are in dire need of international assistance. Having spoken up this month at the UN on the vital importance of UNRWA, the UK should now resume funding to the organisation on which so many Palestinian lives depend.

Build on The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002

The British government could and should more proactively support the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. That does not mean subscribing in full to the Arab Peace Initiative as written as an “endgame”. It is a basis for peace and normal relations with Israel, accepted by the entire Arab and Muslim world, based upon the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia suggested that the Arab Peace Initiative be considered a “pathway to peace”. The British government could encourage all parties to similarly view it as a starting point and “pathway to peace”, presumably with mutually agreed-upon minimal land swaps and an agreed-upon resolution to the refugee problem. Concerning the right of return issue, the Next Century Foundation supports the excellent Geneva Initiative whereby Palestinians have the right to return to the Palestinian State.

Support a New Madrid Conference

The new Government has called for an immediate ceasefire and a pathway towards a two-state solution. To identify this political pathway, it will be wise to encourage and push toward a subsequent Madrid-like conference that will ultimately seal the deal between Israel and Palestine (The first Madrid Conference of 1991 was a multilateral peace conference, hosted by Spain and co-sponsored by the United States and the Soviet Union, the key concept being the multilateral nature of the discussions rather than specific nature of the parties involved). Britain has a historic responsibility in this regard (the British-authored UN resolution 242 has been at the heart of many peace discussions, and Britain was responsible for the original Balfour declaration, which set the stage for the creation of the State of Israel). A new Madrid-style conference will not replace bilateral negotiations (which could start concurrently) but would signify a new era.

Britain could encourage the new Madrid-style conference to be hosted in cooperation with the six Gulf Cooperation Council states (the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain). It is precisely because it presents an opportunity to bring in the GCC states that a new Madrid is attractive. It is of value because Israel could be persuaded more easily to engage in such a conference than bilateral discussions alone. After all, the potential reward for Israel (undoubtedly including greater rapprochement with the GCC) is greater. Some argue that the issue is that any Madrid 2 should be solution/endgame-oriented, rather than process-oriented as were Madrid 1 and Oslo. This might be a position that the British government could constructively advocate. A criticism of the Oslo Accord was that it postponed the most difficult issues like the right of return and the status of Jerusalem, and yet dealing with these issues earlier could have helped deal with less complicated issues such as borders and land swaps. As it was the Oslo process was never completed because it was process-oriented and the process became stalled. Incremental approaches now have less credibility because of this experience.

Plan Post-conflict Reconstruction

The government could and should start working on a plan for the post-ceasefire, post-conflict situation, including reconstruction. The United Kingdom should utilise its soft power and development expertise by creating and recommending reconstruction programmes for the region and encouraging the repair of essential damaged infrastructure as a priority since large parts of Gaza are currently uninhabitable. The British government should step up its funding and could also step in as a guarantor for low-interest loans or debt relief to help normalise the Palestinian economy, a key element for the Palestinian people’s future stability.

Stand with Democracy

Palestinian presidential elections are essential if a credible Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) are to take control of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Existing structures are both incompetent and corrupt. Britain should state its backing for Palestinian presidential elections and do so using both public and private forums.

The British government could ask its new special envoy (if appointed) and its Ambassador to Israel and Consul General to Palestine to encourage the creation of democratic institutions, as well as promote a general election that would be conducted after the New Madrid Conference had concluded its sessions. The U.K. could also assist in the construction of the broader judicial system by training lawyers, judges, and law enforcement, encouraging the overall conversion of Palestine into an established democratic state after the previous steps of recognition and the absolute definition of the geographic boundaries within which the new Palestinian state will operate once land swaps have been completed.

There is a fundamental need for a credible structure of functioning Government for a Palestinian State. Over the last 15 years, the U.K. has sought to build the capacity of the PA (Palestinian Authority) to help it toward Statehood. That has not worked. There are many reasons for this, but they include the lack of a sovereign Palestine in charge of its own rule of law and judicial system. In terms of the implementation of this U.K. support activity, responsibility should be given to the Office for Conflict, Stabilisation and Mediation which is part of the FCDO and which already operates programmes such as support and capacity-building for the Palestinian Authority’s security services.

Overall, we believe that this is the perfect time for the United Kingdom to help resolve the Israel-Palestine issue, by substantially respecting and adhering to the humanitarian and democratic principles that Britain stands for.