Owen Polley: Conservatives and unionists cannot leave debate on Israel to 'progressives' and nationalists
Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians is a ferociously complicated political issue. This may not seem like a great revelation, given that we’re talking about one of the world’s most intractable disputes. But it’s not the impression you would get from listening to Irish nationalists, or indeed other left-wingers in the UK.
They tend to be obsessed with the ‘struggle’ in the Middle East and they view it with crystalline simplicity. Meanwhile, the fact that their opponents, unionists and conservatives, are inclined to take a more nuanced approach, means that they are often accused of ‘reactive’ support for Israel.
Last week, there were more of these kinds of allegations, after the government sanctioned Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
The decision, announced by the foreign secretary, Ed Miliband, provoked a furious response from Israel.
Indeed, there were anti-British diatribes from some parts of the Israeli right, including attacks on the Falklands’ status as a British Overseas Territory, and suggestions that the Israeli government should support Argentina’s territorial claim to the islands.
This rhetoric was indefensible. But it certainly did not mean that the measures announced last week were useful, or good for the UK.
Miliband’s sanctions banned trade with the Israeli settlements, but they also targeted businesses and individuals that enable the settlements’ expansion.
British diplomats were reportedly keen to reassure both US and Israeli officials that the economic effects would be limited. That suggested that this was more of a performance than something which was intended to be effective.
Like everything in the region, the settlements’ issue is complicated.
The Israelis claim that they are resettling historic Jewish heartlands and ensuring better security against terrorism. Many international organisations and western governments regard them as illegal occupations of Palestinian land.
It is true, as well, that some settlers are violent extremists.
The UK sanctions decision was linked to a particularly controversial development, the E1 settlement, which critics say will make a ‘two state’ solution to the conflict impossible. It cuts the West Bank off from east Jerusalem, which is regarded by some people as the likeliest capital of any Palestinian state.
The idea of creating a new state of Palestine, including most of the West Bank and the Gaza strip, which would exist alongside Israel, has been the basis of most serious attempts to resolve the conflict.
Miliband claimed last week that the settlements were supposed to ‘bury’ this model. In contrast, his announcement was designed to support the two-state solution.
The problem with this argument is that it was the Palestinians who repeatedly rejected peace deals based on two states, most recently in 2020, when they were actually achievable.
Their political leaders were not ultimately prepared to accept the existence of Israel.
Among Israeli politicians, the solution persisted, but it was undermined fatally by Hamas’s terrorist attacks, and is now rejected by the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his government.
This certainly does not mean that the UK should support aggressive Israeli expansion in the West Bank. But the sanctions announced by Miliband were justifiably criticised as counter-productive and ineffective.
They alienate the Israeli government, which has, as the Conservatives argued last week, provided intelligence that thwarted terrorist attacks in Britain. In other words, the decision makes us less safe.
Meanwhile, like the Starmer government’s decision to recognise Palestine, it rewards Hamas and panders to anti-Jewish sentiment in the UK.
The Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, said the decision made it a “dark day for British Jews” and would embolden those who hate them.
The idea that Labour may be attempting to shore up support from Muslim voters has also been highlighted, both by Israel’s foreign minister, Gideon Saar, and the party’s domestic opponents.
This perception matters, because anti-Israel rhetoric in Britain has become so shrill. That is even more true of the Irish republic, which was one of the countries that joined the UK in its ‘joint statement’ against the settlements.
Miliband at least made some attempt to separate the sanctions from the wider context of hysterical allegations and hate-filled rhetoric against Israel. These include the nakedly political claim that it is guilty of genocide and that it has engineered a famine in Gaza.
The foreign secretary, who is Jewish, may not use those words, but he has added to a climate where they are wielded with certainty and where the media often level accusations against the Israelis but do not report any subsequent evidence that disproves these stories.
When Netenyahu’s son, Yair, among others, called on his government to recognise Argentina’s claim to the Falklands, it was uncomfortable for Brits who tended to challenge the exaggerated charges against Israel. It reminded them that, while Israel may be an important ally, it is not always pro-British and Israeli politics can be vicious.
At the same time, it does not mean, as some commentators implied, that unionists or conservatives should simply leave engaging with the Israeli-Palestinian issue to their opponents.
If anyone had paid proper attention, they never claimed that everything Israel did was defensible or right. It is Irish nationalists here and so-called ‘progressives’ right across the UK who obsess about the country in hysterically inflated language.
They should not be left free to poison our relationship with important allies, make common cause with Islamists or plaster public spaces with terrorist friendly Palestinian emblems, no matter how unpleasant the rhetoric of some Israeli politicians.